left biblioblography: July 2006

Sunday, July 30, 2006

THE SLING SHOT HEARD ‘ROUND THE WORLD


Or:

THE BIGGER THEY ARE, THE HARDER THE HAUL

It is Sunday sermon time again, boys and girls. Pull out your textbooks, and I’ll spin you a tale.

This hoary old chestnut comes to you from…any guesses? Got it in one. The good old Old Testament, that jumbled jambalaya of fractured fairy tales. This one’s about the classic underdog (‘where oh where, can my underdog be?’ – Polly Purebred): little guy takes on hulk, smashes hulk, and soars to stardom. A Cinderella story chock full of testosterone.

Abdul Kareem Jabbar vs. Bruce Lee (Game of Death).

Everyone loves an underdog. It assuages us on a primal level; it comforts us with the possibility of overcoming all odds, and hints at the possibility of justice in the cold arms of the universe.

Too bad, most of it is fantasy, if not all. Let’s take a gander, shall we?



17:1 Now the Philistines gathered together their armies to battle; and they were gathered together at Socoh, which belongs to Judah, and encamped between Socoh and Azekah, in Ephesdammim.

Where? Okay, directions: Head north from Jerusalem, take a left at the three big sand dunes, go about five miles, take a right, an immediate left, another right, stop at the big Dagon statue, and ask, “Where the hell am I?

17:2 Saul and the men of Israel were gathered together, and encamped in the valley of Elah, and set the battle in array against the Philistines.

Okay, girdled…er, girded for battle.

17:3 The Philistines stood on the mountain on the one side, and Israel stood on the mountain on the other side: and there was a valley between them.

And then what? Everyone runs down into the valley, and kills each other? Real strategists, these guys.
17:4 There went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

Translation: Holy shit, this guy’s as big as a house!

17:5 He had a helmet of brass on his head, and he was clad with a coat of mail; and the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of brass.

I wonder if this fellow shopped at Bert’s Big ‘N Tall for Iron-Age Warriors

17:6 He had brass shin-armor on his legs, and a javelin of brass between his shoulders.

Guy likes brass, I guess. Good thing he’s not allergic, ey? I can hear him now: “I wonder why my skin keeps turning blue-green?” Verdigris’s a bitch to get off, I hear.

17:7 The staff of his spear was like a weaver's beam; and his spear's head weighed six hundred shekels of iron: and his shield-bearer went before him.

Guy’s loaded for bear. Yeah, we get it.

17:8 He stood and cried to the armies of Israel, and said to them, Why are you come out to set your battle in array? Am I not a Philistine, and you servants to Saul? Choose you a man for you, and let him come down to me.

I wish we did this today. Save a lot of time. Pretty big set of lungs, to be heard on another mountaintop.

17:9 If he be able to fight with me, and kill me, then will we be your servants; but if I prevail against him, and kill him, then shall you be our servants, and serve us.

Did any of the Philistines have an issue with this? Apparently not.
17:10 The Philistine said, I defy the armies of Israel this day; give me a man that we may fight together.

LET’S GET READY TO RUMMMMMBLE! Now I know where the WWF got this idea.

17:11 When Saul and all Israel heard those words of the Philistine, they were dismayed, and greatly afraid.

Hey, I’d be pissing myself too: here’s this huge freak, who carries around armory that would burden an army, and can be heard a mountain away?

17:12 Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehem Judah, whose name was Jesse; and he had eight sons: and the man was an old man in the days of Saul, stricken in years among men.

What’s that, about thirty, forty years old? Or maybe it ‘s just having eight boys what wears a man out?
17:13 The three eldest sons of Jesse had gone after Saul to the battle: and the names of his three sons who went to the battle were Eliab the firstborn, and next to him Abinadab, and the third Shammah.

This book sure loves the number three.

17:14 David was the youngest; and the three eldest followed Saul.

Okay.

17:15 Now David went back and forth from Saul to feed his father's sheep at Bethlehem.

Let’s hope that’s ALL he did with the sheep. I’ve heard about shephards: gets pretty lonely out on the dunes.

17:16 The Philistine drew near morning and evening, and presented himself forty days.

AND a long attention span! A man unafraid of commitment! What’s with the ‘forty days’ thingamabob, anyways?

17:17 Jesse said to David his son, Take now for your brothers an ephah of this parched grain, and these ten loaves, and carry them quickly to the camp to your brothers;

I always thought the youngest kid was the most spoiled.

17:18 and bring these ten cheeses to the captain of their thousand, and look how your brothers fare, and take their pledge.

Hey, I believe in cheeses! Oh, wait: wrong book. Off to war you go, kiddo.

17:19 Now Saul, and they, and all the men of Israel, were in the valley of Elah, fighting with the Philistines.

After forty days, who wouldn’t be bored out of their skulls?

17:20 David rose up early in the morning, and left the sheep with a keeper, and took, and went, as Jesse had commanded him; and he came to the place of the wagons, as the host which was going forth to the fight shouted for the battle.

Bo-peep gave him hell for that one.

17:21 Israel and the Philistines put the battle in array, army against army.

Yeah, they’re fighting, we got that already.

17:22 David left his baggage in the hand of the keeper of the baggage, and ran to the army, and came and greeted his brothers.

Keeper of the baggage? Did he get a ticket for it, or what?

17:23 As he talked with them, behold, there came up the champion, the Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name, out of the ranks of the Philistines, and spoke according to the same words: and David heard them.

After forty days of repeating himself? Yeesh, talk about schizoid.

17:24 All the men of Israel, when they saw the man, fled from him, and were sore afraid.

In the words of Monty Python: “Run away! Run away!” Can’t say as I blame them.

17:25 the men of Israel said, have you seen this man who is come up? Surely to defy Israel is he come up: and it shall be, that the man who kills him, the king will enrich him with great riches, and will give him his daughter, and make his father's house free in Israel.

That sounds pretty good, actually.

17:26 David spoke to the men who stood by him, saying, What shall be done to the man who kills this Philistine, and takes away the reproach from Israel? for who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?

Wait, how do you know he’s uncircumcised? Ain’t his loins all girded up in brass? Brass balls as they say.

17:27 The people answered him after this manner, saying, So shall it be done to the man who kills him.

None of these folks understand how to use a simple yes/no.

17:28 Eliab his eldest brother heard when he spoke to the men; and Eliab's anger was kindled against David, and he said, Why are you come down? and with whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know your pride, and the naughtiness of your heart; for you have come down that you might see the battle.

“I left them with Bo-peep. Naughtiness? Sheep lie, I tell you!”

17:29 David said, What have I now done? Is there not a cause?

Yeah, keep squirming, fella.

17:30 He turned away from him toward another, and spoke after the same manner: and the people answered him again after the former manner.

Yadayada, yadayada.

17:31 When the words were heard which David spoke, they rehearsed them before Saul; and he sent for him.

What, they put on a play?

17:32 David said to Saul, Let no man's heart fail because of him; your servant will go and fight with this Philistine.

Ah, the brashness of youth.

17:33 Saul said to David, You are not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him; for you are but a youth, and he a man of war from his youth.

Translation: “You gotta be fucking kiddin’ me, kid! Look at him! He’ll eat you for a snack!”

17:34 David said to Saul, Your servant was keeping his father's sheep; and when there came a lion, or a bear, and took a lamb out of the flock,

Well, which is it? A bear, or a lion?

17:35 I went out after him, and struck him, and delivered it out of his mouth; and when he arose against me, I caught him by his beard, and struck him, and killed him.

Obviously a lion. Bears don’t have beards.

17:36 Your servant struck both the lion and the bear: and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be as one of them, seeing he has defied the armies of the living God.

You did both? Didn’t you just say ‘or’? “Yo, yo, G! Your little man got a purple collar, or what?”

17:37 David said, Yahweh who delivered me out of the paw of the lion, and out of the paw of the bear, he will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine. Saul said to David, Go, and Yahweh shall be with you.

So waitaminnit: the bear AND the lion were sharing a single lamb outta the flock? 17:38 Saul clad David with his clothing, and he put a helmet of brass on his head, and he clad him with a coat of mail.

Man, was this the Iron Age, or the Brass age?

17:39 David girded his sword on his clothing, and he tried to go; for he had not proved it. David said to Saul, I can't go with these; for I have not proved them. David put them off him.

Whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean. Maybe he’s allergic to verdigris?

17:40 He took his staff in his hand, and chose him five smooth stones out of the brook, and put them in the shepherd's bag which he had, even in his wallet; and his sling was in his hand: and he drew near to the Philistine.

So he got stoned? Sorry.

17:41 The Philistine came on and drew near to David; and the man who bore the shield went before him.

Waitaminnit: the shield was so big Goliath couldn’t carry it? Or David? Color me confused, and turn the page.

17:42 When the Philistine looked about, and saw David, he disdained him; for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and withal of a fair face.
Translation: “Go away, kid, yer botherin’ me” (courtesy of W.C Fields)

17:43 The Philistine said to David, Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks? The Philistine cursed David by his gods.

“Here! Fetch! Fetch! No?”

17:44 The Philistine said to David, Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the sky, and to the animals of the field.

Translation: dog-meat, baby.

17:45 Then said David to the Philistine, You come to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a javelin: but I come to you in the name of Yahweh of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. 17:46 This day will Yahweh deliver you into my hand; and I will strike you, and take your head from off you; and I will give the dead bodies of the host of the Philistines this day to the birds of the sky, and to the wild animals of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, 17:47 and that all this assembly may know that Yahweh doesn't save with sword and spear: for the battle is Yahweh's, and he will give you into our hand.

Apparently, Davey knew how to talk some serious smack.
17:48 It happened, when the Philistine arose, and came and drew near to meet David, that David hurried, and ran toward the army to meet the Philistine.

Arose? What, he was lying down?

17:49 David put his hand in his bag, and took there a stone, and slang it, and struck the Philistine in his forehead; and the stone sank into his forehead, and he fell on his face to the earth.

Bada-boom, bada-bing! Eat my sling!

17:50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and struck the Philistine, and killed him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.

Yeah, we got that. Makes for some good drama, though.

17:51 Then David ran, and stood over the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath of it, and killed him, and cut off his head therewith. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled.

From the sounds of it, the sword was probably as big as David. Guess not.

17:52 The men of Israel and of Judah arose, and shouted, and pursued the Philistines, until you come to Gai, and to the gates of Ekron. The wounded of the Philistines fell down by the way to Shaaraim, even to Gath, and to Ekron.

No suprises.

17:53 The children of Israel returned from chasing after the Philistines, and they plundered their camp.

No suprises.

17:54 David took the head of the Philistine, and brought it to Jerusalem; but he put his armor in his tent.


Here’s dent number one in the story: “Another problem is that David is said to have brought Goliath's head to Jerusalem (1 Sam 17:54), though Jerusalem belonged to the Jebusites at the time, which casts some doubt on this detail of the story.”

17:55 When Saul saw David go forth against the Philistine, he said to Abner, the captain of the host, Abner, whose son is this youth? Abner said, As your soul lives, O king, I can't tell.


I can let that go, as it may have been too far to tell.

17:56 The king said, "Inquire whose son the young man is!"


Still okay, thus far.

17:57 As David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him, and brought him before Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand.

Be nice if they kept some chronological order. Was this before or after the alleged trip to Jerusalem?

17:58 Saul said to him, Whose son are you, you young man? David answered, I am the son of your servant Jesse the Bethlehemite.


Here’s where dent number two comes in: in First Samuel Chapter 16, it states:”
16:18 Then answered one of the young men, and said, Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, who is skillful in playing, and a mighty man of valor, and a man of war, and prudent in speech, and a comely person; and Yahweh is with him.
16:19 Therefore Saul sent messengers to Jesse, and said, Send me David your son, who is with the sheep.”


“Sheep LIE, I tell you! Why won’t anyone believe me?” And then:”

16:20 Jesse took a donkey loaded with bread, and a bottle of wine, and a kid, and sent them by David his son to Saul.
16:21 David came to Saul, and stood before him: and he loved him greatly; and he became his armor bearer.
16:22 Saul sent to Jesse, saying, please let David stand before me; for he has found favor in my sight.
16:23 It happened, when the evil spirit from God was on Saul, that David took the harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.”


So either Saul’s got short-term memory loss (betcha that ‘evil spirit’ came back, huh?), or the Masoretic scribes weren’t quite all they were cracked up to be. David ended up being his armor-bearer, and somehow, next chapter, he’s back up in the mountains, er, tending sheep?
Here comes dent number 3:

” Textual conflicts

David may not have been the one to kill Goliath. Elhanan, the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite, is given credit for killing Goliath in 2 Sam 21:19. The KJV adds the phrase "the brother of" before Goliath's name in order to avoid contradicting the story of David's victory.

The KJV insertion is justified by the parallel account of Elhanan's deed at 1 Chron 20:5b, which states that "Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath." The word "Jair" here is "Jaare-oregim" at 2 Sam 21:19b; "oregim" is Hebrew for "weavers," which also appears at the end of both verses. Also, "Lahmi" (Hebrew "´eth-lach·mi´," where "´eth" simply means that Lahmi is the object of the verb "slew") in the former becomes "behth hal·lach·mi´" (“Bethlehemite”) in the latter. Hence many scholars view 2 Sam 21:19b to be the result of two scribal errors, with 1 Chron 20:5b as the correct account.

However, other scholars argue that Elhanan may have been the victor over Goliath, but that David was later credited with the deed in order to enhance his reputation. It has been contended that, because of David's introduction to Saul in 1 Samuel 16:19-23, Saul should have known who David was in 1 Samuel 17:55-58 and would not need to ask whose son David is, especially since Jesse, David's father, is also mentioned in the earlier passage.
One response to this is to argue that the earlier passage only implies that the servants of Saul knew that David was the son of Jesse. There is no reason to believe Saul had to have known that Jesse was David's father two years later in Chapter 17. “

Now, Ahmed Osman, in his book ‘Jesus in the House of the Pharoahs’ Appendix C, pg. 207-10, stipulates that “The tale of the slaying of Goliath does not belong to the story of either David (he contends that there were two, one being the mighty chieftain, the other being a lowly shephard)., but that, on pg. 209, that it belongs to “an ancient Egyptian literary work known as the Autobiography of Sinuhe”.

I guess David(s) did indeed exist. And hey, it's a pretty good story, but it loses cohesion upon careful examination, like just about all of the stories in the same book.

Fairy tales all.
Till the next post, then.


Read More...

Friday, July 28, 2006

WHAT FAITH, EVOLUTION? BURSTING FIVE BUBBLES

" From early days of infancy, through trembling years of youth,
long murky middle-age and final hours long in the tooth,
he is the hundred names of terror ---creature you love the least.
Picture his name before you and exorcise the beast.
He roved up and down through history --- spectre with tales to tell.
In the darkness when the campfire's dead --- to each his private hell.
If you look behind your shoulder as you feel his eyes to feast,
you can witness now the everchanging nature of the beast.

Beastie

If you wear a warmer sporran, you can keep the foe at bay. You can pop those pills and visit some psychiatrist who'll say ---
There's nothing I can do for you, everywhere's a danger zone.
I'd love to help get rid of it, but I've got one of my own.
There's a beast upon my shoulder and a fiend upon
my back.
Feel his burning breath a heaving, smoke oozing from his stack.
And he moves beneath the covers or he lies below the bed.
He's the beast upon your shoulder. He's the price upon your head.
He's the lonely fear of dying, and for some, of living too.
He's your private nightmare pricking.
He'd just love to turn the screw.
So stand as one defiant --- yes, and let your voices swell.
Stare that beastie in the face and really give him hell. "

Jethro Tull - "Beastie"


This is to address the same tired refrains we hear from ID’ers (Intelligent Design), aka the creationists.



First up, is this:”Evolution is a theory!”

Let’s get our facts straight, folks.

The word ‘theory’, from the dictionary, translates to:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. [This is the common usage in science.]
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. [This is the retrofitted translation for the anti-evolutionists]”

It’s blaringly obvious which definition is ‘cherry-picked’ to suit the purposes of the anti-evolutionists. Just in case you’re not paying attention, that’d be number 6.

'Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.' – Isaac Asimov

Second up, is this:”There’s too many holes in it!”

What an utterly ridiculous assertion. Of course there are holes in it. It’s not a recipe for stew. It’s a science that attempts to address the history of life on this earth. We’re talking about a field that makes a valiant effort to explain every single oddity we see in nature, provide empirical evidence from the lowly amoeba to the highest form of life here (I assume that’s us), covers a vast array of topics from biology to chemistry, anthropology to geology, a dizzying plethora of knowledge that boggles the imagination and staggers the mind with data overload.

But of course, it’s not perfect, and it doesn’t provide the nice, easy, concise explanation that ‘god’ as the ultimate source does. It’s imperfect, because it’s in a constant state of development. It is, if I may borrow a phrase from the Linux crowd, ‘Open source code.’ So criticize it when it delivers the final product (whenever that may occur). Until then, it will always be in flux, just as the subject it addresses is in flux: that of Life.

Third up, is this:”It takes more faith to believe in evolution!”As Kyle’s mom on South Park says, “Wha-wha-what?!?!?”

Despite mountains of forensic evidence, the supernaturalists seem to blind themselves willfully to the actual facts of the theory

Rather than lay out all the FACTS regarding evolution, the reader is invited to research for him/herself in regards to it, here.

Instead, we’ll go the route of falsification, as per usage in scientific circles:

(Snip) “In science and the philosophy of science, falsifiability, contingency, and defeasibility are roughly equivalent terms referring to the property of empirical statements that they must admit of logical counterexamples. This stands in contradistinction to formal and mathematical statements that may be tautologies, that is, universally true by dint of definitions, axioms, and proofs. No empirical hypothesis, proposition, or theory can be considered scientific if it does not admit the possibility of a contrary case.

Falsifiable does not mean false. For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an observation that would show the proposition to fall short of being a tautology, even if that observation is not actually made. The logical precondition of being able to observe something of a given description is that something of that description exists.”
(End snip)

I found this here, and found it to be of some value [the bold type is mine, for emphasis]:
“Jim Arvo.

On the other hand, evolution would be falsified (or at least put into extreme doubt) with the discovery of a reptilian or mammalian fossil in the pre-Cambrian strata, or by the discovery of a non-DNA-based reptile, or a mammal with no junk DNA or pseudo-genes, or two morphologically related species based on radically different proteins. There is a virtually limitless list of such things that could easily refute evolution; but these things are never found.”

Fourth up, is this:”Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics!”

No it doesn’t.
“Complex systems and the Second Law
It is occasionally claimed that the Second Law is incompatible with autonomous self-organisation, or even the coming into existence of complex systems. The entry self-organisation explains how this claim is a misconception.
In fact, as hot systems cool down in accordance with the Second Law, it is not unusual for them to undergo spontaneous symmetry breaking, i.e. for structure to spontaneously appear as the temperature drops below a critical threshhold. Complex structures also spontaneously appear where there is a steady flow of energy from a high temperature input source to a low temperature external sink. It is conjectured that such systems tend to evolve into complex, structured, critically unstable "edge of chaos" arrangements, which very nearly maximise the rate of energy degradation (the rate of entropy production).
Some opponents of evolution claim that life exhibits complexity whose nature differs from the autonomous complexity and self-organisation, which the Second Law allows. The consensus of scientific opinion is that this claim is not well founded, and that no such distinction can be sustained. For further discussion see Creation-evolution controversy. “

Here is a concise discussion of said misperception:

“This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature? “

The link provided bursts a few of the other rather weak bubbles.

Fifth up:

“Look around you! The world itself is a sign of an Intelligent Designer!”

Well, I laid into the concept of designers and designs here. This is a thinly veiled effort at Irreducible Complexity – (snip)

“In 2001, Michael Behe admitted that his work had a "defect" and does not actually address "the task facing natural selection."[2] Furthermore, the concept of irreducible complexity is ignored or rejected by the majority of the scientific community. This rejection stems from the following: the concept utilises an argument from ignorance, Behe fails to provide a testable hypothesis, and there is a lack of evidence in support of the concept. As such, irreducible complexity is seen by the supporters of evolutionary theory as an example of creationist pseudoscience, amounting to a God of the gaps argument.”
(End snip)

I think five bubbles are sufficient for now. Any questions?

That's my nickel's worth: spend it freely, or sock it away for a rainy day.

Read More...

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

ALLEGORIES GONE WILD: OF FANTASIES, FLATTENED EARTHS AND MENTAL FLATULENCE

Here’s a real doozie for you folks: the earth is flat, the bible proves it, and we all KNOW the bible is the final say in all things of this pancaked terra firma.

I wish this was all satire – but upon subsequent delvings into this nutter’s website, it’s readily apparent that he believes his blathering, far as I can tell.

He starts out with this startling bit of ‘evidence’:

"The world also is stablished that it cannot be moved." Psalm 93:1 "He...hangeth the Earth upon nothing." Job 26:7
Levitating Globe
"An electromagnet and computerized sensor hidden in its display stand cause the Earth to levitate motionlessly in the air."

Sorry, sport, but unless that model miniature contains an actual microcosm, replete with oceans, tides, civilizations, tectonic plates, etc., this is a ridiculous example. Besides which, the freakin’ thing is ROUND. Do it with a flat replica of earth, or get outta town.

“Today’s cosmology fulfills an anti-Bible religious plan disguised as "science".
The whole scheme from Copernicanism to Big Bangism is a factless lie.
Those lies have planted the Truth-killing virus of evolutionism in every aspect of man’s "knowledge" about the Universe, the Earth, and Himself.”

Oy gevalt, where do I begin with this? I feel an appeal to ridicule coming on in 3…2…1 lift-off.

First off, this Marshall Hall lists his credentials as follows: (Marshall Hall, BS. MA + 2 years: Advanced International Studies Ph.D. Program) and is president of The Fair Education Foundation, Inc. (strangely enough, this is the only website that lists this Foundation, go figure: he's not only the president, he's also a member!)

So he’s a Magister Artium (Master of Arts) in some vague esoterica that doesn’t even seem to have any relation to the topic (hey, if he had a bachelor’s in astronomy, or an MA in Physics, I’d lend a little more credence to these claims, but only a little: crazy is as crazy does). The big ‘conspiracy’ theory is just…well, I get a little sick of these folks accusing us big ole mean secularists of plotting the disintegration of society. Darwin came to his conclusions independantly of religion (he was a Paley fan, wouldn’t ya know it?), while half a world away, Russel came up with much the same conclusions. Its called evidence, you yahoos, and we get more of it every single day. Oh, wait, its been planted by all these evil people…ah, never mind.

He continues with this folderol:

”Indeed, the diligent reader will be astonished at the level of demonstrable hi-tech fraud, baseless assumptions, occult mathematics, etc.,--all part of a religious conspiracy!--that has been at work over many centuries implanting the incredible evolution myth about the origin of the Universe, the Earth, and Mankind.
On this web page the Bible is not used to prove anything scientific. Instead, the scientific facts--along with historical and religious facts-- prove the Bible to be precisely what it claims to be, namely, the infallible Word of God.”

Oh, joy, another inerrantist. Even having a debate with this clown is equivalent to discussing the theorem of non-locality with a chimp. (I’d apologize to inerrantists everywhere, however, the bible’s anything but inerrant, and any denial of that – well, let’s skip that for now).

Then, as we progress further into this subjective stream-of-consciousness blather (and I’m being kind here), Mr. Hall is drawing parallels between the Kabbalah and quantum physics, somehow taking some quote-mining here and there, and calling Einstein a Kabalist, and tries to equate Superstring theory with it.

He also tries to puncture the theory of gravity in a dizzyingly stupid effort here:

When the mysteries and the facts are brought together to try to explain why there is a precise slot in the sky at 22,236 miles altitude where these satellites appear to be stationary overhead at all times (unless moved a little by ground control in an east or west direction), the resolution invariably comes down to the more fundamental question of whether the earth is rotating or not.

Whoa, hold on there, Nellie! Stationary overhead at all times? Note the little aside about being ‘moved by ground control’ (Yo, Major Tom! You listening, or what?). Yeah, let’s forget about the Sun and the Moon going from horizon to horizon, which is visible to anyone who isn’t blind.

Since that question has long been considered settled—and especially since Einstein’s relativity rescued Copernicanism from 20 years of deep trouble it was in—little thought if any is given to whether these satellites rotate geosynchronously with a rotating earth below. There they are right in the same spot any time you look. That is an observable fact. And we all know, don’t we, that the earth rotates; so, there can be only one conclusion, namely, the satellite revolves with it, right?

Ummm…despite proof there are such things as asynchronous rotations? Gee whiz, what about all those pictures we get from space, from manned and umanned satellites? Oh, riiigghhtt…’ground control’ is manipulating our minds with all this info. How stupid of me not to get that!
Wait…I’m puzzled. Didn’t Copernicus pre-date evolution by a few centuries?

Wrong! The only fact in that concept is that the satellite is always overhead. We know this is a fact—a scientific truth--because we can see it.

I’m really wondering if this clown lives on the same planet I do.

The rotating earth concept, however, is based entirely on assumptions which not only have never been observed by anyone who has ever lived, but which flatly contradict that which has always been observed by everyone who has ever lived. (Go HERE for a list of seven assumptions which are upholding a rotating, orbiting earth…and HERE for photographic evidence we can all see that tell us that the earth is stationary with everything going around every day…unless, again, we assume what we can’t see and do not know, i.e., a rotating earth…and then call that assumption “science”.)

Never been observed? Tell that to Eratosthenes, Magellan (why didn’t he just sail off the edge?), Einstein or even Buzz Armstrong. While you’re at it, discuss it with Hawkings, why dontcha? Oh, wait: they were all in on the ‘conspiracy’ too.

This is particularly funny, as it shows a number of photographs suitably altered (or, barring that, a specious effort at claiming light particles are actually stars) to reinforce this melodramatic trash.

Here is a mish-mash of biblical passages, which are supposed to bolster johnny brainfarts’ wild speculations.

Here is his conspiracy theory that the Mars missions were all efforts at brainwashing.

Here is his ‘evidence’ that evolution somehow (and this loses me, folks, it really does) violates…drum roll please…The First Amendment.

And, what a surprise, this yahoo is a Young Earther! Imagine that.

And of course, he lays his wild theories at the feet of scientists as well (those who can be quoted out of context to support him, of course). Please note the link provided is very sparse in regards to listing any sources whatsoever, outside of the occasional nebulous ‘so and so wrote a paper in [date]’.

I really, really wish I could send a telegraph or message back into the depths of history, to the ancient Greeks, and tell them (nay, PLEAD with them!):

MESSAGE FROM TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY. STOP. DON’T INVENT ALLEGORY. STOP. YOU’RE JUST GOING TO MAKE EVERYONE’S LIVES A LITTLE MESSIER. STOP. DON’T DO IT. STOP.

Hell, just STOP.

Too late, I know. Oh well.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

RECOMMENDED POSTS

HUMOR

DINING WITH ALIENS

WALK A MILE IN THESE SHOES

CONFIDANTS IN CHRIST

JACKASS! NO, NOT THE MOVIE

AM I FOR REAL? IS THIS THING FOR REAL? WHO IS THIS ‘ANONYMOUS’ PERSON, AND WHY SHOULD I CARE?

REVIEWS

FALLEN ANGELS AND SPIRITS OF THE DARK: A BOOK REVIEW

ALLEGORIES GONE WILD: THE SACRED MAGIC OF ABRAMELIN THE SAGE

POLITICAL OBSERVATIONS

JACCUSE!

“WE’RE GOING IN ANYWAYS!”

MORALITY

UTERUS INTERRUPTUS: OF FALLACIES, FINGER-POINTING AND FALLOPIAN RESPONSIBILITY

OF MARRIAGE AND MEN: THE BIRDS AND THE BEES

CONSIDER THE LINE IN THE SAND DRAWN: SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE

AHIMSA

RELIGIOSITY

…FROM THE WOMB OF EVOLUTION SPRANG

WHERE OH WHERE, HAS THE WATCHMAKER GONE

NAM MYOHO RENGE KYO

DEMOLISHING THE NT IN 500 WORDS OR LESS

THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME...

SWEARING IN...THE FUNDIES ARE AT IT AGAIN

POETRY AND SELECT WRITINGS

I MISS THE LOVE OF YOU

PRAYERWORLD

LIPPING OFF TO GOD: SOME DREAMERY

TIME, IDENTITY, GENDER, IS MEANINGLESS WHEN LOVE IS YOUR ANCHOR

Read More...

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

HERE’S TO OUR BETTER HALVES: ANDROGENY, ARISTOPHANES, AND ANGRY INCHES – THE ORIGIN OF LOVE

I watched a wonderful film two or three years ago, by the name of “Hedwig and the angry inch”. A strange, strange tale. It addresses so many issues on so many levels, that I could write an entire thesis on the movie, and not do it justice. Overtones of gnosticism blended with transgender issues.

So I will simply lift a portion I found fascinating. There was this bizarre yet brilliant (all the music in it was such) song called ‘The Origin of Love”.

I’m going to give you all of it, in order to do it any sort of justice (note – I can’t seem to find a place to listen to it on the ‘Net, outside of Youtube.com, which has a TERRIBLE rendition of it):

“When the earth was still flat,
And the clouds made of fire,
And mountains stretched up to the sky,
Sometimes higher,
Folks roamed the earth
Like big rolling kegs.
They had two sets of arms.
They had two sets of legs.
They had two faces peering
Out of one giant head
So they could watch all around them
As they talked; while they read.
And they never knew nothing of love.
It was before the origin of love.
The origin of love
And there were three sexes then,
One that looked like two men
Glued up back to back,
Called the children of the sun.
And similar in shape and girth
Were the children of the earth.
They looked like two girls
Rolled up in one.
And the children of the moon
Were like a fork shoved on a spoon.
They were part sun, part earth
Part daughter, part son.
The origin of love
Now the gods grew quite scared
Of our strength and defiance
And Thor said,"I'm gonna kill them all
With my hammer,
Like I killed the giants."
And Zeus said, "No,You better let me
Use my lightning, like scissors,
Like I cut the legs off the whales
And dinosaurs into lizards."
Then he grabbed up some bolts
And he let out a laugh,
Said, "I'll split them right down the middle.
Gonna cut them right up in half."
And then storm clouds gathered above
Into great balls of fire
And then fire shot down
From the sky in bolts
Like shining blades
Of a knife.And it ripped
Right through the flesh
Of the children of the sun
And the moon
And the earth.And some Indian god
Sewed the wound up into a hole,
Pulled it round to our belly
To remind us of the price we pay.
And Osiris and the gods of the Nile
Gathered up a big storm
To blow a hurricane,To scatter us away,
In a flood of wind and rain,
And a sea of tidal waves,
To wash us all away,
And if we don't behave
They'll cut us down again
And we'll be hopping round on one foot
And looking through one eye.
Last time I saw you
We had just split in two.
You were looking at me.
I was looking at you.You had a way so familiar,
But I could not recognize,
Cause you had blood on your face;
I had blood in my eyes.
But I could swear by your expression
That the pain down in your soul
Was the same as the one down in mine.
That's the pain,
Cuts a straight line
Down through the heart;
We called it love.
So we wrapped our arms around each other,
Trying to shove ourselves back together.
We were making love,
Making love.
It was a cold dark evening,
Such a long time ago,
When by the mighty hand of Jove,
It was the sad story
How we became
Lonely two-legged creatures,
It's the story of
The origin of love.
That's the origin of love.”

This was accompanied by animation.

This was the first time I’d heard this particular theory/myth/legend. How strange, yet appealing it is. Who came up with this?
Turns out it was Aristophanes, in Plato’s Symposium. Here it is:
Aristophanes
The speech of Aristophanes is often regarded by classicists as being the literary high point of the Symposium. Departing from the rhetorical structure of the preceding speeches, Aristophanes, a comedic playwright perhaps best remembered today for his satire of Socrates in The Clouds, contributes a myth accounting for the origin of both humans and love.
He explains that there were originally three types of humans: male, female, and an androgynous combination of the two (189e). These humans had four arms, two faces, two sets of sexual organs, and so on; they were completely round, and when they wished to move quickly, used their eight arms and legs to spin rapidly by performing cartwheels (189e-190a). The male was an offspring of the sun, the female of the earth, and the androgyn of the moon, as according to Aristophanes, the moon is a combination of the sun and the earth (190b).
Due to their form, they had great strength and made repeated attempts to attack the gods (190b). In response, Zeus cut these early humans in half (190e). The humans, in turn, began to die from hunger and general idleness: they longed for their former halves so deeply that they did nothing but wrap themselves around each other (191a-b). Zeus took pity and moved their genitals to the front; previously, Aristophanes explains, humans had reproduced by casting their seed on the ground (191c).
The purpose of this was so that, when a man embraced a woman, he would cast his seed and they would have children; but when male embraced male, they would at least have the satisfaction of intercourse, after which they could stop embracing, return to their jobs, and look after their other needs in life.'
Symposium, 191c-d
Humans continue to seek after their halves; love, then, "is the name for our pursuit of wholeness, for our desire to be complete" (192e-193a). For the human race to flourish, love must be brought to its conclusion, and one must win the favors of his own young man, "so that he can recover his original nature" (193c).
The previous division between higher and lower forms of love is not completely disregarded; Aristophanes claims that many "lecherous" men are those who run after women, and seems to rank lesbians above them, with men who love men being superior to both (191d-e). Aristophanes also suggests that sex, even between people that have matching halves, is not what each lover truly longs for. Aristophanes states that "these are the kinds of people who finish out their lives together and still cannot say what it is that they want from one another" (192c4) When Hephaestus offers to give the lovers what they want from each other, they are unable to answer him. When Hephaestus suggests welding the lovers together physically, Aristophanes postulates that no lovers could find anything they desired more. However, this union cannot actually be what the lovers truly desire because they were unable to state what they did desire. This is because what the lovers, and all humans, desire is what they have been deprived of by Zeus; their true, whole form. The "welding" of the body is desired by the lovers because during sex humans are as close as physically possible to becoming one with their other half. Hephaestus cannot, however, join the lovers where it matters most: their soul or Φυσις. Thus, Aristophanes exhibits an intrinsic shortfall of all human love. He also shows that the desire to unite one's soul with its other half is what love truly is.”

Well, that certainly explains a lot. And here I was, all ready to chalk it up to evolution. I stand corrected (that, BTW, is dry irony, for those who would misquote me).

I trust that most here realize that I’m GLBT-friendly (how friendly? That’s for me to know). I’m a live-and-let-live sorta guy: it’s when other people start slapping out these half-baked theorems about ‘the moral fiber of society’, well, that’s when I start getting a tad bit irked (and bombastic). My favorite Flanders quote is: “I yearn for the good old days, that only exist in my mind.”

I will be doing a post on transgender issues, perhaps later this week (or the next).

Be that as it may, a truly interesting and wonderful film, well worth the time it takes to view it.

Read More...

Saturday, July 22, 2006

OH YE OF LITTLE FAITH

Or:

THE SPIN DOCTORS’ WEB OF DECEIT IS GETTING JUST A LITTLE FRAYED

I encounter this constantly: we hear about how secularism (and/or atheism) is contributing to the ‘moral decay of society’.And no matter how much analysis our side does, no matter how logically we refute these arguments, no matter what results are presented, we hear all sorts of egregious nonsense. I myself have been accused of building strawmen (never been a farm boy, tain’t got a clue how to do that, hehehehe), quoting out of context, missing the point, positing false dilemmas, using a number of fallacies (hey, I use the appeal to ridicule, I admit it freely: but the rest? I can provide proof of my assertions).And we get accused of the same cognitive dissonance practiced by the other half of the debate. Special note here: THEY ALMOST NEVER PROVIDE ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE ACCUSATION.So let’s look at cold, hard numbers, shall we?

The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos
Sam Harris

(snip) One cannot criticize religious dogmatism for long without encountering the following claim, advanced as though it were a self-evident fact of nature: there is no secular basis for morality. Raping and killing children can only really be wrong, the thinking goes, if there is a God who says it is. Otherwise, right and wrong would be mere matters of social construction, and any society would be at liberty to decide that raping and killing children is actually a wholesome form of family fun. In the absence of God, John Wayne Gacy could be a better person than Albert Schweitzer, if only more people agreed with him.It is simply amazing how widespread this fear of secular moral chaos is, given how many misconceptions about morality and human nature are required to set it whirling in a person’s brain. There is undoubtedly much to be said against the spurious linkage between faith and morality, but the following three points should suffice.
(snip)One of the greatest challenges facing civilization in the twenty-first century is for human beings to learn to speak about their deepest personal concerns—about ethics, spiritual experience, and the inevitability of human suffering—in ways that are not flagrantly irrational. Nothing stands in the way of this project more than the respect we accord religious faith. Incompatible religious doctrines have Balkanized our world into separate moral communities, and these divisions have become a continuous source of human conflict. The idea that there is a necessary link between religious faith and morality is one of the principal myths keeping religion in good standing among otherwise reasonable men and women. And yet, it is a myth that is easily dispelled. ( end snip)

I encourage the reader to peruse the entire article.

Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.It compares the social performance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality.Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its spiritual capital. But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills.The paper, published in the /Journal of Religion and Society/, a US academic journal, reports: Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly skeptical world.In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.Gregory Paul, the author of the study and a social scientist, used data from the International Social Survey Programme, Gallup and other research bodies to reach his conclusions.He compared social indicators such as murder rates, abortion, suicide and teenage pregnancy.The study concluded that the US was the world’s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr. Paul said that rates of gonorrhea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested.Mr. Paul said: The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America.He said that the disparity was even greater when the US was compared with other countries, including France, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. These nations had been the most successful in reducing murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion, he added.Mr. Paul delayed releasing the study until now because of Hurricane Katrina. He said that the evidence accumulated by a number of different studies suggested that religion might actually contribute to social ills. I suspect that Europeans are increasingly repelled by the poor societal performance of the Christian states, he added.He said that most Western nations would become more religious only if the theory of evolution could be overturned and the existence of God scientifically proven. Likewise, the theory of evolution would not enjoy majority support in the US unless there was a marked decline in religious belief, Mr. Paul said.The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator.The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.

And if that wasn’t enough, we can see here

"a new report from the Institute of Economic Affairs examines what corruption is, what causes it, and what can prevent it. The report, Corruption - The World's Big C, concludes that there are several factors, which prevent corruption. These include free markets, transparent government and a free press. It intuitively makes sense; if the government is not in charge of trade licenses or regulating the market to excess, there should be fewer opportunities for corruption. A transparent and accountable government is less susceptible to corruption and a free press is able to expose corruption in both government and the private sector. Perhaps the most interesting finding is that personal honesty and virtue trump all the other factors. For instance, in Scandinavia, which has a relatively large government, the personal honesty of its citizens means that corruption is very low. Honesty was measured both by the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) and by the more informal method of dropping wallets, with money and identification inside them, in each country, and then seeing how many were sent back. "Wallet ratings" ranged from 100 percent in Denmark to 21 percent in Mexico. New Zealand had a "wallet rating" of 83 percent and we are second in the CPI ranking. This makes us one of the least corrupt countries in the world."

Here is the breakdown (courtesy of http://www.carnivalofthegodless.com/)

"I’ve included the table of top 10 wallet returners from the IEA report here (from p.133), along with an added column using rankings from an Adherents.com table of the “Top 50 Countries With Highest Proportion of Atheists / Agnostics” in which a higher ranking relates to a higher proportion of nonbelievers."

Relates to a higher proportion of nonbelievers.
Country - walletsreturned - nonbelievers (ranking)
Norway - 100 - 4th
Denmark - 100 - 3rd
Singapore - 90 - 38th
New Zealand - 83 - 29th
Finland - 80 - 7th
Scotland - 80 - 15th
Australia - 70 - 25th
Japan - 70 - 5th
South Korea - 70 - 9th
Spain - 70 - 27th


Another variable the IEA looked at related to the religiosity of a country’s citizens, as measured in a survey of world values conducted by the University of Michigan in 1991 and 1997. Here’s what the IEA analyst concluded…“The t-statistic for religiosity, however, was negative, implying that higher religiosity in the form of attendance at worship once or more per week is associated with more corruption. This was intuitively unexpected, and personally I find it disappointing that religiosity apparently does not provide a bulwark against corruption. But nor does it provide a bulwark against violence and terrorism, as witnessed in Northern Ireland for 30 years, along with the former Yugoslavia, Iraq and other countries of the Middle East, where religiosity succeeds in separating sections of the community and justifies their violence against each other.In 22 of the 27 countries the population attending church is predominantly Christian of various denominations: Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox. It is disheartening that high over-religiosity, far from repressing corruption, seems to make it more common.” (IEA: Corruption - The World’s Big C, pp. 163-164)”

So, not a bulwark against corruption, violence, or terrorism? Not indicative of personal honesty, either? What a surprise.
Higher moral ground indeed. More like maximum deniability, I'd say. Or just plain old denial.

Read More...

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

STEMMING THE TIDE OF CELLS: OF PARTHENOGENESIS, PASSION PLAYS, AND PROMETHEUS

A recent blogversation spurred me to investigate the stem cell controversy. A dizzying array of terminology makes it difficult to cut to the source: androgenates and parthenogenates, and the invocation of Frankenstein’s monster (shambling genetic wreckages swirled up from scratch by some goggle-clad mad scientist rubbing his hands together in glee).

Well, I think I can outline two of the main objections from the religious side of the fracas:

  1. In order to ‘harvest’ these cells, it destroys the embryo.

  2. It cuts to the heart of one of their most cherished miracles: the Virgin Birth (AKA the Immaculate Deception).
For number one, I personally feel that an embryo doesn’t qualify as a person, especially in the early stages. Most cultures (including the Judaic one) don’t consider the embryo a person until the crown emerges from the woman.

For number two, I of course consider the virgin birth another myth among many.

The dictionary defines parthenogenesis as:

A form of reproduction in which an unfertilized egg develops into a new individual, occurring commonly among insects and certain other arthropods.

And the root of the word derives from [New Latin: Greek parthenos, virgin + GENESIS.]
Virgin birth, wouldn’t you know it.

So here we have humanity on the verge of not only replicating a supernatural (and unprovable) event, but fearful visions of mass factories devoted entirely to destroying embryos developed in a manner of a ‘blessed miracle’.  The science fiction and fantasy writers have had a field day with this premise (and well they should: it’s a veritable goldmine of ideas and concepts).

But there’s hope:http://www.cell-stem.com/ -

“Stem Cells From Menstrual Blood
Japanese researchers have harvested stem cells from human menstrual blood, a medical conference has heard. The researchers say these stem cells could be coaxed into forming specialised heart cells, which might one-day be used to treat failing or damaged hearts. At the meeting of the American College of Cardiology, Dr Shunichiro Miyoshi reported that he and his colleagues at Keio University in Tokyo collected menstrual blood from six women and harvested stem cells that originated in the lining of the uterus. They were able to obtain about 30 times more stem cells from menstrual blood than from bone marrow, Miyoshi says. The stem cells were then cultured in a way to induce them to become heart cells. After five days about half of the cells contracted "spontaneously, rhythmical and synchronously, suggesting the presence of electrical communication" between the cells, Miyoshi says. That is to say, they behaved like heart cells. The researcher explains that already stem cells derived from bone marrow have improved heart function, mainly by producing new blood vessels rather than new heart-muscle tissue. He emphasises that it is important that these cells be obtained from younger patients, because they would have a longer lifespan than cells harvested from older donors.”

I wonder how long it is before the Religious Right jumps on this one? Fingers crossed: maybe they’ll go for it.

Maybe not:
Leviticus 15 -
“19 When a woman has her menstrual flow, she shall be in a state of impurity for seven days. Anyone who touches her shall be unclean until evening.
20 Anything on which she lies or sits during her impurity shall be unclean.
21 Anyone who touches her bed shall wash his garments, bathe in water, and be unclean until evening.
22 Whoever touches any article of furniture on which she was sitting, shall wash his garments, bathe in water, and be unclean until evening.
23 But if she is on the bed or on the seat when he touches it, he shall be unclean until evening.”

Let’s hope calmer heads prevail.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Monday, July 17, 2006

CONSIDER THE LINE IN THE SAND DRAWN: SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE


This is really such a no-brainer; I’m surprised that anyone should speak out against it.

Simply put, marriage is a civil right. Let’s start by defining this term. Here, from the Legal Encyclopedia section:
“Not all types of discrimination are unlawful and most of an individual's personal choices are protected by the freedom to choose personal associates, to express herself or himself, and to preserve personal privacy. Civil rights legislation comes into play when the practice of personal preferences and prejudices of an individual, a business entity, or a government interferes with the protected rights of others. The various civil rights laws have made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or national origin. Discrimination that interferes with voting rights and equality of opportunity in education, employment, and housing is unlawful.
The term privileges and immunities is related to civil rights. Privileges and immunities encompass all rights of individuals that relate to people, places, and real and personal property. Privileges include all the legal benefits of living in the United States, such as the freedom to sell land, draft a will, or obtain a divorce. Immunities are the protections afforded by law that prevent the government or other people from hindering another's enjoyment of his or her life, such as the right to be free from illegal searches and seizures and the freedom to practice religion without government persecution. The Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." The clause is designed to prevent each state from discriminating against the people in other states in favor of its own citizens.”
Now, let’s look at the term discrimination from the Legal Encyclopedia section:

“In constitutional law, the grant by statute of particular privileges to a class arbitrarily designated from a sizable number of persons, where no reasonable distinction exists between the favored and disfavored classes. Federal laws, supplemented by court decisions, prohibit discrimination in such areas as employment, housing, voting rights, education, and access to public facilities. They also proscribe discrimination on the basis of race, age, sex, nationality, disability, or religion. In addition, state and local laws can prohibit discrimination in these areas and in others not covered by federal laws.”

Marriage is a civil right, as it is a civil union. No religion need be involved.

Now, I effectly demolished many (if not all) of the right-wing neocon arguments here. However, it has come to my attention that these arguments have evolved lately, and so it’s time to put the blocks to those babies.

  1. So what if it’s natural (it’s pretty darn funny how scientific research deflated that balloon, ain’t it)? We’re special. We stand ABOVE nature. We are the only creature that’s developed philosophy, morality, insert term of choice here. Talk about arrogance. This is speciocentrism, pure and simple. So let’s see: if ducks, dogs, penguins, birds, bees, bonobos, insert species of choice here indulge in said behavior, well, that’s because they’re animals: we most emphatically are NOT? No free passes, not buying it, sorry. Animals defecate, copulate, reproduce, eat, raise offspring, breathe, bleed, most of them have five senses, in short we share SO much commonality with them (mammals at least), it’s a forgone conclusion. It’s natural behavior, cut and dried. So our social constructs are a little more complex, so what?

  2. We have all these studies that conclusively show that homosexuals aren’t mentally stable. I find this to be an utterly repugnant argument, an entirely facile and sophistic squirm. We’re talking about a minority that’s been kept in the ‘closet’ so to speak, for centuries. Anyone recall the punishment for ‘buggery on the high seas’? The ‘blue laws’ put in effect for most of this country’s history? Multiple occurrences of homophobic bashing? Let’s face facts, people: until recently, the very accusation of homosexuality could destroy people’s lives. They’ve been lumped in with all sorts of horrible behaviors (and still are). Has anyone ever heard the term, ‘gay ghettos?’ We have them here.

  3. It’s all a part of the radical gay agenda! This almost doesn’t even rate a reply. They’re a minority, you numbskulls. A very discriminated-against one, to boot. So they’re standing up for their rights: that does qualify as an agenda, sure. But radical? Anyone who starts in with this diatribe, I’ll be more than happy to lend him or her a quarter, so they can buy a clue. You may as well say there’s a large radical African-American agenda, or a feminist one. Sure, there’s probably a minority fringe group inside the minority, but it doesn’t take a professor’s degree that that’s just an expected side effect. Hell, we atheists have our wingnuts and moonbats: who doesn’t?

  4. Save the children, let’s do it for the children! This is just cowardice, pure and simple. We’re talking about gay marriage: let’s get past that hurtle before we get to adoption. Float a trial balloon. My suggestion is this: we allow gay marriage for the next two decades, and compile statistics then. It hasn’t been legitimate behavior in our particular culture since day one. Anyone who tells me that an illegal behavior will remain the same after it’s legalized is just blowing smoke right out their ass.

  5. They’re shoving it right in our faces! Oh, grow up. Of course they are. When African Americans finally got their say, they had an attitude, still do. That’s to be expected, after being oppressed for so long. It’s the same with any minority, be it a mindset, a race, a gender, anything. Once the dust settles, and acceptance is embraced, this’ll go away. The aphorism about squeaky wheels springs to mind.

  6. The one-man/one woman tradition/paradigm. I effectively demolished that here, so I’ll leave it to the reader to give it the old look-see.

  7. It’s an age-old tradition! Same place, see here.

  8. If you allow this, you allow ALL sexual behaviors! This is complete and utter tripe. Why all the opponents’ play this ridiculous card is beyond me. If this is about two consenting adults, why the fuck do you care? They’re not infringing on anything except your projected sense of esthetics. In for a penny, in for a pound? Not even. If they’re adults, none of your damned business, so mind your own.

  9. (I found this one particularly funny) The anus isn’t built for this sort of activity. Well, A. Studies show that anal sex is on the lower scale of activity for most homosexuals (it’s mostly oral and/or stroking), and 2. Anyone who says that should most definitely prevail on his spouse to do the old Asian ‘pearls-on-a-string’ trick (I hear orgasms are THUNDEROUS for that one!). And I quote Margaret Cho, from Assassin!, who said: “If you’re going to do the strap-on thing with your guy, make sure he’s the ONE. Otherwise, he’ll never leave you alone!” (Paraphrased) Also, Sodomy is defined in the Legal Dictionary as: “Sodomy -Anal or oral intercourse between human beings, or any sexual relations between a human being and an animal, the act of which may be punishable as a criminal offense.” So if you fellers want to play ‘in for a penny’, etc, well then, you’re just going to have to bypass that little special act, aintcha? ;)

  10. GOD SAYS THAT’S A NO-NO! Hey, ya know what? Until you can provide some proof of this invisible beast, negligent parent at best, imaginary construct at worst, outside a bunch of old wives tales scribbled on papyrii in a desert region two millenia ago, I say your morality is null and void. Unless you can provide me with tangible evidence of a being that’s the core root of your epistemology, I say your moral high ground is as level as mine.

So, the line is drawn, the gauntlet thrown. My guard is up, and my thumb is tap-stroking the side of my nose.  

As Duke Nuke ‘Em once said: “Who wants some?”

Read More...

Friday, July 14, 2006

AND THE VOTES AREN’T QUITE IN YET…HEY, ARE THOSE CHADS I SEE?


I will be putting forth a RECOMMENDED POSTS list very soon.

I realize I asked something that was very difficult (seeing as I’m climbing past the 100-post mark: holy guacamole, Batman! Does this guy EVER shut up?), and thus, to those who have been trying to accommodate my request, my thanks. To those who haven’t, well, that’s okay too. I appreciate the effort if made, and the lack of time constraints for those who couldn’t.

To all my beloved readers, theist and atheist alike: my thanks. It warms the cockles of an old man’s heart, it does, and that someone out there listens, and cares enough, to not only read but also comment. That having been said, I wish my readership were a little higher.

I have attempted to use Wordpress (to no avail). I’ve also tried to put FTP on (but my provider is real strict). I’ve not instituted an RSS feed (but shall do so upon request). I have a devil of a time embedding pictures and movies (and fact is: I try to adhere to the KIS principle – Keep It Simple).

Thanks to Performancing (which is a developing tool, in some ways), I see a small amount of traffic from other countries. Greece, Japan, occasionally India. Which prompted me to put on the Alta Vista language translator. Any commentary on how that’s working would be lovely, thanks.

Mostly I’ve been lax in these matters, because I want to spill purple prose across my pages, not wrestle with technical issues. I’m more than capable: but I tend to be obsessive compulsive with such items, and I would inevitably be letting the blog entries drop behind while attempting to release a picture-perfect solution (I’m anal that way).

Be that as it may, again, my thanks. Keep reading, keep commenting. Above all, keep an open mind. But, as Dawkins said, not so open your brains fall out.

Read More...

Thursday, July 13, 2006

KEVIN HARRIS: A STUDY IN SURLINESS


Due to a recent post at god4suckers.net, a memory popped into my head, from last year.

I read this post, recognized the name and photo, which redirected me to an earlier post, upon which I dug out some old emails.

He seemed pleasant enough when we began our chat, but if you go here, post #20, he seemed to come out of the blue swinging. I’m guessing that he’s been contacting other atheists via email, and receiving short shrift for his efforts – but that’s a guess only.

Originally, upon contact, I made the effort to look him up – lo and behold; I found a picture of him shaking hands with Josh McDowell. This told me everything I needed to know about him. My loins girded for battle (actually, this is dramatic embellishment – we were just going to have a bit of the natter), we talked.

Now, a note: This is long (11 pages), & there’s some repeated content. The reader can skip to the heading FINAL EMAIL. I prevaricated between doing the (snip) nomenclature, or quoting it in its entirety. Rather than be accused of cherrypicking, I opted for the latter. I do so detest being accused of revisionism – I style myself an honest man, and adhere to the standard as best I can.

So, onwards.

Tuesday, Nov. 8th, 2005 – received this.

Hi RA,
I see the Invisible Pink Unicorn is fast being replaced by the Spaghetti Monster! Both are Category Errors when it comes to theism by the way.

I'm a Christian. I'd be interested in why you reject belief that God exists and why you think Christ is probably not historical. You seem to be interested in how reasons should support one's view.
Thanks,
Kevin Harris
Morning Host/Creative Services Director
KWRD-FM/KSKY-AM Radio
kharris@thewordfm.com

Nov. 10th, responded:

Hello, Mr. Harris.
I'm always open to dialogue. My limited ability is the written word, BTW, but will be happy to correspond.

Am curious as to what you refer to as 'Category Errors', as both the IPU & the FSM are both parodies/satires.

Am I to assume you've reviewed my website? Many of your questions are (at least I thought) covered there. If not, I apologize.

I should perhaps explain that I am an undegreed layman, & as such, much of what I propound is that of an amateur. It is mostly opinion, & my apologies again if it isn't organized properly. I do make the effort to research to some degree, & try to build concepts according to some structure.  

Is there any format you'd prefer, or are we going to discuss this free-form?

Sincerely,
Douglas


The rest of the dialogue ran all the way up to the 22nd of November, so I will skip the dating schema.
--- Kevin Harris <kha

Douglas,

As we have time let's just have some free-form correspondence. If I may, I'll list some initial thoughts after scanning your well-written site.

First, because the Bible re-affirms or reiterates earlier moral codes does not mean the Bible is not inspired (another topic). It just means that moral objectives exist in God's universe. Jesus was not the first to offer the principle of the Golden Rule but he certainly confirmed it.

Secondly, I noticed you said the Bible declares "we are not our brother's keeper". Actually, it teaches that we are. Paul affirms we are to "bear one another's burdens". It is among many of the "one another" passages.

Thirdly, Paul is not saying he is a liar in Romans 3, but offering a hypothetical which he denounces.

Fourthly, as to the Crusades and Inquisitions, we should take Augustine's adage: "Never judge a philosophy by its abuse". The politicized perversion of Christianity has never been in keeping with
Christ.

Fifthly, the Bible does not always approve of what it records. A good thing about the Bible is it tells it warts and all. I detect you're interested in "the Old Testament Atrocities". We can discuss it.

Sixthly, what impresses me about the Bible is how it does not contradict itself when for all practical purposes it should be rife with them - seeing the time span it covers, multiple authorship, and hundreds of controversial topics. Your expample of Christ being wrong about his "coming in his kingdom" is answered. There are many aspects of his "coming in his kingdom". The next event after the passage is Christ's Transfiguration. That, along with his resurrection, ascenscion, and Pentecost, are aspects of his coming Kingdom. His second advent is the culmination of it. Besides, John was standing there, and he saw Christ's second coming in the Revelation.

Finally, the historical Jesus is found in the (1) the New Testament documents, (2) non- New Testament writers, (3) the early church writers.
If we penalize these, then we wipe out all of ancient history; for nothing from the contemporary period and earlier is better documented, with earlier sources, and abundant manuscripts, e.g., most ancient works survive on about 10 MSS, the NT has over 25,000. Most ancient characters and events are written about from 500 to 1000 years later. With Jesus and the NT it is 25, 30-60 years at most.

That's a lot but  perhaps a start. Thanks for your time.


Kevin:
 
Apologies for the lateness of my reply, as my PC is acting somewhat frisky of late.
 Still am curious about the 'category' errors you referred to.
 Are you an inerrantist? The question does have some merit.
Onwards:
 First, because the Bible re-affirms or reiterates earlier moral codes does not mean the Bible is not inspired (another topic). It just means that moral objectives exist in God's universe. Jesus was not the first to offer the principle of the Golden Rule but he certainly confirmed it.
 Well, that's predicated on whether or not 1 believes. I do not. Morals are defined by
A. Moral Relativism, &
B. Empathy
 Secondly, I noticed you said the Bible declares "we are not our brother's keeper". Actually, it teaches that we are. Paul affirms we are to "bear one another's burdens". It is among many of the "one another" passages.  
Gen: 4.9 <> Galatians 6:2 - "Bear ye 1 another's burdens" Personally, I'd rather be left to my own devices, thanks. Besides, doesn't this refer to Xians only? I'll bear my own burdens, thanks.
 Thirdly, Paul is not saying he is a liar in Romans 3, but offering a hypothetical which he denounces.
 Further research. Will correct this soon, if I find I am off.
 Fourthly, as to the Crusades and Inquisitions, we should take Augustine's adage: "Never judge a philosophy by its abuse". The politicized perversion of Christianity has never been in keeping with Christ.
Perhaps. All systems are inherently abusable. But religious systems seem to be in perpetuity. I look at long-term track records. Christianity has an ATROCIOUS 1 in this regard. The 'No true Scotsman' fallacy comes to mind.
 Fifthly, the Bible does not always approve of what it records. A good thing about the Bible is it tells it warts and all. I detect you're interested in "the Old Testament Atrocities". We can discuss it.
 It is fairly honest, I'll give it that. Albeit it is off on a great many points.
 Sixthly, what impresses me about the Bible is how it does not contradict itself when for all practical purposes it should be rife with them - seeing the time span it covers, multiple authorship, and hundreds of controversial topics.
I take issue w/that: it is OVERWHELMINGLY ripe w/contradictions, excuse me, 'difficulties'. No, very few of these are easily dealt w/, or satisfactorily explained.
 Your example of Christ being wrong about his "coming in his kingdom" is answered. There are many aspects of his "coming in his kingdom". The next event after the passage is Christ's Transfiguration. That, along with his resurrection, ascension, and Pentecost, are aspects of his coming Kingdom. His second advent is the culmination of it. Besides, John was standing there, and he saw Christ's second coming in the Revelation.  
Under the influence of wormwood, no less. This is a nice try, but he DID stipulate that there would be those who would not taste of death, who would see his coming. Like to see that explained away. No, not answered at all. Sorry.
 Finally, the historical Jesus is found in the (1) the New Testament documents,
Internal authors only. 4 men, somewhat asynchronous.
 (2) non- New Testament writers,
 Excluding anyone from the 2nd century? 0. Tacitus spoke of Chrestus in Rome, Suetonius was given to hyperbole (gave an account of the birth of the Phoenix), Pliny's letter only admitted Xians existed. Josephus was interpolated by the great liar Eusebius. Most (if not all) external attestations only admit that the cult existed.
 (3) the early church writers.
 Origen castrated himself, Tertullian's commentary, "It is absurd, ergo it must be true", Martyr's dialog w/Trypho, stating that the Devil knew of the prophecies, so he threw a 'curve ball' by copying them, Chrysostom, Jerome, & Eusebius all advocating deceit. I don't expect divine perfection: they were men. But truth be told, I'd try to live by higher & saner standards, myself.
 If we penalize these, then we wipe out all of ancient history; for nothing from the contemporary period and earlier is better documented,
 That's pure nonsense. We have all sorts of records of Rome & Egypt. The Egyptians wrote down EVERYTHING. Minutiae. Throw the baby out w/the bathwater, is the adage that springs to mind.
 Multiple external attestations. with earlier sources, and abundant manuscripts, e.g., most ancient works survive on about 10 MSS, the NT has over 25,000. Most ancient characters and events are written about from 500 to 1000 years later. With Jesus and the NT it is 25, 30-60 years at most.
 
Proves zilch. Sorry. Argument from popularity, is all that is. Profligacy suggesting truth is similar to saying, more insect life than human life? Insects are dominant. Besides, how do we know there weren't other documents, burnt wholesale, due to Theodosius' edict banning all non-Xian sects? We don't. Again, track record. There's an ongoing history, in which disputed works were burned/destroyed. Witness Iraneus' wiping out all Magus' works. We only know of Simon via Iraneus & Hippolytus. This is only 1 example, out of many.

Still am curious about the 'category' errors you referred to.

Being that the Category Error is the "apples and oranges" fallacy, a spacially limited, finite, creature cannot be compared to a spacially unlimited, infinite, Creator (thus, unicorns and God, etc.).

Are you an inerrantist? The question does have some merit.
Yes. I'd be glad to elaborate but I am in line with the Chicago Inerrancy Statement (google).
First, because the Bible re-affirms or reiterates earlier moral codes does not mean the Bible is not inspired (another topic). It just means that moral objectives exist in God's universe. Jesus was not the first to offer the principle of the Golden Rule but he certainly confirmed it.
  Well, that's predicated on whether or not 1 believes. I do not. Morals are defined by
A. Moral Relativism, &
B. Empathy
Actually, I should have said it is an evidence of moral absolutes, but at least evidence of widespread morality.  IOW, because the Bible reiterates some older moral code does not mean the Bible is therefore untrue. It may just be a recognition or reiteration.
Secondly, I noticed you said the Bible declares "we are not our brother's keeper". Actually, it teaches that we are. Paul affirms we are to "bear one another's burdens". It is among many of the "one another" passages.
Gen: 4.9 <> Galatians 6:2 - "Bear ye 1 another's burdens" Personally, I'd rather be left to my own devices, thanks. Besides, doesn't this refer to Xians only? I'll bear my own burdens, thanks.
Notice that Cain asks the question in Gen. 4:9. Also, Paul says there are times to bear your own (Gal. 6:5). Regardless, we see Christ's Golden Rule and Good Samaritan principle applying to all who will hear.
Thirdly, Paul is not saying he is a liar in Romans 3, but offering a hypothetical which he denounces.
Further research. Will correct this soon, if I find I am off.
Fourthly, as to the Crusades and Inquisitions, we should take Augustine's adage: "Never judge a philosophy by its abuse". The politicized perversion of Christianity has never been in keeping with Christ.
Perhaps. All systems are inherently abusable. But religious systems seem to be in perpetuity. I look at long-term track records.
Christianity has an ATROCIOUS 1 in this regard. The 'No true Scotsman' fallacy comes to mind.
Christianity in general and Christendom in particular has a very sad history. I wonder about the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It doesn't really seem to be a fallacy, just an opinion. But one could determine if someone were a true X if one had a standard(s) for evaluating X.
Fifthly, the Bible does not always approve of what it records. A good thing about the Bible is it tells it warts and all. I detect you're interested in "the Old Testament Atrocities". We can discuss it.
It is fairly honest, I'll give it that. Albeit it is off on a great many points.
Sixthly, what impresses me about the Bible is how it does not contradict itself when for all practical purposes it should be rife with them - seeing the time span it covers, multiple authorship, and hundreds of controversial topics.
I take issue w/that: it is OVERWHELMINGLY ripe w/contradictions, excuse me, 'difficulties'. No, very few of these are easily dealt w/, or satisfactorily explained.
Yes, there are difficulties. One would have to look at alleged contradictions on a case-by-case basis. I've never seen one conclusively proven.
Your example of Christ being wrong about his "coming in his kingdom" is answered. There are many aspects of his "coming in his kingdom". The next event after the passage is Christ's Transfiguration. That, along with his resurrection, ascension, and Pentecost, are aspects of his coming Kingdom. His second advent is the culmination of it. Besides,
John was standing there, and he saw Christ's second coming in the Revelation.
Under the influence of wormwood, no less. This is a nice try, but he DID stipulate that there would be those who would not taste of death, who would see his coming. Like to see that explained away. No, not answered at all. Sorry.
Again, there are several aspects of his "coming in his kingdom". The Second Coming is only one aspect, in fact, the culmination of many of the other aspects.  And again, John saw his Second Coming in the Revelation so given your concern, there is internal consistency.
Finally, the historical Jesus is found in the (1) the New Testament documents,
Internal authors only. 4 men, somewhat asynchronous.

Not just the Gospels but Paul as well. "Internal authors" makes no sense, unless you want to throw out all of ancient history. I suspect you mean "biased". But biased people can and have recorded accurate history.
(2) non- New Testament writers,

Excluding anyone from the 2nd century? 0. Tacitus spoke of Chrestus in Rome, Suetonius was given to hyperbole (gave an account of the birth of the Phoenix), Pliny's letter only admitted Xians existed. Josephus was interpolated by the great liar Eusebius. Most (if not all) external attestations only admit that the cult existed.

First and second century writers, Greek and Roman. Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Letter of Mara bar Serapion, Thallus, Lucian, Emporer Trajan, etc. All mention Christ, Christians, or NT events or figures.

As to Josephus - very important - there are two Jesus passages in
Josephus. Most scholars believe there are interpolations in the longer passage but a shorter version has been found that may more fully  reflect the original. At any rate, here are two core Jesus passages, despite probable interpolations, in Josephus.

Most scholars hold that "Chrestus" in Suetonius is a variant spelling of Christ and is virtually the same as Tacitus' Latin spelling.

(3) the early church writers.

Origen castrated himself, Tertullian's commentary, "It is absurd, ergo it must be true", Martyr's dialog w/Trypho, stating that the Devil knew of the prophecies, so he threw a 'curve ball' by copying them, Chrysostom, Jerome, & Eusebius all advocating deceit. I don't expect divine perfection: they were men. But truth be told, I'd try to live by higher & saner standards, myself.

But don't fall into the Genetic Fallacy. Despite any idiosyncracies, the point is we have information in these writers.
If we penalize these, then we wipe out all of ancient history; for nothing from the contemporary period and earlier is better documented,

That's pure nonsense. We have all sorts of records of Rome & Egypt. The Egyptians wrote down EVERYTHING. Minutiae. Throw the baby out w/the bathwater, is the adage that springs to mind.

The point is, sans the NT, most ancient sources survive on a hand full of manuscripts 500 to 1000 years after the events. Compare Homer's Illiad, second only to the NT, with 643 manuscripts. Homer and the NT are miles beyond other sources in manuscript attestation.


Multiple external attestations. with earlier sources, and abundant manuscripts, e.g., most ancient works survive on about 10 MSS, the NT has over 25,000. Most ancient characters and events are written about from 500 to 1000 years later. With Jesus and the NT it is 25, 30-60 years at most.

Proves zilch. Sorry. Argument from popularity, is all that is.
Profligacy suggesting truth is similar to saying, more insect life than human life? Insects are dominant. Besides, how do we know there weren't other documents, burnt wholesale, due to Theodosius' edict banning all non-Xian sects? We don't. Again, track record. There's an ongoing history, in which disputed works were burned/destroyed. Witness Iraneus' wiping out all Magus' works. We only know of Simon via Iraneus & Hippolytus. This is only 1 example, out of many.

It proves that the New Testament is better attested than virtually anything from the ancient world. This is not Argumentum ad Populum, it is textual criticism. When it comes to ancient sources, the more manuscripts the better, the earlier manuscripts the better. The NT is second to none.


FINAL EMAIL:

My replies are in bold. Being that the Category Error is the "apples and oranges" fallacy, aspacially limited, finite, creature cannot be compared to a spaciallyunlimited, infinite, Creator (thus, unicorns and God, etc.).(hysterical laughter).1stly, again, SATIRE. 2ndly, unless said creatures have specific characteristics agreed upon via a majority, they're abstract concepts open to interpretation. Yes. I'd be glad to elaborate but I am in line with the Chicago Inerrancy Statement (google).All respect, my best friend is a fundie inerrantist, & his excuse (pardon me, raison d'etre) is that he has a special relationship w/the 'author' (of course, substitute 'Bob' for 'God', & we're talking therapy here).  Actually, I should have said it is an evidence of moral absolutes, but at least evidence of widespread morality.  IOW, because the Bible reiterates some older moral code does not mean the Bible is therefore untrue. It may just be a recognition or reiteration. Well, I agree w/most of that, except for the 'absolute' qualifier.  There are few absolutes. Ingersoll once said, "'Thou shalt not kill' is as old as life itself, inasmuch as most men object to being murdered."Older moral code? Try obsolete. Moral relativism, & all that.  Notice that Cain asks the question in Gen. 4:9. Also, Paul says there are times to bear your own (Gal. 6:5). Regardless, we see Christ's Golden Rule and Good Samaritan principle applying to all who will hear. And all that don't wish to, apparently. It's this sort of nonsense that gives carte blanche to folks with control issues. I'll listen, but I reserve the right to walk away. If there's objection to that, it's a clear violation of the 'free will' that Xtians tout, but rarely espouse.  Christianity in general and Christendom in particular has a very sad history. I wonder about the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It doesn't really seem to be a fallacy, just an opinion. But one could determine if someone were a true X if one had a standard(s) for evaluating X.I find this sort of thing hypocritical & too loose in interpretation. As an atheist, we atheists don't have that sweet an option, "Oh, they weren't TRUE atheists!" We have to accept the black eyes of the French Revolution, the Communist takeovers in Russia, China, Cambodia, etc.  It fairly reeks of social Darwinism. Sorry. Misbehave? Screw forgiveness, you're OUTTA here! Yes, there are difficulties. One would have to look at alleged contradictions on a case-by-case basis. I've never seen one conclusively proven.Of course you haven't. Nor will you ever. "There are none so blind....", etc.  Again, there are several aspects of his "coming in his kingdom". The Second Coming is only one aspect, in fact, the culmination of many of the other aspects.  And again, John saw his Second Coming in the Revelation so given your concern, there is internal consistency.Still not buying it. Written in black & white.  Smacks of revisionism.Not just the Gospels but Paul as well. "Internal authors" makes no sense, unless you want to throw out all of ancient history. I suspect you mean "biased". But biased people can and have recorded accurate history.(Hysterical laughter). You're kidding, right? History is usually verified via the correlation of secondary sources. We know of Caesar because of A. temples, B. Coins, C. writings of Cicero, etc. We have recorded history of Egyptians down to the minutiae (but no record whatsoever of the Exodus), Paul provided NO historical background outside of hearsay, I mean, come on! We can toss the bibble out w/o compunction, & still keep our historical records. Really, if we're to continue to discuss this, please stop making outlandish statements like this. Just because your listeners accept this pap, doesn't mean everyone will.'But biased people can and have recorded accurate history.'Oh, yeah, like Kit Carson, the 'Indian fighter', who actually herded children, old men, & women from Native American tribes up, & slaughtered them? America lost the War of 1812? History is rife w/examples of 'biased authors' telling the story they prefer. 'History is written by the victors.' - Winston Churchill. (2) non- New Testament writers,  First and second century writers, Greek and Roman. Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Letter of Mara bar Serapion, Thallus, Lucian, Emperer Trajan, etc. All mention Christ, Christians, or NT events or figures.As to Josephus - very important - there are two Jesus passages in Josephus. Most scholars believe there are interpolations in the longer passage but a shorter version has been found that may more fully reflect the original. At any rate, there are two core Jesus passages, despite probable interpolations, in Josephus.Most scholars hold that "Chrestus" in Suetonius is a variant spelling of Christ and is virtually the same as Tacitus' Latin spelling.(More laughter). Are you serious? Simple mentions of a cult in Rome doesn't qualify as anything more than the existence of Xtianity. Stephen King mentions Maine, Janis Joplin, Hendrix, various cultural referents, in the Dead Zone. Still makes it fiction.Know about the Josephus paragraphs.  Interesting that Origen, Iraneus, etc. knew about the works of Joe, but it wasn't mentioned until the 4th century.'Most scholars' meaning inerrantists? 'Chrestus' translates to 'Honored one', & was a common name for released Roman slaves. Not to mention that 'Chrestus' was inciting problems in Rome, where JC never went. (3) the early church writers.  But don't fall into the Genetic Fallacy. Despite any idiosyncrasies,the point is we have information in these writers.If we penalize these, then we wipe out all of ancient history; fornothing from the contemporary period and earlier is better documented,  This is just vastly amusing. A. 'Despite any idiosyncrasies'? We're entitled to question the characters & motives of these folks, regardless of content. One's character & veracity are questioned in a court of law, especially when outre behavior is pivotal to testimony. B.  'If we penalize these, then we wipe out all of ancient history; for nothing from the contemporary period and earlier is better documented, '1stly, repetition doesn't work (at least w/me). You can repeat that nonsense about 'wiping out ancient history' a million times, it's still crap to me. 2ndly, 'better documented' is pretty much in the eye of the beholder (apparently), at least to those who foster co-dependence on an invisible being that doesn't exist.  I think I'll defer to Philo & Josephus before I defer to fishermen & a tax collector, thanks. It proves that the New Testament is better attested than virtually anything from the ancient world. This is not Argumentum ad Populum, it is textual criticism. When it comes to ancient sources, the more manuscripts the better, the earlier manuscripts the better. The NT is second to none.Again, crap. Textual criticism only applies if you lend credence to the documents. Approaching it from the premise that it's inherently true is simply positive reinforcement for those who want to believe.  Besides which, after Theodosius' edict, no doubt hundreds, perhaps even thousands of 'documents' were put into bonfires.  'Second to none'? Of course: given the climate, the minority was violently silenced.  Not to mention variant readings, Erasmus & the Johannine Comma, the list is long on this 1. Let's get this clear: despite my nom-de-plume, I am an utter & complete apostate.  The vacuous homilies & platitudes that your listeners may nod & agree w/, don't work w/me.  I've heard them all before, & they didn't work then, they sure as hell ain't gonna work now. Logic is my mistress. I bow to her only. Not to the lies of men.

And I never heard back from him again. I apologize for the length and repetition, but I wanted the whole story told.

Truthfully, he trotted out a number of the hoary old chestnuts (as you can see from the content). Chestnuts I’d cracked open over a year ago, and found wanting, completely vacant and lacking in logic, void of evidence, in short, completely casuistic in content.

Selective perception doth make fools of us all.

Anyways, I should’ve posted on this sooner, but due to the length, I kept procrastinating, but one more for the public record, I say.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...