Monday, 24 September 2007

Death

I am me. I am who I am. I have a will of my own. The decisions in my life are only consequential to my own actions. Not in consequence to some invisible, make-believe entity. I take full responsibility for whatever I say or do, in regard to my fellow human beings. Society will see fit whether my actions or deeds have contributed to the betterment or detriment of humanity. Not a god.
The consequence or reward lies not in a so-called perceived notion of an afterlife. The real reward (or consequence) lies in the remembrance of me when I am gone. The thought I have of my descendents having any thoughts of me is pleasing. Not in the context of an afterlife. Just me here punching at this keyboard. A legacy as you will. To know that the real words that I put forth from my own thoughts will carry on for eternity, for the lives that will go before me, is priceless. I dwell on the future of mankind sometimes; in between trying to make ends meet materially.
I also think about those who profess to actually "know" what death will deliver. No one. No one can claim to know and tell me what death delivers afterward. Not by experience, not by actual account. They can only "prophesy" and quote "prophesies" about heaven or hell is. Of what the afterlife entails. In other words: guess.
I don't guess about death. It is what it is. Cessation of existence. Please imagine that it's so simple. We cease to be around our loved ones forever in life and in time. We are gone from their lives. Never to share a laugh, never to relate a life experience. I don't claim to know and prophesy that I will see them is a so-called afterlife that I can't prove is there. That would be giving them false hope. I would much rather live on in their memory, that that memory be passed on in future generations. I have no need to know in death that my memory live on. Only now, at this very moment do I care to know that I have made that memory...memorable.
This is death. After all, this is what we human beings worry so much about: dying. Why complicate it? Why not accept it for what it is? We cease to exist in the lives of those who know us.

Death.

191 comments:

tina said...

I have four children,five grandchildren. I know for a fact I will be remembered as a giving person in their eyes. I will be sorely missed by them all. But, I will have given them the legacy of thinking for themselves. All of my children are compassionate, I'm glad for that. They are NOT intolerant of others, no matter if you are gay, black, yellow,christian, hindu, woman, you name it. Sure Larro gets passionate sometimes when it comes to religion, but, so do religious people. When I am dying, I know I will never see them again, but they won't have to think of me burning in a lake of fire with crows pecking my eyes out...:) We just don't believe that. I will cease to exist and they will too, one of these days.

What is it that religious people want of me? What am I doing now that is against their religion? Well, besides the obvious.:)Should I go to a church? Should I try to convert people? Should I pray? I'm just trying to get a sense of what it is that I should be doing. I'm not going to be religious so don't think I want help. Far from it. What is so different about me and you?

BEAST said...

Larro:

You have hit a somewhat poignant note: Death is unpleasant, but somewhat inevitable. A point of no return everyone has to cross.

I think that whatever we do must be taken into the context of now and the future while we are still alive, not when we are six feet under.

Beast

Jarred said...

Tina: In my book, our differences are small and inconsequential.

drd said...

Tina:
Nothing is different about you, than me. As a Christian, I am here learning how the atheistic mind works.
What I see is contradiction in life style, and thought process.

You claim we end in nothingness, and hence we come from randomness.
This clearly means that life is meaningless, and there is no purpose, no goal, no rhyme or reason for our existence.

Yet, you don't live that way. You behave, you blog, and expound on issues with 'meaning', and purpose, as if things really matter. You espouse closely held beliefs in rights, compassion, kindness to others.

These are all oxymoronic to your foundational premise of atheism.
Thats why I pointed out to Larro that to hold strong political views of liberality for womans rights, gay rights, human rights, is completely contradictory to his presupposition of atheism.

No god, no cosmic justice, no accountabily for action, no god to please = the strong make the rules, the weak do as they are told or are eliminated. Period..thats the survival of the fittest, thats the logical way to live if your an atheist (Hitler showed this clearly). Compassion and 'rights' implies a moral standard and cosmic absolutes. You live as if there are, yet you deny it in your philosophy...I find that when one does this, its usually to justify a lifestyle that would be unacceptable or condemned in some way by some one....justifying it by denying cosmic accountability is the most common rationalization.

If you know in your heart that being cruel is wrong, then you have some serious questions you need to answer about why its so wrong. I would love to have one of you explain why I should be compassionate, or care about anyones 'rights' at all? After all, there really are no rights in a meaningless world.

(please don't tell me 'to make society a better place', if there is no god, I really don't care about making society a better place, I only care about my own will and providing for those I am attached too, and if there is no god, this is the only logical way to live)

Jarred said...

(please don't tell me 'to make society a better place', if there is no god, I really don't care about making society a better place, I only care about my own will and providing for those I am attached too, and if there is no god, this is the only logical way to live)

And therein lies the cruxt of it. DRD is the kind of person who needs an external force to make him care about others and society in general. If it weren't for the threat of punishment, he would be a sociopath.

The problem is, he assumes that the rest of him are equally lacking in true character.

drd said...

True character? Again, thats an oxymoron if there is no truth, no standard.

Jarred, be very careful here, I believe all truth, all knowledge of right and wrong, is imprinted on all of our hearts. We are all created in the image of our maker and all have the capacity and knowledge for good. My character represents this as well as anyones does (and as poorly as anyone does) Do not assume to judge me based on the atheistic presuppositions I have laid out, you must know that I do not believe them at all.
The cruxt of it is 'true character' is a clear contradiction of terms when one deals with the atheistic mind set.

There is no 'real truth' or 'true character' to speak of in a random existence with no standards except those made by man.

Jarred said...

DRD, I stand by what I said. You need an external standard to remain moral, which I say is no morality at all. (In that way, I agree with Larro's latest post.) You cannot accept that others may find a way to discover morality within themselves absent of any external standard. That demonstrates a failing in yourself, not those who need no external standard to discover morality.

Your failure to understanding is a failure of your understanding, not a lack of logic in those with whom you disagree. Until you grapple with that, you will never be able to enter into true dialogue with anyone who disagrees with you.

BEAST said...

DRD:

Go back a few dozen posts back and read my three-part symposium on ethics. Your "oh there is no God so we are gonna behaving like uncouth baboons" is a common argument that has already bee debunked many times.

Beast

Jarred said...

Actually, Best, I'd like to thank you for making us newcomers aware of your symposium on ethics, as it's something I'd like to read. While I certainly don't think atheists are doomed to immoral behavior, I'm always happy to gain a better understanding of how atheists approach the issue of ethics.

BEAST said...

Jarred:

You are welcome. Come to me if you can't find the posts. Alternatively, try the blog search engine and type "morals", and you should be able to find it.

Cheers
Beast

concerned citizen said...

For some reason today this quote comes to mind The more “sophisticated” versions of Christian doctrine are as off the mark as the “simple” ones; they’re just more complicated, is all.

No matter how “sophisticated” a Christians doctrine is it is built on the premise that a personal god exists. logical and nearly impossible to disagree with—as long as one accepts a few premises. Namely: God exists; God created human beings; human beings must obey God’s commands (which are contained in a specific book and tradition); the first human beings failed to do this; God feels great anger as a result and decides that they therefore deserve eternal damnation, along with all of their descendants; and even so, God is so gracious as to send his son to provide an escape, even though he didn’t have to. blah blah blah

Jarred said...

Actually, Beast, I had already found the posts and bookmarked them when I left that comment. I've now read them. Very interesting indeed. Though much of what you wrote merely confirmed what I'd already surmised.

BEAST said...

Good job, Jarred. I have difficulty finding my posts....lolz.

In any case, my focus was on ethics, not morals. Morals tells you what to do and what not to do, but does not offer any kind of explanation. Ethics provides focus and explanation, and should be the cornerstone of human behavior.

drd said...

jarred: or any other who would like to answer.

Please answer me this:
If we assume there is no God, no ultimate creator of matter,space and time, nor a god who sets moral standards, we must assume everything we see is a result of pure random chance. True or false?

I know you do not assume that jarred, but this is an 'atheist' blog. So lets go with that assumption for a moment.

Jarred said...

I'm going to go with false, actually. I don't think that the lack of a god must imply total and pure randomness.

In my experience, such dichotomies usually prove false as possibilities beyond the original two are discovered.

drd said...

ok, false...great: next question

How does matter organize itself without random chance, if there is no unifying force intellect or will that accomplishes it?

You are correct, there are only two possiblities that come up.

1. Non random purposeful creation
or:

2. Random chance and natural selection of survivable compounds with no purpose or design.

There are NO other alternatives. You theorize that some other may exist, yet offer no hypothesis as to what it may be? Hence, you argue the logical fallicy called the "gamblers fallicy" and it is nonsensicle.
Again, like all atheistic presuppositions, thats the way it must end, in nonsense...if I am wrong, offer some logical alternative.

Jarred said...

Wikipedia defines the gamblers fallacy as follows:

It is the incorrect belief that the likelihood of a random event can be affected by or predicted from other, independent events.

I'm making no such claim. I'm claiming that there might be variables (such as non-independent events) that make certain things non-random to begin with.

As for your question, I believe it is possible that the universe itself could have inherent properties that might have an effect on things that keep them from being truly random.

Also, the fact that I can't provide a third possibility does not mean one doesn't exist. It might merely mean I'm not imaginative or well-versed enough to personally conceive of a third option.

Bill said...

In reading this I must say, common sense must prevail:
either something or Something organized matter into something,

Or it didn't.

Matter and energy are organized by an external force, or its organized by pure random chance.

It cannot be random, yet not random. That contradicts the law of non-contradiction in logic.

of course, the laws of logic are also paradoxical if there is really no god. Logic itself becomes a construct without meaning.

drd said...

Bill, your correct, logic is meaningless if life is random. Ya Got me.

Also, any '3rd' option would still fall into one of two catagories:
Random
Non-random.

Jarred you're right, the better fallicy applied is the law of non-contradiction, not the gamblers fallicy.
If the universe has some quality causing organization, is the universe purposeful like the Hindu's and Buddhists say? or is this quality of the universe random? Either way, its random or non-random.

Larro said...

DRD; "the strong make the rules, the weak do as they are told or are eliminated. Period..thats the survival of the fittest"

This doesn't apply to Christianity?

"You espouse closely held beliefs in rights, compassion, kindness to others.

These are all oxymoronic to your foundational premise of atheism."


THAT is your "presupposition".

"If you know in your heart that being cruel is wrong, then you have some serious questions you need to answer about why its so wrong. I would love to have one of you explain why I should be compassionate, or care about anyones 'rights' at all? After all, there really are no rights in a meaningless world."

You presume from your own presupposition that without a god the world is meaningless. This is your perspective and not inclusive of all human philosophy. What makes your opinion right over mine? What makes my opinion right over yours (including your neighbor)? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. We are all equal last I knew, right? I'm more than willing to accept that your opinion is yours and you and well within entitlement to it. Yes, I know, at times I myself can come across as unbudgingly impertinent. But it's just that: impertinence. Is that a crime? To go against the grain? To think that there is a possibility of doubt? To be doubtful? To not fall lock step with the masses? To do so would open the flood gates to us humans becoming robotic "yes-men". I choose to be different. It doesn't matter if I'm an atheist. What matters is that I am different, that I have my own view on the world. Does that not in itself enrich humanity? My being here expressing my "humanness"? Are we all meant to march willy-nilly to the same drum-beat? Is this what you would like to see? If it is, then you obviously think that me and those like me need to either be re-educated or thrown in a concentration camp in order that we not "infect" others with our dissident views. Is this what you would like to see happen? Here is why religion is rampant with bigotry. By the very notion that your way is the only way. Atheism is not a religion. I don't go to a church learning how to be an atheist. Atheism is NOTHING like that, and you don't even know it. You think that atheists share the same motivations as the religious. You're trying to catch that home-run ball standing in the face of the batter, but the ball is headed right for the back of your head. (Wow, that was kinda cool. A Larroism. LOL.) Please keep trying to understand atheism and atheists. I implore you, please. It seems that you lump atheistm in with religious ideology and it's not so. It isn't. Atheism is way to individualistic to institute a doctrinal system.

Also, you are confusing atheism with nihilism. There is a difference.

It feels good to be different.

"There is no 'real truth'"

What is "real" anyway? 'Relative' is what you meant, I think.

Beast; "try the blog search engine"

Hoo! Hoo! A plug! Thanks, I needed that. After I saw the Atheist Blogroll growing exponentially I really thought there needed to be a better way than scrolling down the list and checking each one. So I created the search engine with google. What a god send....oops. LOL.

concerned citizen; "logical and nearly impossible to disagree with"

This has been my point from almost square one. This is I why I refuse to argue or debate the existence of god. Not that it's logical but that it IS impossible to disagree with. If those of faith believe it whole-heartedly then there is no way I am going to convince them otherwise. This is why I choose not to debate this issue. A better avenue is getting the fundies to accept atheists as a beneficial contributor to humanity and at the least accept atheists as equals in society. That's all I ask. Apparently, the whole notion of atheism flies in the face of their belief that they conduct or express themselves in a way to espouse reducing those people who don't agree with [Christianity] into second-class citizens. And they don't even fucking realize it!

During the enslavement of blacks in the US, it was justified in great part with religious and political ideological perspectives painting blacks as less than second-class citizens. Let's not mince words here. How about less than fucking human. I can't source anything right now, but to my understanding most attitudes about slavery were justified with the bible [sic].

DRD; "we must assume everything we see is a result of pure random chance. True or false?"

Why pray tell, do Christians (They are the majority, at least here in the US) go to casinos to gamble their money away? Damn! They are Christian after all. Relying on luck and chance.

I don't gamble. Yeah sure, I'd like to have "luck" on my side and hit the jack-pot, but I don't believe in luck or chance. There is coincidence, that's it. The idea of luck means that some supernatural force had a hand in "dealing you the right cards"? I suppose you meant coincidence.

concerned citizen said...

I'm confused
Are the choices either there is a God/life has meaning or there is no God/life is random chance?
the way i understand that is:
We haven't discovered anything yet (ever!) for which we did not also find a sufficient reason why it exists or why it is just how it is. So anyone who wishes to doubt this has to come up with proof that it's all wrong.

So as far as I can see a random universe cannot exist no matter how you look at it.

But, we also haven't ever come up with the proof of what if anything is behind all this existence.

So in conclusion it is possible to not believe in god & also understand that the universe is not random.

concerned citizen said...

The gist is:
Whether or not you are a Christian the universe is not random.

All this stuff was true when I became a Christian & guess what? It is still true now that I am no longer one.

drd said...

Wow, larro, I don't believe I have the energy to deal with that run on post, lots of errors, lots of nonsense (to me at least) I will get to some later But:

LT
The universe is not random..so we agree...and we agree that its not random whether we believe in Christianity, or not. It is, or it isn't..which is true, of all truth. Our believe does not make it more, or less so.
So, the universe is not random and we agree.

Great...so, what defines something 'not being random'?
Answer: some intelligent agent with specific intentions inputs energy in a system to enable a purposeful outcome: hence, non-random.

Give me another plausible explanation for 'non-random' LT?

PS, I like your comment about we have never investigated anything that we did not ultimately find purpose (very true in physiology, even the spleen and appendix now seem useful). Not sure we know all things yet, but I get your drift, and I agree, in fact it makes my point. Nothing is random, there seems to be purpose in all things. Some we may not understand yet is all.

BEAST said...

DRD:

If you don't have the energy, don't post.

Too many Christian trolls here. I may have to do something about it.

Beast

Anonymous said...

Ah beast, do something about it? So, you would go against your motto of 'never infringing on anothers right to free speech'?? Wow, easily disuaded from your principles aye?

I have the energy for LT's thought provoking response, not larro's non-sensible ramble.

BEAST said...

Well, I have ways to stop non blogging entities from posting. I am still mulling over it.

Time to install some law and order here. I am also thinking about setting up a forum for atheists.

Let me think about it further.

Beast

drd said...

no matter how you slice it, your silencing the 'free speech of others'..nice, way to go back on your principles...I find that to be common with atheists...their principles are as relative as their world view.

BEAST said...

Don't get pissed with me, DRD. This is my blog. And I will do as I deem fit.

If you don't like it, quit it. No one's forcing you anyway.

Beast

drd said...

PISSED??? I am purely amused, I am waiting for you to continue to demonstrate your principles are as relative as your world view...

Situational ethics...you know, it fits well with the post modern mind set. Whatever pleases you at the time. One day its "I am all about rights, and free speech" the next day its "I am thinking of finding a way to silence all those who oppose our world view! ATHEISM IS THE WAY...get on board or get booted from the blog!

I am totally entertained. Pissed? not at all.
Your blog, your the god of this space, do as you please. I am thrilled that God is not as caprecious as you.

Larro said...

DRD; You avoid my premise time and again by invoking god. I've said I don't give a shit if your god exists. Are we not equals as human beings? Fucking answer the question.

drd said...

larro, track with me here.

The question of equality as humans is one that immediately invokes some sort of standard by which humans are compared. Some bar which all humans, as you say, reach the same height. As humans we all are _____ making us equal.

However, what you miss is that if there is no god, then we are not equal. We are random organic mass, some who are more fit for our environment than others, making some better than others. Better in that we can function with greater success in the world we live in. Rights per se, have no meaning, no place, and to suggest we are all equal, if there is no god, is plain foolishness.

THATS why I go to the root of your question and bring up 'is there a god' every time you ask.

If not, then heck no, we are not equal. The biggest, strongest, richest one, with the most toys is better. Period.

If God exists, and we are judged by some other standard besides materialism then, yes, maybe we are all equal.

Certainly we are not equal on the 'fittest' scale, and human rights are just a figment of your imagination if there is no god.

You cannot have it both ways larro.

BEAST said...

Equating God with human rights? Now that is funny!

Whoever said that human rights was dictated by God? Human rights is a secular virtue guaranteed by a secular constitution.

As for "survival of the fittest", one does not have to go further than witness the ever widening gulf between the very rich and the very poor. This is a very unfair world, quite unfortunately, but equal rights guaranteed by constitution provides a equal plane at least on a secular, lawful scale.

drd said...

ah, beast, please read the first few lines of the constitution, and tell me why we have these "inalianable human rights" where does it say they come from?

also, where in the world do you come up with the concept of this world being 'unfair'???

Its survival of the fittest Beast, fairness is not based in some higher power of justice rather, but power and might. There is no other standard if there is no god. Secular simply means worldly or not spiritual or religious. Therefore, secular means 'of man'...and the man with the might makes the rules...period...human rights are a figment of imagination, they don't exist they are made up...so how can you talk about "fairness" or "unfairness"..

Again, you constantly invoke terms that are nonsensible if your world view is accurate.

Jarred said...

The Preamble of the United States Constituation:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It doesn't even mention "inalienable human rights." Is it quite possible that you're thinking of The Declaration of Independence, which is not a legally binding document at all?

And ask yourself, if you got that detail wrong, what else might you be mistaken on?

drd said...

jarred, nice...

However, you will note beast thought it talked about human rights in the constitution...apparently, its in the declaration of independance...now, post that for us, lets see what it says, and see how wrong I was.

I may have had the document wrong, but the facts are the same.

Jarred said...

DRD: I posted a link to the text. If you want to quote the line yourself, you're more than welcome. But you completely ignored the most salient point of my comment (something I note you're quite fond of doing):

The Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document.

If you go to court to defend your rights, you don't quote the Declaration of Independence. You don't invoke God. You go to the Bill of Rights or other Amendments to the Constitution, because that's the basis of our rights in this country. And as Beast pointed out to you, that document (the one that matters) is a wholly secular document.

drd said...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


WOW, go figure, rights are endowed by the Creator. Without a Creator, there is no such thing as rights, liberty, and no right to pursue happiness, unless those in power allow it. Thats atheism's end fact....either we were given rights by someone more powerful than us, or we don't have them at all.

drd said...

jarred

Thats fine, its a document that sets up the rules of how we are to be goverened, and what rights the government gives to its citizens.

So, if another government did not give those rights to its citizens (namely Hitler or Stalin, or I could go on) then those rights don't exist at all.

If a king subjugated his subjects and over taxed, forced slavery, and did not allow any 'rights' mentioned in our Constitution, then in those countries or in those societies those 'human rights' DON'T EXIST!!!

THAT is the salient point. In Beasts position, if those in power don't 'give those rights', then they we don't have them...someone in a greater position of power has to "give us rights" we do not naturally have them of and in ourselves.

BEAST said...

DRD:

I could go on and on about the French Revolution, The Age of Enlightenment, The Bolsheviks, Fascism and the Communist Manifesto, and I doubt you would understand about them.

As civilizations evolve, various systems of governments will rise and ebb, beginning with absolute tyranny and monarchy to one that advocates freedom and rights to the masses.

As citizens of nations, we are all bound by the laws of our land. Your right is detailed or curtailed by the laws of the land. God has got nothing to do with it.

Beast

drd said...

Your right beast, the law of the land has little to do (outwardly anyway) with God.

So, how do you address my point:
All rights are relative to whomever is in power, and any idea of fairness or unfairness is purely an immaginary construct. True human rights do not exist, nor should we feel like we are due any rights at all.

If we live in a country/society that is not tyrannical, we are fortunate, but if we live in tyranny, there is nothing wrong with that, nor are any rights violated, since that country/society did not grant those rights.

Do you agree with this?

BEAST said...

DRD

I can do a symposium on human rights if I have the time.

I am a firm advocate for human rights. In the meantime, try reading my symposium on ethics. You might be able to understand why human evolution is often about emancipation, rather than oppression.

Beast

drd said...

beast, simply, yes or no, you agree or don't

Larro said...

DRD; "Secular simply means worldly or not spiritual or religious"

This is incorrect. There are plenty of secularists who are Christian or otherwise people who live a spiritual life; Bill Press comes to mind. Additionally, secularism means separation of church and state; essentially giving equal opportunity to all religions rather than one state sponsored religion.

"...secular means 'of man'"

Tell me. When was the last time you picked up a dictionary?

In conclusion: Thank you for admitting you're a bigot. You think you're better than me. That's what bigotry is you know. If you are better than me then I suppose I should be afforded (in your opinion) less rights and liberties than you. This has been my premise all along about Christians and what they believe. If ever you thought you could convince me to be impartial about your viewpoint then you just lost in that arena.

I feel completely vindicated. Thank you. No. Really, thank you. I also feel very sorry for you.

Larro said...

DRD; "If we live in a country/society that is not tyrannical, we are fortunate, but if we live in tyranny, there is nothing wrong with that, nor are any rights violated, since that country/society did not grant those rights."

Yes and no. That's what revolutions are for.

drd said...

Secular:
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French seculer, from Late Latin saecularis, from saeculum the present world, from Latin, generation, age, century, world; akin to Welsh hoedl lifetime
1. of or relating to the worldly or temporal, relating to the world of man.

drd said...

Revolutions?

Sure, again, might makes right. Revolt, and put your own rules in place, again, rights are totally subjected to the whims of the one in power.

So, like in Iran, or Iraq when Saddam took over in a revolt...his treatment of the Kerds was fair. There was nothing wrong with what Chemical Ali did, cause they were in power, and they made the rules. Right? It happened from a revolution, so that is ok?

Larro, be real, there are 'rights' that people have no matter what, and sometimes they get trampled, OR:
There are rights made up by men, and at the whims of who is in charge.

Which is it?

drd said...

PS larro when did I admit I thought I was better than you???

I think your hallucinating...too many psychotropic drugs my man.

Feelings of vindication are good...unless there is nothing to be vindicated of, then its a sign of paranoia, or severe inferiority complexes.

Larro said...

DRD; "Certainly we are not equal on the 'fittest' scale, and human rights are just a figment of your imagination if there is no god."

drd said...

Larro, was that quote of mine the post you thought I claimed to be better????

You are truly hallucinating my man.

The "we" was a universal we..not you and me.

Clearly there are some humans more "fit" physically than others, some have handicapps, some are born too short, others too tall (8" people dont live too long, nor too well)

That was the gist of my comment...you just misunderstood.

Maybe thats a reflexion of your insecurity? Thats just a question for you to ponder...retorical in nature.

Anarchy said...

New to this blog
But, you all are asswipes.

You claim to be atheists and you really think there are rights? You really think there are morals? MORONS

Get your head out of your ass, no god, no rules, no fear, no consequences.
Man makes the rules and the man with the biggest stick (I got a big stick ladies) is the man who makes the rules you follow. You don't like it rebel like one of you punk ass whimps said, see where that gets ya.
I am 6'6, 265, and I guarantee you, the only authority I follow is one bigger than me. If a squad of cops come after me with 45's and tazzers, I respect that. Otherwise, good luck gettin me to follow your rules.

Rights HAHAHA..I take what I want, who I want and I dare any man to stop me. No god, no worries, you got a problem with that?

tina said...

?

drd said...

Hey, at least he is honest. Obnoxious, but honest.

so Anarchy, you don't want government, is that why the name?

Or, do you generally just like chaos as a rule. (pun intended)

anarchy said...

its all anarchy anyway, some of it just appears controled.

These so called atheists on here don't get it at all. Atheism is chaos. It has the false appearence of order, but that illusion. We are all heading for dust and annihilation so why pretend we have 'rights' or morals are a good thing. Morals are just what you make of them, they make you believe the illusion. Thats a funny thing to me about these asswipes, they want to pretend there is order, and rights, and morals, and ethics, but they tell the world that there is no god.

Well, if there is no god, then all of this is bullshit, and they just dont get it, they are posers, this larrrrrooooo, and the so called beast....ya, right. Posers is what you all are. You might as well pretend your believe in god, you pretend to be atheists pretty well.

drd, you just another deluded punk, living like it matters, living like there is a reason for it all. You keep talking about logic, and reason, and rational.
You dont get it asswipe, its all illusion, its all meaningless and your life is as meaningless as the rest of these asswipes, no matter what you may think.

Anonymous said...

so Anarchy, did you miss my pun? or did it go over your head? I am guessing the later.

I actually don't take issue with your point believe it or not. I do live like it matters, and I agree, that those on this blog seem to as well. That is clearly paradoxical to say the least.

Thats a big word Anarchy, if your confused, use a dictionary.

Now, another question for you. If life does not matter, and its all about you, are you happy inside? Do you really like life? Or are you as miserable as you seem on your posts?

drd said...

sorry, that was drd on the last post..forgot so sign it.

Larro said...

Topic, please.

Anarchy said...

topic?????

You got your head in your ass, you wouldn't know a topic if it bit ya on the dick.
The topic is irrelevant its what I want it to be...you still act like there is order!
Like you got some right to talk about what you want.

Like anything you got to say matters????

POSER

concerned citizen said...

drd said
Give me another plausible explanation for 'non-random' LT?

Philosophical evolution (higher consciousness?) is not random. Science is not random. Hearth & home & family is not random. Humanity is not random... I prefer to concentrate on those things. As far as defining God, if Einstein can't do it I'm not going to worry about it. I surely don't think Christianity has done it.

Do you think that because we choose to live in the here & now not believe in a hereafter(i.e. life after death because we choose to live existentially, as if this is our only life, that our lives must have no purpose & we can't justify our existence...?
Would your conclusion be that because I choose to be a Secular Humanist & concentrate my energy on mankind sans God, that my life has no purpose or meaning?

Maybe if some of you Christians spent more time actually loving humankind then judging it...

drd said...

Dear Concerned Citizen:
You said:
Philosophical evolution (higher consciousness?) is not random. Science is not random. Hearth & home & family is not random. Humanity is not random...

I asked you to give an explanation for how things became organized and became non-random if a Higher Power did not organize it. I asked for an explanation for how it is organized without an organizing Agent.

You just listed things that have meaning, that appear ordered, such as science, higher thought processes, such as enjoying art, music and so on. The meaning of family.....guess what. WE AGREE!!!

However, you fail to give any rational explanation for how these are not pure chaos, as Anarchy suggests, if there is no God? Do you see the dilemma your in? Anarchy has really stated it well. Nothing has meaning if there is no god, everything is chaos with the appearence of organization.

drd said...

Let me pose this question for your thoughts:

If you were to be flying in the cockpit of a twin engine personal plane, and you were flying low over the pacific ocean, and there was an uncharted small Island chain, you wanted to look at them closely...so your plane goes in close, and notices S O S spelled out on the shore of one of the Island beaches. What do you immediately assume?

concerned citizen said...

drd, my answer is in the rest of my comment & my own questions to you. I live my life concentrating on the things I know & do not try anymore to "find God" or to tell anyone who or what God is.

you fail to give any rational explanation for how these are not pure chaos, as Anarchy suggests, if there is no God?
Life & human existence only becomes chaos if you believe life has no meaning . The meaning of life is in life itself. It is becoming who you are.
The thing that makes you & Anarchy alike in your thinking is that you both despise mankind, you think mankind is lost without God, Anarchy just thinks mankind is lost. Like i said before I life my life open-ended. I don't have all the answers. One thing I do choose to believe though is that the hope for mankind is in himself. I don't live as if mankind is lost or that his only hope is in the Christian god.

Your scripture says something like: "The fool thinks in his heart there is no god." I would add to that, "The fool also thinks he knows God."

As to your last question, I always feel a little foolish answering the obvious. So whatever your point is just get it over with. :)

drd said...

LT
Belief never made anything so. If I believe the lake is frozen, but its not, I fall in and drown just the same. You say 'you believe life has meaning'...so do I, however, your opinion is that 'no god exists'. These are contradictory positions. If there is no god, there is no meaning. I hate to say that Anarchy is correct. No god, no rules.

You cannot ascribe anything but illusionary meaning to anything if no god exists. You cannot name any method of meaning outside of a god. Period. Any assertion that life has meaning apart from god is completely irrational. Then again, if there is no god, rationality itself does not exist.

Seriously, do you think that accidental chemical and physical reactions can really lead to meaning? It would all be futile and useless. Yet, you know it isn't. So, it must not be an accident.

No more of an accident than the SOS on the beach.

drd said...

rationality says SOS means someone is stranded. You thought it so obvoius you didn't want to answer.

Yet, the fact that information is contained in every cell in our body. The fact that physical laws are fixed and constant throughout the universe, and these very laws allow for life to exist, some how, some way, for some crazy reason, you ignore the obvious in these circumstances.

Anarchy believes in chaos, yet we see order. We see structure that follows function. We see this in science, sociology, pshychology and personal relationships. We see meaning and purpose in our lives. Yet you ascribe this to accidental chemical reactions.

Its the same as saying:
The waves obviously pushed those rocks and shells in a patter randomly, and they so happen by chance to be in order of a distress signal. But, it really doesn't mean anything because its an accident of nature.

concerned citizen said...

ok drd I give up. It seems there is no way you can understand what I'm talking about because you assume to know what I mean. Apparently, it's a perspective you are not familiar with.

drd said...

LT
On the contrary. I am very familiar with your sentiments. I agree that life has meaning, that family and relationships are of utmost importance: that loving and caring for mankind and creation in general is our calling.

However, you have nothing to ascribe to in order to understand these things in any rational light. I do. I know that we were created by a God who has a purpose. Part of His purpose is seen in the very characteristics you describe. Clearly we were made for those things.

You seem to think we came about this desire for caring, relationships, family, philanthropy, by some random genetic accident. That is not rational. Random accidents at best simulate order, but produce no end goal or purpose. Yet you agree that there is purpose. This is a huge dichotomy.

drd said...

PS.
Your implication that a family oriented, loving perspective is beyond me. Is this the kind of trolling that was described on the other thread?

concerned citizen said...

Drd said
I know that we were created by a God who has a purpose.
You know huh? *snort*

Your self righteous Christian arrogance is so annoying.
The difference is, I choose to live in the here & now. I don't pretend to understand what the first cause of all that is & all that ever will be, is. Get it? & This is where you keep putting words in my mouth. Just because I don't claim to have the answers & you do... that makes you right & me contradicting myself? What bullshit.

drd said...

Concerned Citizen (LT)
I did not put words into your mouth. I have read where you have clearly stated your position as atheistic. Therefore you have stated your position. You have said there is no god, and that translates into exactly what I have said it does.
You have asserted as much 'fact' as I have. So how am I more arrogant than you?

If you were to have said "I don't know if there is a god, I choose to live as well as I can whether there is or there isn't...." then I could see your point. This has NOT been your position. So, don't get so self-righteous and accuse me of 'claiming to know'...you have done that every bit as much. I have just been more intellectually honest about it.

concerned citizen said...

Oh really? show me where I stated my views so equivalently that you can make those assumptions?

drd said...

LT
Before I go look for your posts to that effect, can you save me the time and state unequivocally whether or not you believe there is a god?

concerned citizen said...

I found all the references pertaining to my stance on God in this whole comment section for you:

As far as defining God, if Einstein can't do it I'm not going to worry about it. I surely don't think Christianity has done it.

I live my life concentrating on the things I know & do not try anymore to "find God" or to tell anyone who or what God is.

Like i said before I life my life open-ended. I don't have all the answers. One thing I do choose to believe though, is that the hope for mankind is in himself. I don't live as if mankind is lost or that his only hope is in the Christian god.

concerned citizen said...

drd here is a comment I left on a friends atheist blog, having to do with the debate over the word atheist between atheists & those who call themselves agnostic

vjack
The original definition link heremirrors my own philosophy, so also does the opinion of Albert Einstein:
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."

You know how I've struggled with the terms used to define myself,(atheist or agnostic) as I've always felt "agnostic secular humanist" really does best explain my philosophy. I've been experimenting with using the word Atheist & how it is explained in the original definition link, makes it even easier to do so. Although I still have to explain the definition & put up with people arguing about it with me. (I try to think of that as an opportunity to educate people about the broader meaning of the word)

Anyway, my point is I think I've finally got over my own analness? about the whole thing.
concerned citizen L>T | Homepage | 09.26.07 - 8:36 pm | #

drd said...

I see, by looking back, that it was not your posts I was thinking of. So, I owe you an apology for mischaracterizing your position.

That being said, I think you soft shoe the 'personal god' statement.
This, again, is a philosophy that ends intellectually the same way as saying 'I don't believe in god'.

You see, buddhists believe in an impersonal energy, this energy does not have intention or will, and therefore might as well not be there for all intents and purposes.

A non-personal god has no intention, no 'personality', hence no purpose. If thats a true characterization (and I think it is) then its equivelent to atheism in all respects, and this would still apply to your stated position.

Do you agree?

concerned citizen said...

drdI want to continue our conversation on this subject but, maybe we should continue it some where else? do you have a blog?
my blog not really appropriate for this kind of conversation though.
this is my e-mail address
coquille58@aol.com

tina said...

I hope you return, I love to read these conversations. :)

drd said...

LT
I would honor your wishes, but I do agree with Tina that some may wish to see how this dialog plays out.
I do not have a blog...just not that sophisticated computer wise.

Let me know how you want to proceed.

concerned citizen said...

drd Ok, I am just concerned because this beast's blog & he keeps threatening to kick you off...

drd said I think you soft shoe the 'personal god' statement.

Yes I do but, that is what us agnostics do, right?

What is a personal God?
I feel at it's best, a personal God is only ever just a glorified human being. The Bible gives a "Gods-eye-view" of creation, from the ancient Judea/Christian Gods perspective, but the Judea/Christian perspective with it's God is only one step above the Greek/Roman gods. I'm not saying the historical Jesus (conceived by normal means of course, The apocalyptic rabble rouser) didn't exist, there were lots of discontented Jews under Roman rule, lots of so called "Messiahs" running around. The Christian Christ, the miracle worker, the one who rose from the dead is a religious invention though, a personal god born out the human mind, because the time & the circumstances were right.

As far as a non-personal god...Being raised in the western tradition (or maybe not just smart enough) I can't really comprehend what a non-personal god would be...I would have to speculate. I see no point in worshiping or even fearing a non-personal god, though.

As for Buddhism & other world philosophies alien to the Western-mindset, I find some of the concepts difficult to grasp, so I withhold my judgment there.

So for all intents & purposes, I agree, I live my life as if there is no God.

But, as has also been agreed... the universe is not random...& this does not require a belief or disbelief in God. With out humankind the universe would continue on it's course.

It is only we who live as if everything has to revolve around us.

drd said...

LT
You said:
But, as has also been agreed... the universe is not random...& this does not require a belief or disbelief in God. With out humankind the universe would continue on it's course.

I used the SOS analogy to demonstrate that organization, that has purpose, automatically, rationally illicits the view that its purposeful. Yet, when you view the universe as non random, and organized in such a way as it can exist, and be on going (I pointed out long ago that very slight changes in even the number of electrons would totally collapse the universe) you don't come to the same conclusions. Why?
You have an aversion to a personal god, yet the universe itself, we agree, seems to be evidence of the contrary.
Unless you can imagine just how something gets organized without an Organizer, your stuck with the problem of - non-random means orgnaized
-organized means intelligence
-intelligent organization means purpose
-purpose means intention
-intention implies will
-will implies personal desire
-this leads to some personal organizing force with intelligence and will.

How else can you reason out a non-random universe?

Modusoperandi said...

"Yet, the fact that information is contained in every cell in our body. The fact that physical laws are fixed and constant throughout the universe, and these very laws allow for life to exist, some how, some way, for some crazy reason, you ignore the obvious in these circumstances."

lt "...very slight changes in even the number of electrons would totally collapse the universe."

and

lt "You have an aversion to a personal god, yet the universe itself, we agree, seems to be evidence of the contrary."

The teleological argument. I'd type some words of my own to try to smooth your ruffled fur, but arguments like this have been answered by people far more smarterer than me...just google "teleological argument" or "argument from design", or "Yeah, I farted. You gotta problem with that?". Also, that last one probably won't help.

drd said...

Mod, answered, or attempted to answer? I have yet to see a good answer.

Its funny, on a cosmological scale, there seems to be great agreement that 'design' is evident. When we bring that down to a biological argument, wow, the ants come out of the cabnets.

However, from a physical view of cosmology, there is a very good concensus, even amount non-believers, that the universe, and the laws of physics give evidence of design.

Interesting to note the root origin of the word 'cosmos'. Order. Even a laymen can see the order in the universe. Its very apparent for all to see.

concerned citizen said...

Drd
You have an aversion to a personal god, yet the universe itself, we agree, seems to be evidence of the contrary.
I did not say I agreed that there was evidence of a personal god. I think you misunderstood my comment.
You said
A non-personal god has no intention, no 'personality', hence no purpose. If thats a true characterization (and I think it is) then its equivelent to atheism in all respects, and this would still apply to your stated position

Do you agree?


I concluded my comment
So for all intents & purposes, I agree, I live my life as if there is no God.


When I said I agree, I meant, I agreed that I live my life as if there was no god, not that I agreed with your conclusions. I don't understand that just because things in the universe work together that some personal intelligence has to be behind it?
Why does organized mean intelligence?
Of course The universe would not exist if it all didn't work together. But is that an argument for a personal God?

I think the thing about believing in God is this:

We know that Science can only give us knowledge of how the physical world works. It cannot explain why the world exists nor does it aim to do that. Science cannot confirm or deny the existence of God.

I don't believe Logic or reason can comfirm or deny the existence of God, either. It can only argue for or deny the existence of God

God can not be proven.

He can only be believed in.

Modusoperandi said...

drd "Mod, answered, or attempted to answer?"

Neither. I pointed you in the direction of the smart class. This is the slow class. We spend the day eating paste, mostly.

drd "I have yet to see a good answer."

No. You have yet to see a comfortable answer. "I don't know. Based on what we know, it just is." is a blood-curdling statement to hear. The idea that nothing is at the controls of the universe is terrifying. The idea that nothing puts all the pieces into place twists our little, organization-loving brains into knots of Gordian scale.

"I don't know. Based on what we know, it just is.", is a terrible answer, but that's the best we've based on the data so far (relying on natural, measurable sources).

That being said, however, the theistic "X did it", is not an answer at all. It just moves the question back another step...who did X?

X "just always was" isn't an answer. It pretends to be an answer. It's got a period on the end and everything! But it's not an answer; it dodges the question, and raises another, "why is X always was?", which is terrible English and will mean summer school for you.

This, inevitably, leads to much head-scratching and staring up at ceilings...ending eventually with the infinitely unsatisfying "I don't know, it just is", which is roughly the same poor answer I give to the "What made the Big Bang?" query that's impossible to answer (we can't measure time before time existed. There are theories based on what we know so far, of course, as the scientific mind abhors a vacuum, but I doubt very much that the question will ever be answered), except that positing a designer just replaces my "I don't know" with another one, after pretending to answer the original question.

To recap:
*I'm dumb, ask someone smart.
*"What made the universe?"
**"I don't know, "I don't know. Based on what we know, it just is." is a crappy, incomplete, and uncomfortable answer. It's still better than:
***"X did it"
...who did X?
***"X just always was.".
...how was X just always was?
***"Magik!"
which is no answer at all.

drd said...

Mod
I must respectfully disagree. I have yet to read or hear a satisfactory rebuttal to the teleological argument, period. Not just an 'uncomfortable one'...none. The answers given in rebuttal are weak at best.

Mathematically speaking, the theoretical physicists of the world, really do accept the concept of an infinite X needs no cause, and no beginning. This is not in debate. This might be uncomfortable for lay people in blog debates, but for the scientifically sophisticated debates, this is not an issue.
The entire reason one atheist who is a theoretical physicist (I think it may have been Robert Jastrow, but I am not sure so don't quote me) said 'my collegues are now all running off to join the church of Jesus Christ and the Big Bang, was because of the C.O.B.E. satellite information and the WMAP studies mapping backgroud cosmic radiation. This confirmed the finitness of the universe.

You see, scientists for many years have hoped they could prove an infinite universe.
By so doing, the eliminate the need for a god. Yet, a finite universe requires some outside involvement (a closed system must have outside input for work to be done, physics tells us this tidbit)
The question of 'who made X' if X is the universe is moot, as long as X is infinite, it needs no cause, hence no god.

The same thing applies to X of X represents God. If God is infinite, by definition mathematically, He has no beginning, and no end. Its the no beginning, that eliminates the question of 'who made X' in this equation.

ATheistic astronomers/physicists (Arthur Eddington being a famous one) have been very forthcoming with their issues with the idea of a Big Bang singularity. Thats why theoretical physics is obsessed with Super String theory to hope to circumvent the 'singularity' factor. If the universe we see, is only one of infinite universes, a bubble off another so to speak, then it needs no other cause.

This theory has no..let me repeat no empherical data, no evidence, no support from any raw testable information what so ever. It is as much 'metaphysics' is a discussion about God. Yet, it is the best thing atheists can come up with to argue against the need for a Creator.
You see, no one questions the need for a Creator if there is a beginning. This also goes for asking 'who made God'.

Modusoperandi said...

drd "(a closed system must have outside input for work to be done, physics tells us this tidbit)"
I thought that the universe contained all of the energy that the universe contained, if that makes any sense. Steady state theorists needed additional energy to keep the universe expanding, but Big Bangers (also the name of a popular breakfast sausage, by the way) didn't.

With all due respect, you lost me at "Mathematically".

From what I know, which isn't much. Big Bang theorists have no problem with a finite universe. The universe just goes until it stops. Admittedly, I did admit before that this is beyond me.

In any event, they're running to the wrong church.

Where is the Church of Deism, anyway?

drd said...

Shaun

It is old, not young as you imply. An ancient universe is very scriptural, and God is not deceptive. Science is not Gods enemy, He made it. I believe YEC has done more to hurt evangelism than almost any modern construct. I know we disagree here, but there is no justification, in scripture, or in science to offer a 6,000 year old earth.

Mod.
Mathematically, let me explain.
The definition of a line?
Its a bidirectional geometric term that goes on to infinity on both ends.

Definition of a ray is when it has a beginning, and goes to infinity on one end.

The definition of a segment is it starts, and ends.

God is a line- or as theoretical physicists would imply, the universes are the line.

Our physical life (atheists say our entire life) is a segment, starts, then ends.

However, as Christians we beleive we are rays. We beleive we had a beginning, but we are made for eternity.

If the universe is the line, it just 'is'..it needs no beginning, by definition, it has no beginning.

The same is true of God.

In regard to our universe. Yes, it containes all the energy there is. Yet, for the energy to have been input into this 4 dimensional reality it had to come from somewhere. At present scientists agree that energy is not created, yet, if the Big Bang is true, energy had to come from somewhere.

Where? This is where Einstein offered the idea of the Prime Mover, and agreed with Aquinas on this.

You are correct, no one has argued that this univese is finite. Thats the problem. Physicists acknowledge this, but as Eddington said (past chair of physics at Cambridge)"I would genuinely like to find a loophole in this because of the theological implications"
He was very honest about why he didn't like the idea of a finite universe.

A Steady State universe, (Kants theory) needed no energy input, it always was and always will be. It was not moving.
Hubble and Einstein proved that one wrong.
Hence, the conundrum in Science.

One physicist said "Its the Holy Grail of Science" Looking at Gods initial work.

Modusoperandi said...

drd "If the universe is the line, it just 'is'..it needs no beginning, by definition, it has no beginning."

Isn't the universe a segment or a ray? We know that it started, but don't know how (and continue to not know how up to several tiny bits of time after, 10 to the minus 35th power or so, and most of what comes right after that is theoretical), and that it will run out of energy/time eventually or will fall back in on itself (either way, I'd use up all of my vacation days before it happens, if I was you. I'm not you. I know this because if I was you I'd burn that shirt). Hopefully the supercollider at CERN will help prove or disprove some of the competing theories, or at least give us enough data to generate even more theories (resulting ultimately in nerd war. d20's at dawn!). It will certainly do better than the mediocrecollider, which only managed to provide data on quickly moving melons and gourds.

As I said before, and before that, and one other time too (You weren't there. I might not have been there either. I really should start writing these things down.), this is outside my area of expertise (which is vinyl siding. It's made from some kind of plastic, apparently. I'm not a very good expert), but if the logic of what you said holds, it appears to be a step towards deism. I'm occasionally deist myself. Granted, I'm generally stoned at the time...but have you ever looked at your hand, man? It's all right there!


drd "Hence, the conundrum in Science."

Riddles are sciences' favourite thing (in a non-anthromorphic way). I picture scientists (in whatever branch...except for entomology. Entomologists are all "Ooo. Look at us! We study bugs! Girls think we're gross!". Jerks...) spending a decade or more trying to fill in a blank, solving it, feeling euphoric (in a nerdy way), then feeling kind of sad that they have to move on (I'm sure they feel better once they pick another problem from the query jar).

My favourite thing, meanwhile, is wagonwheel donuts. Oh, sweet cruller, why must you tempt me so...


Shaun "DRD, there's something I want to clarify. How old do you think the universe is?

I was going to post a short comment here, but I put an omnibus one on the "Wrongness" topic instead, as that's where all of our stuff is.

concerned citizen said...

To continue in the same vein as my last comment:

I think William Jame's philosophy of pragmatism contained in his "Will to Believe" doctrine is the Christians best bet for justifying the existence of God.
This line of thinking allows a person to assume belief in God and prove his existence by what the belief brings to that persons life.

Since God cannot be proven.

What do you think drd?

concerned citizen said...

what happened to drd? The Least he could do is come back & tell me my argument stinks. Otherwise, it means I won. Bwahahaa

Shaun said...

Your argument stinks, whatever is was, you being an atheist.

drd said...

Hey LT
I have been swamped, so I have not had time to respond, but I am not familiar with William James.

However, proving God through blind belief does not appeal to me at all. This, as a physician, smacks of placebo effect.

Did you get to hear the Dawkins/Lennox debate at Univ of Alabama last night? Wonderful exchange.

drd said...

Mod
Your correct, the universe would be a segment...a starting and ending point. That, of course, is the point.

Energy must be put in from somewhere to get the start, and since its a segment, it has to have something to start it.

A line is infinite in both directions so , no beginning, no end....thats God.

Modusoperandi said...

dmd "A line is infinite in both directions so , no beginning, no end....thats God."

Ah. Interesting analogy.

This do, however, fail to explain why He's so interested in what I do with my cock.

drd said...

Mod
God invented sex..He certainly has the right to make the rules.

You ever owned a dog? Its amazing how they like to be disciplined...same with kids. We are happiest when we are in fellowship with our Father/Master. Just a thought to consider.

Modusoperandi said...

As an analogy for the (a? one of?) deist god, that's incorrect, as the creator set up the pieces and, at most, observes. It doesn't appear, whether in burning bush or other form, to give instructions, nor does it reappear later on to give us an update. It definitely doesn't come back before the universe winds down to cut away those who didn't listen the first two...or three...or four...times.

As an analogy for a personal god, that's bloody awful.
*My dog knows that I exist as I regularly interact with it (a personal owner, as it were).
*I don't tell my dog to shun dogs that don't believe that I exist. This doesn't come up, as I also interact with other dogs and their owners. I'm not a zealous or jealous personal owner. That would be petty.
*Commands to my dog are clear and concise. While some repetition is necessary, I don't toss it in the fire when it ignores me.
*I'm not giving my dog seventy-two bitches if he flies a plane into a building in my name. In fact, if it offered to do such a thing I would say "Bad dog!".
*Later on, we'd go for "walkies".

drd said...

Mod
In regard to your first paragraph. How do you know?

In regard to the dog: That analogy was meant to relate to obediance, not to a master. Kids, and dogs love the one who disciplines them. God definately disciplines us....but thats not a bad thing, its always for our good.

The image of an earthly father was not give us by accident. It is a shadow (often broken) of the real thing to come.

Modusoperandi said...

drd
de·ism
1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

drd "God definately disciplines us....but thats not a bad thing, its always for our good."

From what I've seen, he's pretty good at making the universe appear as though he isn't paying attention at all, and he's terrible at communicating with the people that he apparently does talk directly to. Moses got 613 mitzvahs, Jesus said "Mitzvahs? Not so much." (depending on your interpretation of the text. Some see all law, some see just the big 10, while ignoring the OT punishemnts for breaking most of them. Others only seem to see the bits about homos and what to do with them in the OT and where they'll go in the NT), Muhammad got a God who likes to brag about how many towns (and generations) he has destroyed (I think I got up to the third time he said that before I gave up on the Koran), and Joseph Smith got another Jesus with another message (complete with a history about the natives being Jewish, initially, if memory serves). And that's just the Abrahamic ones.

concerned citizen said...

drdsaid

However, proving God through blind belief does not appeal to me at all. Isn't this faith, though? William James argued that a person is entitled to, is justified
in believing something independently of reason, precisely because God could not be proven. This is I think, how most Christians "see" God, with the Bibles help of course.
Speaking of lines, segments & rays:
I can see lines & segments as how we of western cultural influences view time... as linear. I understand how, the sense of how we understand time influences our perception of how God works, but I don't see how it could be an analogy for God only how God works.

What is interesting to think about though, is not all cultures understand time as linear. Some understand it in a circular sense,or spiral, cyclical (as natural cycles). The Aztecs & the Mayans understood time as having three mutually interactive planes. My point is...if our concept of time influences our concept of how God works, does this make the nature of God & his purpose only relative to to our world view? & as modusoperandi points out even how God disciplines us seems to be a personal preference.

I did not watch the debate. I'll catch it on utube, when it comes out.

drd said...

LT

I would not agree with W. James at all. The ability to believe in something without any reason is foolish: and, its NOT what the Bible tells us about faith.

we see phrases regarding faith such as :
-Come, let us reason together...
-Test all things, hold on to what is true...
-Faith is evidence of the unseen....

To imply faith is not based in reason does not follow biblical precepts or common sense, in my humble opinion.

drd said...

LT

I was not implying that a line was a good analogy for God, in total..rather, for the geometric and mathemetical explanation for 'do we need a Creator'. A line is infinite, and has no beginning, hence no beginner. God, if He is infinite, also needs no beginner. This addresses the question Mod asked of "who made god?"

I do not think a line accurately represents what God is.

I also think we see evidence that God (if what the bible says is true) works outside of time, or transcendant to it, and maybe through different dimensions of time. Hence, if God controls time (and He does) He could perpendicularly intersect any moment of time, with a different dimention of time, and spend an 'eternity' in that moment..so to speak.

Picture a line in one direction representing our time line. Now picture another line intersecting our time line from up and down.
Multiple time dimensions is clearly implicated when Gods omniscience is discussed in scripture, and this, is one explanation of how He does it.

Anyway, confusing and off topic, but fun to wonder about.

Modusoperandi said...

shaun "Your argument stinks, whatever is was, you being an atheist."

If you are unwilling or unable to make a genuine contribution, sit back and observe instead. Statements like that reflect poorly on you. If you must be insulting, be witty. The same advice, it should be mentioned, goes for everyone else here as well.


concerned citizen "...not all cultures understand time as linear"

Reading this, I'm not even sure that the my "universe is a segment or ray" query is headed in the right direction (and that in itself is making the assumption that I, in fact, have a direction). Is is not possible that the "line" of the universe is a "loop", where the end of one cycle begins another? (And is it even possible to prove it either way?)

Is that a zen koan, or what...


drd "we see phrases regarding faith such as...

The first passage, Isa1:18 "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.", starts off well, but I don't think I've ever heard of reason cleansing sin. Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary has a better, smoother-flowing rereading of Isa1:16-20. (Isa1:17 is good too, though tragically off-topic)

The second, 1Th 5:21, is an excellent passage, assuming that "good" means "true". Indeed "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." is a pillar of the scientific method, although it would add "...check again when new information is learned, see if it reinforces or falsifies the theory, drop the theory like a rabid rhesus monkey if it fails. Formulate a new (or modified) one that fits the data. Return to step 1." That doesn't "flow", admittedly.

The last "quote", however, is cherry-picking at its finest...it's not "Faith is evidence of the unseen....". Hbr11:1 reads "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.". Faith is what you want things to be when you have no real evidence. Calling a lack of evidence "evidence" is like calling a lack of eyesight "vision". Other versions of the Bible either fare a little better, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." from the New American Version (which is better, although conviction doesn't make it true), or worse, "Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen." (which is much, much worse). Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary says that "Faith is the foundation on which all our hopes for the future are built...Without faith we would be limited to the very narrow world comprehended by the senses.". The first would be better as "Hope is the foundation on which the future is built>" and the second as "Without curiosity we would be limited to the very narrow world of what we've learned so far.", IMO, but nobody listens to me.

It continues downhill when it gives examples of faith:
Heb11:4 "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous,"

Abel gave God meat (Gen4:4 "...the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof"). Cain gave him (still small "h" at this point in the story. Big "LORD" though. Someone is letting his ego get the better of him, methinks) veggies (Gen4:2 "...the fruit of the ground"). God isn't a vegan, apparently.
That he requires blood sacrifice for sin is unpleasant (yes, he makes the rules. That doesn't make them any less dumb). That he didn't tell the twins or their parents this (although he did skin some animals so that Adam/Eve wouldn't die from exposure, which is nice) before they went through all the trouble of gathering together baskets of stuff for him (without him even asking) is worse. Failing or passing someone before telling him what the rules are indicates incompetent design. The Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary states a bunch of things "midrashed" in to fill gaps in the text (http://bible.cc/genesis/4-1.htm), things like "We may believe that God commanded Adam, after the fall, to shed the blood of innocent animals, and after their death to burn part or the whole of their bodies by fire.". In other words, the text doesn't say that, but it must mean that because if it doesn't, God is a jerk. That's my take on it anyway.

(Mmmm, a basket of fat.../me rubs tummy)

Abel "I killed my best sheep. Or sheeps. {aside} Adam! You named all the animals...what's plural for 'sheep'?."
Cain "I spent every day for the last six months toiling in a field to get this basket of tasty and good-for-you vegetables."
LORD (enters stage left) "Let's see what you brought me...dead animal, good Abel! {pats Abel on head}. Veggies? WTF? Why are you wroth? Don't be sad, Cain. If you do well, I pat you on the head. If not, you're a dirty, dirty sinner. Grain? Blech! You bad man!"
Cain (to Abel) "Well, that's it for you, then. Suck up!"

Yes, Abel brought the best of his flock (although technically, since Earthlings are from Earth, "firstlings" are from first), while Cain merely brought some "ground fruit" (the quality thereof is not mentioned), but if you're a dirt farmer you brung what you got, I reckon.

The other examples of faith seem pretty inconsistent. Noah's one is different than the Cain/Abel one. Abel's faith is him guessing right ("The LORD will like this." isn't faith, it's generosity), while Noah's is based on being told by God that He planned to wet everything up (if I tell you that I'm going to bite off your nose, you'd best act as though I'm going to bite off your nose. To ignore my statement could lead to noselessness).

Enoch (Heb11:5 ), meanwhile, spent a few centuries or so walking with God. I hope that's a metaphor. Then God "took" him (Gen5:24), which some read as "body and soul" (although I think since God "translated" him, his missing body is French now..."Well, I am dying...sacre bleu!), like that Jesus fellow, but it sounds to modern ears (mine) more like a euphemism for "died". If it does mean that God took him "body and soul", then it sets up a whole weird afterlife dynamic. Imagine: God magiks him away, he sets up the air hockey table in the afterlife's den (between the Centipede cabinet and the bar). Then, by the biblical literalist timeline, he has to wait (*1) some 2,200 years for someone(*2) to play with. But I digress.

(Bible math. Weee!)
*1 (assuming that the Ussher math is correct) 4004BC is the start, plus the total of the "And 'A' lived 'X' years, and begat 'B'" up top, but not including, Enoch, plus his own lifespan, 4004-(130+105+90+70+65+162)-365, he died in 3017BC or so.
*2 Elijah. I didn't find how long he lived, or when he died...the 'Enoch' math was plenty, thanks. 9th century BC, according to Wikipedia is close enough. Of course this is all moot as that which is not demonstratably false in the OT generally lacks secondary sources of evidence for. Eg: By 5000BC the Sumerians were farming, for example, which would have been tough to do if the Earth hadn't been created yet.
(Bible math ends.)

To sum up. While the first two passages you gave are good advice, for the most part, the third uses "evidence" in a manner not consistent with the definition of the word, and the examples of faith that follow cast an awfully wide net (from dumb luck, to a reasonable reaction after being given with inside information, to accompanying the LORD on his morning constitutionals for a few hundred years). Lastly, Bible math is silly (it's a good thing that nobody takes it literally. Just imagine how dangerous that would be to science, logic and reason!)


drd "I do not think a line accurately represents what God is."

Agreed. He appears to be more of a spiderweb or a cotton ball. From a deist creator, to a bunch of specialist gods, to one god, to another version of one god, to another and another, to a "we can't be sure what it is" god, to no god, to a wrathful/jealous god, to a loving spoonful god, to an earthmother, to a monster that flies and is made from spaghetti, he seems to be everything (and something and nothing) to everybody. The galactic placebo, if you will. While others typically apply traits like "all-good", "all-knowing", "all-powerful" to their god, I prefer "inconsistent", "all-too-human" and "best and worst of man, depending on circumstances". Mine seem more accurate.

You'd think he'd have his act together by now. I think that if there is a god (or gods), this is a prototype. He/she/it/them will do better next time. The production model of the universe will have more chrome trim and be cheaper than this one. It will also be available with four-on-the-floor and posi-traction.


drd "...confusing and off topic, but fun to wonder about."

Isn't that virtually the definition of a blog's comment section?

BEAST said...

Shaun:

The Sumerians DID exist for a very long time. In fact, the Noah's Ark story was based on one of the Sumerian Kings who escaped with his livestock because of the annual flood s of the Nile River.

These are historically documented events, and if you want to discredit them I suggest you discredit the bible as well, because the Sumerian culture is well documented, far more so than the bible.

Beast

BEAST said...

Shaun

The Sumerians were from Mesopotamia (now Iraq). They have their own unique language, and were one of the earliest civilizations that may even preceded the Greeks.

Below is a link to a research paper written by Piotr Michalowski from the University of Michigan:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~piotrm/DIGLOS~1.htm

Larro said...

AH HA!!

Excellent! I know what I'm convinced of.... ;o

(evil laughter echoes off into the distance)

Larro said...

Sumer - Google Search

Modusoperandi said...

shaun "Stop quoting people before addressing them..."
Like this?

shaun "I wrote something here, kinda telling you to piss off, along with the rest of the atheist/evolutionist group," & "...you believe we came from a rock"
No, I don't. We don't. You're not listening. You never listened and you are still not listening. I'm not explaining abiogenesis or evolution to you...again. I must say, however, that you may have taken a baby step forward. Notice, you didn't say "molten rock". I'm hoping that you'll eventually disparage the infant science of abiogenesis by saying "...you believe we came from a ooze". It's a small hope. Again, your first steps into the rational world will, necessarily, be small ones.

That's not to say that I'm giving up on you, just that there are plenty of resources elsewhere into which you can delve if you want to learn more than my calloused hands and chipped fingernails can scratch up. Of course, if you don't want to learn, you'll find that it's much harder to "troll" a book, in comparison to us. Books have infinite patience and time. We don't. And, while I can't speak for everyone here, I also don't have a table of contents.

shaun "...which came from nothing..."
As for what started the Big Bang, the truth is...no one knows. Every man and his dog has a theory (most not using the scientific definition of "theory") but, honestly, no one knows. I looked in the mirror and asked myself, and I sure as heck don't know. Then I got lost in my eyes. But I digress. Based on what we know so far, we don't know. Did it just happen (by some mechanism we don't understand)? Did the deist creator do it? Did god 'X' do it? I'd say, "Until we get more information, the first is the most reasonable choice". When faced with a lack of data, go with the choice that makes the least assumptions. The deist choice is also another reasonable possibility, although it just replaces an unknown (and probably unknowable) creation with a magik creation and a unknown (and probably unknowable) creator. The third is a distant last, as each of the gods that fall under it suffer from a lack of reality-based evidence for them. As I believe I've said before, I'm pre-Big Bang agnostic (which isn't the best use of the word "agnostic", probably, but me doesn't lernd english real good in skool).


shaun "...and we're all going to be compressed back into nothing."
Again, I don't know. Nobody does. Will the universe fizzle out, or will it squoosh back in on itself? *shrug*. Personally, and this is just me talking here, I think that the credits will roll (showing outtakes of wildly varying quality), then there will be a short scene setting up the sequel.

Anybody claiming absolute knowledge of what happened before the beginning, or what will happen at the end is delusional or lying.


shaun "How do you know the Sumerian farmed in 5000 BC?"
Evidence.

Archaeology (and its subsets): civilizations buried under other civilizations, buried under yet more civilizations.
Etymology (and its subsets): languages evolving over time, changing, becoming other languages that spread out and become yet more languages.

A chain of history, corroborated by multiple sources, that reaches back across thousands and thousands of years. Is it a perfect chain? No. It doesn't have to be. We don't have to show what Barry Sumerian had for breakfast before working his field on October 7, 5000BC, we only have to show that there were Sumerians around that time and that they farmed. There's enough data to show both.

Evidence. The natural universe is made of the stuff. Also, matter. The two are intertwined, forming a rope of "evidatter".


shaun "Time can't be looping, in my opinion, because the Bible, says there was a beginning."
That's about as provable (or disprovable) as my hypothesis. Then again, neither of us knows much of anything about the beginning. Even the people that do know about it don't know all that much about it.


shaun "By saying maybe he'll get it right next time, you're assuming it's wrong this time around."
As my fictional Ukrainian aunt would say, "You don't know from joke!".
The universe is not wrong, nor is it right. It's not just, nor is it evil. It's not kind, nor is it cruel. The universe is not antromorphic in any way.
In short, our universe behaves exactly how a godless universe would behave; truly and literally heartless.

Uncomfortable? Yes, but that doesn't make it any less true. Blaming yourself when you get hit by a tsunami (because a wrathful God is displeased with what a dirty little sinner you are) is attaching blame where, literally, none belongs.

Bad things happen. Help others. Feed someone who can't feed himself. Give another a helping hand. Carry someone's groceries. Beat the heartlessness of the natural world with your own goodness.

The discomfiting truth is shit happens. Get over it.


shaun "All the bad in the world was brought upon us by man's own sin." & "So I don't see what the fuss is about with believing we're suffering for our own sin."
Go to the Children's Ward at the hospital. Find an eight year-old boy with Ataxia Telangiectasia. Tell him that he'll need regular blood transfusions and shots of antibiotics for the rest of his life. Tell him that his wobbling walk will only worsen with time. Tell him that the respiratory infection that he currently has is but one in a long list of many to come. Tell him that in a year he won't be able to walk without assistance. Tell him that in two years he won't be able to stand on his own. Tell him in three he'll be trapped in a wheelchair. Tell him that he has up to a one hundred times greater than average chance of getting cancer, and that since the disease makes him sensitive to ionizing radiation it will be much harder to fight. Tell him that he'll be lucky to live past his teens. Tell him that he'll probably die in his 20s.

Now tell him that it's because a pair of twins 6,000 years ago disobeyed God.


Go to the cancer ward. Find a twelve year-old girl with terminal pediatric leukemia.

Now tell her that it's her fault.

tina said...

Yeah, and tell my son he's deaf because that's what a god wanted. *bullshit*

Shaun said...

Larro's Deaf? I don't know why people are deaf, or why little kids have cancer. It's not for me to know, ask God. All I said said was that suffering was brought upon us by our own sinful nature. Was Larro taught to disobey before he disobeyed the first time? Did Anyone teach him to lie before he told his first lie? Tina should know. Human nature is sin.

Beats, I read through most of that, I didn't find a date.

Modesuparandi, I don't know what you wrote, so I'll assume it's a load of rubbish like your trigonometric evidence for evolution.

Larro said...

Clarification: My brother is deaf. Not me.

Disobey? Where the fuck did that come from?

Ah, I get it. Poor, poor Bigot.

Lay down. Roll over. Little doggie wanna treat? Sit! Goooood boy. Come on shake. Alright! Here ya go. That's a good boy.

Shaun said...

If you don't have anything to say, don't say anything Larro. The least you could have done was asked your mom if it was true before typing out some garbage to calm your anger.

Bigot? whatever you say Larro, bigots can still go to heaven, while blasphemers will surely burn in hell. I almost feel sad for you, but not quite.

BEAST said...

Shaun:

Larro is an administrator here, so I will appreciate if you will show him some courtesy here. Telling people to shut up is not nice, and I will not tolerate it. The last time this happened, I had to delete comments. Don't push it.

Beast

Shaun said...

Let Larro fight his own battles, besides, if you read what he writes you'll see why I don't respect him. Cos he doesn't deserve it. He's a parasite atheist, he doesn't even have his own beliefs, he's one of those 'yah, what he said' atheists. Look around.

BEAST said...

Shaun:

Before you start criticizing others, perhaps you might want to take a long, hard look at the mirror.

Besides, this is an atheist blog. If you have something to contribute, fine. But if you wish to proselytize, be prepared to be criticized.

As far as Larro is concerned, if he is smart enough for me, he is smarter than you. So beat it.

Beast

Shaun said...

If he's smart enough for you, maybe it's because you're both dumb. I don't believe Larro's smarter, or more intelligent that I am, I just never brought it up cos it doesn't have anything to do with this topic, but if you want to bring up...

You think Larro can't deal with his own problems, be my guest, delete all this stuff, tell Larro he needs someone else to handle his business. Just proves my point.

BEAST said...

Shaun:

I am not going to repeat myself too many times.

It seems to me that you simply want to diss people off. From criticizing Larro's wife for marrying an atheist husband to a snickering remark on Larro's deaf brother, these are comments that have virtually no bearing to the topic of discussion.

I am not fighting Larro's battle, in case you are wondering. Just trying to impose some decorum here.

Like I said, don't make me repeat myself. I hope you are wise enough to get the drift.

Beast

tina said...

Shaun said> Was Larro taught to disobey before he disobeyed the first time? Did Anyone teach him to lie before he told his first lie? Tina should know. Human nature is sin.

Please explain "Human nature is sin".
I am having a hard time trying to figure out what you mean Shaun. Do you mean, did I teach Larro to lie? I'm sure YOU don't have children. Children lie to keep themselves out of trouble.Why would I tell them to lie? That's just nuts!

You know, I'm really tempted to post your insults and intolerance of me on a christian blog. Most christians would not agree with you , I think, and would teach you some manners. I don't think I have attacked you personally at all. I only wanted to learn why people believe what they do and you take it out on me when you are pissed at Larro and Beast.

As for my son Gary, I will let him speak for himself if he chooses to do so. He is not adept at writing very good, puts words together in a different manner than you and I, but let's see what he has to say. Do you tell people that you don't even know very well that, god wanted them to be that way, be it,deaf,cancer,paralyzed,mentally challenged, etc? I do think they would be highly offended as my family is.

It's no wonder you get on Larro's nerves, he has a right to offend you with cuss words. :) How immature to worry about a cuss word.

My son Gary, will never hear music, birds singing, his wifes voice, his children's voices, rain.......

And a god wanted that? Fuck you Shaun.

Modusoperandi said...

shaun "I don't know why people are deaf, or why little kids have cancer..."
Yes you do. For the most part you answered your own query seconds later "All I said said was that suffering was brought upon us by our own sinful nature." All you forgot to mention was Adam and the "incident" in Eden.

shaun "Modesuparandi, I don't know what you wrote, so I'll assume it's a load of rubbish like your trigonometric evidence for evolution."
Wow. I never gave you trig evidence for evolution. That was an off-the cuff way to measure distances. You really aren't listening.

beast "But if you (Shaun) wish to proselytize, be prepared to be criticized."
He ain't done any of that newfangled high falootin' prosiltizin' round here, no siree. Mostly he just made me feel sad.

drd said...

Mod
you posted:
The second, 1Th 5:21, is an excellent passage, assuming that "good" means "true". Indeed "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." is a pillar of the scientific method, although it would add "...check again when new information is learned, see if it reinforces or falsifies the theory, drop the theory like a rabid rhesus monkey if it fails. Formulate a new (or modified) one that fits the data. Return to step 1." That doesn't "flow", admittedly.

The Greek word here is most often translated 'true' and not good, although there is some contextual overlap, and different editors use different english words to get across the meaning.

Yes, your correct, and it does include the scientific method to test all things and hold on to what is true...very astute..in fact, Christianity is the ONLY religion to tell us such things..the rest want the 'blind' kind of faith you all think is true of Christians.

Shaun said...

Beast, I just asked if Larro was deaf, as I recall, "larro's deaf?" were my words. I don't know what you make of that.

Tina, I agree. You are the one person on this blog who has not personally attacked me, I suppose that's becau...... Oh crap, I just read the end your comment.

I hope that was just your reaction to my insulting your son. I'm justified in everything I say, maybe not aways in how I say it.

If you want some explanation for why I called Larro a parasite, let me know. I don't care what people on Christian blogs think of what I write, remember, you're an atheist, it would be like bin laden going to a church and complaining about Arthur Shelton. Larro's going to call me a bigot for saying that.

Anyway, I was not taking anything out on you. I don't know why you feel that way. I'll explain. When larro was a baby, or really young, there were times when you would tell him not to do something, but he would go ahead and do it anyway, and times when you asked him if he did something wrong and he would say no, or nod, but you knew full well that he did. There, disobedience and lies. Surely you didn't teach him those. But where did he learn to disobey and lie from? That was my point, nowhere. he was born with it like the rest of humanity, and probably animals too. Hence, the human nature is sin remark.

I don't want to tell people anything about why they are the way they are, I just have an understanding that most things are the way God wants them to be. And I've said this a few times, I don't know why people still don't understand, human suffering is because of human sin. We're not being punished for Adam and Eve's sin 6000 years ago. We didn't inherit that sin, we inherited that nature. If you still don't understand let me know, I believe it can be quite tricky to explain this idea.

Modesupearndi, finally something short enough for me to bother reading. I didn't mention Adam and Eve's sin before because I assumed everyone here knew about it(how folish of me). Whether or not you believed they use the trig method to calculate distances to stars does not matter. We were talking about how those distances were measured, and by publishing your trig method, you let it be know that you don't do much thinking. and it was topped off with a "shame on you" too, for me not 'figuring' it out. Why would you even say that when it completely makes no sense.

drd said...

I should rephrase that...the term is not 'most often' translated 'true' rather, what is 'good' is considered 'valuable' and 'true'..so the Greek word, like so many Greek words, hold greater depth of meaning than the English equivalent.
Good, in Greek, implies its true, and valuable. Hence, some translations use 'good' and others use 'true', both are acceptable, but each only portrays part of the whole meaning.

Modusoperandi said...

shaun "And I've said this a few times, I don't know why people still don't understand, human suffering is because of human sin."

No, it's you who don't understand. We do understanding the concept. We reject it because it's bad (as the few examples, out of billions of possiblilites, that have been posted here indicate). Worse, it's untrue. More worser, a god that believes that it is good can't, by definition, be all-good. Most worstest, due the combination of the above, it's a reprehensible philosophy for man, beast or god.

drd
Yes, it's a good passage. It's too bad that more people don't follow it.

It's more bad that a literal (and incorrect, sort of) interpretation of 1Ti6:20 completely undermines the goodness of a literal (and correct) interpretation of 1Th 5:21.

Even the correct interpretation of 1Ti6:20 sends a shiver down my spine (in a bad way). Matthew Henry's says "That learning which opposes the truth of the gospel, is not true science, or real knowledge, or it would approve the gospel, and consent to it.", which gives literalists a God-sanctioned excuse to reject modern science.

Elsewhere, it says "Those who advance reason above faith, are in danger of leaving faith." I think that's meant as a warning.

Larro said...

Bigot; "I'm justified in everything I say, maybe not aways in how I say it."

What? You're special or something? This couldn't apply to me, BEAST or anybody else who posts here?

Apparently you think you are justified more so than anybody else here. That your opinion and your belief in your imaginary playmate for adults gives you special privilege and special insight on how the world works (or rather how the world is).

"I don't want to tell people anything about why they are the way they are, I just have an understanding that most things are the way God wants them to be.

PLEASE REREAD THAT! WHAT THE FUCK!?

According to your belief; God is the WHY. Right?
And the how, what and who. Right? But, see: You are too humble to express what gods intentions are.

Hmm. Here we have a fucking conundrum. You sit there and proclaim that GOD has a nice, cozy little place in eternal suffering for us non-believers. But you are too humble to "know" what your gods intentions are?

Hypocritical and so very typical.

"We didn't inherit that sin, we inherited that nature."

What is that nature? Human nature? I could look at it this way: you are taking God out of the equation with that statement. Bear with me please.

If our sin and our nature are separate (as you articulated in the above comment), then sin is wholly unto Gods design apart from our nature. Where did we inherit this nature from? I don't claim to know the answer to that. I can only GUESS that it's human evolution or evolution in general. Just like you can only GUESS that it comes from God.

Do this for me Shaun, admit you DON'T know. Shovel shit all you want, day in and day out. But don't tell me you know what happens when we die. It's impossible to know unless your fucking dead.

This is the premise of this post after all.

tina said...

Shaun said> Tina, I agree. You are the one person on this blog who has not personally attacked me, I suppose that's becau...... Oh crap, I just read the end your comment.

I truly wanted to discuss belief and you only attacked my family so it's understandable that I would get pissed sooner or later. I mention my husband dying and shit hits the fan. He's dead because I was atheist, my sons deaf cuz god wanted it that way, larros wife is to be ashamed of marrying him, he should make more people in this overpopulated world and gets made fun of because he has two dogs and two cats. Mind you, none of these animals were picked out by these two loving people. They took them in under different circumstances. So sure, I got upset. Why not just say....mind you i don't believe this for one minute...."non -believers have catastrophic things happen to them." Sounds kind of stupid huh? Why bring in personal attacks?

Shaun said...

I don't know what happens when I die. But you, Larro, will go to God's intelligently designed hell, it's not nice and cozy(if you're hoping),Cos you're guilty of blasphemy, among other things. Our nature is sin. I said we didn't inherit that sin, as in that one particular sin, where Eve ate the forbidden fruit, we inherited the sinful nature of man, which explains why we all lie, thieve and many other things.

You're twisting my words to deceive yourself larro. What are you trying to do, convince yourself there's no hell for you? Face it.

Shaun said...

Human nature IS sin. Are you getting it now? Maybe I should rephrase to make it harder for you to wiggle out of it. Humans naturally sin, hence, human nature IS sin.

Shaun said...

Tina, I'm sorry if you feel I 'attacked' your family, your son, and most of the other atheists on this blog attack my God on a regular basis. they call him the cosmic McMuffin, is that the term? Am I suppose to care one bit if they're offended by me? No.

tina said...

Well, if god is your family member, he can fuck off too, along with you. See ya!

Modusoperandi said...

shaun "Human nature IS sin."

Human nature is a lot of things. Humans are also kind, generous, altruistic and loving, as well as murderous lecherous thieves. People are mostly good, I find. You see the opposite. That's sad.

Human nature is more complicated than we know. Indeed, behavioural studies of chimpanzees and great apes show that they too are complicated...and, in some ways remarkably like us, (self-aware after a certain age, learn to lie/cheat/steal, learn to get along). Elephants, too.

Life is a trip, man.

Larro said...

Bigot;

Are you fucking stupid or something. I seriously think you have some kind of mental disability. No, shit.

If you do I apologize. I have had a Christian post on one of my blogs before and I learned he had been in a serious car accident and was slightly brain-damaged. I refused to have commentary with him about god and such afterward. I didn't want to prey on him because of his disability.

If you are brain-damaged please let me know. Seriously. I would really like to know.

Really. I'm not making this up (no shit) about this unfortunate guy. I guess god wanted him to be this way.

So, if you're not brain damaged then I guess you're pretty much brain dead.

You just lambasted me in front of my mom and turned around and said you are sorry to her. Hello?

Hello, there? Do you have such a shitty relationship with your own mother that you can't understand a deep bond that I might have with my own mother? Just an observation.

If you feel that you can totally trash me and expect my mom to shrug it off you must have some kind of dysfunctional relationship with your mom.

Your off. Booted. BEAST?

tina said...

Hmmm...I hate to see anyone booted, because some people will show their true selves and sometimes it's not pretty. I am so glad I won't see shaun when I die....that is the premise of the post, right? bye!

Larro said...

This could be construed as a severe reprimand to "Shaun" from me.

Rather than boot "Shaun" from Atheist Haven. I propose that admin and the readers compose and suggest "rules of engagement" policy regarding commentary. NOT actual posts. I'll post what I want and feel like.

It's getting late here. So I leave this open to further discussion. Any further comments on this particular post not relating to this issue WILL BE DELETED.

Shaun said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
drd said...

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called "knowledge,"

Now, Barnes commentary on This verse:(notice the difference, and notice you pick a commentary on this verse to suite your position, and you do not let the verse speak for itself) Barnes seems spot on!!
Here it is below:

[b}And oppositions of science falsely so called - Religion has nothing to fear from true science, and the minister of the gospel is not exhorted to dread that[b]. Real science, in all its advances, contributes to the support of religion; and just in proportion as that is promoted will it be found to sustain the Bible, and to confirm the claims of religion to the faith of mankind. See this illustrated at length in Wiseman’s Lectures on the connection between science and religion. It is only false or pretended science that religion has to dread, and which the friend of Christianity is to avoid. The meaning here is, that Timothy was to avoid everything which falsely laid claim to being “knowledge” or “science.” There was much of this in the world at the time the apostle wrote; and this, more perhaps than anything else, has tended to corrupt true religion since.

Modusoperandi said...

drd

I was going by the KGV, as that is the one true bible (note: tongue slightly in cheek)

1Ti6:20 " O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

1Ti6:21 "Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen."

The KGV, if you haven't heard, was Jesus' favourite version. I jest, a little, but this is the version that many swear by (literally), and this is the passage that they lean on when they want biblical-backup to disparage science, scientists, and anything they see as contradicting scripture, like evolution and global climate change (although some appear to be softening on that last one).

From what appears to be a KGV-only website, under the ominously all-cap'd title IS THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION JUST ANOTHER NEW TRANSLATION? "Again, in I Tim. 6:20, the Bible reads, "and oppositions of science falsely so called." The New King James reads, "and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge." This is a change which is of no value in bringing out any "deeper truths" in the Old King James reading. The fact is, the Revision hides a great spiritual truth, which is that, regardless of what science comes up with, none of its discoveries can nullify any of the truths of the scripture.", from www.jesus-is-savior.com, with a webaddress/title of "nkjv-heresy.htm" (keep in mind that, scattered paragraphs to the contrary, "they" tend to be of the YEC variety, hence the need to ignore the world where it contradicts Genesis and compress the scale of the universe into 7,000 easy years or less to conform with the begets, not to mention making sure that JC died for a literal and actual guy named Adam who lived in Eden with his identical twin sister...but I've talked about that before). Delightful, init? Oh, and they prove what a false religion atheism is (relying almost entirely on "argument from authourity", "argument from ignorance" and more than a little "ad homimem") and disprove evolution in How to stump your evolution teacher with such well-worn creationist tropes as "If men allegedly evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?" (I believe that the standard reply is "If your parents had you, then why do you still have cousins?", although I'm probably remembering that one incorrectly). But I, as usual, digress.

As such, my point still stands. You can disagree, but as long as there are millions of people misinterpreting that passage...besides, you used the English Standard Version and everyone knows that's Satan's favourite...(again, tongue in cheek, but it's not far off, as I've demonstrated in my own ham-fisted way)

drd said...

Mod

The real point is simple. Real truth, no matter where its found, will not contradict other 'real truth'. Scripture reports to be true, and come from Truth incarnate. If so, the Timothy passage cannot mean disregard science, but rather, false knowledge from bad science should be scrutinized and thrown out.

If there is a God who made the universe, set its laws in motion, and created science itself, then any 'true' science will not contradict it. I have personally found this to be VERY true.

Its interesting to note, and Lennox brought out in the debate with Dawkins, that science comes from at Theistic world view, and cannot come from an atheistic one.

You see, an atheistic world view could not suspect that science would find order, and information, but rather, chaos, and disorder.
Its only a Theistic world view that presupposes order, meaning and purpose, that is discoverable through science.

BEAST said...

Shaun:

This is a final warning. If you feel offended by the comments against your Gawd, I suggest you head the other way.

Frankly, I am sick and tired of your infantile, brainless, lunatic diatribes, and truth be told you have overstayed your welcome.

This is a final warning. One more response from me and you will see your comments disappear into thin air.

Its easy, believe me. It takes you five minutes to type your comments and three secs for me to make them disappear. I don't wish to do this, but if your God didn't teach you not to laugh at people's woes, then it is high time the Beast injects some ethics into you.

Beast

concerned citizen said...

drd said
Its interesting to note, and Lennox brought out in the debate with Dawkins, that science comes from at Theistic world view, and cannot come from an atheistic one.

You see, an atheistic world view could not suspect that science would find order, and information, but rather, chaos, and disorder.
Its only a Theistic world view that presupposes order, meaning and purpose, that is discoverable through science.


What do you mean by this?
One thing I know is that the modern western system of thought has had it's roots in Aristotelian scholasticism.
The enlightenment period ushered in what we know as sound science & even our modern sense of individualism & democracy by shaking off the Aristotelian scholasticism (exclusively Christian) world-view of using the Bible & the authority of the Church as the foundation for all knowledge.
Is this perhaps where your Theistic world view comes from?

concerned citizen said...

my point is that perhaps what we call truth is only perspective & chaos is not always chaotic.

Concepts of "Order" and "chaos" can be extremely vague and/or complex.

Modusoperandi said...

drd "If there is a God who made the universe, set its laws in motion, and created science itself, then any 'true' science will not contradict it"

While I do see where you're coming from (the same path Newton took)...you've confused me. Most of the big-scale truth-claims of the Bible:
*aren't literally true (Gen1&2),
*are true, sort-of (the Flood, "think local, flood global"),
*have no evidence outside the bible to back them up (big big stories, like a bunch of hebrews spending 40 years on the Sinai, not to mention the resurrection),
*true in the sense that they're good advice, even if that advice isn't eternal (no pigs/no shellfish, both good advice before freezers and careful cooking),
*demonstrably false (like making animals see reeds while they mate so that they'll have striped offspring),

...so what real truths are these?

Modusoperandi said...

shaun "Don't you get it yet? I don't care."

Ah. A passage from the Gospel according to Matthew, I believe. If memory serves, it follows Mat5:5 "Blessed [are] the apathetic: for they shall inherit...something something, whatever."

We're trying to make space for you, Shaun, but you keep crapping in our garden. On the plus side, our roses will surely be prizewinners next season.

Larro said...

Don't think I'm being generous here or that I'm turning over a new leaf.

Simply put I'd like Bigots asinine commentary to live on that people can learn from his mistakes.

Shaun said...

I said I'm sorry if you feel that way, not I'm sorry. There's a difference. Well, the whole lot of you now have your tickets to hell, except Modesuperandi.

I have quite a good relationship with my mother. Larro, if you and your mother and the rest of your family choose to live as atheists, it's your relationship that is seriously dysfunctional. The Idea of a family came from God. Marriage, parenthood, everything's from God. You can have a 'deep bond' with your mother, whatever. It means nothing when you both ignore God.

Larro, as usual, running to beast again. This is your post. Delete what you want to.

Yes, I too do sincerely hope I don't see you in the afterlife, cos that would mean I'm in hell.
08 October 2007 20:13


In all actuality, I was curious to see what Modusoperandi had to say about this reference to him.

Next. Not "running" to BEAST. Sorry Bigot I'm not a follower nor a leader for that matter. Beast and I have a healthy rapport. I was simply inquiring of his opinion.

drd said...

*aren't literally true (Gen1&2),

We can just disagree here, I think Gen 1 and 2 are very literally true, just not in the way YEC think they are.

*are true, sort-of (the Flood, "think local, flood global"),

Again, no, they are true. Local flooding which would encompass the 'whole world of mankind' is very likely and I believe is literally true.

*have no evidence outside the bible to back them up (big big stories, like a bunch of hebrews spending 40 years on the Sinai, not to mention the resurrection)

Well,again, I think the evidence for the resurrection is overwhelming in favor of it, and stories like Hebrews wandering around may not have extra-biblical support, but that does not make it false.
*true in the sense that they're good advice, even if that advice isn't eternal (no pigs/no shellfish, both good advice before freezers and careful cooking)

The advise given that you quote, from a physicians standpoint is plain and simply supernatural given the time it was given and the nature of the knowledge of the people..could not have been guessed or made up...just like the mold in houses that needed burned...heck, we didn't get that until the 19th century!!

*demonstrably false (like making animals see reeds while they mate so that they'll have striped offspring)

I will reserve comment here until I know which passage your referring too.


In essence, all you quoted is truth..and is in harmony with known science.

However, my point was not to defend the bible, rather to point to the reasonable evidence for order and purpose in the universe. Yes, Newton, Einstein, and many others of varied beliefs all saw this, and formed world views accordingly.
Atheism is a self-defeating concept, as order, structure, purpose and meaning are not to be expected in godless universe.

drd said...

PS, how do you bold, or italics or any other such thing on this blog??

concerned citizen said...

drd

try goggling blog HTML. there are quite a few informative sites like this one

Larro said...

Use the "<" and ">" symbols.

As demonstrated below the comment box. Those are your lead tags.
B = bold
I = italic
a = link (often referring to a tag that defines a hyperlink)

Whenever you want to bold or italic an item you must place the these tags before the text. However, you must place the trailing tag behind the text you want to bold or italic

Trailing tags are like this */b* or */i*. Replace the * with greater and lesser than symbols.

The [a href] is a little more complicated. If you'd like to know more about this one just let me know. I think that somewhere I explained this to Modusoperandi.

drd said...

Your HTML cannot be accepted: Tag is not closed:

This is the warning I get when I place that symbol before and after a sentance.

drd said...

ahh...got it

I got it

Modusoperandi said...

drd "I think Gen 1 and 2 are very literally true, just not in the way YEC think they are."
How so?

drd "Again, no, they are true. Local flooding which would encompass the 'whole world of mankind' is very likely and I believe is literally true."
Yes, most cultures have a flood myth. Yes, they are similar (as I said to Bill on another topic, "No, not really. Floods happen. People remember things. People remember floods that happened. Flood stories are similar because floods tend to be a bunch of water that comes from somewhere, then goes away."). No, that does not make the deluge tale literally true (Local floods at various times in many cultures all over the whole world? Yes. The flood simultaneously covering the entire globe...football field-sized boat...X of every "kind"...40 days/nights of rain....ten months afloat...etc. No way; a simultaneous worldwide flood requires evidence worldwide of a simultaneous worldwide flood.)

drd "I think the evidence for the resurrection is overwhelming in favor of it..."
In the gospel, maybe. The extra-biblical support is weak, at best. Sure, 500 people saw him afterwards, but 499 of those don't appear to have bothered to tell anyone or write it down. Sure, Paul saw JC, but I watched Death sit and watch my TV one night; that doesn't make it so. Sure, one of the Gospels says that there were earthquakes and dead people wandering around (Matt27:51-52), but nobody outside the Bible bothered to record what would have been an earth-shaking revelation.

Yes, there are some 25,000 pieces of early NT writings floating around that are all quite similar, less copying errors. No, that does not make it true.

Yes, a bunch of early Christians died for their beliefs. No, that does not make it true.

Does that mean that it did not happen? No. Does that mean that it most likely did not happen? Yes.

drd "...and stories like Hebrews wandering around may not have extra-biblical support, but that does not make it false."
Yes, but that's a poor reason to believe it's true. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" sounds nice, but it leads to mind-twisting doublethink on every topic that has little to no evidence. An absence of evidence is generally a pretty good indicator that there's nothing there. That's not to say that we'll never find evidence. I'm just saying that it's more logical to ere on the side of myth/grossly-exaggerated story until real evidence is unearthed.

drd "The advise given that you quote, from a physicians standpoint is plain and simply supernatural given the time it was given and the nature of the knowledge of the people."

The simpler and more rational explanation is that some people noticed that villages that avoided shellfish and/or pork tended to have healthier villagers than those that ate those things up. It likely wasn't until later that the supernatural got involved.

Similarly, the Jesus/devils/pigs tale probably has a more rational explanation. JC found some hebrews raising pigs, a mitzvah-breaking no-no, so he spooked them into running of a cliff. Only afterwards would the devils-filled man/men of the story have been added (as only a Devil-filled Jew would dare to break the law. Jesus got rid of the devils that were forcing them to raise pigs, etc). Is that more likely than the official story? IMO, probably.

drd "I will reserve comment here until I know which passage your referring too."

Gen30:37-39. I think that we can both agree that it's a myth. That doesn't change that God's Word is presenting a myth (or a "rural legend", rather) as truth.

drd "In essence, all you quoted is truth..and is in harmony with known science."

Only if you redefine words like "truth", "harmony", "literal" & "science".

Larro said...

I always found the thought of Noah's Ark hilarious (in a cinematographic visualization). As with the NEC explanation for dinosaurs.

Noah's Jurassic Ark directed by God

Imagine a Tyrannosaur or Velociraptor on the Ark. What a kick ass action suspense flick that would make.

Larro said...

Oops. Posting off topic! Oh well it is my post.

Modusoperandi said...

I hate to be on-topic, but as for "Well, the whole lot of you now have your tickets to hell, except Modesuperandi." and "In all actuality, I was curious to see what Modusoperandi had to say about this reference to him."

For the longest time I wasn't. Currently I am. Soon, I won't be anymore.

From what little we know so far, we're a big skin covered sack of chemicals, crisscrossed with electrical action. The most complex chemical, oozy mass in the history of the world, sure, but distinctly materialist in nature (naturalist in nature?). These chemicals and electrical connections make "me", "I". When my insides stop (and they will eventually), I have no reason not to conclude, so will "I".

(Also, I posted an answer before, but it didn't appear. I must've hit the wrong button. It is that X in the top right corner, right?)

drd said...

Mod, I will deal with these issues 1 at a time, unfortunately thats all time permits now.

Lets go with the flood.
Most common cross cultural stories have their origin in an actual event. Each culture then changes it to fit their lore, yet, the essense is rooted in actual events. This is true only for 'common' stories, and their commonality accounts for the similarities.

Next, the 'world wide' flood is a term that needs to be looked at in the context of its cultural audience. The phrase'world wide'never meant 'global' until the 15th century. Certainly the BC dates never had a mental concept of global when they used the term 'world'. It was the known world, not a 'globe'.
In this context, their is ample geological evidence for a massive flood in the mesopatamian bowl in the area where science says modern Homo Sapian Sapian originated.

The only animals that would be on the ark would be those tainted by the sin of Noah's world, and not the animals of the globe.
There is ample biblical precident for this. There was no need to drown polar bears or Giraffe, Hippo's or Rhino's. They were not in contact with the world of man at that time.

Biblically this is consistent, as is the archeological/paleontological evidence that supports it.

The Tower of Babel demonstrates that man did not populate the globe until well after the flood times, and this corresponds to the evidence in science.
Mankind started in the northern african, southern mesopatamian region, and did not populate the globe until much later dates.
Noah could have easily taken the regional animals not found in other areas or that he might need for domestication once he landed.
There is no mystery in how this could happen.

A YEC model not only defies science, but logic as well. It requires supper rates of evolution (which they deny on one hand, and depend on, on the other hand), they ignore evidence in scripture that contradicts their theory (green olive branch could not happen if the globe was submerged for the length of time suggested) and many more inconsistencies with both science, and scripture.

However when science and scripture are compared, they are in great harmony. Very very compelling, by the way.

Modusoperandi said...

drd
So, the OT "flood" was just another flood that, like lots of other floods, got more exaggerated as time went on (the size of the Ark, for one).

So God just wanted to wipe out locally, then?

drd "There was no need to drown polar bears or Giraffe, Hippo's or Rhino's..."
So only those in the Golden triangle were tainted?

drd "The Tower of Babel demonstrates that man did not populate the globe until well after the flood times, and this corresponds to the evidence in science." & "...They were not in contact with the world of man at that time."
But they were, if the flood happened around 2,800BC or so. Man was all over the place. Our long walk to North America, for instance, happened 12,000 years ago, while Australians go back some 40,000. Were they sinless?

If you don't follow the YEC 6-7,000 year timeline, and you don't, where in history do you place the flood?

Modusoperandi said...

Wups. Scratch out Golden Triangle and insert Fertile Crescent.

drd said...

Mod.

Not sure on your Australian dates there, however, mankind dates somewhere around 50K years ago..maybe as long as 65K.
Therefore, the flood came from 45K-52Kish.

The flood did not get exaggerated, I am sure it was the worst one in world history as it relates to human death and destruction. It was not exaggerated in scripture in the least. It wiped out mankind with the exception of 8 people.

The only animals tainted are those who had contact with the sin of the world of man: and the only ones that needed saving where those not found in other areas of the world, or those needed for domestication.

The size of the ark is very precise in scripture, very measured. This does not at all have a flavor of legend. Legends tend to be general, and use great metaphor, not specific measurements and specifications. That is unlike any ancient myth ever written.

Modusoperandi said...

drd "...however, mankind dates somewhere around 50K years ago..maybe as long as 65K."
Well, according to the mostly right wikipedia, "Anatomically modern humans appear in the fossil record in Africa about 130,000 years ago.", "Phylogenetic separation of Modern humans dates to this period, Mitochondrial Eve to roughly 150,000 years ago, Y-chromosomal Adam to roughly 90,000 years ago"

...
So what you're saying is that a single family built a football-field sized boat...and there was a big flood (the biggest)...and samples of all the local wildlife hopped on...and this story was accurately passed down across 40-50,000 years (orally, no less)...in the same epoch (middle paleolithic) when we were still pfutzing with stone tools?

You've stretched my credulity past the breaking point.

Modusoperandi said...

..."Phylogenetic separation of Modern humans dates to this period" refers to the Middle Paleolithic

drd said...

y-chromosomal Adam is dated to about 65,000 years ago, and this would be consistent with when the first civilizations start showing up around the mesopatamian plains.

Notice the very information you pull up from scientific venues, still rely heavily on bibical terminology. Why?

Because the startling beginning of the DNA we can call Human seems to have a startleing abruptness to its appearence.

The theory was dubbed 'the Garden of Eden Hypothesis' by the scientific community. It was so named because of its amazing similarity to the Biblical account. Its location, its nature of 'one man' began it all genetically..and so on..

Admittedly there are great holes of information that need filled, but, we now are certain that Neandertal could NOT be our genetic ancestor. This, dispite the evolutionary tree that has always suggested so.

The drive to learn more, only brings us closer to our creator, as we discover His methods. As science advances, so will our ability to understand Gods chosen methods of action.

PS. That is a valid scientific prediction. Its both verifiable, and falsifiable...so we shall see if I am right hu?

BEAST said...

DRD:

Tsk tsk, your "scientific theory" makes me laugh. How about sending it for scientific peer review? Let's see how "scientific" your "Adam" character is.

Beast

concerned citizen said...

The size of the ark is very precise in scripture, very measured. This does not at all have a flavor of legend. Legends tend to be general, and use great metaphor, not specific measurements and specifications. That is unlike any ancient myth ever written. Drd
Scripture? You talk about the OT as if it is not something that Christianity incorporated from Jewish history/myth/legend. You talk about it as real science. Sorry, but that is ludicrous.

drd said...

LT

Yes, I do, and the fact that you claim it ludicrous does not make it so. Why do you find it so hard to believe?

I talk about the OT as if it is the Word of God, and the Jewish people are a big part of that. So, yes, it is taken from Jewish history, and I do not deny or hide that fact.

Modusoperandi said...

drd> "y-chromosomal Adam is dated to about 65,000 years ago..."
Hmmm, different sources are showing differing dates for "adam". Pesky scientists!

drd "Notice the very information you pull up from scientific venues, still rely heavily on bibical terminology. Why? Because the startling beginning of the DNA we can call Human seems to have a startleing abruptness to its appearence."
Biblical terminology turns up in all manner of discourse because it's a common shorthand. Adam=first. Eden=beautiful place. An eye for an eye=punishment. Jonah=any man who is temporarily housed in a giant fish. A crappy Star Trek movie genesis'd a planet precisely because this short-hand saves filling in the backstory. Plus it had Jim from Taxi. I'm sure that other cultures use their own history in much the same manner. Greeks, for example, are always talking about their formula. But I digress.

By "abrupt" you seem to mean "magiked". "Abrupt" in the history of man sense, however, means "over a bunch of generations".

Yes, we're all descended from an "adam" 65-90,000 ago and an "eve" 150,000 years ago. It wasn't "Adam" and "Eve", biblically. It was Adam and Eve, scientifically. Our common Adam and Eve lived with other similar (but not identical to) Adams and other similar (but not identical to) Eves; the lines of the rest just didn't survive (and their "Adam" X and "Eve" Y went with them).

The people living around the same time as these two individuals would have passed on their genes like Adam and Eve, but their Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA lines would have eventually died out. "You only need a man who doesn't have any sons or a woman who doesn't have any daughters for one of those lines to die," says Jobling., from salon.com


drd "The theory was dubbed 'the Garden of Eden Hypothesis' by the scientific community. It was so named because of its amazing similarity to the Biblical account."
How does our common "Adam" and "Eve", who lived 50,000+ years apart, and the way that they fit on the phylogenic tree in a convenient "evolved" sort of way all point to Gen2 being literally true?

You're positing supernatural intervention where none is necessary. There are gaps, admittedly (the 100,000 or so year gap between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens sapiens is a big one. Small on the geologic scale, T rex alone ranged some three million years, but big on the "ascent of man" scale). A God of the Gaps, however, is a catchall for everything we don't know.

drd "Admittedly there are great holes of information that need filled, but, we now are certain that Neandertal could NOT be our genetic ancestor. This, dispite the evolutionary tree that has always suggested so."

This sounds suspiciously like a non sequitor. Yes, we used to think that we descended from them (if my hazy memories of school are reliable), but newer analysis techniques indicate that Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis shared a common ancestor some 7-800,000 years ago. That's two "branches", not two points on the same section of branch. Are you implying that since the "tree" changes as new information comes in that the gaps in our knowledge indicate a God there in?

On a side note (among many), taxanomy for hominids is a mess. Homo sapiens, us, became Homo sapiens sapiens, still us, when some ancestors and whatnot turned out to be cousins. Cro-magnon (whom I remember as "Cro-magnon"), for example, is Homo sapiens sapiens palestinus) now. Dating and genetic testing have some a long way, which will clear up some of the confusion (as well as giving us more delicious problems to solve). Cladistics, a potential revolution of nerd-frenzying proportions, is attempting to reorganize the whole tree in a way that both makes more sense and is more adaptable to new data, much as the periodic table of the elements did for the, um, elements.

drd "That is a valid scientific prediction. Its both verifiable, and falsifiable...so we shall see if I am right hu?

Excuse me if I ask a dumb question, but what is? God messed with Adam's father's seed (or Adam directly) and Eve's mother's egg (or Eve directly)?

In order to absolutely prove that hypothesis you'd have to find Adam's father and Eve's mother (in the most literal sense), and extract enough genetic markers to determine that they did not have the "adam" gene or the "eve" gene, as well as Adam and Eve and their markers. Just Adam+father or Eve+mother would lend considerable credence to your hypothesis, but half of four phenominally lucky digs is still two phenominally lucky digs.
Even if you don't find the disparity, that'd just mean that you'd have to find Adam's father's father and Eve's mother's mother...in effect every failure would just move Adam and/or Eve one generation back.

While I can't discount the possibility of it being proven/disproven, the statistical probibility of finding either Adam and Adam Sr. or Eve and Eve's mom is so remote that it's beyond improbable; it's essentially impossible.

drd said...

shaun

If I disagree with you on the age of the earth, does that make me less of a Christian? Just curious.

tina said...

Hmmmm...very interesting you two. Proceed.

concerned citizen said...

I talk about the OT as if it is the Word of God. Before it became the Christian word of God it was the Ancient History of the Jews with their own ancient myths & legends that passed for whatever rudimentary science was back in those days. The Jewish God of the OT was never meant to be for anyone but Jews. The writings contained in the OT were written by Jews for Jews...I was a Christian once, I know the depths a person will go to fold, spindle, mutilate(did someone say that already?)The scriptures to get them to fit or make some kind of sense.

You & shaun? there isn't much difference really, It's just that your box is bigger.

Larro said...

Bigot; "No, you're still equally Christian, but it is my opinion that you shouldn't be representing Christianity when you've misunderstood the bible."

If DRD misunderstands the bible this would conceivably disqualify him from being a "true" Christian aside from being saved or baptised.

I think you are mincing words Bigot. I think you think DRD is not a "true" Christian. Therefore you think he is a "false" Christian and hence; not equal.

We've already seen how deeply you judge people.

Bigot; "...do you want me to to document the tiny bit I know about how the evolution theory has been twisted/manipulated/changed and vandalized from it's original... form"

Actually I would.

and..."So there you go..."

What has gotten where?

concerned citizen said...

shaun Don't do it for me please. I'm not interested in your theory. If I don't agree with drd I certainly won't agree with your brand of dogmatism. At least drd is willing to widen his scope of reasoning a little.

drd said...

LT

fold or mutililate scripture is a nice way of saying you disagree with their interpretation.
Let me assure you, I did my medical training in St. Louis MO.
Thats the "Show Me" state. I am very skeptical by nature, and thoroughly did not want to believe scripture was true.
However, if I was being honest, and not discounting it for 'personal' reasons, I could not help but come to the conclusion it was true.
I have found that non-believers(that included me for many years) deny the scripture because it critisizes their life or their life style (or maybe someone they love), and this causes an endless liteny of excuses to not 'look too deep' or to find superficial reasons to deny deny deny.
In other words, my personal, and observational experience is that it is those who deny scripture that twist it, and mutilate it.

So, as no surprise, we just disagree here.

drd said...

Shaun
Your response to Larro was rude, and insulting (don't ban me beast, PLEASE!!)
He said 'he would' and you proceeded to rip him for really no reason.

If you think YOU are demonstrating the idea of "love your neighbor" your sadly mistaken.

You accuse me of not representing Christianity well, all because we disagree on the age of the earth...wow

Shaun, I can only assume your a child in age as well as maturity...please please grow up before you do harm to the Gospel of our Lord.

PS Shaun
Scripturally, day seven has no end..notice that? Also notice God is still in His rest per Hebrews 4.
Day 7 is not and cannot be 24 hrs based on this.
Yom is not only literally 24 hrs, but just as literally its an indefinite period of time.
Please do not let AIG ruin your ability to think.
God is not deceptive, and science will make sense, or God is a liar (or does not exist)
God is the author of science and His word, and they will not disagree.

If they do, you have misinterpreted either science or scripture.
In your case you misunderstand the contextual Hebrew, and you are (like all YEC) making Christians look mindless.
Think of day 6, read carefully, NO WAY thats 24 hrs....not a chance.
The YE argument about Yom with a number is bogus, and there are a number of examples to prove it..please don't be deceived, and please, don't be a jerk to the atheists, play nice shaun.

Modusoperandi said...

Shaun "do you want me to to document the tiny bit I know about how the evolution theory has been twisted/manipulated/changed and vandalized..."
Have some scientists inflated claims? Yes.
Have some developed theories based on limited evidence, only to have to abandon or modify the theory when new evidence is found (or bad evidence corrected)? Yes.
Have some held onto discredited theories (most of the time, their own) up to their dying breath? Yes.
Were some genuinely bad, repugnant people? Heck yes.
Have some lied, cheated and swindled for fame, fortune, and hot science-groupies with pleated denim skirts, big hair and tube tops? Yes.

Scientists are people and as such sometimes let their egos get the best of them, or they come to the wrong conclusion based on limited evidence, or they're bullies or jerks or greedy or incompetent. None of this proves evolution wrong. Science is based on evidence, not personalities.
If you have undebunked evidence against evolution, share. If, however, you think that a scam like Piltdown man proves evolution false, don't bother.

In the meantime, an imperfect reality-centric theory is better than a perfect fictional one.

Shaun "...changed...from it's original form..."
Theories adapt to new data (or they are abandoned if they can't be harmonized with the new data and are replaced with new theories that incorporate the new evidence). Hence the theory of evolution, its original form, Darwinism, is different than its current one, neo-Darwinism. For one thing, the new version has "neo" in it. Also, unlike the original, it's got genetics. Genetics is fairly modern as sciences go (while Mendel and Darwin lived at the same time, it wasn't until early last century that Mendelian genetics caught on, and things like gene sequencing have been around for only 30 years or so), and it's grown in leaps and bounds, helping us to see how we work and how things change over generations. The theory still works, it has just evolved (and is still changing) as more data is discovered.
We go where the evidence points. The evidence points to the theory of evolution being true. None of the evidence, thus far, points to God bamphing all the animals into existence on Earth to give Adam (bamphed in earlier) something to name. That's not to say that the magiking in of people, plants and planets did not happen, only that there's no evidence that it did (which is pretty much the same thing).

shaun "Face it, evolution's rubbish. So is the big bang theory and the multiverse theory and all the other other 'theories' that atheism needs."
Atheism doesn't need any theory. Semantics aside, all atheism is is a lack of belief in gods. As for the theories that you so quickly disparage and so poorly disprove; they fit the observable universe based on what we know so far. I'm not sure about "the multiverse theory" one, though. Is that the one where there's an evil Spock?

You have the absolute confidence borne of literal and inerrant Biblical revelation. We have the universe.

Universe wins.

Shaun said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Larro said...

Modusoperandi is right. And actually I don't quite know how semantics could have caused this problem of atheism needing a theory. If one actually understand what atheism and the evolutionary theory is one would know that either can exist without the other. There are plenty of Christians who put stock in the theory of evolution. I suppose that just makes them need a theory to prove their Christianity?

drd said...

Mod
The universe declares the Glory of God...its overwhelming in science.

Astrophysics is rife with Christian conversions, more so than any branch of science: Why??

Because the heavens declare the glory of God...its very very easy to see when looking at the constant laws of nature as it relates to the Cosmos. (the very word cosmos comes from 'organised', and identifies the need for an Agent of organization)

drd said...

Shaun

Ereb, and Boqur are morning and evening. These are present for each day BUT day 7, leaving day 7 open.

YE'ers say these terms are indicators of a 24hr day, yet, these are the same words used for the closing and beginning of an indefinite period of time as well as the rising and setting of the sun.

In other words, ereb, and Boqur, just like Yom are terms that are contextual and have many 'Literal' meanings.

Notice even in English:
The day of my father
The evening of my fathers day
The dawn of the dinosaurs

If you look in the Ancient Hebrew Lexicon, or the Work Book of the OT by Archer and Gleason you will notice that morning and evening cannot be used to imply a 24hr context to the word Yom..

In addition, if you stick to that, since day 7 does not have this term, you are forced to admit day 7 is not 24hrs...this is when God enters His rest (stops actively creating and lets His creation do what He designed it to do), Hebrews 4 talks about us entering Gods rest with Him, as He is resting now....hence, still day 7

Now, day 6 you really think can be 24hrs? One oddity is the Hebrew phrase of exclamation that Adam uses when presented with Eve.
He says
Gen 2:23 Then the man said, "This ,at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

This is happaam and is a Ancient Hebrew term of exclamation meaning "FINALLY" or "AT LONG LAST"...this makes no sense if Adam had only been around for 12 hrs or so...and then, of course, look at all the work Adam had done prior to Eve, and all that they were to do after she was presented to him. Other than God making Adam work at warp speed, there is NO WAY this is 24 hrs.

drd said...

Anyway, Shaun

How, if you take it like you do, can you explain 'ereb and Boqur' evening and morning, implying 24hrs because of the 'day' of rising and setting of suns, do you now explain that the sun was not visible, and there was no literal (from your standpoint) morning, since there was not sunrise until the 4th day?

Shaun, I want to clerify that Yom, is literally translated as 24hrs, or an idefinite period of time.
Morning and Evening are rising and setting of sun, but just as literally they are translated as 'the beginning of at time period, and the closing of a time period'.

Both are literal transations and can be literally accurate.

Shaun said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
concerned citizen said...

I have found that non-believers(that included me for many years) deny the scripture because it critisizes their life or their life style (or maybe someone they love), and this causes an endless liteny of excuses to not 'look too deep' or to find superficial reasons to deny deny deny.

Drd yep, it's true the scriptures do criticize my life style, but I don't feel that I avoid them or twist them as an excuse not to look too deep. I consider myself a moral & ethical person with decent values. I'm not a Christian anymore, so I have a freedom to interpret the Bible that you as a Christian don't have.

drd said...

LT

I have,without exception, never found someone reject scripture, who knows it, that does not have something in their or their loved ones life, that scripture condemns.

It seems, we humans want to be our own god, make our own rules, and interpret things with a 'freedom' as you put it, that justifies our life, and our lifes choices.

LT, I am NOT being judgmental when I say this, I am the first in this line. For years I lived, and still often fall, in ways that are short of scriptural living...so far be it from me to imply I am better than you, I am NOT, thats for sure.

I am saying simply that I have NEVER..and thats a big word...but its true, met someone, or talked to someone, who denied the Bible and at the root of that denial, didn't find some core value that the bible criticized in that persons life.
In all honesty, that was true in my life, is that a possiblity that its true in yours? I am certainly willing to be wrong here, but am I?

drd said...

Shaun
Here is the ESV, a very accurate word for word translation, not idea for idea, which is a transliteration...

Gen 2:23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

The Hebrew word 'Happa'am' is in the italic area, and it is an exclamation of 'at last' or 'finally'...and it would make no sense if it were 12 hours or less..Please don't argue that point, it is well documented by very highly credentialled men in OT Hebrew. This is not even debated between any knowledgable scholar, no matter which side of the debate they fall.

Next, your light at the beginning, is the Big Bang...yep the bible said it first...amazing sure enough.

The world was covered in darkness Shaun..do you remember that little tidbit? If so, you would not hypothesize that the first light was the source of morning and evening, because then the idea of darkness covering the whole earth would make no sense.

The truth is, I do no buy into evolution for many reasons, but the facts are, this earth is not young, and this universe, as scripture rightly says, is ancient.

It is not, however, infinite..it had a beginning, unlike God, and therefore needs a Beginner.

Shaun, my email is drd-1@hotmail.com

Feel free to email me and I will point you to some great references and knowledgable seminarians who can help you go through this issue.

Unfortunately, the YE doctrine does great harm to the Gospel, and drives people away. Truth draws people, but falsehood is a stumbling block. Do not use YEC tactics to non-believers, its another peg they will hang their hats on.

Larro said...

DRD; You sly dog! LOL.

Larro said...

Drd; I want to go back to your first comment on this very post.

You said: "You claim we end in nothingness, and hence we come from randomness.
This clearly means that life is meaningless, and there is no purpose, no goal, no rhyme or reason for our existence.


I disagree that it makes life meaningless. Your are more than welcome to assume that atheism is propounded by the notion of being nihilistic, philosophically entropic or chaotic in spirit. So be it.

It doesn't mean life itself is meaningless...it does, if only you believe in an afterlife. If you don't, then life becomes all the more precious, vibrant and, yes, meaningful.

Neat. I'm on topic here for the post.

Death is a sure thing. I personally live in the moment and contemplate future generations that shall live in the moment as well. In my opinion, those who look forward to the book of revelations to come to pass are hoping and praying for annihilation of the earth [citation please] just so that they can be with a god and savior that I don't believe in. Step into my shoes please and understand how I might feel how atrocious a concept this is. Not on the belief-side , but on the real-side. Human life and society in perpetuity. I hope you get the gist here. I don't subscribe to this Revelation thing, but millions of people probably do. I can't help but realize that their political decisions (ie. voting) are influenced by this and many other scriptural "lessons". When I personally don't believe it. I am a U.S. citizen and policy enacted in this way goes against the grain of secularism. Religious political ideology in so many ways permeates and saturates public society in a way that a great many people don't even realize. This is a threat to you as well as me.

concerned citizen said...

It seems, we humans want to be our own god, make our own rules, and interpret things with a 'freedom' as you put it, that justifies our life, and our lifes choices.

That's pretty much sums it up. I don't expect you to understand or approve of my choices & that's quite alright, too.

Larro said...

Just a reminder. And I am going to stick with this. Any comments containing personal attacks will be deleted. So then I'd better watch what I say.

If nobody hasn't noticed. I am starting up some forum/posts in relation to topics that are being discussed here on Atheist Haven that seem to find their way onto posts that don't warrant such discussion. If an idea for a comment pops into your head (that doesn't relate to the post) feel free to post it but direct any further commentary to whatever particular forum is relevant (of course re-post your comment there as well). This is a work in progress so we'll see how it goes.

Anonymous said...

Larro said:
I am a U.S. citizen and policy enacted in this way goes against the grain of secularism. Religious political ideology in so many ways permeates and saturates public society in a way that a great many people don't even realize. This is a threat to you as well as me.

On the flip side, I find those that vote secularly, erode the moral fiber of our society, degrade mankind by tolerating evil, and loosen the mortar by which our society has survived and thrived for the past 200 years.

In essence, I see the danger in secularism and what it represents to the morality of culture.

So, in the end, we both vote based on where our faith lies. Mine in my faith in God, and yours in your belief in secularism, and your belief in mankind.

Either way, we are voting our belief structures, and in America, for now, we can do that...until Shiite law gets passed because of the onslaught of muslim extremism.

Don't think its not happening...3 counties in Minnisota had it on their ballot last year. In Europe, the wave of Islamic populations and conversions is happening at a rapid rate, and is projected to take over western Europe within the next 15-20 years.
This is meerly a sign of the enemy, and I can assure you, he loses. I got a good book, with inside information on the end!

Anonymous said...

Beast, I will be out for a bit, so don't go claiming victory while I am away. Ok?

Anonymous said...

opps....those last 2 posts where by me..drd

drd said...

Lastly LT

I believe I would understand your choices. I may not agree, but I bet I can empathize and understand.

Whatever they are, they are not too big of an issue for the cross. I know that for sure.

Larro said...

DRD; Can you post some links regarding the 3 counties in Minnesota? In the meantime I'll do some googling.

Pyramidhead said...

when I'm dead I will be free of this"life" if you want to call that. It happens to all us. I look forward to a long sleep. away from this madness.

Modusoperandi said...

...my apologies for continuing to be off-topic. I'm just going where previous posts lead me. Forgive me this one last rambling trespass.

drd "On the flip side, I find those that vote secularly, erode the moral fiber of our society, degrade mankind by tolerating evil, and loosen the mortar by which our society has survived and thrived for the past 200 years."
Are you remembering the past America that never existed? Two hundred years ago, remember, blacks were slaves and women couldn't vote. The Emancipation Proclamation (1862) freed some (only in the Confederate States. States, incidentally, over which the Union had no power), and the 13th amendment freed the rest a few years later. Women, meanwhile, didn't get the vote until 1920. Yes, both had Christians behind them. Both, also, had Christians against them. Both had Biblical passages on their side. Until the slaves were freed and women got the vote, it was the anti-slavery advocates and the women's suffragists who were misinterpreting the Bible. Afterwards it was the pro-slavery advocates and the anti-women's suffragists who were. Both were right. Both were wrong. Slaves were slaves under men, with the support of God. Later, they were freed by men, with the support of God. Women had no voice, with the support of God. Later, they did, with the support of God. If there's one thing that He supports, it's the status quo, whatever it happens to be at the time.


drd "Either way, we are voting our belief structures, and in America, for now, we can do that...until Shiite law gets passed because of the onslaught of muslim extremism."
Islamists and Sharia law scare you? Theonomists and theonomy of any stripe scare me. In other words, congratulations, you've just summarized exactly why secular humanism is so very necessary (not to mention the steadily eroding separation of church and state).


drd "The universe declares the Glory of God...its overwhelming in science...
Because the heavens declare the glory of God...its very very easy to see when looking at the constant laws of nature as it relates to the Cosmos."

Although that gets you to deism (if it turns out that the universe requires a cause. At this point, some theory to the contrary, it's still an argument from ignorance), it's an enormous step from that to it being god X. It doesn't, for example, make Genesis literally true, as its parallels to the history of the universe are weak, if not directly contradictory. Gen1:3 equaling Big Bang and Gen's Adam and Eve vaguely equaling our own "Adam" and "Eve" noth withstanding, Genesis still has God making plants before stars, land plants before sea life, the Earth before the Sun...all dead wrong. If God's word is only partly right, what does that make God?

You can (as many before you and, no doubt, many will after you) apologize away the bafflegab, quasi-history, inconsistencies and atrocities, but the Bible is clearly human in origin rather than supernatural. Indeed, it's those very problems that show that it's not God's word, but man's (men's?). While it does have some good lessons, it's rife with awful, evil badness (some by man, admittedly, but some God-sanctioned or God-commanded). The Ten Commandments, good (mostly). The punishments for breaking most of them, gross overkill (literally). From the butchery of Moses and Joshua (who needed some land that was unfortunately infested with people who hadn't been told that it wasn't theirs) to the pro-slavery stance of the Tanakh and the, um, not anti-slavery stance of the NT (Col3:22, Tit2:9, 1Pet2:18, among others, are not against it. 1Cor7:21 is particularly worrisome, as it says not to worry about being a slave...oddly it leads to 1Cor7:23, which says not to be servants of men) to the dual revenge fantasies of hell and the book of revelations, its (God-sanctioned) badness stands in stark contrast to its (God-sanctioned) goodness.

If it was truly God's word all He had to do was have an 11th commandment "Thou shalt not own another person, neither Jew nor Gentile", or somesuch and, poof, slavery would have always been officially wrong.


You can say "Yes, but..." followed by "...you're not reading it in context." or "...it doesn't mean what it says.", but passages like the many variants of "Wives, submit to your husbands" mean exactly what they say (the degree of submission, however, varies from couple to couple). God > Christ > man > woman, not God > people. God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, and the man is the head of woman. 1Pet3:7 even calls them "the weaker vessel" (physically, yes. Intellectually, not so much).

1Cor14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

What an awful passage. So awful, in fact, that even the apologists (who have had quite a while to try to reconcile it with their own consciences) have trouble with it. Peoples NT Commentary, for example, says "It may be that even this prohibition was due to the circumstances that existed in Ephesus, where Timothy was, and in Corinth, and would not apply everywhere. If so, it applies wherever similar circumstances exist, but not elsewhere...Among the Greeks public women were disreputable...Hence it would be a shame for women to speak in the church assembly. It is noteworthy that there is no hint of such a prohibition to any churches except Grecian. Wherever it would be shameful, women ought not to speak.", which says that it's a rule to be followed only where it's a rule to be followed. Greek? Shut the bitches up. Norwegian? Not so much. All they've done is turn biblically justified support for misogyny into biblically justified support for existing regional misogyny. Absolute truth seems awfully variable..God's word, apparently, varies by jurisdiction.

If it was God's word, all He had to do was have a 12th commandment "All people are equal, whether chick or dude, white or brown, swarthy or kind of yellowish.", or somesuch.


Part of the problem is that since it is His book every rule in it is valid until it's changed later on. The disproportion punishment-based rules of the zealot Moses ("Oh noes! A guy picking up sticks on the sabbath! Stone him!") turned into zealous Paul's pro-authoritarian, anti-women rants that in turn...were never obsoleted. Blacks aren't free because the Bible says that slavery is wrong, black people are free because we say that slavery is wrong. Also, because it is. Women aren't our equals because the Bible says they are, women are our equals because we say they are. Also, because they are. Plus they're soft and they smell nice. But I digress.

Another problem, and one that afflicts most (ne, all) readers of the bible (from atheist to fundamentalist) is that you need more than God's word to understand what God meant when He (or those that spoke for Him) said what He said...and no matter what you believe passage X really means, there's always another True Christian(TM) just around the corner who says you're misinterpreting it (and you're just as justified in your own head as he is in his. God, unfortunately, remains silent on the conflict). Shakespeare's works have a similar problem, as they consistently required margin notes telling you what a passage means, but people don't generally live their lives (or try to force others to live their lives) by the many wandering and wordy passages of The Taming of the Shrew.

If it was God's word, all He had to do was have the 13th commandment be the Golden Rule. Heck, he could've cut a few of the original ones after putting that one in.

Three simple extra commandments could've saved us a lot of heartache. Bad people would still do bad things, but they'd have considerably less biblical justification behind them.

A product of its era? Clearly. God's word? God save us all if it is.

concerned citizen said...

well said modusoperandi

Larro said...

Hear, hear!