The Mote Archive - Religion and Philosophy pt. 5

Religion and Philosophy

22845. kuliginthehooligan - 7/30/2004 6:34:23 AM

Kerry waffles on abortion, again:

"Stepping gingerly into another social issue, Kerry reiterated that he believes that life begins at conception - and that a woman has the right to choose whether to abort.

Asked whether he believes abortion is taking a life, Kerry said a fetus is a "form of life."

"The Bible itself - I mean, everything talks about different layers of development. That's what Roe v Wade does. It talks about viability. It's the law of the land." The Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v Wade ruling legalized abortion in America.

"I don't believe personally that it's the government's job to step in and take my article of faith and transfer it to somebody who doesn't share that article of faith," said Kerry, a Roman Catholic."

This tired, old argument, though, ignores entirely that we do this consistently, especially when it comes to protecting the more vulnerable people in our land. In this instance of abortion, Kerry believes that human life begins at conception, yet it doesn't bother him that someone would choose to terminate this life. He retreats into the private/public corner, where he must retreat if he intends to stay in the Democratic Party, which has become so narrow that even moderates are finding it increasingly difficult to stomach.

22846. kuliginthehooligan - 7/30/2004 6:38:52 AM

Interestingly, Kerry used to be consistent when it came to capital punishment, saying he opposed all forms of capital punishment. He has now started, though, to support it for terrorists.

"Kerry has long been an opponent of the death penalty, but in recent years has made an exception for terrorism. The former prosecutor said crimes like rape and child murder do not warrant the highest punishment.

"It's certainly terrorizing to the person who's undergoing it. I understand that," Kerry said. "But terrorism is a political act to terrorize a nation, to try to challenge a way of life and a standard... It's just a different act."

So when it comes to terrorists, he calls for execution, but no capital punishment for any other crime. Fine. But when it comes to abortion, even though he agrees that human life begins at conception, he doesn't think the US should stop this form of human destruction.

Now I fully expect the liberals in The Mote to come here and criticize Kerry for the above positions. Just as a fundie is considered inconsistent by opposing abortion but supporting capital punishment, so too now these same critics should have at it with Kerry and his inconsistent position as well.

jexster, surely you find Kerry unpalatable on such matters, right? I mean, you oppose ALL war and ALL capital punishment, yet Kerry supports both in limited circumstances. Shouldn't you be calling Kerry Beelzebub as well for his support of war, even his fighting in one and killing others?

22847. Ulgine Barrows - 7/30/2004 6:54:16 AM

22842. wonkers2 - 7/23/2004 7:01:22 PM
Bishop Spong appears to have a quite credible resume.

wonkers2, sorry to be irreverent. I could get past Spong's name for about 30 seconds, before the lyrics to Sponge Bob Sqare Pants popped up.

I did enjoy reading the article you linked.

kuliginthehooligan, waffle not. When you can choose to abort or not, then do so.

22848. Magoseph - 7/31/2004 2:08:44 PM

Interesting article, Kuli.
EVANGELICALS V. MUSLIMS IN AFRICA--Enemy's Enemy

Excerpt--This could be good news for the United States. For years, American evangelical missionaries have been coming to Africa, making connections with local populations and doing charitable works in places where few other aid groups dare go. Now, at a time when the United States finds itself losing friends in the developing world, Africa's evangelicals may be one of the strongest pro-American blocs in the world. Grateful for years of patronage by their American brethren, bound by a sense of fellowship to the nation where the contemporary evangelical movement was formed, and respectful of born-again President Bush, these Africans represent a growing constituency of friends. In 2002, the Pew Global Attitudes Project conducted a public opinion poll of 38,000 people in 44 countries including Uganda. It found that nearly three in four Ugandans had favorable opinions of the United States and that 67 percent supported the war on terrorism. The numbers were even higher in Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya, and Nigeria--all countries that have experienced religious revivals similar to Uganda's--and they were, collectively, far higher than those in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. And, despite the divisive Iraq war, anecdotal evidence suggests that born-again African Christians still embrace the United States. In fact, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has proudly made Uganda a member of America's "coalition of the willing" in Iraq, knowing he can count on Ugandan evangelicals' powerful support for his decision.

22849. wonkers2 - 7/31/2004 3:11:03 PM

Go KuliganMan!

22850. kuliginthehooligan - 8/1/2004 5:35:02 AM

Very interesting article, Mags. Thanks. I suppose that had I said it here myself earlier, I would never have been believed.

22851. Ulgine Barrows - 8/1/2004 9:05:44 AM

It's all about what one believes.

22852. alistairConnor - 8/1/2004 12:14:28 PM

"I don't believe personally that it's the government's job to step in and take my article of faith and transfer it to somebody who doesn't share that article of faith," said Kerry, a Roman Catholic."

Obviously you have to oppose this, Kuligin, insofar as you wish for a religious dictatorship.

Most of us, including those with deeply-felt religious convictions, support the separation of Church and State.

Taking an article of faith, because it is an article of faith, and making it law, would violate this.

It is legitimate for the faithful to seek to pass laws to enforce articles of faith, but only insofar as they provide non-religious justifications for it.

22853. alistairConnor - 8/1/2004 12:35:05 PM

Making a special case for the execution of terrorists?

I'm not a pacifist (I doubt if there are any true pacifists among us) - that would require opposing all war under any circumstances, wishing for all armies to be dissolved etc. While this is a morally admirable position, it lacks any practical application. At a minimum, a nation has to be prepared to kill, in order to defend its own existence. The world being what it is.

I imagine that Kerry's thinking is along these lines. Rapists and murderers do not threaten the existence of a nation, as such. Terrorists might.

I don't agree that the existence of the USA is imperilled by terrorism, so in my view, making an exception amounts to overkill... but I accept the validity of the moral distinction that Kerry makes.

And, given that there appears to be a substantial majority in favour of capital punishment in the US, his position seems to me to be both courageous and didactic.

22854. thoughtful - 8/1/2004 7:13:29 PM

protestant majority evaporating

22855. kuliginthehooligan - 8/1/2004 7:45:24 PM

"Obviously you have to oppose this, Kuligin, insofar as you wish for a religious dictatorship."

This is just silly. I'd never want the State to dictate religion, no matter which one. However, I do think it is in the State's mandate to stop murder, such as the killing of innocent, unborn, human life. This isn't simply a "religious" issue. Since 1973 we've exterminated roughly 40 million human lives via abortion. If you can't see past this as solely a religious issue, alistair, I feel sorry for you.

22856. alistairConnor - 8/1/2004 8:42:24 PM

I did not accuse you of wishing for the state to dictate religion; I simply mentioned the fact that you wish for your religious diktats to apply to everyone, regardless of their religion.

If indeed you seek to discuss abortion without reference to religion, then obviously we are in the wrong thread... not my fault, as it happens.

(Interestingly, you seem to be implicitly acknowledging that Kerry is correct in dissociating his religious faith from his policy view concerning abortion.)

I personally have views on abortion, which are independent of my (lack of) religious faith (I consider it to be abhorrent, but I don't consider myself qualified to dictate what a woman can do, or should be obliged to undergo, concerning her own body). I am somewhat sceptical that you, Kuligin, have views on anything at all that are independent of your faith.

22857. jayackroyd - 8/1/2004 9:34:49 PM

However, I do think it is in the State's mandate to stop murder, such as the killing of innocent, unborn, human life.

In vitro fertilization kills embryos. Should the state stop that? The use of fertility drugs often leads to multiple embryos, sometimes dangerously many. The usual procedure is remove some of them. Should fertility drugs be banned?

22858. kuliginthehooligan - 8/1/2004 10:23:09 PM

alistair, here's what I said:

"This isn't simply a "religious" issue."

In other words, abortion isn't ONLY of religious concern. I never said it ONLY was, nor did I imply that it was NOT.

Therefore, this comment from you is dead wrong:

"(Interestingly, you seem to be implicitly acknowledging that Kerry is correct in dissociating his religious faith from his policy view concerning abortion.)"

I do not believe it is proper to dissociate one's religious views from the public arena, nor do I think anybody really does it anyway.

"I am somewhat sceptical that you, Kuligin, have views on anything at all that are independent of your faith."

Now then, this statement of yours is accurate. My faith intimately affects all of my worldview, both public and private. However, as I have already noted, I am skeptical of a government - any government -which attempts to dictate which religion the people should adhere to. The people should never be coerced, and your silly earlier comment that I want a religious dictatorship is just nonsense.

However, the government obviously institutes laws and regulations which can affect one's religion, that is obvious.

22859. kuliginthehooligan - 8/1/2004 10:28:14 PM

On the issue of abortion, simply throwing it into the "it's the woman's body so she can do what she wants to" arena is nonsensical. Do you oppose drug use? Why can't a person, in the privacy of his own home, use crack if he wants to? It's his body and his alone, right?

However, abortion doesn't just affect the woman and no one else. It affects at bear minimum the human being in her womb, as well as potentially her husband or partner should she decide to terminate the human life therein.

Abortion need not ONLY be argued on religious grounds, but of course religious grounds should play a part in the debate. We've exterminated roughly 40 million American lives in the past 31 years. Then we hear all the bellyaching about the 1000 American deaths in the past year in Iraq. Seems rather unbalanced to me, at least.

Lastly, if you find abortion abhorrent, then why do you just stand there and say or do nothing? Of course, perhaps you do, but don't you think the State should come in and protect the innocent, that portion of society which has not way of protecting itself? In other words, I think saying one finds abortion abhorrent, but also thinks it's quite okay to stand there and not stop it, is just plain nuts. It is nothing more than a cop-out.

And when it comes to someone like Kerry, it is a political cop-out meant to sidestep the issue so as to not risk losing votes in the process.

22860. jayackroyd - 8/1/2004 10:34:30 PM

On the issue of abortion, simply throwing it into the "it's the woman's body so she can do what she wants to" arena is nonsensical.

That's pretty much a consensus view. As viability moves down from the third trimester, and up into the first trimester, the "woman's body" argument is going to get weaker and weaker.

Do you oppose drug use? Why can't a person, in the privacy of his own home, use crack if he wants to? It's his body and his alone, right?

I don't know. Why not?

22861. kuliginthehooligan - 8/2/2004 4:50:09 PM

"Clinton's formulation--safe, legal and rare"

jay, I've brought your comment over here from the Election thread. The above you actually said twice, but you've also repeated in the past, obviously in favor of the formulation.

I have to dispute your concept of "rare." 1.2 MILLION humans slaughtered annually on average via abortion can hardly be considered rare. The fact is, year in and year out, abortion ranks in the top two medical procedures performed in the US (if memory serves, circumcision is the other one). In short, it is hardly rare.

However, I'll grant you that on average abortions in America have dropped from the 1.5 million per year level. That's a 20% drop. Great, right?

But "rare?" Hardly. 1.2 million of anything cannot be considered rare. And let's try that "rareness" on another topic, and see if it would fly. Let's say that 1.5 million homosexuals used to die every year from AIDS, but now it is "only" 1.2 million. Do you think the homosexual community would be lauding such a great drop in the dead toll?

And how would they respond if you told them not to worry, the deaths are rarer now than they were before?

Nearly half of all abortions are performed on women who had one previously. Abortion is used in very large part as a form of birth control and nothing else. Forget all the talk about the less than 1% in the case of rape or incest. We are slaughtering human lives for no other reason than the women find it convenient to do so, and now we have granted them legal protection to do it.

1.2 million lost American lives EVERY YEAR is harldy rare, jay.

22862. kuliginthehooligan - 8/2/2004 4:51:40 PM

Clinton's formulation is just another example of empty, political rhetoric, and you consistently parrot the party line despite the facts.

Oh, and by the way, 1.2 million is the bottom end of the annual rate. It actually still bounces up to around 1.3 million. But hey, who really cares, right? Rare is what we say it is.

22863. alistairConnor - 8/2/2004 5:36:59 PM

I agree, K, that there is a necessity to promote contraception as a public health measure. Not only is abortion abhorrent, it is a dangerous and expensive procedure. Prevention of unwanted pregnancies is a far better option.

Does your church campaign in favour of contraception?

22864. judithathome - 8/2/2004 5:46:30 PM

Of course, perhaps you do, but don't you think the State should come in and protect the innocent, that portion of society which has not way of protecting itself?

That is sort of what I asked myself when George Bush failed to sign a bill (as Governor) providing health insurance for children living in poverty. Didn't he think it was worth it to protect those chldren, who can hardly go out and earn money on their own to pay for their healthcare?

22865. thoughtful - 8/2/2004 5:55:01 PM

ktheh, why put it all on women? Are there not men involved in the conception process? Are there not couples deciding to have abortions? Are there not women who are told by their husbands/boyfriends/molesters to "get rid of it" whether they want an abortion or not? Are there not teenagers told by their parents to have an abortion whether they want one or not?

And what is this "abortion on demand" thing? As opposed to forcible abortion? If a woman is raped and decides to end the pregnancy, does that make it "abortion on whim" or "justifiable abortion"? Is an unwanted pregnancy resulting from rape any less "convenient" than an unwanted pregnancy resulting from consensual sex? Or is the logic behind drawing that line a desire to punish and shame a woman for having sex voluntarily for non-procreative purposes?

And is a fetus less human with less of a right to life in your view because it was conceived by rape as opposed to conceived voluntarily?

Those issues never made sense to me. Either a fetus has full-blown human rights, or it doesn't. If you're going to draw that line at conception, then the how of the conception should be irrelevant.

And if you draw the line at some point later in pregnancy, as I do, (I view the early fetus as potential human life so it has not yet acquired a right to independent life) then prior to that line, that pregnancy can be terminated for whatever reason, regardless of how it was conceived.

22866. jayackroyd - 8/2/2004 6:33:06 PM

I agree that there are too many abortions, that we should be engaged in an effective public health campaign that would reduce their frequency. Such a campaign would include education and easy access to contraceptives, including the morning after pill.

The fact that the anti-choice folks are opposed to such a campaign indicates that this is not really about abortion.

Still waiting to hear about fertility drugs and in vitro fertilization, both of which lead to the destruction of embryos.

22867. thoughtful - 8/2/2004 8:24:54 PM

Jay, I agree with you on all points the points made in 22866.

22868. angel-five - 8/2/2004 8:45:34 PM

The campaign against abortion in America is just a chosen battleground for the far right, not its raison d'etre. They're less interested in helping people than they are in gaining more political power. Pro-choice, and neutral participants in the debate, have repeatedly pointed out that the anti-abortion advocacies consistently fail to put their money where their mouth is in terms of significantly helping people who choose not to have abortions. They put their money into attack campaigns. The outreach programs the far right fields for actually helping poor mothers with children they decided to keep, or put up for adoption, are dwarfed by the amount of fuel they try to dump on the fire.

Like Jay said, it's not really about abortion. As if you'd need told that, given the demeanor of the people here who are most vehemently anti-abortion.

22869. jayackroyd - 8/3/2004 8:49:04 AM

well, there are two layers to that. The politicians who give lip service to anti-choice issues, but never actually get around to anything are one layer. The second layer, the Kulligans of this world, use the rhetoric of murder to advocate not a program of reducing abortions or unwanted pregnancies (both of which are clearly bad things), but a reassignment of women's role in American society. They want to hark back to the Cleavers of the 50s, not recognizing that the Cleavers were a myth.

22870. jayackroyd - 8/3/2004 8:57:27 AM

I've said this before, but I'll nonetheless add that the feminist advocacy groups, like NARAL, have also missed the boat on this issue. They only accept the "safe, legal" part of Clinton's formulation, which is shortsighted on their part. They should have clambered onto a ban on late term abortions (Roe v Wade allows states to regulate third trimester abortions iac, so they wouldn't have been giving anything up) in return for a public health campaign to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

22871. thoughtful - 8/3/2004 4:11:59 PM

I don't see how that would work, jay, since anything other than abstinence is not an "approved" message by the rwers. And the rwers for whatever reason refuse to realize that abstinence is simply unrealistic for the majority of humans, especially these days where fecundity is kicking in at age 10 and marriage postponed until well into their 20s. How realistic is it that humans stay celibate for over 10 years during the time in their life that their sex drive is at its peak?

I remember how ticked i was at barbara bush whose family was responsible for bringing in planned parenthood into ct and yet for political reasons refused to speak out on family planning even though she personally supported it.

As long as the radical right keeps a firm grip on the party, there will be no rational approach to sex education, std prevention, or contraception, resulting in even more costs for social programs, medical care, and abortions.

22872. kuliginthehooligan - 8/3/2004 5:00:39 PM

"They're less interested in helping people than they are in gaining more political power."

This is utter nonsense, and obviously you have no idea what goes on at the grassroots levels, angel-five.

"the anti-abortion advocacies consistently fail to put their money where their mouth is in terms of significantly helping people who choose not to have abortions."

And this coming from an avowed atheist who has absolutely no clue what churches and religious institutions are doing in America. Angel-five, you are still up to your old tricks, playing the expert in things you have no clue about. Since Roe v. Wade the number of organizations and groups and religious institutions which have gone to help women, unwed mothers, women seeking guidance, adoption agencies, a whole hoard of organizations, have come into existence. You are truly an idiot if you parrot the empty rhetoric you posted above.

22873. kuliginthehooligan - 8/3/2004 5:04:13 PM

Shifting gears, there seems to still be some hope for our country and its slide down the moral cesspool. At least the people of Missouri recognized that what the degenerates want isn't right or good, and other states, are moving in the same direction:

"Missouri Voters Approve Consitutional Gay Marriage Ban"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=3&u=/ap/20040804/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

22874. kuliginthehooligan - 8/3/2004 5:05:27 PM

"Missouri and 37 other states already have laws defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. But amendment supporters fear a court could toss aside the state law, and they believe the state would be on firmer legal ground if an outright ban is part of the Constitution.

Louisiana residents are to vote on a marriage amendment Sept. 18. Then Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah are to vote on the issue Nov. 2. Initiatives are pending in Michigan, North Dakota and Ohio.

Four states — Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada — already have similar amendments in their constitutions."

And yet another sign that John Kerry is out of touch with mainstream America.

22875. angel-five - 8/3/2004 7:55:37 PM

This is utter nonsense, and obviously you have no idea what goes on at the grassroots levels, angel-five.

I live at the grassroots levels, simpleton. What's more, I'm involved in grassroots politics. Your rhetoric about Christian charities sidesteps the point which I actually did mention about the vicious anti-abortion advocacy groups among your kind and the fact that your people poll much, much higher on denying abortion rights to women than it does on providing them government funding to help support their kept children, and charity isn't charity when it comes with proselytization. It's a coercive bribe. Classic Vic, strawmen abounding with your every word.

22876. angel-five - 8/3/2004 8:02:19 PM

And this coming from an avowed atheistwho has absolutely no clue what churches and religious institutions are doing in America.

Wrong again. Twice. It's pretty funny that you followed up that cite with a statement about 'playing the expert in things you know nothing about', isn't it?

Since Roe v. Wade the number of organizations and groups and religious institutions which have gone to help women, unwed mothers, women seeking guidance, adoption agencies, a whole hoard of organizations, have come into existence.

Ignoring for the moment that this sentence doesn't even make grammatical sense nor state a complete thought, the fact is that it doesn't address what anti-abortion advocacy groups are doing, and where they are spending their money. People like you are far more willing to wave the flaming brand and scream about hellfire and take peoples' rights away than you are to help them with the alternatives.

The simple truth is that your church groups aren't solving the problem of abortion, or else you wouldn't be shrieking about it any more. Clearly other efforts must be made to help women keep their babies. And you and your kind are just a lot more interested in trying to threaten them into doing what you want than you are in finding further constructive solutions. It is examples like this which make so many people find your personal politics repulsive.

22877. angel-five - 8/3/2004 8:04:35 PM

Saving the lives of unborn children are secondary to Vic. Promulgating his particular feverish and angry vein of thumper Christianity is primary. I think he'd happily see a few million fetuses aborted with broken bottles if it gave the religious right control of one of the houses of Congress.

22878. jayackroyd - 8/3/2004 8:10:23 PM

Still waiting to hear what the anti-choice position is on embryos destroyed by in vitro fertilization and fertility drugs.

22879. pelty - 8/3/2004 10:55:44 PM

"Your rhetoric about Christian charities sidesteps the point which I actually did mention about the vicious anti-abortion advocacy groups among your kind and the fact that your people poll much, much higher on denying abortion rights to women than it does on providing them government funding to help support their kept children, and charity isn't charity when it comes with proselytization."

And it is the government's responsibility to be the Daddy, Mommy and Bank for people who make bad choices? Remind me in which article of the Constitution that is to be found? That said, if someone in that situation is willing to work to get out of their predicament, I am all in favor of a form of temporary support (that is well-defined and, indeed, temporary) so that these people can live the American dream.

22880. jayackroyd - 8/3/2004 11:03:50 PM

That's not the point pelty. The point is that the people who are most up in arms about protecting the unborn are the least up in arms about protecting the born. To say they care about the children here is patently false. As I said earlier, it isn't really even about abortion, because they oppose effective measures to reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies.

And they skirt issues where embryos are destroyed, in modern fertility techniques.

It's not about the children. It's not about abortion. It's about islamizing American culture, but with a christian face behind the chador.

22881. thoughtful - 8/3/2004 11:06:12 PM

pelty, I think you miss the point. People attempt to make the right choice by preventing or terminating a pregnancy rather than raising a child they can't afford or relying on govt aid to fund the child, but they are prevented from doing so because of blocked access to family planning/contraception/abortion services.

22882. thoughtful - 8/3/2004 11:12:45 PM

jay, xpost!
islamizing? I suppose, but to me it feels a lot more like just getting down on women. While islam certainly does that, it puts restrictions on men as well. This anti-choice doctrine is focused on women, IMHO. I don't hear any of them talking about men doing the right thing, marrying the women they impregnate, financing children born out of wedlock, keeping it in their pants, etc. Especially when you start trying to jail women who are pregnant and alcohol or drug addicted, or drive without seatbelts or smoke, etc.

22883. kuliginthehooligan - 8/3/2004 11:45:18 PM

"Saving the lives of unborn children are secondary to Vic. Promulgating his particular feverish and angry vein of thumper Christianity is primary. I think he'd happily see a few million fetuses aborted with broken bottles if it gave the religious right control of one of the houses of Congress."

This is classic. You see, you can't argue on the issues, so you have to resort to basically saying that I really don't care at all if innocent human lives are lost via abortion. Really, all I care about is power.

Hopefully, reasonable people can see through this. But regardless, the Republicans DO have control of both houses, and I'm still talking about abortion and its evils nonetheless. And even if the Repubs had 80 seats in the Senate and an equal majority in the House, I'd still be talking about its evils.

So say what you want to, and make up all the lies you care to make up. Nothing new with you Resonance/angel five.

22884. kuliginthehooligan - 8/3/2004 11:47:52 PM

"To say they care about the children here is patently false."

jay, this is also a lie. What do you really know or care, though? You think 1.2 million abortions a year is "rare," remember? Regardless, though, tons of Christians who care about unborn humans do participate in adoption, give millions of dollars to help unwed mothers, donate millions of manhours nationwide each and every year to helping women who are thinking about killing their unborn babies, and so on.

And angel-five, for the future, I ask that you refer to me only by my current moniker. Thank you.

22885. kuliginthehooligan - 8/3/2004 11:49:42 PM

pelty, don't waste your good reason on this rabble. As you see, since they can't argue on the basis of facts, they have to result to denigrating character. As you know, of course, I couldn't care less about the actual morality of abortion, or about the countless humans who have been slaughtered via this ghoulish practice. I'm really just interested in power, and all I can get!!

And look how much power I already have. Bwahahahahaha.

22886. judithathome - 8/4/2004 1:19:31 AM

tons of Christians who care about unborn humans do participate in adoption, give millions of dollars to help unwed mothers, donate millions of manhours nationwide each and every year to helping women who are thinking about killing their unborn babies, and so on.

Think of how much time and effort and money all of you would save if you counseled everyone in pregnancy prevention, though.

22887. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 2:01:15 AM

Not so, judith, because people will still do what they want to do, regardless of whether or not it is right or good for them. For instance, I can see someone arguing that the reason why abortions in America on average have fallen from 1.5 million per year to around 1.2 million is because of the blitz of birth control information we have had. Certainly, it must have played some role, although I don't think the sole or even most important role. But certainly some role.

That still leaves us with 1.2 million per year, and nearly half of those are performed on women who have already had at least one abortion previously. In other words, despite the inundation of information and the varied educational efforts concerning birth control, roughly 600 thousand human beings are slaughtered each and every year by women who just don't really care, and use abortion as another form of birth control.

And the common caricature of evangelicals never teaching their children about forms of birth control, but rather just talking about abstinence of nothing else, is just that, a caricature. I, for one, am proof that that is simply not true. But there really isn't any point in pointing that out to the rabble here, because, well, they tend to never believe the truth anyway.

And despite our varied disagreements in the past, judith, surely you see that I am very passionate about this issue and always have been, and angel five's notion that I really don't care about God's creations in the womb is just nonsense. So can't you even see how the issue is not even addressed, but rather, character assassination is instead opted for (at least in the case of jay and angel five)?

22888. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 2:06:10 AM

There is a HUGE grassroots movement and organization of people and resources working on the abortion front, attempting in varied ways to save these human beings from the selfish choices of people who should really love them. Again, it is the height of hypocrisy for people to come here and whine about the 1000 American soldiers lost in the last year in Iraq (as bad as that is nonetheless), and not even bat an eye to the MILLIONS of human beings that we needlessly and selfishly slaughter in our country.

Incredibly, if a person drives his car alone, without a seatbelt, he is breaking the law in most states and is subject to prosecution. But if a woman decides to kill the unborn child in her tummy, we call that a private right of that citizen!

We have become a cold, heartless nation. It is part and parcel of the moral dumbing down of America.

22889. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 2:07:46 AM

On another topic, I saw yesterday that home schooling has exploded in America, up 29% when comparing 2003 to 1999. The main reason given was the condition of public schools, particularly when it came to moral and religious education, as to why more and more parents are opting for home schooling options.

22890. judithathome - 8/4/2004 2:26:56 AM

So can't you even see how the issue is not even addressed, but rather, character assassination is instead opted for (at least in the case of jay and angel five)?

yes, I see this quite clearly and here is but one example:

But there really isn't any point in pointing that out to the rabble here, because, well, they tend to never believe the truth anyway.

I guess that wraps up the entire group, all right. We're just a truth-evading rabble, unwilling to bend to your belief system.

22891. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 2:39:43 AM

Whatever, judith. But you know full well that if you came in here and said you care for the poor, and I said that that is a lie and that you don't care at all, but rather care about XYZ, that you'd cry foul, and rightly so.

No matter. Believe what you want to, which is, of course, your right to do.

22892. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 2:43:17 AM

"The simple truth is that your church groups aren't solving the problem of abortion, or else you wouldn't be shrieking about it any more."

Huh? It is LEGAL, the law says it is okay. "My church" thinks it is the killing of an innocent human life.

You guys seem to think that if ALL the churches and religious groups and evangelicals and "fill in blank" just taught birth control, there'd be no need for abortion. But not only is that nonsensical, but it also ignored historical fact and what is currently happening right now. Nearly half of all women who have abortions have already had at least one. They don't care, don't you get it?

And yet, the State has labeled this slaughter a woman's right.

22893. arkymalarky - 8/4/2004 2:50:45 AM

The main reason given was the condition of public schools, particularly when it came to moral and religious education, as to why more and more parents are opting for home schooling options.

It's because the government has undermined and underfunded public schools while subsidizing privatization options, including some that facilitate home schooling. Of course this still only benefits those who can afford to take advantage of the government changes, and precious few of them.

The poor (children) you will have with you always, even in the richest country in the world.

22894. judithathome - 8/4/2004 2:59:54 AM

Kuligan, I have said nothing about your caring for the unborn or your beliefs in this matter. All I am saying is birth control would go a long way toward saving people from the need for abortions.

And it is not the church I blame for lack of birth control but women themselves. Especially those who are having their second or third abortion. Birth control is readily available to any woman who chooses to use it. The church may frown on it but it is easier to sin a little by using BC than to sin a lot by getting an abortion, I would think. However, I know many churches frown on using birth control and I think this gives some women a pass from trying to avoid pregnancy in the first place.

22895. jayackroyd - 8/4/2004 3:45:50 AM

You think 1.2 million abortions a year is "rare," remember?

No, I don't. I think there are too many unwanted pregnancies. I think we should adopt policies to reduce those numbers. You don't. If you cared about embryos as if they were human beings, you would. Your position is profoundly dishonest.

And I still haven't seen your response to in vitro fertilization and fertility drugs.

22896. jayackroyd - 8/4/2004 3:48:08 AM

You guys seem to think that if ALL the churches and religious groups and evangelicals and "fill in blank" just taught birth control, there'd be no need for abortion.

No, we want to know why, if you are deeply concerned about embryos and fetuses, you don't support increased access to contraception and family planning services.

22897. pelty - 8/4/2004 4:27:22 AM

"People attempt to make the right choice by preventing or terminating a pregnancy rather than raising a child they can't afford or relying on govt aid to fund the child, but they are prevented from doing so because of blocked access to family planning/contraception/abortion services."

My problem is the inherent selfishness in this type of reasoning that is wrapped up in the guise of unselfishness, of doing the right thing. I mean, to step back and say, "this child will be born at a severe disadvantage, so let's kill it to save it the misery" is a tragically warped way of looking at the child and its potential future. I readily admit that I was born into a situation very different than the type we are envisioning for this hypothetical child, but even circumstantial evidence from a nightly newscast demonstrates to me that people in the projects hold onto life just as dearly as I and even in the midst of poverty they find reason to laugh and enjoy life. This is not to discount attendant suffering; it surely exists. I would venture to say that Vic might be able to tell us a thing or two about young children in poverty given his experiences in Namibia. Further, why not give the child a shot at adoption rather than making a choice for it, not to mention, a choice for one's own self as many abortions are undertaken not because the child will be at a social disadvantage, but rather because the parent(s) will be inconvenienced, embarassed, etc.

22898. pelty - 8/4/2004 4:27:41 AM

And as Vic rightly mentions, this "pro-life for power" argument is silly. I believe that there is a recent poll that shows the pro-life position to be losing the culture war, so it would seem that the way to gain power with the majority would be to be an abortion rights advocate. Bush aside, it even would seem (admittedly based on nothing of substance save that they are being swept under the carpet at their convention) that the pro-life bloc is becoming an increasingly shunned group within the party that has generally supported the rights of the unborn, the GOP.

22899. pelty - 8/4/2004 4:41:35 AM

"No, we want to know why, if you are deeply concerned about embryos and fetuses, you don't support increased access to contraception and family planning services."

I, for one, support this w/ a couple of caveats. First, I would like a definition of "family planning services." If abortion is included as an option, then I am against it. In my opinion, if one reaches the point where abortion is an option (i.e., the woman is pregnant) then we are past the point of planning and are now at the point of "Oh shit, what are we going to do now (please excuse my language)?!?!?"

Caveat number two would be that abstinence is given a fair hearing. In other words, don't present it as "well, you *could* refrain from sex, but we all *know* that that is a near impossibility at your tender age, so let's move on and talk about IUDs." An explanation of the potential risks, both physical and emotional (and moral as well if the FP center is so inclined) of sex at a young age, while by no means a guarantor of abstinence, will at least give them something to think about and will be a message different from that received from the culture. Present it as a legitimate option, one that is of an equal or superior stature with pre-marital sex, and then proceed to other options (condoms, pill, etc.). The problem is that the adult population just assumes that kids are going to do it no matter what, so we may as well give them the tools. I do not believe that it is necessarily true that kids will go to it at the first opportunity. Some might, I am not so naive to assume that there would be a 100% success rate, but a stronger plea for abstinence might end up saving a young girl from being placed in a situation where she is faced with some awful choices.

22900. sakonige - 8/4/2004 4:49:38 AM

pregnancy can be devastating to a person's health. It can kill you.

22901. sakonige - 8/4/2004 4:57:06 AM

not if you're male, of course. The disease aspects of pregnancy are a non-issue for males. For them, it's just a matter of having sex and waiting for the baby to pop out.

22902. jayackroyd - 8/4/2004 5:27:35 AM

I, for one, support this w/ a couple of caveats. First, I would like a definition of "family planning services."

I simply want to know why you are oppposed to contraceptive services.

22903. thoughtful - 8/4/2004 5:29:26 AM

but, pelty, to people who believe life begins at conception, iud is NOT an option as it does not prevent conception...only pregnancy. Morning after pills are NOT an option as they do not prevent conception...only pregnancy. Also, many argue that one cannot educate children about contraception as that is giving tacit approval to premarital sex which is not acceptable. Therefore, the only thing one can teach children is abstinence.

And those who violate the rules deserve whatever punishment they get, even if it's a death sentence due to aids, or death by illegal abortion, or death by child birth.

22904. thoughtful - 8/4/2004 5:31:12 AM

That's how some see protecting the "right" to life, which has been said so many times before, seems to begin at conception and end at birth.

22905. pelty - 8/4/2004 6:22:49 AM

"I simply want to know why you are oppposed to contraceptive services."

I don't think that I said I was. I just may have a different idea of just what such a service should entail.

22906. pelty - 8/4/2004 6:33:16 AM

"And those who violate the rules deserve whatever punishment they get, even if it's a death sentence due to aids, or death by illegal abortion, or death by child birth."

Huh? I don't think dying from AIDS, abortion, or childbirth is something deserved, but it is ultimately the result of lifestyle choices. There are risks inherent in having unprotected sex that include some of the things you mention. If people are aware of these risks, than I can feel sorry for them, but they are not necessarily tragedies. I would certainly prefer that a cure to AIDS be found, that people did not die from botched abortions, and that women would not die in childbirth, but until such a time should arise, make your choice and then live (or die) with it. It called "personal responsibility."

Sakonige, surprisingly, brings up a good point. Men do have it easy when it comes to accidental pregnancy. It stinks. I am open to suggestions as to how to make males more responsible in this day and age. I suspect that it starts from birth and that by the time a young man is of an age to impregnate a young woman, it is too late to reach the one who is of a mind to up and leave when the going gets tough.

22907. angel-five - 8/4/2004 6:36:08 AM

And despite our varied disagreements in the past, judith, surely you see that I am very passionate about this issue and always have been, and angel five's notion that I really don't care about God's creations in the womb is just nonsense. So can't you even see how the issue is not even addressed, but rather, character assassination is instead opted for (at least in the case of jay and angel five)?

I think it's a murderous passion, if anything. And it isn't character assassination to point out obvious truths in your demeanor and the fights you choose to make and how you choose to make them. Whatever you choose to claim about your beneficient beliefs, here you mostly share hate.

22908. angel-five - 8/4/2004 7:23:14 AM

You guys seem to think that if ALL the churches and religious groups and evangelicals and "fill in blank" just taught birth control, there'd be no need for abortion. But not only is that nonsensical, but it also ignored historical fact and what is currently happening right now. Nearly half of all women who have abortions have already had at least one. They don't care, don't you get it?

I think if that all the churches and religious groups and evangelicals and etc taught birth control and family planning, there'd be much, much less need for abortion. I believe it would be much more efficacious than your placarded ranting and the applied politics of your religious hate. I believe that overall our world would be a much better place than it is now for the children whom you claim to be concerned about.

There are, simply, far too many abortions in America, and while I believe the right to choose is important, I do not believe I could ever make that choice. You choose to point the finger and say 'They're bad, they must be punished'. I believe, on the contrary, that if our culture were more pragmatic and less dogmatic about adoption, birth control and the philosophies of personal responsibility, that our people would make much better choices overall and that abortion rates would plummet.

22909. angel-five - 8/4/2004 7:28:17 AM

You choose to harp on how wrong it is. I choose to realize that it is a problem that hasn't been ameliorated by harping, and might be ameliorated by education. You find the moral center of America in religion -- all well and good. All the more reason for religion to be at the table, discussing instead of finger-pointing, helping people to make smart choices in a complex world instead of demanding that they do what makes no sense to them and threatening to have them thrown in jail if they do not. You believe America is in some sort of moral slide. I believe that historically speaking there have always been people like you saying such things, and that the moral worth of our people depends less on draconian adherence to Procrustean stricture, and more upon our willingness to foster good in the world despite the fact that people don't always do precisely what we want them to. At the end of the day I care less about who got branded a wrongdoer and more about who got a better life despite their occasional error, and I refuse to stand on arcane and irrelevant principle when it will only cause more harm than good. I wish people like you felt the same way, but you don't, and I will stand in your way, and push back, when you attempt to rape the spirit of 'love thy neighbor' in the name of the letter of your Law.

There is simply far more to be gained by working with people than there is to shriek hellfire at them, and it is at times like this that I am most glad that whatever gave rise to me gave me the power of independent reason, rather than slavish adherence to inflexible principle, when it comes time for me to decide what is right and moral and just in a world which ten commandments can neither control nor cage nor command.

22910. alistairConnor - 8/4/2004 10:24:16 AM

The problem is that the adult population just assumes that kids are going to do it no matter what, so we may as well give them the tools.

But the point, Pelty, is that they already have the tools.

Well, half of them do.

22911. alistairConnor - 8/4/2004 10:36:52 AM

But seriously : I agree with you that there should be much more than just technical info on contraception available.

Schools ought to be the place where children can learn and decide about the moral framework that accompanies their sexuality; about the consequences of their choices; about the joys of non-penetrative sex; etc. In particular, there needs to be more social engineering aimed at particular high-risk sub-cultures, empowering young women in their relationships with men. The possibility of abstinence is one part of this; but "just say no" is just stupid.

22912. judithathome - 8/4/2004 3:42:21 PM

Explaining the risks will fall by the wayside as soon as a couple of teenagers have sex for the first time and nothing dire happens. They immediately assume all they've been told was bunk.

22913. thoughtful - 8/4/2004 3:44:18 PM

Huzzah A-5!

22914. thoughtful - 8/4/2004 3:54:30 PM

pelty, personal responsibility is all well and good. however humans are not born with instinct and need to be educated. With the proper information, they are better able to make the right choices. Why create a system that leaves them to their own devices and forces them to live with the consequences, when, with a little education, the "not necessarily tragedies" as you put it, of disease and death may be avoided all together?

22915. thoughtful - 8/4/2004 5:18:10 PM

Speaking of which, Lawsuit Says Women Were Misled to Delay Abortions

In a federal lawsuit, seven women now charge that Mr. Graham never intended to refer them for an abortion at all, but was merely stalling until it was too late....

Five of the women who sued Mr. Graham said in court affidavits that his tactics had forced them to carry their pregnancies to term, either because they had passed the legal time limit for abortions - generally at the end of the second trimester - or they could no longer afford an abortion, which tends to cost more later in a pregnancy.

and

In 2002, Mr. Graham enrolled in the state's anti-AIDS condom distribution program, picked up 30,000 free condoms and discarded them. He pleaded guilty to theft and is on probation.

And talk about irresponsible women getting abortions on demand for the sake of convenience:

With no job, no high school diploma, a boyfriend in jail and a mother who is terminally ill, Mary Schloegel, 19, says she is in no position to raise a child.

and

One of the women already had a child with hemophilia who required constant care. Now she has two. "I also did not want to bring another severely ill child into this world or be in the position where I am unable to give my children the full care and attention they need," she wrote in an affidavit under the name Jane Doe No. 4.

We cannot possibly know the difficult position people who choose abortion are in. We cannot know their personal situations and what choices they face. We should not presume to decide for them.

22916. pelty - 8/4/2004 6:01:14 PM

"personal responsibility is all well and good. however humans are not born with instinct and need to be educated. With the proper information, they are better able to make the right choices. Why create a system that leaves them to their own devices and forces them to live with the consequences, when, with a little education, the "not necessarily tragedies" as you put it, of disease and death may be avoided all together?"

I am obviously not mking myself clear here. Educate. Educate to your heart's content. Just make abstinence a *legitimate* option, not one that is something unattainable and pie-in-the-sky (and perhaps a bit wimpy). Then, by all means proceed to discuss condoms, pill, etc. I am not suggesting that we stick our heads in the ground and decide not to face the reality that teens are having sex. What I am suggesting is that we attempt to make abstinence an option worth pursuing for health reasons and, for those who are so inclined, moral reasons as well.

22917. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 6:22:27 PM

"There is simply far more to be gained by working with people than there is to shriek hellfire at them"

Then you might take a page from your own suggestions, angel-five. It does little good to wage character assasination on a person, and state that I do not care at all about unborn humans, but rather, about power. That's just nonsensical, and you should apologize for it instead of waxing eloquent and attempting to skirt the matter.

Yours are just dirty games, angel-five.

22918. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 6:24:10 PM

And if we want to be pragmatic, then let's teach our young people the 100% sure fire way of not getting pregnant, abstinence. You don't have to worry about having an unwanted baby if you abstain from the behaviour that produces them. I'm always amazed at how simple the formula is, and how pragmatic it is as well, and yet, how vehemently people oppose it. Seems to me they are much more interested in "sexual freedom" than in anything else.

22919. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 6:25:49 PM

"Just make abstinence a *legitimate* option, not one that is something unattainable and pie-in-the-sky (and perhaps a bit wimpy)"

Amen.

22920. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 6:29:51 PM

And let's keep in mind, the largest class of women having abortions is BY FAR middle to upper middle while women, not the poor and indigent. That is just a red herring. And again, nearly half of the women have already had at least one abortion previously.

So despite all the increase in education for birth control, and even if we did more for it, there'd still be a ton of American lives lost each and every year (hundreds of thousands) due to this practice.

Abortion, except in the case where the mother's life is in jeopardy, should be stopped in this country, period.

22921. sakonige - 8/4/2004 6:29:55 PM

You don't have to worry about having an unwanted baby if you abstain from the behaviour that produces them. I'm always amazed at how simple the formula is, and how pragmatic it is as well, and yet, how vehemently people oppose it.

Muslims are a fine example of these principles in action. They know how to prevent the behavior that produces unwanted babies, yet people vehemently oppose their methods.

22922. sakonige - 8/4/2004 6:31:06 PM

that is to say, many people oppose them, not the Muslims themselves, of course.

22923. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 6:33:36 PM

And as basically everybody here has agreed on, people often just don't do what they should do. In other words, even given the vast amount of birth control education that we have seen already in this country, people don't care.

My gosh, even in the homosexual community AIDS is on the rise, and it is shown by studies and polling that homosexual men aren't using condoms to protect themselves. They don't particularly care to.

So the argument that "what we need is MORE and MORE education" is just silly, and ignores the fact that, despite how much education you throw at people, many of them just aren't going to listen.

So we make abortion another form of birth control, and as the stats show, that is precisely how it is being used. Get rid of that option, though, and perhaps less and less people would have an "out" when it comes to fooling around. Because at it seems now, often the mentality is, "well, let's not use birth control, and if we get pregnant, we'll just abort."

22924. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 6:38:01 PM

22925. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 6:39:26 PM

22926. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 6:47:31 PM

Here is, literally, the face of abortion:

22927. jayackroyd - 8/4/2004 7:18:50 PM

Still wondering about those fertility practices.

And also wondering why the coherent program pelty mentions is not advocated by the religious right. Sure, abstinence should be part of any program that teaches kids about their future choices--and not merely because of unwanted pregnacy. But contraception should also be an important part of such programs, and those on the religious right who say they want to see reductions in abortion rates oppose such aspects.

22928. angel-five - 8/4/2004 7:24:11 PM

Then you might take a page from your own suggestions, angel-five. It does little good to wage character assasination on a person, and state that I do not care at all about unborn humans, but rather, about power. That's just nonsensical, and you should apologize for it instead of waxing eloquent and attempting to skirt the matter.

Actually what I said was that you care more for growing the power base of fundamentalism than you do for unborn humans, Kuligin, and I don't intend to apologize for the truth. People here recognize that in you. I don't 'skirt' that matter. It was the conclusion of my first series of posts in this discussion, and I'll reaffirm it whenever necessary.

And if we want to be pragmatic, then let's teach our young people the 100% sure fire way of not getting pregnant, abstinence.

Because that has worked so well for the first several thousand years we've taught it? What, do you think it's a matter of just finally getting it right? How many tries do you need?

I have no problem with abstinence being taught as an option, even the main option, but studies show that teens taught abstinence only, not only still have sex anyway, but they tend to have less protected sex more often than teens taught safe sex.

22929. Absensia - 8/4/2004 7:30:16 PM

This brings to mind a very Catholic and conservative family I knew. They refused to teach their four kids anything about birth control and were adamantly against sex education in school. They bragged about how their children would never, ever have sex before they were married. When it became obvious their 16 year old daughter was 6 months pregnant, the mother said, "I have no idea how this could have happened." Obviously the daughter did.

22930. angel-five - 8/4/2004 7:32:26 PM

I mean, WTF. 'Let's make abstinence a legitimate option'. Who here believes that abstinence isn't taught as a legitimate option? Well, besides in those places where abstinence isn't taught as an option, but the entire ball of wax, I mean.

How do you make it a more 'legitimate' option than it already is? Once again, if people think that teaching safe sex methods weakens abstinence, I point you to the results of teaching abstinence only vs. teaching abstinence and safe sex, which is, more teen pregnancy, more teen STD, more teen abortions. Teaching 'abstinence-only' is what makes abstinence an illegitimate option, and it's what's got to stop. There are right-wing advocacies in America that know fully well that abstinence-only has poor results and that the kids do worse for it. Anyone can read the studies. The fact that they know, and still press the abstinence-only programs, is just further example of the fact that they care less about what they claim to champion than the furtherance of their political agenda. The enforcement of conservative Christian values has become the end, and not the means, for these people.

22931. angel-five - 8/4/2004 7:37:30 PM

But contraception should also be an important part of such programs, and those on the religious right who say they want to see reductions in abortion rates oppose such aspects.

And that's simply because what was once a means for them has become the desired end. And Kuligin knows this, so much so that he has to distort it when it's said, from 'Conservative Christian prominence is more important to you than the unborn lives you're screaming about' to 'Power is all to you and you don't care at all about unborn lives'. It hits far too close to home.

But good luck getting him to admit it. He doesn't wanna talk about fertility practices, btw. He probably doesn't know much about them.

22932. thoughtful - 8/4/2004 7:45:49 PM

great shots, KtheH...now pray tell what is that first picture a picture of? It may be an aborted fetus, but it certainly doesn't look human. The human fetus in early stages had a disproportionately large head. Makes me mistrust the source.

22933. pelty - 8/4/2004 7:46:17 PM

"I mean, WTF. 'Let's make abstinence a legitimate option'. Who here believes that abstinence isn't taught as a legitimate option? Well, besides in those places where abstinence isn't taught as an option, but the entire ball of wax, I mean."

Ii guess I do, for one. Reflecting on my own experience, I am hard-pressed to remember any discussion of abstinence and if it was mentioned, it was in passing and glossed over. The unspoken understanding in the classroom is that people were going to have sex no matter what, so let's get to those things that will protect them. There is, of course, some truth to this as there will always be teen sex, but there *may* be less of it if abstinence is promoted as zealously as condom usage was in my own experience. I recently heard a poll that suggested abstinence was on the rise in the teenage population, although who knows what is to be learned from this. I do not have the source on that poll, so I mention it anecdotally and with some caution.

22934. judithathome - 8/4/2004 7:51:46 PM

I don't know how old you are, Pelty, but when I was a teenager in the 1950s, it was just understood that you wouldn't have sex until you married. And we had "homes for unwed mothers" to which many of my classmates were sent so obviously, even back in that more innocent time when there was no sex ed in schools, teens who would be ostracized for having pre-maritial sex still did it.

22935. angel-five - 8/4/2004 7:56:54 PM

Ii guess I do, for one. Reflecting on my own experience, I am hard-pressed to remember any discussion of abstinence and if it was mentioned, it was in passing and glossed over.

Abstinence was taught as the best option in my schooling, and you would be the first person I've encountered who might not have heard it mentioned. There are no school curricula today I know of where abstinence isn't taught as an option -- except, as I mentioned, where abstinence isn't taught as an option but the only choice. I'd welcome hearing any proof that we aren't teaching abstinence as an option these days.

I recently heard a poll that suggested abstinence was on the rise in the teenage population, although who knows what is to be learned from this.

Could it possibly be as a result of teaching it more sensibly than 'Just don't have sex'? I mean, everyone here was a teenager at some point. Who among us responded well to that sort of direct commandment? Teenagers have a profound sex drive and they are wired to rebel.

22936. angel-five - 8/4/2004 7:59:10 PM

Abstinence was taught as the best option in my schooling, and you would be the first person I've encountered who might not have heard it mentioned.

should end with 'in their sex ed class'. Of course, unfortunately, the generation that gave rise to Roe v. Wade wasn't really taught that much about sex, were they?

22937. jayackroyd - 8/4/2004 8:00:08 PM

Actually, I expect that abstinence is a significant part of sex education programs because of concern over STDs.

This WSJ article discusses the issue.

I know that if I had teenaged kids we'd talk about the emotional and physical risks involved with having sex before you're ready for it.

So, pelty, I think you're pushing on an open door. It would be crazy to have a sex education curriculum that didn't make very clear that the surest way to not get pregnant is not to have sex.

22938. jayackroyd - 8/4/2004 8:03:36 PM

From the article:

Among school districts that teach sex education, 51% discuss contraception but require abstinence be taught as the preferred option. About 35% require that abstinence be taught as the only option for unmarried people.

The remaining 14% teach teens that both abstinence and contraception are part of a broad range of options for adolescents.

22939. Magoseph - 8/4/2004 9:16:31 PM

A truly evil man--Lawsuit Says Women Were Misled to Delay Abortions

Unknown to the women, said officials of Planned Parenthood of Louisiana and the Mississippi Delta, Mr. Graham is a vigorous opponent of abortion who has picketed doctors' officers and videotaped people attending events for Planned Parenthood, which supports abortion rights.
According to a 1995 article in The Times-Picayune of New Orleans, Mr. Graham and his wife, Bonnie, once ran A Woman's Day Clinic, which she described as a "pro-life" clinic for pregnant women and women who had had abortions.

In 2002, Mr. Graham enrolled in the state's anti-AIDS condom distribution program, picked up 30,000 free condoms and discarded them. He pleaded guilty to theft and is on probation.

Five of the women who sued Mr. Graham said in court affidavits that his tactics had forced them to carry their pregnancies to term, either because they had passed the legal time limit for abortions - generally at the end of the second trimester - or they could no longer afford an abortion, which tends to cost more later in a pregnancy.

22940. thoughtful - 8/4/2004 9:38:30 PM

magos, see #22915

22941. Magoseph - 8/4/2004 9:41:31 PM

Oh, darn, sorry, thoughful. How could I miss that.

22942. thoughtful - 8/4/2004 10:12:39 PM

it's worth repeating!
;-)

22943. PelleNilsson - 8/4/2004 11:12:59 PM

Pictures of aborted fetuses (or whatever they are) posted in two threads. This certainly represents the low water mark in the history of the Mote. Kuligin is losing his composure and his judgement. Such a pity.

22944. Magoseph - 8/4/2004 11:34:47 PM

These Kuligin types introduce their horror stories, but they never introduce the pictures of young women butchered in their prime by unqualified so-called medical practioneers, simply because they didn't have the food or money to provide for another child. The so-called religious elements that have sponsored this horror, to the best of my knowledge, have never made a serious effort to control the birth of unwanted children, based on their ridiculous notion that an egg is a human being.

22945. Ms. No - 8/5/2004 12:34:43 AM

Good catch, Thoughtful. An 11 week pregnancy is about an inch long and looks like this:

22946. kuliginthehooligan - 8/5/2004 12:37:39 AM

I was hoping you'd say that, pelle. It is, though, simply the truth. Don't want to actually look at the truth, do you pelle?

Mags, doing things that are illegal have their consequences. What people opposed to abortion advocate is adoption, having the woman take the baby to term and not slaughtering it, and then putting it up for adoption. 25% of couples in America are infertile and many are forced to go overseas for adoption.

If the "deal" were, we'll end abortion and you guys on the right adopt the children instead, there wouldn't be one left behind.

22947. kuliginthehooligan - 8/5/2004 12:38:32 AM

"based on their ridiculous notion that an egg is a human being"

Nonsense. Or at bare minimum, Mags, be more precise.

22948. kuliginthehooligan - 8/5/2004 12:42:41 AM

"We cannot possibly know the difficult position people who choose abortion are in. We cannot know their personal situations and what choices they face."

Sure we can. They tell us, or we have in some way experiences it ourselves.

"We should not presume to decide for them."

More nonsense. We decide to people all the time. We tell them they must wear seatbelts, or they can't smoke pot in the privacy of their own homes. We do this with the law all the time.

Why? Because it has been determined that these people don't know good enough for themselves. The laws are created, in essence, to protect people against themselves in many instances.

With abortion, we have needless butchering and slaughtering of innocent human life. It is absolutely mind boggling how, with a wave of the hand, we can condone the death of 40 million Americans over the past 31 years, and then blithely call it a personal right and privilege.

22949. judithathome - 8/5/2004 12:48:13 AM

It is, though, simply the truth. Don't want to actually look at the truth, do you pelle?

Someone might want help with remedies for constipation but that doesn't mean they want to see pictures of turds.

22950. judithathome - 8/5/2004 12:50:01 AM

25% of couples in America are infertile and many are forced to go overseas for adoption.

People go overseas to adopt because of all the red tape put up by rules and regulations from "helpful" government bureaucracy.

22951. kuliginthehooligan - 8/5/2004 12:58:12 AM

judith, people know that turds are turds.

However, we have people in this thread who don't believe that abortions kill human beings? Then what was that head a picture of, a turtle? Zebra? Duck-billed platapus?

They need to see that each abortion kills a human being. There it is, for you to see. Hiding the pictures is a subtle attempt at skirting the issue.

It isn't just an undifferentiate mass. It is a human being.

22952. kuliginthehooligan - 8/5/2004 12:59:09 AM

"but it certainly doesn't look human"

Not sure what you think is a human, then, thoughtful, if that doesn't qualify.

22953. sakonige - 8/5/2004 1:06:56 AM

It's human, but it's also a parasite. The host should have some say in ridding itself of a parasite.

22954. sakonige - 8/5/2004 1:07:54 AM

especially a harmful parasite. No one should be forced to host a harmful parasite.

22955. angel-five - 8/5/2004 6:59:31 AM

Kuligin can post as many of those as he wants, as far as I'm concerned. Abortion involves something pretty horrific.

His mistake, I'm thinking, is assuming that it will move people who already know abortion involves something pretty horrific. Maybe he's used to impressionable teenagers as his audience. The fact of the matter is that mature adults are capable of realizing that some decisions come at a horrible cost, and still decide it's the best decision. Maybe he does realize that somehow -- in fact, it seems likely he does. He just seems to think that they opt for that decision for selfish reasons. I know some do. Some do not, some are honestly trying to do the right thing, and in some cases it is assuredly the right thing to do! You can't reduce it all to some kinda caricature of selfish shallow upper class women deciding to murder an infant because it will fuck up their feng shui. Trying to do that just advertises the essential weakness of his position.

22956. Ulgine Barrows - 8/5/2004 7:57:31 AM

22861. kuliginthehooligan - 8/3/2004 2:50:09 PM
The fact is, year in and year out, abortion ranks in the top two medical procedures performed in the US (if memory serves, circumcision is the other one). In short, it is hardly rare.

Oh, please.
I'd guess taking weight and blood pressure readings were tops.

"Abortion is used in very large part as a form of birth control and nothing else."
That's a silly thing to read, how do you like this in response?
Pony up some money and time, and raise those kids yourself.

Not that you have a choice, whether it's legal or not, moral or not. Women can decide, and that just chaps your ass.

22957. angel-five - 8/5/2004 10:55:08 AM

>The fact is, year in and year out, abortion ranks in the top two medical procedures performed in the US (if memory serves, circumcision is the other one). In short, it is hardly rare.

Do you know why this is such obviously retarded propaganda, Kuligin?

How can there be more circumcisions than births?

The fact that you garbled is that abortion is usually one of the top two obstetric medical procedures performed per year in the world. (Childbirth is the number one obstetric medical procedure, go figure!) Pop quiz, Kuligin -- how many sorts of obstetric medical procedure do you think there are?

22958. Ulgine Barrows - 8/5/2004 11:02:56 AM

Slip in anything you like, angel-five.

Is this for real?

22959. angel-five - 8/5/2004 11:25:30 AM

Given that there's no comprehensive world (or US for that matter) database of the total count of medical procedures, really, no, it isn't for real. There's just estimation, especially when you're looking at a procedure that's often kept confidential. Anti-abortion propagandists like to estimate large numbers, for obvious reasons. But when they start claiming that abortions are more common than chest x-rays and childbirth and mammograms and colonoscopies, it becomes plain that they have left the real world far behind.

22960. angel-five - 8/5/2004 11:31:04 AM

I should have had 'fact' in quotes, as far as that goes. But that's a given when you're working with propaganda.

22961. Ulgine Barrows - 8/5/2004 11:43:15 AM

When I'm retired, I hope you or your kids are looking after me!

Go forth!

There are lots of stupid-sounding persons all over the internet.

Take care, candyman.

22962. thoughtful - 8/5/2004 6:41:34 PM

ktheh, if you can't see that whatever it was posted in your first picture is not human, then you only prove how little you know about the topic...or else it demonstrates your willingness to accept total nonsense as fact if it supports your presuppositions.

22963. judithathome - 8/5/2004 7:57:50 PM

That first picture doesn't look human because human embryos have larger heads and eyes before they have fully formed hands and feet...and the sonagrams prove this out.

I'm sure Kuligin knows this but that picture makes a graphic statement so he went with it.

22964. Magoseph - 8/5/2004 8:54:29 PM

Thank you to Judith for asking Hobbes at ATI to put a link for The Mote on his site. Hobbes put it on for us, folks.

22965. Magoseph - 8/5/2004 8:55:54 PM

Sorry for the post above. I thought that I was in the Cafe.

22966. kuliginthehooligan - 8/5/2004 10:25:28 PM

"ktheh, if you can't see that whatever it was posted in your first picture is not human, then you only prove how little you know about the topic"

AND

"That first picture doesn't look human because human embryos have larger heads and eyes before they have fully formed hands and feet"

Look again you morons. The head is severed off the body. Geez. Couldn't you at least figure that one out?? That is just the torso, no head in that picture.

22967. kuliginthehooligan - 8/5/2004 10:27:03 PM

I am always amazed at how quickly people attempt to divert the issue. Naw, Kuligin doesn't really care about human beings, just political power. Naw, those aren't really humans, something else and Kuligin disengenuously posted them just the same.

Bunch of creeps the lot of you. Dead humans, that's what those pictures are. And all of you call that a right. Losers. Try to skirt it all you want to, but all that shows is that you folks truly have no conscience.

22968. judithathome - 8/5/2004 11:00:55 PM

Look again you morons.

Have you ever addressed someone who disagreed with you without using an insulting name?

I am not a moron; I didn't look that closely at the picture. Just because you drooled over it for hours on end, don't assume we all paid it that close attention.

22969. sakonige - 8/6/2004 1:57:35 AM

parasite An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Don't want to actually look at the truth, do you kuligin? The reality is too raw and complex to be reduced to a slogan.

22970. sakonige - 8/6/2004 2:00:39 AM

unless you have hosted such a parasite in your own body, I think you should shut the fuck up about it, because you don't know what you are talking about.

22971. tmesis - 8/6/2004 4:10:59 AM

sakonige, you're either retarded or disingenuous. The monospecies parasitism you keep harping on about is generally referred to as pregnancy. First, parasitism is understood to involve two different species, not one. Second, there's medical evidence that pregnancy, especially by a certain age, confers health benefits on a woman.

kuligin, stop trying to sensationalize. A person should have the option to participate in the discussion without having to look at abortion photos. Provide a text link, if you must. Have you seen the photo of tubgirl? No? Let's keep it that way.

22972. tmesis - 8/6/2004 4:14:07 AM

22973. tmesis - 8/6/2004 4:15:08 AM

Sorry. I guess refreshing causes the browser to repost.

22974. arkymalarky - 8/6/2004 6:08:43 AM

Yep.

22975. angel-five - 8/6/2004 9:50:33 AM

Does it really matter whether he posts pictures of sheep fetuses or human ones? That's what abortion looks like. Of course, it'd be pretty amusing if he bungle-fucked up and posted the wrong dead fetus, but the point is pretty much the same. Kuligin thinks that by shoving it in your face he will make you confront the reality and question your stand on it. It's a pretty patronizing view, and as shown so far in this discussion, it isn't working out terribly well for him, because everyone here's bright enough to understand what an abortion involves, and are all pretty unlikely to ever really take him that seriously anyway because they've seen him in action long enough to know what he's all about. Online ranting thumpers are kinda like street drunks in that regard, sometimes you watch them a bit out of morbid curiosity but usually your eyes slide right on by. The ironic thing is that with a different, reasoned approach he might actually make some points here and there that people would accept.

Tmesis -- He isn't trying to be a sensationalist. That's actually as far from the truth as you can get. Kuligin thinks of himself as some kinda grim footsoldier for an angry Christ, out doing the Lord's dirty work. His end is converting you, and any means will do -- a lie is as good as a truth if it strikes an equal blow for Jesus. Plus he likes to argue. If he had subtlety and charm he'd make a good Jesuit -- as it stands now, he'd make an excellent Witchfinder General. Try not to take it out on the guy, he's just in the wrong century.

22976. angel-five - 8/6/2004 9:53:39 AM

I am always amazed at how quickly people attempt to divert the issue.

Isn't that what you're doing right now?

22977. angel-five - 8/6/2004 9:56:38 AM

I mean, isn't that your old reliable MO? 'If I can't beat them or convert them, I'll just try to discredit them and their arguments, and cover myself by insisting that that's what's being done to me?'

Be honest now. I'm told the Lord hates it when we lie.

22978. tmesis - 8/6/2004 10:36:22 AM

Of course he's trying to sensationalize, to deliberately provoke a quick and powerful emotional or visceral response. In a discussion of deviant sexual practices, it is perfectly possible to verbally describe scatology without shoving a picture of tubgirl in your eyeballs. To do more is to sensationalize. Why else would a fundie(if he is one, as you say) use any means possible to deliver his point?

22979. angel-five - 8/6/2004 10:59:23 AM

to deliberately provoke a quick and powerful emotional or visceral response.

I'd agree with the usage in that sense.

22980. jayackroyd - 8/6/2004 4:20:10 PM

Maybe this is a good time for a recap.

This particular line of discussion began when I disputed Kuligan's claim (and similar claims in the media) that we are living in a very polarized time. I said that's not so--that most people are centrists primarily concerned about their economic future. I further said that to the degree there is polarization, it is happening among politicians, being driven particularly by republicans trying to use social issues as wedges.

Then I pointed out that even on those issues most people are moderate, and indifferent compared with other issues they see as more important. These points have gone unrefuted, as we've been led through the typical "I can't believe you are such heartless morons" rant.

The rant, of course, never dealt with the issues that were raised other than to say the equivalent of "An egg is a chicken, and only a fool thinks otherwise." Moreover, the instances where embryos are disposed of in pursuit of children for people with fertility problems was never discussed.

This is not about abortion.

22981. pelty - 8/6/2004 5:20:02 PM

"being driven particularly by republicans trying to use social issues as wedges."

This may go better in the Politics thread, but Jay, come on, you cannot be serious when you imply that the GOP is the primary party using social issues as wedges. The Dems have used race for decades, abortion in the other direction, environmental programs, gay rights, not to mention health care, social security, and all the other FDR/LBJ legacy programs that have transformed our society into one that looks to the govt. teat for anything and everything. No doubt the GOP does the same in some of these and other areas, but please don't stick your head in the sand and put this all on one party.

22982. kuliginthehooligan - 8/6/2004 5:30:06 PM

"I didn't look that closely at the picture."

Then you truly are a moron, judith. Because you said I knew full well that it wasn't a pic of a human fetus, that it was self-evident that it was not, and that despite that fact, I posted it anyway because is suited my purposes.

Now you admit that you didn't really look all that closely to the picture in the first place!

Only morons give short shrift to something, yet in kneejerk fashion accuse others of lying!

Here's your comment in full, creep:

"That first picture doesn't look human because human embryos have larger heads and eyes before they have fully formed hands and feet...and the sonagrams prove this out.

I'm sure Kuligin knows this but that picture makes a graphic statement so he went with it."

22983. kuliginthehooligan - 8/6/2004 5:31:01 PM

Also, posting pics of abortions is certainly acceptable, since many people who support abortion do so on the grounds that all it is is a mass or blob in the woman's womb. We even have some people claiming it is nothing more than a parasite. Well, looking at the human body therein might help some people realize their error. Perhaps not in this thread of people whose consciences have been seared, but it has certainly been the case with others in this country.

Those aren't undifferentiated cells being removed from the woman's body, folks. That's a human being, nothing less.

22984. kuliginthehooligan - 8/6/2004 5:34:39 PM

Lastly, I am truly amazed at how much deception is used by the pro-death people in this thread. For starters, whether or not that one picture I posted was an aborted fetus (and it clearly is), that doesn't affect the issue one bit. The fact remains, 1.2 million human beings are aborted each and every year in the US. But you guys, in an obvious attempt to skirt the issues, attempt to change the subject to me as a liar, or me as politically motivated, all the while ignoring the FACT of abortion.

Just go back up and take a gander at your posts. You guys consistently bury your heads in the sand on this issue. Or better yet, you claim you care about it, but oppose all efforts to stop it.

There is not one ounce of moral compunction among the whole of you. You simply do not care. And your kneejerk reactions to the pics proves that out. You don't really care at all about those human lives. Not one iota.

22985. kuliginthehooligan - 8/6/2004 5:37:19 PM

And here's the quintessential example:

"I didn't look that closely at the picture."

Yet, judith is very quick and willing to accuse me of lying, to state that the pic is clearly not a human fetus and that I knew it wasn't but claimed it was anyway.

And the whole while, she conveniently skirts the abortion issue.

This is very similar to those people in The Mote who are constantly accusing Bush of lying, yet when Clinton had an extra-marital affair, was caught, and lied about it on oath to the American people, these same people said that wasn't that big of a deal. Hypocrites, all of them.

22986. kuliginthehooligan - 8/6/2004 5:43:33 PM

Yet another example:

"This is not about abortion."

For seven years now, in The Fray and now here, I have spoken out against abortion. This isn't some new hot topic for me just during this election. It has been a consistent theme of mine the entire time I have been in this forum. In fact, it was the second topic I breeched when I first came to The Fray. The first was a theological matter.

But why waste the facts on people like jay? Or angel-five? Or judith? Or thoughtful? You all much prefer to make this issue something else, while conveniently ignoring the real facts: 1.2 million human beings are slaughtered each and every year via this heinous practice we call a woman's right to choose.

Naw, it isn't really about abortions at all. Naw, all those pictures are fake. Yep, Kuligin just cares about political power. Yep, he really doesn't care if we rip those human beings out with broken bottles, so long as the GOP wins.

So let's just go on our merry way, saying how much we wish there weren't so many abortions in this country, yet not doing a damn thing to stop them.

22987. kuliginthehooligan - 8/6/2004 5:45:16 PM

And now, judith, that you admit to not even looking too closely at that picture, and now that you recognize that it is a human fetus without its head, because its head was ripped off the torso during the abortion process...

and because you accused me of lying about it...

I expect an apology from you.

22988. kuliginthehooligan - 8/6/2004 5:46:22 PM

"Just because you drooled over it for hours on end, don't assume we all paid it that close attention."

Close enough to accuse me of lying about it. So please, I expect you to be a big person and apologize for your obvious kneejerk reaction and error in falsely accusing me of lying.

22989. kuliginthehooligan - 8/6/2004 5:49:48 PM

"A person should have the option to participate in the discussion without having to look at abortion photos."

tmesis, well, if we take judith's word on it, those photos weren't looked at much anyway.

However, as I noted above, showing those photos does confer some benefit upon the discussion, because, as you yourself noted in your chastisement of sakonige, some people attempt to make us believe that what is aborted is a parasite, or a mass of cells and nothing more. But as the photos intimately show us, those are human beings being scalded to death with a salt solution, or ripped to pieces by the implements of the abortion doctor.

Seeing the facts for what they truly are can never be harmful to a debate, can they?

22990. PelleNilsson - 8/6/2004 6:21:29 PM

So Judith is "a moron" and "a creep". You have developed into a hopeless boor, Kuligin.

22991. tmesis - 8/6/2004 8:34:52 PM

kuligin, you ghetto faggot, no one argued that fetuses are undifferentiated cell masses. Please learn to read before you tilt your dick at strawmen.

"Seeing the facts for what they truly are can never be harmful to a debate, can they?"

You're right. Since I, probably as you do, believe that homosexuality is a vile, vile disposition contrary to the kingdom of heaven, I will attempt to shed light on its disgusting nature every time it is discussed graphically, as you have. Here's a preview.

I hope this helps.

22992. arkymalarky - 8/6/2004 8:34:57 PM

At what stage of pregnancy were most of those abortion pictures?

22993. arkymalarky - 8/6/2004 8:35:21 PM

Not most--all

22994. judithathome - 8/6/2004 8:37:55 PM

Close enough to accuse me of lying about it. So please, I expect you to be a big person and apologize for your obvious kneejerk reaction and error in falsely accusing me of lying.

Fine...I aoplogize for "accusing" you of lying. I shouldn't have phrased it in those terms. You obviously feel very strongly about this subject and feel compelled to label anyone with a different view with names and slurs to their intellect.

Kuli, if you feel your God approves of this sort of behavior from you, then you are right to do those types of things. I personally don't think it's right but when I do something wrong, I admit it and I am apologizing for implying you lied.

But just so you know, and are very clear on where I stand, I support a woman's right to choose what happens in her body. If that means having an abortion, then so be it. I would prefer that people use birth control to prevent the abortion being necessary...and that includes men AND women...and I think it is deplorable to use abortion as a means of birth control but I still support the laws that make it legal for a woman to choose abortion.

I have a clear conscience about doing so, too. And no amount of bluster from you will change my mind.

22995. Magoseph - 8/6/2004 9:19:27 PM

tmesis, point well-taken.

22996. judithathome - 8/6/2004 9:43:07 PM

Yes, the door has swung open on what is deemed proper graphic depiction, has it not?

A picture is worth a thousand words, right, Kuligin?

22997. woden - 8/6/2004 10:28:47 PM

roughly 600 thousand human beings are slaughtered each and every year by women who just don't really care, and use abortion as another form of birth control.

Right there, is the problem with people like you. As long as you make this only the fault of women you will never, ever end abortion or even significantly reduce the numbers of abortions that occur.

If our child support, paternity, battery laws were very well-enforced, how many fewer abortions would there be? If pregnant women could absolutely count on a decent level of support from the fathers of their children, if there were no way for a man to welch on those responsibilities, and if the women did not fear being abused by those men, then there would be a significant reduction in the number of abortions every year. But, people who oppose abortion choose not to pursue legislation that would have the effect of actually reducing abortion, they want to put the problem entirely on the women, using polarizing, overtly religious crusade language.

I imagine that the reason why anti-abortion activists never seem to attack the problem from that angle (holding men responsible and pursuing legislation that would enforce that responsibility) are the following:

- It simply doesn't occur to them, they just aren't very good at strategizing to achieve their goals, they would rather make it a polarizing moral issue than pursuing legislation which most people could agree.

- They are more interested in controlling women's sexuality than in taking practical measures to prevent abortion.

- They want to uphold male privilege.

That is why I have zero respect for the pro-life movement as a whole and would never, ever support it, even though I do think abortion is morally wrong.

22998. PelleNilsson - 8/6/2004 10:34:49 PM

Good points, woden, and nice to see you here.

22999. woden - 8/6/2004 10:36:19 PM

Thanks, Pelle!

23000. Absensia - 8/6/2004 10:55:10 PM

Wodes, Very, very good to see you here! I hope you will be a regular. (It's Flam`)

23001. woden - 8/6/2004 11:18:47 PM

Flam! I hardly recognized ya!

23002. judithathome - 8/6/2004 11:23:53 PM

Welcome to the Mote, Woden! Good to see you here....

23003. woden - 8/6/2004 11:25:09 PM

Thanks, Judith!

23004. pelty - 8/6/2004 11:29:16 PM

Woden,

You make some good points, but I think you misjudge the motives of the pro-life "movement." I do not think that there is an assignment of blame as much as a reaction to the initial issue and the way it was presented. At its heart, the abortion rights movement was as much about women's rights and the feminist movement as it was about birth control, family planning and any of the other euphemisms thrown about today. Thus, when the battle lines were drawn, they primarily focused on the procedure versus advocating a more holistic approach. I do not believe that your point would be lost on or disagreed with by the pro-life side, but decades-old sclerosis has set in on both sides of the debate and other issues, such as that you mention, become peripheral. As someone who would place himself in the "pro-life" camp, I would absolutely agree with your points re: male responsibilty. OTOH, I have no interest in "upholding male privilege" (whatever you mean by that; a straw man in my mind) or in "controlling women's sexuality" (again, what do you mean by this?). I would venture to say that as many women as men, and possibly more women than men, are a part of the pro-life "movement" (by this, I mean those who would count themselves as pro-lifers, not just those actively involved in pro-life associations), so are you suggesting that they are interested in upholding male privilege and controlling other women's sexuality (and if so, what's to gain?) or are you simply going to stereotype them as vacuous, brainwashed, etc., at which point you discredit your argument?

23005. woden - 8/6/2004 11:55:07 PM

so are you suggesting that they are interested in upholding male privilege and controlling other women's sexuality

Virtually all pro-lifers are religious, usually Catholic or some type of fundie Protestant. I believe they are not interested in strengthening child-support and other legislation of that type because it would probably have the effect of encouraging or rewarding sex outside of marriage. Or, on the flip side, it would take the financial sting out of choosing not to marry or choosing to have sex outside of marriage.

23006. judithathome - 8/6/2004 11:56:38 PM

so are you suggesting that they are interested in upholding male privilege and controlling other women's sexuality (and if so, what's to gain?) or are you simply going to stereotype them as vacuous, brainwashed, etc., at which point you discredit your argument?

Much as others who portray people who support pro-choice as Pro Death supporters do?

23007. woden - 8/7/2004 12:05:16 AM

Good point, Judith.

To clarify what I just said, the religions I mentioned are overtly, explicitly concerned with controlling female sexuality and with upholding male privilege. Though the religious pro-lifers would say that their activity is primarily out of the religious principle of sanctity of life, it is not so neatly and cleanly separated from those other agendas prominent in their religions.

23008. pelty - 8/7/2004 12:34:07 AM

"Much as others who portray people who support pro-choice as Pro Death supporters do?"

I actually miss your point. There is nothing inherently wrong about this categorization, even if it is not one that sits well. Abortion of a fetus inevitably causes the premature death of a developing infant. Thus, if one is pro-abortion one is Pro-Death, in this particular instance. That does not mean they are for death in all areas of life, but in this case, if a=b and b=c, then a=c.

23009. pelty - 8/7/2004 12:43:13 AM

"To clarify what I just said, the religions I mentioned are overtly, explicitly concerned with controlling female sexuality and with upholding male privilege."

Again, define your terms. Are you saying that these religions are monolithic and thus all persons within them are interested in upholding male privilege (whatever it is you mean by this) and controlling female sexuality? Further, have you not noticed that these religions put just as much emphasis on male sexuality and the strict regulation thereof (confines of marriage, etc.) as they do on the women? They do not send them outside the camp during their menstrual periods these days, as far as I know.

If, by "upholding male privilege" you mean having the men in leadership positions, I think you would find that there are a number of "fundie Protestant" churches who do not take this position, or would certainly be open to discussing it. It appears as though you are applying a rather uninformed stereotype to groups who should probably not be seen as some monolithic structure in which there is no variation. You may have a slightly better argument w/ the Catholic church (although there is variation there as well, to a lesser extent), but there are too many groups, denominations, etc. under your umbrella of "fundie Protestant" churches to assume that they all think in one way on this issue.

23010. pelty - 8/7/2004 12:49:25 AM

"I believe they are not interested in strengthening child-support and other legislation of that type because it would probably have the effect of encouraging or rewarding sex outside of marriage."

What do you mean by "strengthening child support"? Do you mean that we should strengthen laws that would make the father of a child support the child monetarily throughout its childhood? Why on earth would someone be against that? That hardly rewards sex outside of marriage. If you mean that the government should support these people with our tax-dollars for 18 years (as opposed to a shorter period which might aid the family as they get their feet on the ground, the parent goes to college, etc.), then you would be right that some might be against this, but not for the reasons you state.

23011. woden - 8/7/2004 12:52:16 AM

The Catholic Church is monolithic. Either you buy the major points listed in the catechism or you can take a hike. It's also quite clear that the leadership of the Catholic church actively participates in the sexual exploitation of women and children by it's clergy.

All Christian churches are based on the New Testament, including the writings of St. Paul and other writings which explicitly repress women.

You can argue all day that your church makes various concessions, interpretations, has different rules, blah blah. I am familiar with the Bible and I think it's sexist. The burden is on the religious anti-abortion activists to present themselves as non-sexist. There is no burden on secular people who are happy with Roe v. Wade to convince themselves that Christianity is not sexist, concerned with upholding male privilege and controlling female sexuality.

23012. woden - 8/7/2004 12:57:54 AM

What do you mean by "strengthening child support"?

Child support laws should be well-enforced. A man should not be able to easily evade his obligation by moving away or concealing his income. He should be legally obligated to provide an amount of money that his kids can actually live on, and if he can't do that, heavier penalties should be levied than those that exist now.

That hardly rewards sex outside of marriage.

Sure it does. Who has more legal options and leverage for getting support, a wife or ex-wife or someone just suing for child support?

23013. pelty - 8/7/2004 6:19:28 AM

Woden,

You demonstrate a lack of sophistication on any number of levels in this regard.

You write this: "You can argue all day that your church makes various concessions, interpretations, has different rules, blah blah. I am familiar with the Bible and I think it's sexist."

This is, of course, not what you stated above. You stated that fundie Protestants are one of the two denominations involved in the movement that seeks to uphold the male power structure and whatever other blather you were spouting. Now you are dismissing the notion that all "fundie" churches cannot be lumped into your broad stereotype and now have decided to point to the Bible as your source of anger or whatever, thereby removing one of your legs upon which you stand.

Further, you never really addressed the fact that there are multitudes of women who consider themselves pro-life, "fundies", or whatever and do not seem to have the same negative feelings that you do nor do they see themselves as upholding the male power structure to their detriment. As I see it, you either have to concede this and deal with it or lump them into the other stereotypes that you have developed in your own mind in which they are naive, stupid, etc.

23014. Ulgine Barrows - 8/7/2004 8:46:43 AM

22967...Bunch of creeps the lot of you. Dead humans, that's what those pictures are.

Well, looking at pictures of dead humans just doesn't creep me out. We all end up that way. Some sooner, some later.

I could watch a bloodshot corpse in the rain, little rivulets of blood flowing, and I wouldn't throw up. I bet lots of cops wouldn't throw up, doctors, nurses, morgue attendants, pathologists, and many others would just do their job.

I could go into a house where there had been a suicide by gunshot wound, brains all over the wall, and clean up.

It's all in the design, kuliginthehooligan. Quit fighting death. Some people deal with it every day.

23015. Ulgine Barrows - 8/7/2004 8:48:27 AM

I cannot stifle it....

bring out yer dead!!!

But I'm not dead yet!

23016. Ulgine Barrows - 8/7/2004 9:15:48 AM

22948. kuliginthehooligan - 8/5/2004 10:42:41 PM.....

Why? Because it has been determined that these people don't know good enough for themselves. The laws are created, in essence, to protect people against themselves in many instances.

And as God is my justice, it is illegal for me to shoot off fireworks on the 4th of July, yet still I do.

And teenagers are having sex. Adults are having sex. The world is pretty normal, here, in my corner of it.

absolutely mind boggling how, with a wave of the hand, we can condone the death of 40 million Americans over the past 31 years, and then blithely call it a personal right and privilege.

Absolutely mind boggling how, with a wave of the hand, you adopted out those 40 million Americans into loving homes that you hold in your fantasy.

23017. Ulgine Barrows - 8/7/2004 10:12:53 AM

shriek hellfire at them

22970. sakonige - 8/6/2004 6:00:39 PM
unless you have hosted such a parasite in your own body, I think you should shut the fuck up about it, because you don't know what you are talking about.

Hey sakonige, good to see you, been a while. I read your screed about parasites years ago,but didn't understand. You don't know me, I'm sure, but your words stayed with me. You had the passion. Give me a few days and check back.

23018. Ulgine Barrows - 8/7/2004 10:15:44 AM

And I'm chagrined that it looks like you posted again.
I was just putting your original post in bold.

23019. jayackroyd - 8/7/2004 5:50:36 PM

"controlling women's sexuality" (again, what do you mean by this?).

FOr example, by insisting that chastity is the only acceptable form of birth control.

Still haven't heard about those fertility procedures. If it really were about abortion, then I'd have heard about them by now.

23020. woden - 8/7/2004 6:04:12 PM

Further, you never really addressed the fact that there are multitudes of women who consider themselves pro-life, "fundies", or whatever and do not seem to have the same negative feelings that you do nor do they see themselves as upholding the male power structure to their detriment. As I see it, you either have to concede this and deal with it or lump them into the other stereotypes that you have developed in your own mind in which they are naive, stupid, etc.

That is a ridiculously bad argument. Of course women have participated in institutions which are sexist. I don't have to lump them into a stereotype or think about them in any particular way. Why should I waste my time speculating as to why they would do this? It's not my problem. It is the problem of people like you who want to change the laws of the United States.

The fact that I pointed to the Bible as the source of the sexism doesn't take anything away from my argument. There is no logical reason why both the Bible and fundie churches can't both be sexist at the same time.

Pretty lame. There are probably a bunch of people like me, just kind of here in the center, who have secular arguments against abortion. If you could soft-pedal your dumb religions and engage the middle on their terms, you might end abortion. Your posts demonstrate that Roe v. Wade is perfectly safe from people like you.

23021. sakonige - 8/7/2004 6:34:44 PM

Ulgine Barrows -

That's just the way it works. Mammals begin life as parasites. A fetus is usually welcome in the host's body, but it is undeniably a parasite.

23022. woden - 8/7/2004 6:46:41 PM

(This is res being too lazy to log out) Actually, you got that idea from me. And I was wrong at the time, and knew it, and was just trying to rile some fundamentalists. Fetuses aren't parasites, even if you choose to use the terminology usually reserved for different species living in and on each other. They are symbiotes.

Pelty: What, exactly, is it that's confusing you about my girlfriend's posts? You seem horribly confused about something and I'm not sure what. Is it the sexism of prottie Christianity that you're objecting to? Or is it the overlap between that camp and the anti-abortion crowd that is losing you? Or is it the fact that you think she doesn't understand that fundamentalist protestant Christianity is more than one unit? Or are you just indiscriminately angry? Please feel free to let me know the answer so I can more constructively engage with you on this topic.

23023. tmesis - 8/7/2004 7:26:06 PM

Re: 22970

sakonige, don't be disingenuous. The only parasite you've ever hosted is your ignorance. If empiricism is the sole criterion guiding your speech, the only thing you're fit to wax flatulent about is your mental retardation.

Your claim is as ludicrous as a AIDS patient claiming that HIV, as a matter of fact, is a bacterium and not a retrovirus, and that anyone who hasn't been infected is unfit to speak on the nature of the pathogenesis of AIDS.

Don't be a dishonest trick.

23024. woden - 8/7/2004 7:33:25 PM

Be an honest trick.

23025. sakonige - 8/7/2004 8:03:46 PM

tmesis -

Here is the definition again:

parasite - An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

23026. tmesis - 8/7/2004 8:06:03 PM

That's an incomplete and inadequate definition. And I've already noted that the human fetus confers benefits to the carrier. Aren't you overdue for a 173rd trimester abortion?

23027. sakonige - 8/7/2004 8:08:57 PM

Actually, you got that idea from me.

Actually, I didn't get that idea from you, resonance. I got that idea directly from the experience of pregnancy. A fetus feels exactly like what it is, a parasite. Ones feelings may be extremely mixed about the sensation, but it is unmistakable. There is a living things inside your body feeding on you, pissing into your bloodstream.

23028. sakonige - 8/7/2004 8:20:16 PM

They are symbiotes.

No, they are not.

symbiosis - A close, prolonged association between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.

23029. sakonige - 8/7/2004 8:31:54 PM

There are sometimes benefits associated with overcoming the stress pregnancy puts on a woman's body, sort of like exposure to disease may build ones immunity, but that doesn't change the essential parameters of the physical relationship.

23030. sakonige - 8/7/2004 8:32:30 PM

And I've already noted that the human fetus confers benefits to the carrier.

Have you ever wondered why nutrition, healthcare, and hospitalization is so important to the process of childbirth?

Have you ever heard of maternal mortality?

You may wish you weren't a parasite inside your mother's body, but you were. That's just the way it works.

23031. sakonige - 8/7/2004 8:36:21 PM

"Maternal mortality is defined as the death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management. Maternal morbidity is any illness or injury caused or aggravated by, or associated with, pregnancy or childbirth.

The majority of pregnancy-related deaths occur after delivery (61 percent), in comparison to 24 percent during pregnancy and 16 percent during delivery.

Forty-two percent of the 129 million women who give birth annually experience some complications during pregnancy. Approximately 15 percent of women worldwide develop potentially life-threatening complications, which include chronic pain, impaired mobility, damage to the reproductive system and infertility.

In developing countries, pregnancy and complications from childbirth account for 18 percent of disease among females..."

That's not symbiosis.

23032. tmesis - 8/7/2004 8:50:06 PM

"Have you ever wondered why nutrition, healthcare, and hospitalization is so important to the process of childbirth?"

You're an idiot. Please kill yourself immediately, or failing that, sew your anus shut lest you speak ever again. By and large, healthcare and hospitalizations do little for childbirth with the exception of a few in which complications or birth defects are a concern.

"Have you ever heard of maternal mortality?"

I go to a med school, so yes. Medicine does not regard fetuses as parasites, and no amount of squawking from you will change that.

There's good evidence that intelligence is largely inborn. I hope you don't have children.

23033. sakonige - 8/7/2004 9:12:11 PM

tmesis, you are very emotional about this stuff, aren't you?

You drop right down to the lowest level of ad hominem right away.

I go to a med school, so yes.

Since you insist on getting so personal, you said on another website you are flunking out of grad school. Is that the med school you refer to?

Also, I assume you are a male. Is that so?

23034. sakonige - 8/7/2004 9:17:49 PM

By and large, healthcare and hospitalizations do little for childbirth with the exception of a few in which complications or birth defects are a concern.

Statistics don't bear that out. Look at a comparison of mortality rates between developed and undeveloped nations.

23035. sakonige - 8/7/2004 9:25:36 PM

maternal mortality

"In many developing countries, complications of pregnancy and childbirth are the leading causes of death among women of reproductive age. More than one woman dies every minute from such causes; 585,000 women die every year.1 Less than one percent of these deaths occur in developed countries, demonstrating that they could be avoided if resources and services were available.

In addition to maternal death, women experience more than 50 million maternal health problems annually.2 As many as 300 million women – more than one-quarter of all adult women living in the developing world – currently suffer from short- or long-term illnesses and injuries related to pregnancy and childbirth."

23036. tmesis - 8/7/2004 9:28:00 PM

"You drop right down to the lowest level of ad hominem right away."

Please learn to distinguish ad hominems from insults.

"Since you insist on getting so personal, you said on another website you are flunking out of grad school. Is that the med school you refer to?"

You're a literal minded idiot. I'm neither emotionally involved in this nor failing out.

"Statistics don't bear that out. Look at a comparison of mortality rates between developed and undeveloped nations"

It's called confounding variables, you idiot.

23037. tmesis - 8/7/2004 9:35:46 PM

re 23035.

Stop. I didn't say that complications don't exist, or that there exist a fairly large number of them in absolute terms. In relation to the number of all pregnancies, however, hospitalizations add little to deliveries.

But that's neither here nor there. This has to do with your disingenuous use of the word parasite. Western medicine does not recognize fetuses to be parasites, nor does your being a cum depository qualify you to modify existing definitions.

23038. woden - 8/7/2004 9:50:24 PM

There is a living things inside your body feeding on you, pissing into your bloodstream.

Fetuses don't share a bloodstream with mothers, nor does amniotic fluid leach into the bloodstream. I'm sure you think now that this was all your idea, but it wasn't, and it's obvious that you're just being bitchy now.

For starters, the same definitional barriers apply between parasites and symbiotes -- the study of parasitology is the study of different species interacting with each other. Symbiotes and parasites are solely distinguished from one another based on whether the two organisms help one another or not. If they can be shown to help one another, regardless of any other issues, they can be described as symbiotic.

Secondly, the fetus in the womb never, ever comes into contact with the mother. It does not share the bloodstream, nutrients are passed via osmosis, there is an entire barrier of foreign tissue between the fetus and the mother known as the placenta. So strictly speaking, the placenta is a parasitical tissue (except that it can be shown to benefit the mother's health) and not the fetus, which is purely symbiotic.

But all this is just a poetic conceit anyway. Science recognizes parasitology and embryology separately primarily because scientists aren't as stupid and divisive as you are, and they use more stable and logical methods of deduction than your old standby schizophrenic 'I have direct knowledge of these sorts of thing and I understand it completely.

23039. sakonige - 8/7/2004 9:55:51 PM

tmesis -

You are obviously extremely emotional and irrational on this subject, practically out of control. You are a hateful asshole who will stoop to telling a complete stranger to commit suicide over a disagreement in an internet debate. You're going to make a lousy doctor.

You said:

By and large, healthcare and hospitalizations do little for childbirth with the exception of a few in which complications or birth defects are a concern.

And that's bullshit. Healthcare and hospitalization have a lot to do with childbirth.

For some reason, it is very important to you to believe pregnancy and childbirth have no negative impact on women's health.

23040. sakonige - 8/7/2004 9:57:07 PM

There's reality there you can't stand to look at.

23041. judithathome - 8/7/2004 10:01:24 PM

Healthcare and hospitalization have a lot to do with childbirth.

Women who use midwives do just fine, too. Assuming no complications, of course.

23042. sakonige - 8/7/2004 10:03:39 PM

23038. woden - 8/8/2004 11:50:24 AM

I didn't say I understand "it" completely. I said I understand what pregnancy feels like better than you do.

23043. sakonige - 8/7/2004 10:05:40 PM

Women who use midwives do just fine, too. Assuming no complications, of course.

There are plenty of midwives in the third world, where women are not all doing just fine. It's assinine to claim quality of healthcare has no impact on maternal mortality.

23044. woden - 8/7/2004 10:07:03 PM

Probably more than half of people born today wouldn't make it through their birth without modern medicine. Before modern medicine, it was incredibly common to die in childbirth.

23045. woden - 8/7/2004 10:07:28 PM

This is me now, btw.

23046. judithathome - 8/7/2004 10:10:11 PM

It's assinine to claim quality of healthcare has no impact on maternal mortality

What's assinine is you attributing that claim to me when all I did was point out midwives have success in helping women, too.

23047. sakonige - 8/7/2004 10:11:27 PM

Often, the way a woman first realizes she is pregnant is nausea. She can't stop puking. Some times she gets used to it, sometimes she just keeps on puking until she is no longer pregnant.

Any man who puked his guts out for months on end would realize something was wrong with his body. But the same man might insist that a woman going through that is benefiting from the experience.

23048. tmesis - 8/7/2004 10:13:09 PM

Irrational? Have you noticed that no one agrees with you? Ask any biologist or physician whether a fetus is parasitic and she'll laugh at you.

To sum it up, you're

1. dishonest

2. ignorant

3. stupid

4. literal minded

"For some reason, it is very important to you to believe pregnancy and childbirth have no negative impact on women's health."

I have never said this. I did say that pregnancy is not all detriment. It confers benefits, largely in endocrine regulation.

judithathome, you're absolutely correct. A respected obstetrician at school has told me that midwives are often better at deliveries except in managing obstetric emergencies.

23049. Jenerator - 8/7/2004 11:07:41 PM

I suspect that there is a direct link between child abuse and the parents who believe that their child/children are parasites.

23050. Jenerator - 8/7/2004 11:12:52 PM

All Christian churches are based on the New Testament, including the writings of St. Paul and other writings which explicitly repress women.

This is a pretty sweeping generalization, Woden. As pelty rightly pointed out, there are millions of us who do not fit into this - namely me. I am a Protestant (Southern Baptist, specifically) and I am anti-abortion and am NOT repressed by the church. Nor have I ever perceived or received any repression from any writings of Paul.

If you'd like to start discussing feminist theology versus orthodox Christianity, I'm all yours!

;-)

23051. tmesis - 8/7/2004 11:17:52 PM

re 23044.

That's true, but the decreased infant mortality is largely due to public health measures, not hospitalizations per se.

23052. Jenerator - 8/7/2004 11:18:40 PM

23053. Jenerator - 8/7/2004 11:20:05 PM

Abortion for the sake of convenience (which accounts for the majority of abortions) is wrong and immoral.

23054. Jenerator - 8/7/2004 11:21:33 PM

tmesis,

Welcome to the Mote.

23055. sakonige - 8/7/2004 11:27:32 PM

Have you noticed that no one agrees with you?

Plenty of people agree with me. That's why abortion is legal.

23056. Jenerator - 8/7/2004 11:30:46 PM

Sakonige,

Abortion is a very divisive topic, and you'd be in the minority down here in Texas. Also, virtually no one agrees with you that a fetus is a parasite.

23057. sakonige - 8/7/2004 11:31:46 PM

Are parasites exclusively detrimental to the host? People tend to think of them that way, but I doubt that is part of the formal definition.

23058. sakonige - 8/7/2004 11:36:12 PM

google on "beneficial parasite" brings up lots of examples.

23059. sakonige - 8/7/2004 11:39:24 PM

Jenerator -

I'll bet just about everyone who has had an abortion believed the fetus was a parasite.

You seem to think an organism can't be human and a parasite at the same time, but that's not true.

23060. Jenerator - 8/7/2004 11:40:04 PM

Google on cannibalism and you'll get lots of examples, so...?

23061. Jenerator - 8/7/2004 11:41:02 PM

Hey Sakonige, I just googled Heaven's Gate and got 118,000 responses!

23062. Jenerator - 8/7/2004 11:45:12 PM

I'll bet just about everyone who has had an abortion believed the fetus was a parasite

I'd agree with you in that this is the type of thinking Planned Parenthood or the Pro-Choice camp would like to have dominate the young female minds of today. What becomes a crisis is when the young women having these abortions of convenience realize that they voluntarily killed the life of their unborn. Abortion is much easier if it's terminating the life of a thing or of a parasaite. It becomes a burden on the heart when there's humanity involved.

23063. Jenerator - 8/7/2004 11:47:04 PM

You have a grown son, right Sakonige? If you had chosen abortion, your son (and subsequent grandkid/s) would not be alive. The people you know and love would not be alive because you would have voluntarily ended your son's life. Your son, the parasite.

23064. tmesis - 8/7/2004 11:59:39 PM

re 23058

google on "beneficial parasite" brings up lots of examples.

Idiot, I demonstrated that a fetus cannot be considered parasitical according to your definition.

while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

23065. judithathome - 8/8/2004 12:05:44 AM

I'd agree with you in that this is the type of thinking Planned Parenthood or the Pro-Choice camp would like to have dominate the young female minds of today

Have you heard them tell young women this? Do you honestly believe the people working in those clinics are like that?

23066. SnowOwl - 8/8/2004 12:28:44 AM

Btw, anyone who can look at the pictures that Kuligin posted and still defend abortion has something terribly wrong with them. What is even more sickening are the mothers who have had children and still defend abortion.

Sorry you find people like me sickening. I personally find the views held by people like you repugnant.

Why on earth would you think that the horror pictures posted by Kuligin would stop people from defending the right to abortion? Do you think we're all so stupid that we don't know what abortion entails? Do the pictures of dead and seriously wounded children stop you from supporting the invasion in Iraq, or the Israeli actions in the middle East?

23067. sakonige - 8/8/2004 1:03:30 AM

Idiot, I demonstrated that a fetus cannot be considered parasitical according to your definition.

Then pick a different definition, asshole. Communication cannot be achieved without some agreement on the definition of the terms involved. Of course, you aren't interested in communication. All you want to do is fling shit like the asshole you are.

Stay ignorant of the motivations behind abortion and the laws that support it, for all I care. Although I do feel sorry for anyone who ends up trying to talk about their health concerns with a bombastic, abusive, closed-minded prick like you.

23068. sakonige - 8/8/2004 1:07:24 AM

Jenerator -

My son is no longer a parasite, since he is self-supporting.

++++

Didn't you once say that you developed an "allergy" to sunlight as a result of pregnancy?

23069. tmesis - 8/8/2004 2:01:01 AM

sakonige, I have pointed out two things repeatedly:

1. That monospecies gestation, i.e. pregnancy, is not and cannot be considered parasitism, as parasitism involves two distinct species. This is a biological tenet not open to interpretation, least of all by a fuctionally illiterate semen depository.

2. More importantly, that your use of the word is dishonest in intent.

Communication cannot be achieved without some agreement on the definition of the terms involved.

Genuine communication is also impossible without honesty, which you're clearly incapable of.

23070. sakonige - 8/8/2004 6:19:58 PM

My use of the word is entirely honest in intent and you know it. And I know that's why you are reacting to it so emotionally.

23071. sakonige - 8/8/2004 6:25:27 PM

You don't want to know what it feels like to have something foreign growing inside your body. The thought scares the shit out of you. You hope beyond reason that the person who must the experience doesn't mind too much.

Well, sometimes they do. Everyone who has been through it knows. That's why abortion is legal.

23072. sakonige - 8/8/2004 6:29:12 PM

endure

the host must endure the experience of having a foreign body growing inside their own. Kind of like enduring the experience of being sexually penetrated, but far more invasive. Unsurprisingly, it's a love/hate relationship.

23073. alistairConnor - 8/8/2004 6:39:28 PM

Btw, anyone who can look at the pictures that Kuligin posted and still defend abortion has something terribly wrong with them.

Hey Jen, if I post some pictures of dead animals, will you give up eating meat?

23074. thoughtful - 8/8/2004 6:45:02 PM

Not to beat a dead fetus, but I did look carefully at that first picture, and if that's a torso, it's the first torso I've seen with a head, eye, ear and nose. But hey, what do I know? Clearly ktheh is much more familiar with aborted fetuses than I.

Regardless, chicken slaughtering is also something that would present a most distasteful picture, but it's not going to stop me from eating chicken. Clearly for some, such as PETA members, it is enough to get them to choose vegetarianism, but for many of us, it is not. The question then becomes do PETA members who charge us meat eaters with murder and the senseless slaughter of millions of lives have the right to impose their choice not to consume animals as food on the rest of us?

Those of you who declare there is something morally vacuous in me as I believe that the acquistion of human rights does not occur at conception, I'm also considering the rights of the human life that has fully acquired the right to that life and the considerations they must face when choosing to terminate a pregnancy, like how many children are already unfed in the household...like if the fetus is severely deformed and has little shot at anything like a normal life...like if carrying the fetus to term will impact the mother's ability to bear future children...and a myriad of other factors that go into that decision, of which I can only imagine and for which I have no right to impose my decision on another. Considerations like how do I feed my family, considerations like that woman who already suffers with her hemophiliac child and not wanting to put another child through it, are not considerations of "convenience" but of genuine economic, physical and emotional burdens with significant consequences on the rights and quality of life of extant humans. In my view, choosing termination can be pro-life, pro- existing human life.

23075. thoughtful - 8/8/2004 6:45:12 PM

To give you a sense of how serious these choices can be, remember the number of women dying from back-room abortions before they became legal...these women faced such choices as to risk their own life rather than bring another into the world. You don't take on such a thing without serious consideration. Many of these women were desperate. Many of these women ended up dead. How is providing them a safe and effective alternative not pro-life?

The only argument here to me seems to be whose life. Clearly some seem focused only on the life of the fetus at the expense of all other lives involved.

23076. alistairConnor - 8/8/2004 6:49:35 PM

The "pro-life" label actually makes me feel sick. It's a rare successful example of re-branding by a pressure group.

It's not actually meaningful, but it sounds so much nicer than "anti-abortion".

If the anti-abortion folks were in fact, in general, more "pro-life" than average, with respect to things other than abortion, then their chosen label would be less of a misnomer. But in my experience, the great majority of them are, for example, in favour of capital punishment.

23077. thoughtful - 8/8/2004 7:05:04 PM

I mentioned to a vegetarian I know asking is it just because lettuce and beans can't scream when they die that makes it ok to eat vegetables?

He told me of his grandmother who is strictly pro life. She would not eat anything that would mean the death of even a plant. She limited herself to things that could be picked and eaten without totally destroying the plant, so no root vegetables, but eating some leaves off the outside of a lettuce was ok. Picking beans were ok, as it left the bean plant in tact. I was stunned, but at least her philosophy was consistent.

23078. angel-five - 8/8/2004 7:38:41 PM

People are capable of making rational choices that involve something awful. It's just really that simple. And as a few people here have pointed out, I guess it's all what you're willing to put up with. Blowing people to smithereens for their oil and to change the politics of their region is fine for some folks, eating stockyard beef is fine for some folks, having a death penalty that accidently gets applied to innocent people all the time is fine for some folks. Traffic accidents can be pretty gory, but these folks still drive. Children are accidently shot in the home all the time for the sake of fewer restrictions on private firearms, but they still defend the second amendment to the fullest. It's all in what you choose to care about and what your politics are.

So, yeah, it's sort of the height of blindered factionalism for good old Jenerator to wax all morally superior about photos of abortion. But we don't really expect a whole lot more than that from her.

23079. pelty - 8/8/2004 7:49:03 PM

Woden:

"It is the problem of people like you who want to change the laws of the United States."

You say this as if this is some "evil" thing to do. Seriously, stop with these "zingers"; they hurt. Laws are changed almost every day, sister, so the fact that I, or anyone else is trying to do so, is part of the democratic process and, presumably, what this country is all about.

"The fact that I pointed to the Bible as the source of the sexism doesn't take anything away from my argument. There is no logical reason why both the Bible and fundie churches can't both be sexist at the same time."

Sure, there is no reason why this cannot be so, in your addled mind, but as I have tried to point out in two previous points, this ain't reality. Oh, but let me guess, you believe that "all them Jews are the same", right? How 'bout "them Muslims?" Blacks too? I mean, after all, they are all one group, so they all must think alike. Further, your stance vis a vis the Bible and women is much more complex than you seem to think, but again, that doesn't matter to you because you have made up your mind that "the Bible says X" and that is the way it is. No room for nuance there, either.

"There are probably a bunch of people like me, just kind of here in the center, who have secular arguments against abortion."

Good, because, in my opinion, that is the only way to win this debate. You have not heard me say Word One about "the Bible says abortion is wrong, so it should be stopped", have you? Let me answer that for you. No. So please stop lumping me into yet another of your categories. Of course, that requires that utterly foreign concept of "nuance", so I won't expect miracles.

Here's a thought. Define what you mean by "sexist." What is it that you see the fundies doing that is, in your eyes, sexist. Please provide examples.

23080. thoughtful - 8/8/2004 8:19:30 PM

It was several years back where pat schroeder wrote up her personal story, making it clear that pro-choice and pro-life are not opposites. (This was quite awhile ago, so I'm recalling the article with imperfect human memory.) She had an abortion because had that fetus gone to term it would have been risky for her and would have put her future fertility at risk. Rather, she chose termination so that she could bear more children in the future. She did go on to have more children after that abortion. She said that each situation was unique and no one could choose what was best for her and her family. She considered herself to be both pro-life and pro-choice. They are not mutually exclusive.

23081. jayackroyd - 8/8/2004 8:49:08 PM

We're back to where we started. This is not a black and white issue for most people. It's a complex and nuanced issue. There's no logical position in support of the anti-choicers. If the blastocyst is a citizen, then it has no right to command another citizen to provide life support. If it is not a citizen, then it isn't murder.

And even the most radical--like KtH--will make an exception for mothers whose lives are endangered, or for rape victims. Or, apparently, for embryos destroyed in modern fertility clinics.

Safe, legal and rare. Its appalling to see those who claim that abortion is murder working so hard to keep them from becoming rare.

23082. Jenerator - 8/8/2004 9:27:15 PM

Angel-five,

Message # 23078 As usual, you've managed to say nothing, except this time you did so in less than 500 words. I'm impressed!

23083. wonkers2 - 8/8/2004 10:05:00 PM

Pelty, you warned me not to quote Bishop Spong if I expected credibility, but you never responded to my questions as to why you said that or what you disagreed with in the Spong quotes that I posted in #22838 above.

23084. Jenerator - 8/8/2004 10:17:07 PM

Wonkers,

I know that you asked this of pelty, but allow me to answer also. I agree that Spong is not a name you want to drop if you want credibility. He is, from what I have seen and read, a very sloppy "scholar". He oftentimes states ideas and then searches for material to rip out of context to support his views. He also likes to be "for" things that are unbiblical because of his feelings on the issue rather than any serious study or proof.

Here is one review written by a colleage of Spong's. I will post some snippets.

"The criticisms of Bishop Spong's scholarship are really quite devastating. In almost every area in which he claims competence, and from which he draws his conclusions that Christianity is an outmoded proposition, he is shown to be either shallow or inaccurate, and often both. This is not surprising because the faith that Geering, Veitch and Spong expound is as much a faith as that of any other worshipper. The difference is that they have transferred their allegiance from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the faith of Our Lord Jesus Christ to the worship of humanity. Such worship is hard to justify.

The exposition of the mind of Bishop Spong reveals, I think, an attitude that a writer on Utopias, in a recent Time magazine, describes: "The Utopian state of mind indicates a yearning to be released from history, to shed the burdens of free will, failure and improvisation. Basically Utopia is for authoritarians and weaklings." Bishop Spong is among the authoritarians undoubtedly."

23085. Jenerator - 8/8/2004 10:20:58 PM

SnowOwl,

Why on earth would you think that the horror pictures posted by Kuligin would stop people from defending the right to abortion?

Oh I don't know. I guess I just thought that seeing a mutilated fetus might stop some people from having an abortion. Kinda like those pictures of black lungs that discourage people from smoking - the whole cause-effect relationship thing. Why would you want to defend the "right" to murder your unborn?? What kind of right is that? Certainly not a civilized one.

Do you think we're all so stupid that we don't know what abortion entails?

Obviously so, or you just don't care. Which is it in your case? Do you not know what an abortion actually does, or do you just not care?

23086. Jenerator - 8/8/2004 10:24:22 PM

JayAckroyd,

How is abortion becoming rare? I read something along the lines of 50 % of teenaged girls between the ages of 14 and 19 have had at least one abortion,(?) but that the highest percentage of abortions is in young white women. And aren't multiple abortions on the rise...something about women getting more than one these days.

23087. jayackroyd - 8/8/2004 10:48:37 PM

It's not becoming as rare as it should because people like KtH make it difficult to adopt effective public health policies to make it rare. That's at the heart of my point. This is not about abortion. If this were about preventing abortions, every evangelical church would have contraception teach-ins, and condom fund drives.

And here is absolutely no possibility that half of all teenage girls have had an abortion. Citing ridiculous numbers like that undermines any credibility you have on this issue.

23088. jayackroyd - 8/8/2004 10:53:34 PM

Facts about abortion rates

Excerpts:

• Each year, 2 out of every 100 women aged 15-44 have an abortion; 48% of them have had at least one previous abortion and 61% have had a previous birth.3

Abortions per 1000 women 15-44

• 54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using the methods inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use.11

• 8% of women having abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or poorly educated.12

• 49% of the 6.3 million pregnancies that occur each year are unplanned;14 47% of these occur among the 7% of women at risk of unintended pregnancy who do not practice contraception.15

• As much as 43% of the decline in abortion between 1994 and 2000 can be attributed to the use of emergency contraception.16

23089. pelty - 8/8/2004 11:08:07 PM

Wonkers,

I should have been more specific and asked what it was you were trying to say and to whom your message was addressed. Was your point a theological one or a textual one? If the latter, Spong is simply not a rigorous scholar, at least not in the practice of his exegesis, and thus is of little use to your argument. He allows his presuppositions to get the better of him (esp. in the areas of homosexuality; there are few in the mainstream of scholarship who do not agree that Paul condemned homosexuality. They may not agree with Paul's view, but they do not try to veer away from it).

"The Bible is being used against homosexuals the same way it has beeen used in the past in support of slavery and the subjugation of women."

This is true, perhaps, but the ambiguity on this position versus slavery and women is a difference btwn night and day. He argues not from a position of biblical authority, which is what those in the theologically conservative Xian camp would accept, but rather from the perspective of emotion and "science" which tells us that "a homosexual orientation is a natural and normal, albeit minority, aspect of the human sexual experience, that it is not something one chooses, or is conditioned into, but something one is." Again, this may be true, but science has certainly not proven this as of yet. And even if this were the case, it would not be acceptable, to the TC Xian, for a homosexual to engage in sexual activity anymore than it would be OK for a man or woman to do the same in a relationship outside of the marriage contract. Volition still plays a role in the lives of all people.

Thus, for the sake of what I (admittedly knee-jerkedly, and for that I apologize) assumed to be an argument against a TC Xian on the Mote, I stated that Spong would not be credible to them. That said, you may have been arguing w/a like-minded fellow in which case Spong would be perfectly acceptable.

23090. judithathome - 8/8/2004 11:08:10 PM

Oh I don't know. I guess I just thought that seeing a mutilated fetus might stop some people from having an abortion. Kinda like those pictures of black lungs that discourage people from smoking - the whole cause-effect relationship thing

Well, how about the picture Tmesis posted...did it change your mind about anything? (#22991, in case you missed it.)

23091. pelty - 8/8/2004 11:09:33 PM

BTW, the knee-jerk reaction was not to his views (although I do disagree w/him), but to his categorization of him as some type of biblical scholar.

23092. wonkers2 - 8/8/2004 11:29:47 PM

Well, Spong must have a following within the Episcopal church, because the debate there on homosexuality has not been one sided. Also, in today's and yesterday's paper I read that an increasing number of Episcopal priests are blessing gay unions. That would seem to me to indicate that they don't agree with the belief that St. Paul condemned homosexuality. Or they believe he was in error if he did??

23093. pelty - 8/8/2004 11:44:54 PM

"Well, Spong must have a following within the Episcopal church, because the debate there on homosexuality has not been one sided. Also, in today's and yesterday's paper I read that an increasing number of Episcopal priests are blessing gay unions. That would seem to me to indicate that they don't agree with the belief that St. Paul condemned homosexuality. Or they believe he was in error if he did??"

Sure, he absolutely has a following, but the cart has been put before the horse, so to speak when it comes to the exegetical tactics utilized by those in favor of a biblical-sanctioning of homosexuality. They have made a conclusion and then seek to justify it through biblical means. OTOH, you have the majority of scholarship, a majority of those who would likely *agree* w/ Spong from a social standpoint, who would still state that there is not a biblical sanction for homosexuality.

To your last point, I think the priests would seek to place Paul's comments as coming from one who is in a social context quite different than ours and who would likely be much more welcoming of such practices if he had lived in a more "enlightened" period. I don't suppose we will ever know for sure, but being as he lived in an "enlightened time" in which prostitution was rampant and expected of males, his blatant condemnation of the practice would have no fit in with the social norms of the period. Might this speak to us today about what Paul may have thought re: homosexuality? Maybe. Maybe not.

23094. pelty - 8/8/2004 11:45:35 PM

"would have NOT fit in..."

23095. thoughtful - 8/8/2004 11:55:45 PM

Actually, the parallel with smoking is kind of interesting. Though we know smoking kills, we keep it legal because we recognize that it can't realistically be eliminated...certainly not in the short term. At least if it's legal we can keep it relatively safe (make sure mfrs don't add cocaine to the ciggies, add appropriate labeling, etc) by regulating it. Further we educate people and children about the dangers of smoking and give smokers alternatives such as rx drugs and gum and other programs to help wean them from it. In a sense it's trying to keep smoking legal, as safe for everyone (nonsmokers too) as possible and as rare as possible.

Only difference with abortion is that anti-choice types lie about the dangers of abortion, attempt to keep people from gaining access to safer alternatives including contraception, morning after pills, ru-486, etc, and try to stop all education about sex and contraception arguing that it will encourage it. The net result is more unwanted pregnancies, ultimately leading to even more abortions.

23096. alistairconnor - 8/9/2004 12:28:40 AM

Pelty:
He argues not from a position of biblical authority, which is what those in the theologically conservative Xian camp would accept, but rather from the perspective of emotion and "science" which tells us that "a homosexual orientation is a natural and normal, albeit minority, aspect of the human sexual experience, that it is not something one chooses, or is conditioned into, but something one is." Again, this may be true, but science has certainly not proven this as of yet.

So (according to you), the anti-homosexual Christian position is neither stronger nor weaker than the pro-slavery Christian position in the 19th century. At the time, it was held as scientific truth that blacks were inferior to whites; and biblical interpretation made blacks the sons of Cain, doubly justifying their subservient position (this interpretation has since proven to be mistaken).

Thus, the way you frame the issue, there is ample hope that the church's position on homosexuality will evolve.

And even if this were the case, it would not be acceptable, to the TC Xian, for a homosexual to engage in sexual activity anymore than it would be OK for a man or woman to do the same in a relationship outside of the marriage contract. Volition still plays a role in the lives of all people.

Once same-sex marriage is widely accepted, this last objection dissolves, of course.

23097. alistairconnor - 8/9/2004 12:31:27 AM

(bugger.)

He argues not from a position of biblical authority, which is what those in the theologically conservative Xian camp would accept, but rather from the perspective of emotion and "science" which tells us that "a homosexual orientation is a natural and normal, albeit minority, aspect of the human sexual experience, that it is not something one chooses, or is conditioned into, but something one is." Again, this may be true, but science has certainly not proven this as of yet.

So (according to you), the anti-homosexual Christian position is neither stronger nor weaker than the pro-slavery Christian position in the 19th century. At the time, it was held as scientific truth that blacks were inferior to whites; and biblical interpretation made blacks the sons of Cain, doubly justifying their subservient position (this interpretation has since proven to be mistaken).

Thus, the way you frame the issue, there is ample hope that the church's position on homosexuality will evolve.

And even if this were the case, it would not be acceptable, to the TC Xian, for a homosexual to engage in sexual activity anymore than it would be OK for a man or woman to do the same in a relationship outside of the marriage contract. Volition still plays a role in the lives of all people.

Once same-sex marriage is widely accepted, this last objection dissolves, of course.

23098. pelty - 8/9/2004 12:44:50 AM

"Once same-sex marriage is widely accepted, this last objection dissolves, of course."

Not for those who hold to a biblical definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. For T-C Xians, authority lies not in what the culture says on an issue, but what the Bible says. Naturally, that makes any real, substantive dialogue next to impossible. If one group gets its values from consensus and another from a source considered to be from God and the two are at odds in many/most areas, then both groups are simply talking past one another because they start from two diametrically-opposed sets of presuppositions.

"Thus, the way you frame the issue, there is ample hope that the church's position on homosexuality will evolve."

Sure, I think we see that to some degree in certain denominations, but in light of the above, one man's evolution is another's devolution. You will never see a time when there is not a group that elevates biblical authority over that of the culture. Even if the majority of the church says homosexuality is OK (and we are not even close to that yet), there will be those who say otherwise, but they will be marginalized into another fringe element. This is all theoretical, of course; I do not see your vision happening anytime in the near (or distant future). In the Episcopal church, America is on the fringes in this area as the promotion of Robinson has led to some heated feelings from congregations both here in America and worldwide (esp in the African nations, from what I understand).

23099. alistairconnor - 8/9/2004 12:50:05 AM

Sure, I think we see that to some degree in certain denominations, but in light of the above, one man's evolution is another's devolution.

Undoubtedly, there were many devout Christians who were deeply shocked when the church changed its position on slavery.

Those people are dead now.

For T-C Xians, authority lies not in what the culture says on an issue, but what the Bible says. Naturally, that makes any real, substantive dialogue next to impossible.

But thanks for playing!

23100. SnowOwl - 8/9/2004 1:28:28 AM

Oh I don't know. I guess I just thought that seeing a mutilated fetus might stop some people from having an abortion. Kinda like those pictures of black lungs that discourage people from smoking - the whole cause-effect relationship thing. Why would you want to defend the "right" to murder your unborn?? What kind of right is that? Certainly not a civilized one.

It's at least as civilised as the "right" to drop bombs or fire shells that kill innocent kids but I don't hear you opposing the US actions in Afghanistan or Iraq or marching to protest the Israeli actions against the Palestinians.

Why are living children less worthy of life than a foetus, Jen?

23101. jayackroyd - 8/9/2004 2:39:15 AM

Spong is simply not a rigorous scholar, at least not in the practice of his exegesis, and thus is of little use to your argument.

This is not an uncontroversial view. Can you make this case?

23102. The Summer Woman - 8/9/2004 7:39:11 AM

This is an interesting discussion. I hope no one minds if I kind of join in in the middle.

I am against governments, at any level, passing laws concerning abortion: either to make it illegal, or to specifically protect it as a right. Decisions about abortion are complex, involving questions of health, faith, and a host of other factors. I believe that the subject of abortion does not belong in the political or legislative realms. People should, of course, be able to express their opinions. But these opinions should not be enacted into laws. Unfortunately, laws already on the books resulted in the US Supreme court decision affirming a woman's right to an abortion if she so choses. Wouldn't it have been better if the Court had simply declared that no law could stand which either prohibited or defended abortion?

About the pictures of the fetuses: Most humans have an aversion to any kind of image of butchery. They don't even want to know what happens to their meat before it shows up in the supermarket. There is an automatic aversion to blood, tissues, organs, limbs that have been mutilated or detached or are diseased beyond recognition. I suspect if one were shown photos of bodies blown apart, cadavers that had been dissected, bodies of Ebola patients, bodies burned and mutilated in automobile accidents interspersed with photos of fetuses, the photos of the fetuses would not have as great an effect.

23103. thoughtful - 8/9/2004 4:31:06 PM

Law or no law, there's no such thing. Presence or absence of laws impacts any industry. No laws regulating abortions? Then what's to prevent nonlicensened medical people from performing them resulting in botches and death? Laws prohibiting abortion, then what's to prevent illegal abortions as we had pre roe v wade? Seems too naive an approach for me.

ktheh, I went back to that abortiontv web site where you pulled your pics from and my take is there is sufficient reason to doubt the validity of those pictures. They include things like edges of coins or pencils to try to illustrate size, yet the proportions from one pic to the next relative to the objects given the stated ages of the fetuses are simply wrong. Also, these pics were clearly assembled in such a way as to intentionally shock the viewer...showing assemblages of fetal arms and legs as a backdrop for a single fetus. I simply can't imagine what efforts one would have to go through to create such an image, especially when bloody medical waste is treated with such care including specially marked plastic bags of a certain density, and considering medical wastes are frequently incinerated. They must have had to mutilate and assemble those fetuses themselves in that way to create that image. Else it's just done virtually and isn't real. Regardless, it is, IMO, propaganda, not reality.

23104. judithathome - 8/9/2004 5:31:40 PM

Speaking as a woman who had a miscarriage at home at 8 weeks, I am highly skeptical as well that those pictures are real. I won't go into it in detail but suffice to say, I've see the real.

(I wasn't going to mention this because even after 38 years, it is painful but I was called a moron by Kuligin for doubting the pictures and admitting I hadn't looked that closely at them. I've thought about this for days and decided to speak up.)

23105. pelty - 8/9/2004 5:42:08 PM

Jay,

"Spong is simply not a rigorous scholar, at least not in the practice of his exegesis, and thus is of little use to your argument.

This is not an uncontroversial view. Can you make this case?"

Actually, it is not a terribly difficult argument to make. If you peruse his CV for the articles that he has written, you will see that none of them were published in some of the standard journals in which one finds biblical scholars. I am working off of memory here, but I saw nothing from the Journal of Biblical Literature, Journal for the Study of the NT, New Testament Studies, etc. In a recent post, I tried to differentiate between theological studies and biblical studies as he would likely fit in the former, but most certainly not the latter. Thus, his arguments of textual issues hold very little weight. Theological issues may be a different story, but in the context of this conversation, he was quoted as making comments that I took to fall in the realm of biblical studies, and thus my reaction to his use as an authority in these matters.

23106. pelty - 8/9/2004 5:43:52 PM

judithathome:

Thank you for being transparent, especially on such a personal issue. I am sorry for your loss, no matter how far in the past it may have been.

23107. judithathome - 8/9/2004 5:47:57 PM

Thank you, Pelty.

23108. thoughtful - 8/9/2004 6:33:12 PM

J@h, I'm so sorry for your loss and understand how painful and horrible that must have been for you. Thanks for your courage in speaking up.

23109. alistairconnor - 8/9/2004 6:41:18 PM

Earlier, Gen quoted this, about "progressive" theologists :

The difference is that they have transferred their allegiance from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the faith of Our Lord Jesus Christ to the worship of humanity. Such worship is hard to justify.

This is another way of making your point of Message # 23098, Pelty.

Though I find, of course, that they've got it backwards.

23110. pelty - 8/9/2004 7:08:41 PM

Yes, Alistair, you are exactly right. I wasn't sure if you were being "snarky" in 23099 when you said, "Thanks for playing," but the totality of this post makes the point yet again that there is no common ground and thus no real hope of making progress in these areas when one's view of the world is hopelessly different. Before changing one's ideas (on issues such as those discussed in this forum), one first has to undergo a radical shift in worldview *or* be able to make the case for one's point of view in terms that are acceptable to the "other side." That is why earlier I was happy to hear that Woden had reasons to oppose abortion (although I am not sure that this is her stance, overall) on purely secular grounds. If she (or anyone) could mount such a case and be effective in its presentation, then it may sway hearts and minds to those who could not care a wit for what the Bible may have to say (tangentially) on such an issue.

23111. woden - 8/9/2004 7:29:58 PM

Laws are changed almost every day, sister,

"Sister"? What are you, 90 years old?

23112. woden - 8/9/2004 7:34:39 PM

Sure, there is no reason why this cannot be so, in your addled mind, but as I have tried to point out in two previous points, this ain't reality.

You have given no evidence whatsoever that fundie churches are not sexist, you have merely asserted that they are not.

Oh, but let me guess, you believe that "all them Jews are the same", right? How 'bout "them Muslims?" Blacks too? I mean, after all, they are all one group, so they all must think alike.

Now you are calling me a racist? What a cheap straw man argument.

You are a jackass, Pelty. I have not been insulting to you, yet you have devolved into straw men and gratuitous insults. Because of jackasses like you, I don't attend church or believe in Jesus. You are the kind of fucking asshole that opposes abortion and that's why I want no part of your fight. I don't engage with people who are needlessly insulting, so now that I have answered you in your own style of communication, I won't be posting to you anymore, because I don't enjoy communicating with assholes.

23113. woden - 8/9/2004 7:38:37 PM

Oh but thanks for proving my point that the type of people who oppose abortion are generally hypocritical pieces of crap.

23114. pelty - 8/9/2004 7:49:22 PM

"You have given no evidence whatsoever that fundie churches are not sexist, you have merely asserted that they are not."

It is not my responsibility to do so, actually. You claimed that fundies were sexist, wanted to uphold male status, etc. If you make the first claim, I will expect you to back it up. I merely stated that you seem to view the world as being made up of groups to whom all the stereotypes that you have drawn up in your head can be applied. I am waiting for evidence to prove otherwise.

"Oh, but let me guess, you believe that "all them Jews are the same", right? How 'bout "them Muslims?" Blacks too? I mean, after all, they are all one group, so they all must think alike.

Now you are calling me a racist? What a cheap straw man argument."

Not at all a straw man. I apologize for and will withdraw the "blacks" portion of the argument and simply ask you to comment on Muslims and Jews (as a religion, not an ethnicity as some tend to do). In your view, are they also one large bloc to which you can assign a stereotype?

You wrote: "I have not been insulting to you..."

and then:

"If you could soft-pedal your dumb religions and engage the middle on their terms, you might end abortion. Your posts demonstrate that Roe v. Wade is perfectly safe from people like you."

Yeah, you are all sweetness and light, Woden.

"You are the kind of fucking asshole that opposes abortion and that's why I want no part of your fight. I don't engage with people who are needlessly insulting, so now that I have answered you in your own style of communication, I won't be posting to you anymore, because I don't enjoy communicating with assholes."

That's good; pick up your ball and go home. Fortunately, I do continue to communicate w/ people who are needlessly insulting, so feel free to continue to post when you are finished sulking...

23115. angel-five - 8/9/2004 7:51:11 PM

Actually, it is not a terribly difficult argument to make.

Then why don't you stop telling us about it and do it? Or was your argument that because he isn't published in certain journals which you claim are the sorts one finds biblical scholars publishing in, that he isn't a rigorous scholar???

I'll answer the question and save you the waffling -- you are more interested in saying the man's not creditable than you are in actually proving it. That's either lazy or dishonest.

23116. pelty - 8/9/2004 7:53:53 PM

"Oh but thanks for proving my point that the type of people who oppose abortion are generally hypocritical pieces of crap."

Those stereotypes rearing their ugly heads again. You don't know me at all, but because I am against abortion, I must be think X,Y, and Z. A rather simplistic approach to life, but if it gets you through it, then it is not my concern; just do not apply your stereotypes to me. Please.

23117. angel-five - 8/9/2004 7:57:38 PM

It is not my responsibility to do so, actually.

That's nice. Then don't imply you've tried to prove something, demonstrate something, etc. that you've merely asserted, and then say 'not my job' when someone points out that you didn't prove it. That's kinda dishonest, too.

I merely stated that you seem to view the world as being made up of groups to whom all the stereotypes that you have drawn up in your head can be applied. I am waiting for evidence to prove otherwise.

This is slanderous nonsense. Did you think it something other, i.e. a clever point? You can speak of entire groups in general terms without believing that every single person in a group exemplifies those terms. You can also speak of a trend within a group without needing to line-item every single exception. And in fact, Woden didn't use any language which demands a monolithic point of view on Prottie fundamentalism. I invite you to make your case otherwise.

23118. angel-five - 8/9/2004 7:59:46 PM

Those stereotypes rearing their ugly heads again. You don't know me at all, but because I am against abortion, I must be think X,Y, and Z. A rather simplistic approach to life, but if it gets you through it, then it is not my concern; just do not apply your stereotypes to me. Please.

Whyever should she not? Do you wish me to go through and catalogue the posts in which you made assumptions about her, her stances, what she knows and does not know, what she would say about 'blacks' and Jews and Muslims? It'll be a long list and I'd be happy to crucify you with it. And you have, indeed, just proven the point about hypocrisy. Did you mean to do it twice in a row?

23119. pelty - 8/9/2004 8:00:50 PM

"Then why don't you stop telling us about it and do it? Or was your argument that because he isn't published in certain journals which you claim are the sorts one finds biblical scholars publishing in, that he isn't a rigorous scholar???"

That is exactly the point. But do not divorce this from the context of my post. He may well be a rigorous scholar in his field of theology, but he has NO pedigree in the area of biblical studies. That is my point. If you want to use him as your theologian du jour, go to it. Others will contend against him in that arena, if they feel the need. That said, he has shown no scholastic aptitude in biblical studies, if his publishing record is any indication of this, and thus he should not be used as an authority *in this arena*.

And spare me the "you claim..." nonsense. Do a little research and you will see that these are universally acknowledged as major journals in the field. That is not to say that others do not exist, but they are the main players (some may throw in HTR).

23120. angel-five - 8/9/2004 8:02:26 PM

Tell you what. I'm gonna go lay by the pool for a while and enjoy some sun. How about you sit there and decide what you want to say, and when I get back, maybe I'll read it if it's interesting.

23121. angel-five - 8/9/2004 8:07:05 PM

That is exactly the point. But do not divorce this from the context of my post. He may well be a rigorous scholar in his field of theology, but he has NO pedigree in the area of biblical studies.

So? Do you not know what 'rigorous scholar' means? You are moving the goalposts and changing the argument -- why is that? Whether or not someone publishes in journals which you claim are the ones that serious biblical scholars posts in (and by the way, insisting that it is so a second time doesn't demonstrate jack) has got nothing to do with how good of a scholar they are, how well they check it, how well they test it, how well they review it, and so on.

The basic fact of the matter is that you seem hell-bent on discrediting Spong, but so far the thrust of your arguments is this retarded third-rate 'he doesn't post in the holy journal of bible scholars, so he can't be rigorous!' God help us if that's really the best argument you can field -- go cut and paste a better, would you?

Now I am off to the pool.

23122. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 8:07:31 PM

Only difference with abortion is that anti-choice types lie about the dangers of abortion,

When have I lied? Abortion terminates the life of the unborn.

.. attempt to keep people from gaining access to safer alternatives including contraception,

I haven't stopped anyone from contraceptives. If anything, it would be nice if people would start using them instead of relying on $300 abortions. Condoms are free, everywhere!

morning after pills, ru-486, etc,

Isn't there a difference between the morning after pill and ru-486? Doesn't ru-486 induce an abortion?

and try to stop all education about sex and contraception arguing that it will encourage it.

Pure phooey. I am all for sex-ed. Again, I'd just like for people to apply what they know, especially when they're taught.

The net result is more unwanted pregnancies, ultimately leading to even more abortions

Unwanted pregnancies are caused by all kinds of things, I don't think that it's a lack of knowledge about sex or of conception. I think it's from sheer laziness and lack of contraceptives. Guys don't want to use condoms because they don't feel good, and girls don't think that once will get them pregnant. Also, the teens getting pregnant are immature and unrealistic when it comes to the responsibility of parenthood. They take the classes and know how sperm fertilizes eggs, and that condoms can prevent pregnancies, BUT, having a baby will give them someone to love...

23123. pelty - 8/9/2004 8:08:04 PM

"It is not my responsibility to do so, actually.

That's nice. Then don't imply you've tried to prove something, demonstrate something, etc. that you've merely asserted, and then say 'not my job' when someone points out that you didn't prove it. That's kinda dishonest, too."

I will happily do this, but in my view it should be done in the order received. She can go first, then I will follow...

"Whyever should she not? Do you wish me to go through and catalogue the posts in which you made assumptions about her, her stances, what she knows and does not know, what she would say about 'blacks' and Jews and Muslims?"

Do not be obtuse. I did this merely to make a point, although I am interested in her views on the latter two groups.

You wrote: "And in fact, Woden didn't use any language which demands a monolithic point of view on Prottie fundamentalism. I invite you to make your case otherwise."

Woden wrote: "I imagine that the reason why anti-abortion activists never seem to attack the problem from that angle (holding men responsible and pursuing legislation that would enforce that responsibility) are the following:

- It simply doesn't occur to them, they just aren't very good at strategizing to achieve their goals, they would rather make it a polarizing moral issue than pursuing legislation which most people could agree.

- They are more interested in controlling women's sexuality than in taking practical measures to prevent abortion.

- They want to uphold male privilege."

and then:

"Virtually all pro-lifers are religious, usually Catholic or some type of fundie Protestant."

You are right, angel-five, it was not "All fundies are this and that," just "*virtually* all. My mistake.

23124. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 8:09:17 PM

Woden,

The worship and belief in Jesus are about Jesus, not man. Us Christians are just as disappointing as you nonbelievers, the difference is what we put our faith in.

23125. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 8:13:08 PM

Angel-five,

While you're attempting to bronze your pasty white frame (shudder), consider this, Spong doesn't even accept the basic tenets of the Christian faith!!

If someone is claiming to be an adherent of a particular faith, it kind of goes without saying that the person should at least ADHERE to the basic tenets! Heck, even understanding the basic tenets of the faith would be a plus for Spong.

He [Spong] is just another fly by night pluralist who wants to create his own version of Christianity based on his social prefences and practices. He's not a scholar, he's an apologist for humanism.

23126. angel-five - 8/9/2004 8:16:04 PM

This is Woden.

I stated that the Catholic church is sexist. They are the main supporters of the anti-abortion movement, the fundies are just riding on their coattails, so if somehow you could prove that fundie churches are non-sexist, that still doesn't affect my argument.

The second compelling reason I provided for Christianity being sexist were the writings of St. Paul. Saying he's not sexist is like saying Al Qaeda is an organization concerned with the well-being of the United States. With some really weird rhetorical tricks you could do it, but why would you?

The main compelling reason I provided for the anti-abortion movement being sexist is the way they fight the problem, only focusing on the woman's role in the problem and doing nothing about male behavior which contributes to the problem.

You have done nothing resembling refuting ANY of this, merely devolved into needless insults. This makes you a loser and a jerk, and typical.

Oh hi Jenerator!

23127. pelty - 8/9/2004 8:20:52 PM

"So? Do you not know what 'rigorous scholar' means?

Nope, not a clue.

You are moving the goalposts and changing the argument -- why is that? Whether or not someone publishes in journals which you claim are the ones that serious biblical scholars posts in (and by the way, insisting that it is so a second time doesn't demonstrate jack)

...and refusing to at least investigate my claim puts us at an impasse. How else would you check out whether someone is academically qualified in a particular field as he nears the end of his career than by checking his publishing record. If his record is silent in this particular arena in most (I am being generous here; he may have some of which I am unaware, i.e., not listed on his CV) of the major journals, then the conclusion would have to lean in the general direction of not accepting the person as credible in the particular field.

"...has got nothing to do with how good of a scholar they are, how well they check it, how well they test it, how well they review it, and so on."

Granted. That is why I say he may well be a fine theologian; just do not try to sell him to me as a biblical authority. His publishing record speaks otherwise. Further, go look at the titles in his resume and I would venture to say that *he* wouldn't call himself a biblical authority.

23128. PelleNilsson - 8/9/2004 8:24:08 PM

This constant mixing up of monikers leads one to believe that A5 and woden live a life in sin.

23129. thoughtful - 8/9/2004 8:29:34 PM

First of all, I didn't say you specifically Jen, but surely you are aware of the activities of some of those in the anti-choice movement. And as with taking any position on any issue, while you may not be a subscriber to all the specifics, it's likely you will be brushed with the same broad brush of views and characteristics common to those representing the main thrust of the cause. For example, I am for capital punishment but only in those rare instances where there is absolutely no doubt and where the person is so dangerous to society at large that it cannot risk even a potential escape or mistaken release. That is far more limited than the mainstream view of capital punishment, but I have to expect that others may incorrectly attribute characteristics to me because of my general stance being pro capital punishment.

23130. thoughtful - 8/9/2004 8:29:42 PM

So it may be that you personally are in favor of teaching children about contraception and making contraception readily available. However, surely you are aware that there are those in the anti-abortion group that are not and have been effective in blocking access to such products and information and the result is evident in teenage birth rates. From here:

As of May 1 [2004], only 14 states required contraception to be covered in sex education, and 21 states required that abstinence be stressed, according to SIECUS, a nonprofit that promotes education about contraceptives.

The numbers put out by SIECUS indicate that of the 14 states that mandate contraception be covered, nine of the five have teen birth rates that fall below the national average. The national teen birth rate is 45 per 1,000 women ages 15-19. Maine, with one of the most comprehensive sex education programs in the nation, has a birth rate of 27 per 1,000, whereas it is 66 per 1,000 in Texas. Delaware, which mandates that both abstinence and contraceptives be covered if sex education has been taught, has a birth rate of 44 per 1,000.In Maryland, which mandates that sex education cover contraceptives, the birth rate is 38 per 1000 women.

23131. pelty - 8/9/2004 8:30:49 PM

"The second compelling reason I provided for Christianity being sexist were the writings of St. Paul. Saying he's not sexist is like saying Al Qaeda is an organization concerned with the well-being of the United States. With some really weird rhetorical tricks you could do it, but why would you?"

Ok, I think that you would find, if you really read Paul, that there is, at the very least, some ambiguity. This gets into issues about which I simply do not have time to write at the moment, but a simple glance at Romans 16 should inform you of the role played by women in the early church. Further, have you considered cultural factors when looking at Paul's writings (both as they regard women during that time, generally, and re: specific actions taken by women in Greco-Roman religions of the day that Paul may want to counter in an effort to distinguish Xianity from the other religions of the day)? There is much to be accounted for in this regard.

"The main compelling reason I provided for the anti-abortion movement being sexist is the way they fight the problem, only focusing on the woman's role in the problem and doing nothing about male behavior which contributes to the problem."

On this, you and I agree. What do you see as some useful steps forward in this regard?

And please clarify, does angel-five = woden? a-5 knows woden? I only ask so I know w/ whom I am conversing in the future. Enjoy the pool.

23132. thoughtful - 8/9/2004 8:37:10 PM

Isn't there a difference between the morning after pill and ru-486? Doesn't ru-486 induce an abortion?

Not according to those who believe life begins at conception. Since the morning after pill does nothing to stop conception, many view it as the equivalent of an abortion. Same thing with IUD which also does not prevent conception, only pregnancy.

Re Only difference with abortion is that anti-choice types lie about the dangers of abortion... again I wasn't targeting you personally, but surely you're aware of the actions taken by the bushies to quell the anti-choice movement including (site selected only because it succinctly made my point)

Information affecting women in crucial areas ranging from pay equity, to breast cancer to HIV has been distorted on governmental web sites and publications during Bush's term - even worse, data has sometimes disappeared altogether. The list is extensive, but includes:

- The National Cancer Institute changed its web site to suggest that abortion and breast cancer were linked, even though studies had found they weren't. The web site was changed back only when Congress insisted.

- The Department of Health and Human Services altered information on its web site to make "abstinence-only" programs seem more effective than evidence indicates.

23133. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 8:38:01 PM

thoughtful,

I have the same views as you regarding the death penalty.

Also, is it really the pro-choicers pov to reduce the number of abortions to as small a number as possible? If so, that is not the message received. What I primarily get from that bunch is that the abortion itself is not the issue. The killing of human life isn't important, it's the "right" to kill the human life that's important.

What I don't understand is why anyone would want to defend the indefensible? What you're defending is the right to kill your unborn. How is that defensible!!!???? I just don't get it. How can anyone defend termininating the life of a fetus???

We live in the most advanced society during an age of incredible opportunity. There are scores of methods better than abortion.

23134. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 8:39:50 PM

People who dismiss Paul as sexist are usually people who have not bothered to even read Paul.

Resonance,

That sure was a quick trip to the pool. I take it you burn easily? No pun intended.

23135. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 8:41:03 PM

One last thing thoughtful,

We pro-lifers are dealing with the issue of abortion, not the issue of choice. If it's one thing I am against, it is the killing of the fetus.

23136. judithathome - 8/9/2004 8:43:49 PM

There are scores of methods better than abortion.

Yes, Jen, and that is the whole point of this back-and-forth; the position of Planned Parenthood is to prevent abortions by showing women how to avoid pregnancy. Abortion is only a last resort.

Why cant you get that? Those stats that Thoughtful provided clearly show that the states with the most public sex education have the lowest teen pregnancy rates.

23137. judithathome - 8/9/2004 8:46:09 PM

Jen, if you'd read closely, you know that Angel 5 is at the pool and Woden is posting on his computer, using his log-on.

I knw you're distressed that Woden snagged him but no need to be snotty about it. (JOKE JOKE JOKE!!!)

23138. pelty - 8/9/2004 8:48:12 PM

SO who is Resonance and how does he/she fit into the A-5/Woden group?

23139. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 8:48:22 PM

I shall wear black.

23140. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 8:49:52 PM

Judith,

Planned Parenthood is not considered about preventing abortion.

Doctors performm abortions because it makes them rich, and they're easy to do. Abortion clinics are like cattle-calls, and the patients are just numbers.

23141. jayackroyd - 8/9/2004 8:50:08 PM

We pro-lifers are dealing with the issue of abortion, not the issue of choice. If it's one thing I am against, it is the killing of the fetus.

So I ask for the umpteenth time, why aren't you picketing fertility clinics?

23142. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 8:51:05 PM

PP is not CONCERNED about preventing abortions...

23143. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 8:51:46 PM

Jay,

Fertility clinics perform abortions?? That's news to me.

23144. jayackroyd - 8/9/2004 8:52:53 PM

They routinely destroy excess embryos.

23145. jayackroyd - 8/9/2004 8:53:36 PM

Planned Parenthood's Mission Statement:

A Reason for Being
Planned Parenthood believes in the fundamental right of each individual, throughout the world, to manage his or her fertility, regardless of the individual's income, marital status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or residence. We believe that respect and value for diversity in all aspects of our organization are essential to our well-being. We believe that reproductive self-determination must be voluntary and preserve the individual's right to privacy. We further believe that such self-determination will contribute to an enhancement of the quality of life, strong family relationships, and population stability.

Based on these beliefs, and reflecting the diverse communities within which we operate, the mission of Planned Parenthood is:

to provide comprehensive reproductive and complementary health care services in settings which preserve and protect the essential privacy and rights of each individual;
to advocate public policies which guarantee these rights and ensure access to such services;
to provide educational programs which enhance understanding of individual and societal implications of human sexuality;
to promote research and the advancement of technology in reproductive health care and encourage understanding of their inherent bioethical, behavioral, and social implications.

23146. judithathome - 8/9/2004 8:53:41 PM

Planned Parenthood is not considered about preventing abortion

Did you mean "concerned"? Then why do they hand out condoms and birth control pills? Why counsel teens on sex-ed? Why help women with family planning?

Why show your ingorance with statements like the above?

Have you ever even talked to a doctor who performs abortions? Do you honestly think they are in it for the MONEY?

23147. judithathome - 8/9/2004 8:55:23 PM

Pelty, Resonance is the same poster as Angel 5. He uses Res at Random International. Woden is his girlfriend.

23148. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 8:57:36 PM

Woden and Resonance are TOGETHER!!???

The last time I remember, she was accusing him of sexism/mysogyny back at RI!

23149. pelty - 8/9/2004 8:58:02 PM

Thank you, judith@home. The clouds are parting now...

23150. pelty - 8/9/2004 8:59:07 PM

OK, what is Random Int'l. Is this something I sould be aware of? Another forum?

23151. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 8:59:52 PM

Judith,

I have spoken to doctors as well as nurses at abortion clinics. They're chop-shops. I'm not kidding. If I believed for one second that they were concerned about the women or the number of unwanted pregnancies that they terminate, I wouldn't despise what they do as much. I'd still know that it's wrong, but I wouldn't believe that they are the monsters that they are.

23152. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 9:00:17 PM

Pelty,

Yes, it's another forum.

23153. thoughtful - 8/9/2004 9:01:57 PM

What you're defending is the right to kill your unborn.

No, what I'm defending is the right to choose not to bring a potential human life to full term.

"If it's one thing I am against, it is the killing of the fetus."

Jen, Are there any circumstances under which you would feel it appropriate or morally justifiable to abort? If the mother's life is at risk? If the child is severely deformed and unlikely to survive outside the womb? Rape? Incest?

is it really the pro-choicers pov to reduce the number of abortions to as small a number as possible? I've never heard any pro-choicers argue in favor of more abortions. I've never heard of abortion clinics that encourage abortions. Rather, I've heard of clinics refusing patients if they seemed any way in doubt about what they were doing, and encouraging them to explore alternatives such as adoption, as well as teaching them about appropriate contraception. But the reality is there is such a thing as unintended pregnancy. The reality is that in some cases the physical, emotional, and economic costs of carrying a child to full term and raising it is severely detrimental to extant human life, that we can't know what those problems and costs are as they are unique in each individual situation, and as such it is important that women have access to the alternative to bringing a potential human life to full term, and that's called abortion.

23154. judithathome - 8/9/2004 9:07:02 PM

Well said, Thoughtful, and I agree.

23155. judithathome - 8/9/2004 9:08:23 PM

Jen, if the doctors and nurses you've spoken with actually think of their surroundings as chop shops, the abotions they do aren't their only problems.

23156. thoughtful - 8/9/2004 9:08:30 PM

Jen, considering how few doctors are even left performing abortions, and how many live under death threats to themselves and their families because of their practice, I find it hard to believe they are in it for the money.

Most of the doctors who perform abortions are older doctors. Most of them do it because they are old enough to remember how many women who'd had botched abortions they'd attempted, yet failed, to save. They too are pro-life, but pro-extant life, not potential, unborn life.

And given your extreme stance on the subject, I tend to doubt a conversation with you would encourage an honest reaction from those who perform abortions.

23157. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 9:09:20 PM

Judith,

Let me tell you about one of the clinics here in Dallas. It is considered one of the best places in Dallas to get an abortion. You make an appointment and then you are seen. Walk-ins are always welcome. You're directed back to an office where a nurse or assistant asks you basic questions like, "How far along are you? Do you have any allergies to medications." and so forth. The nurse also tells you that an abortion is just a minor medical procedure that stops the growth of a group of cells in your womb.

You're then interviewed by a "counselor". The counselor asks you upfront why you're having an abortion. Your answer can be as curt as, "Because I don't want to be pregnant", or "Because I like abortions" and your answer is simply cataolgued. If, however, you show any type of remorse or regret, you are asked to leave. Only persons 100% sure they want an abortion are welcome there. I am being totally serious.

When it's time for your abortion, say you choose to be anesthetized, you will be lead into a room, made to sign a waiver that allows the facility of a purchaser to do experiments on the dead fetus, and then you're hooked up to an iv, and the abortion will be performed and you wake up.

When you wake up, you are then moved to a waiting room with about 20 or so other women equally as groggy as you, waiting for their rides home.

23158. judithathome - 8/9/2004 9:11:33 PM

So, Jen, you'd prefer it be a table in a seedy apartment with a rusty coat-hanger and a bottle of Jack Daniels?

23159. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 9:13:25 PM

Judith,

I'd prefer it to not be done at all except for those rare cases in which the mother's life is endangered.

23160. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 9:15:39 PM

thoughtful,

Adoption is always available. Those women who fear their parents' or boyfriends' (or husbands') disapproval can always give their babies life by adopting them out to other people.

I don't see how killing the fetus is somehow better than giving it a life with someone else.

23161. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 9:16:18 PM

please move apostrophes where necessary.

23162. Jenerator - 8/9/2004 9:24:00 PM

And given your extreme stance on the subject, I tend to doubt a conversation with you would encourage an honest reaction from those who perform abortions

I wasn't always pro-life. In fact, I can remember shocking a psychology teacher because I defended fetal research. She was disgusted (and even kicked me out of the program) because I had defended abortions because of the wealth of scientific opportunity the unwanted fetuses could provide to researchers.

23163. thoughtful - 8/9/2004 9:48:43 PM

except for those rare cases in which the mother's life is endangered. So you've answered your own question as to how can you kill your own unborn child. To you, this is an acceptable exception. To others, the list of acceptable exceptions would be different. Some include rape/incest. Some include instances where the mother's health, though not necessarily her life, is endangered. Some include where conception has taken place, but not pregnancy. Some include a child who will be born with a painful, limiting, and severe defect. These are very personal decisions made by people who will be responsible for the outcome of their choice, one way or another. How can you presume to decide for them?

23164. thoughtful - 8/9/2004 9:55:18 PM

And I'm with jay...what is the response to IVF and fertility clinics?

23165. judithathome - 8/9/2004 10:05:33 PM

Yes, I'd be very interested in what you think about the extra fertilized eggs being discarded...or does it only count if the result comes from sex between a man and a woman and the eggs are fertilized inside a woman?

23166. angel-five - 8/9/2004 10:06:56 PM

So, in other words, yes. You don't know what a rigorous scholar is and your means of saying one is or isn't a rigorous scholar is that they aren't published in the magazines you choose to find important. Pelty, you do recognize that this is completely ridiculous, right? If you don't like what Spong has to say, then, say why it's bad. Don't say that it's bad just because Spong isn't credible! It makes you look really silly.

Do not be obtuse. I did this merely to make a point, although I am interested in her views on the latter two groups.

Then it was a straw man point, as we've established that Woden didn't make categorical statements and your criticism seems to be that she was making them. Moreover, they were so obviously off base that I have to wonder what you were thinking when you made them. Then you go on to accuse other people of hypocritical thinking! Do you need to have the cite read back to you again?

And we see the same thing happening where you cite Woden.

When I say that she has made no categorical statements about Prottie thumpers, you make two cites where... she makes no categorical statements about Prottie thumpers! And then, to boot, you say the following!

"Virtually all pro-lifers are religious, usually Catholic or some type of fundie Protestant."

You are right, angel-five, it was not "All fundies are this and that," just "*virtually* all. My mistake.

23167. angel-five - 8/9/2004 10:07:15 PM

Now, I'm sitting here, scratching my fuckin' head, Pelty. How do you get from 'virtually all pro-lifers' to 'not all fundies are this and that,", just "*virtually* all.' Where is your malfunction, Pelty? You're the one roaring about the difference between pro-lifers and fundies and whatnot. You're the one trying to bullyingly discredit Woden by insisting that she is lumping all of your protestant fundamentalists into one large ugly mass and saying that it's all the same. And you not only can't even keep the fuckin' terms straight in a simple short sentence, but you post the cite that proves you were wrong as you do it!

So, once again, what is your issue with what she's said about abortion and anti-abortionist activism? Because the complete picture is pointing at... you just not liking her stance and wishing to insultingly discredit it on the cheap.

23168. jayackroyd - 8/9/2004 10:07:31 PM

The joke in that position is who is gonna decide if a woman's life is endangered? Presumably the doctor and the woman.

Maternal mortality was 8.4 per 100,000 live births in 1997. Is that enough danger? For black women it was over 20. Is that enough?

23169. jayackroyd - 8/9/2004 10:10:15 PM

sex between a man and a woman and the eggs are fertilized inside a woman?

It's still the same question. Fertility drugs often generate dangerously many embryos. The excess are aborted. And sometimes people taking the drugs don't want triplets or twins.

23170. angel-five - 8/9/2004 10:15:38 PM

While you're attempting to bronze your pasty white frame (shudder), consider this, Spong doesn't even accept the basic tenets of the Christian faith!!

That sure was a quick trip to the pool.

Trick, when I see you post stuff like this it reminds me of South Seas natives and cargo cults. You're no good at it, but you try it because you've seen others do it.

You aren't an authority on the Christian faith. You aren't even likely an authority on your own little backwater variant of it. The only reason you know the name of Spong is that it was probably printed up in some Baptist flyer. So spare us your second-rate analysis of what Spong does or doesn't believe in, what he does and does not adhere to, unless you want someone to sit down with a checklist of the ten commandments and your behavior the last several years and compile a compelling list of why your Tejano-slut-for-Jesus-and-Bush act is about as Biblically rooted as hydroponic pot and much less saleable.

Now, run along, post something about how worldly you are, maybe a few anecdotes about people you just happen to know who have had abortions which just happen to perfectly exemplify the arguments you make about them, tell us a bit more about clinics in Dallas that you probably haven't been in since you were still doing coke and hanging out with lesbian porn stars, and try a few lame insults. Someone'll believe them.

23171. angel-five - 8/9/2004 10:17:48 PM

Uncle Pelle:

We aren't living in sin, but we are on holiday there for a week. Send you a postcard?

BTW, you know you were delirious with envy over the lighthouse pictures and meatballs.

23172. pelty - 8/9/2004 10:23:51 PM

A-5,

"So, in other words, yes. You don't know what a rigorous scholar is and your means of saying one is or isn't a rigorous scholar is that they aren't published in the magazines you choose to find important. Pelty, you do recognize that this is completely ridiculous, right?"

That is right. I have no idea what a rigorous scholar is. Fortunately, I have you here to tell me all about it.

This is at the point where it is not even worth arguing. Seriously, don't waste your time on worrying your head on Spong. It is very clear that you do not have any training in these fields (which is fine, but don't speak out of your ignorance), so I will let you continue to think what you like about the guy. Have at it; he is omniscient.

"When I say that she has made no categorical statements about Prottie thumpers, you make two cites where... she makes no categorical statements about Prottie thumpers!"

Honestly, if you cannot see that she is equating the pro-life groups who hold the positions of supporting male dominance, blah, blah, blah with her further definition of these pro-lifers as Catholic or fundie Protestant who thereby hold the views of said pro-life groups, then that is fine. I am truly past caring. Cheers.

23173. woden - 8/9/2004 10:25:42 PM

People who dismiss Paul as sexist are usually people who have not bothered to even read Paul.

Jen, I went to religious school from grade school through college. I am not unfamiliar with the Bible.

23174. jayackroyd - 8/9/2004 10:36:24 PM

Spong on Paul and sexuality

23175. woden - 8/9/2004 10:39:26 PM

I don't see it? It isn't there, Pelty. You know that, and you can't prove it, and you know that too, and that is why you are suddenly 'past caring'. You have been demonstrated to be dead wrong, suddenly you wish to go do something else!

Is that, er, picking up your ball and leaving the sandbox?

Anyway the moral of this story is, I believe, 'do not fuck with my girlfriend.'

23176. woden - 8/9/2004 10:40:03 PM

grumble. That should have been under angel-five. Silly logins.

23177. judithathome - 8/9/2004 10:42:23 PM

It's still the same question.

Jay, I know that, I was trying to get Jen to answer.

23178. pelty - 8/9/2004 11:04:47 PM

Actually, this is not picking up the ball, it is realizing when a person cannot be reasoned with and, further, is not interested in speaking rationally. If you cannot see this, then it is because you have no desire to see this, which is fine. Let me spell it out. First, you have Pro-lifers (x) who want to support the male structure, blah, blah, blah (y). Then you have pro-lifers (x) who are Catholics and fundie protestants (z). Using simple math, you cross out the "x's" and lo and behold, y=z. Then I say she should not stereotype, to which she flies off the handle and runs home to her boyfriend. That's a strong woman you have there, slick.

I certainly have not been demonstrated to be wrong in anything, but the fact that you think I have further illustrates the futility of the challenge before me and thus I choose to seek a conversation w/ people who are capable of putting two thoughts together.

BTW, you are kidding with the "fuck w/ my girlfriend," right? Please tell me you are. Or are we now all in junior high? Is your dad going to kick my dad's ass? Please.

23179. woden - 8/9/2004 11:27:05 PM

First, you have Pro-lifers (x) who want to support the male structure, blah, blah, blah (y). Then you have pro-lifers (x) who are Catholics and fundie protestants (z). Using simple math, you cross out the "x's" and lo and behold, y=z. Then I say she should not stereotype, to which she flies off the handle and runs home to her boyfriend. That's a strong woman you have there, slick.

Why do people lie about things that are posted, when all it takes is for someone to page back and see what I wrote? Do you think anyone is convinced by that? You look like a pathetic loser. And not only are you a liar, but you simply can't lay off the ad hominems when you're being bested.

I certainly have not been demonstrated to be wrong in anything,

Not only have you been proven wrong, but you can't stop digging. You can't even read my posts. You're and idiot and you should stop posting. When I said I was through with you, you cravenly took that as an opportunity to continue with your needless insults, hoping that you wouldn't be answered, coward.

23180. woden - 8/9/2004 11:27:49 PM

Only the first and third paragraphs should be italicized, my mistake.

23181. pelty - 8/9/2004 11:28:30 PM

To be fair, I pre-supposed that xy=xz. It may be more fair to say x=y and x=z and thus y=z.

23182. pelty - 8/9/2004 11:29:13 PM

OK, Woden.

23183. judithathome - 8/9/2004 11:30:37 PM

hmmmmmm?

23184. angel-five - 8/9/2004 11:44:02 PM

Actually, this is not picking up the ball, it is realizing when a person cannot be reasoned with and, further, is not interested in speaking rationally.

But both of us have put down rational arguments on the table. You're the one being irrational, and you demonstrated it succinctly here:

If you cannot see this, then it is because you have no desire to see this, which is fine. Let me spell it out. First, you have Pro-lifers (x) who want to support the male structure, blah, blah, blah (y). Then you have pro-lifers (x) who are Catholics and fundie protestants (z).Using simple math, you cross out the "x's" and lo and behold, y=z.

Using simple math incorrectly. Logically and rationally you do this using a Venn diagram. X are mostly Y and Z, X believe in A and B. Does it follow that Y and Z all monolithically believe in A and B?

Let's see. 'The Ohio State football team is mostly made up of males age 18-22. The Ohio State football team plays football. Does it follow that all males age 18-22 play football?'

No, Pelty, it does not. But that's precisely what you were shrieking about! 'How dare she think that all fundamentalists are the same!' The logic doesn't get you there; if you used it, you'd know it. Instead you just whinged about how unfair it is to lump all fundamentalists together and when called on how you were wrong, you suddenly want to stop talking.

23185. angel-five - 8/9/2004 11:44:14 PM

Then I say she should not stereotype, to which she flies off the handle and runs home to her boyfriend. That's a strong woman you have there, slick.

And here we see you doing a whole lot more of what you were just shrieking about! First off, you shouldn't stereotype if you're gonna whine about it when you think others have done it to you. Second off, you have no idea what happened. For the record your stereotype posts came up when I was at the computer. I answered them.

For the record; you have been proven wrong in a) whether you can demonstrate easily that Spong is a good and methodical scholar b) how you would prove that c) whether Woden made definite and categorical statements about all thumpers d) whether or not your racist allegations are fair comparison to discussions about the anti-abortion lobby e) whether or not Woden knows much about that lobby and f)what does constitute logic.

BTW, you are kidding with the "fuck w/ my girlfriend," right? Please tell me you are. Or are we now all in junior high?

You're certainly acting like it.

23186. pelty - 8/9/2004 11:46:59 PM

OK, A-5. Thanks for playing.

23187. Absensia - 8/9/2004 11:50:54 PM

A completely different view of why marriage laws should be left to the states. Polygomy anyone? http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20040729.html

23188. angel-five - 8/9/2004 11:51:16 PM

I mean, really, if you're going to be a persnickety jackass it does help if you have some semblance of facts upon which to be persnickety, there, Malvolio. Have you even had any formal training in logic? Do people really stump you with 'All housecats are pets, my dog is a pet, therefore my dog is a housecat?'

Or, once again, are you just propagandizing? The cargo cult of polemicism seems to be alive and well.

23189. angel-five - 8/9/2004 11:53:24 PM

Are you sure you don't want to talk about this some more, Pelty? Sure you're sure?

23190. pelty - 8/9/2004 11:54:11 PM

Yep, you are on to me, A-5. Good show.

23191. Jenerator - 8/10/2004 12:36:20 AM

Angel five,

Wonkers asked pelty why Rev. Spong wasn't deemed as credible. I posted a small bit in agreement with pelty, citing one link of thousands that discuss why Spong is a sham scholar. I then went on to explain the very basic explanation to you that Spong claims to be a Christian, but he rejects the basic tenets of the Christian faith. Spong is about as Christian as you are.

You then go on Resonance-rant mode and insult me in your predictable way. (Although I do appreciate your new found fervor undoubtedly gained by having a real life and online girlfriend around.)

The only reason you know the name of Spong is that it was probably printed up in some Baptist flyer.

Hahahahahahaha! Get a clue, Angel-five. We don't just huddle around in prayer circles with our heads in the sand. Shelby Spong is just as familiar a name as John Dominic Crossan. And before you do a google search on the name, allow me to remind you that they're both part of the infamous Jesus Seminar. Do you know how often I had to read about them? Do you have anyidea how many dialogues we have had regarding their shoddy tactics? I guess not. No, in Resonance world, Christians don't know anything.

So spare us your second-rate analysis of what Spong does or doesn't believe in, what he does and does not adhere to

I haven't even begun to share an analysis with you, but the more you speak, the more I am inclined to!

unless you want someone to sit down with a checklist of the ten commandments and your behavior the last several years and compile a compelling list of why your Tejano-slut-for-Jesus-and-Bush act is about as Biblically rooted as hydroponic pot and much less saleable.

Do I get to pick the person? Will they be coming to my house? Maybe it could be Rev. Spong himself and we could televise the whole thing!

23192. alistairConnor - 8/10/2004 12:54:25 AM

Message # 23131 Pelty! So we are expected to accept your cultural excuses for Paul's sexism... while still treating him as authoritative on, for example, homosexuality?

Surely, with a bit of effort, you could find some cultural excuses for him there, too.

... And by the way, did he have anything to say about abortion?

I'm rather puzzled as to why that should be a specifically Christian issue. Is there some scriptural basis for that? I thought it was just some infallible pope's opinion.

23193. Jenerator - 8/10/2004 12:56:14 AM

You might be on to something!

versus

23194. angel-five - 8/10/2004 4:02:58 AM

I then went on to explain the very basic explanation to you that Spong claims to be a Christian, but he rejects the basic tenets of the Christian faith. Spong is about as Christian as you are.

You explained the explanation?

No, you just asserted the, ah, assertion. Twice now. Despite what you may think, the plural of assertion is not 'logic' just as the plural of anecdote is not data. And I'll repeat that snake-handling Baptists don't get to decide what's Christian and what isn't. We might have let you, except you always do such a bad job of it.

Hahahahahahaha! Get a clue, Angel-five. We don't just huddle around in prayer circles with our heads in the sand. Shelby Spong is just as familiar a name as John Dominic Crossan.

And I'll reiterate that you never would have heard either name if it weren't for the propagandists of your faith and their screed sheets. Certainly you never seem to have a basic grasp of what liberal theologians actually say -- instead you usually spout what can be found on Baptist broadsides, which is why, of course, one suspects that your 'discussions' of them amount to little more than 'Here, read this, it says why Spong and Crossan and Pagels and Allegro are all wrong, turn in your answers tomorrow'.

Interestingly enough, I didn't say you have your head in the sand, but... you do.

I haven't even begun to share an analysis with you, but the more you speak, the more I am inclined to!

Figured out cut and pasting, then?

By the way, if you're going to post a pic of a cheerleader as you, find one that looks a little more cute and a little less ratlike and vacuous.

23195. angel-five - 8/10/2004 4:06:21 AM

Wait! Let me guess. That's the flower of texas beauty, just like those horribly made up plastic looking trailer dolls you posted before? I mean, the legs aren't bad, but it's a shame about the face. I thought the Cowboys hired hotties.

23196. rdbrewer - 8/10/2004 4:13:00 AM

I wouldn't kick her out of bed for eating crackers.

23197. angel-five - 8/10/2004 4:30:41 AM

RDB:

Well, that's hardly saying much. If you were any easier you'd be free.

23198. angel-five - 8/10/2004 4:31:39 AM

Besides, no one mentioned cannibalism.

23199. SnowOwl - 8/10/2004 4:38:54 AM

I thought whoever it was is displaying a bit of 5-o'clock shadow. Maybe it's just a bad photo.

23200. SnowOwl - 8/10/2004 4:38:55 AM

I thought whoever it was is displaying a bit of 5-o'clock shadow. Maybe it's just a bad photo.

23201. rdbrewer - 8/10/2004 5:06:30 AM

Was that "5-o'clock shadow"?

23202. rdbrewer - 8/10/2004 5:07:08 AM

Jen, post some pictures of yourself, please.

23203. rdbrewer - 8/10/2004 5:09:25 AM

Hey, A-4. Married yet? ("A-4" ever since you blew that 10,000 post I was hoping to get.)

23204. angel-five - 8/10/2004 5:21:46 AM

Next July, RD.

And, yeah. That picture being of a guy in drag would totally explain a few things.

23205. wonkers2 - 8/10/2004 6:06:57 AM

Jenerator: "Spong is a sham scholar. Spong rejects the basic tenets of the Christian faith."

I would be curious to know what basic Christian tenets Spong rejects.

And Spong's resume hardly indicates he is a sham scholar:

AB U. of N.C.--philosophy, Phi Beta Kappa

M. Divinity--Virginia Theological Seminary

Special Study
St. Luke's School of Theology
Union Seminary
Harvard Divinity School
Magdalen College Oxford
Fellow, Emmanuel College, Cambridge
University of Edinburgh
Christ Church, Oxford

Honorary Degrees
Doctor of Divinity, St Paul's College
Docotor of Divinity Virginia Theological Seminary
Doctor of Humane Letters, Muhlenberg College

Publications: 16 Books, 100+ articles

Spong appears to have devoted his life to Christianity. He is a retired Episcopal Bishop and a member of the governing board of the church. It appears to me that he has studied Christian theology and reached different conclusions from other theologians on the origin, meaning and significance of the scriptures. Seems to me this would be a more accurate and civil way to characterize him rather than as a "sham scholar" and "about as Christian as you are." Many Christians find his views more sensible, humane and helpful in today's world than those of the fundamentalists.

23206. The Summer Woman - 8/10/2004 6:24:04 AM

Thoughtful: Law or no law, there's no such thing. Presence or absence of laws impacts any industry. No laws regulating abortions? Then what's to prevent nonlicensened medical people from performing them resulting in botches and death? Laws prohibiting abortion, then what's to prevent illegal abortions as we had pre roe v wade? Seems too naive an approach for me.

I did not say that there should be no laws regulating abortion! I said that there should be no law that states that an abortion is either legal or illegal. That one may or may not have one. Laws that regulate who may peform an abortion are entirely separate, and how abortions may or may not be done would be handled just as they are now - by licensing and medical boards. The goal here is to de-politicize abortion. To return the decision to the individual.

People who feel that it is wrong to have an abortion will not feel that their government is condoning murder. People who feel that it is an option that should not be denied to a woman by government would probably be satisfied with this solution also.

I sometimes wonder if people realize that the procedures that are used to perform abortions - dilatation and curretage, dilatation and vaccum extraction - are not procedures performed by physicians everyday for purposes
b other than abortion.
Examples are: for the diagnosis of endometriosis and other abnormal bleeding problems; removal of polyps and other abnormal growths from the uterus; removal of any remains of placenta after a live-birth or a miscarriage which could result in a fatal hemorrage.

At any rate, I know that the no-law idea seems strange - especially as we have come to see this as an either/or issue.

23207. arkymalarky - 8/10/2004 6:36:40 AM

Besides, no one mentioned cannibalism.

Oooh, that was cold.

23208. tmesis - 8/10/2004 9:08:23 AM

sakonige,

As I've said ad nauseam, parasitism takes between two species, not one. If you can't reconcile yourself to a basic biological fact, there's no help for you.

23209. alistairconnor - 8/10/2004 10:43:24 AM

TM : as you noted yourself, it was a poetic construct, not a scientific assertion. She has an original point of view and often comes up with interesting ideas. Take her literally at your peril.

Sakonige enjoys outraging people. You made her day.

23210. alistairconnor - 8/10/2004 1:23:13 PM

Summer, your no-law idea is an interesting approach, an attempt at breaking down the fortified camps that everyone seems forced into on this issue.

But I fear that it won't help.

(FOOLISH) ATTEMPT AT SYNTHESIS FOLLOWS :

So, why is abortion a religious issue?

I see two elements :

* The first element is, as outlined by both Pelty and Jen, the fact that the Christians (the real ones!) love Jesus far more than they love their fellow humans. They worship and obey Jesus, and this has much higher standing than any human concensus, social contract, convention, or law. This ultimately brooks no discussion; it's just the way it is.

The result of this element is to remove the issue of abortion from the purview of the individual. A woman has no more right to abort, than two men to contract a marriage. Jesus said it's wrong to kill blastocysts (voluntary anachronism), and that's the end of the matter.

(In terms of human politics, this looks like an awfully authoritarian position. But human politics are irrelevant when you are serving God's will.)

23211. alistairconnor - 8/10/2004 1:36:59 PM

* The second element that I see, that makes abortion a religious issue, is the question of the soul.

I guess this is what Jay is getting at with his questions on fertility clinics, and I understand why none of the religious participants have taken the bait.

A theologian will resist getting into technical detail about when the soul of a foetus starts. End of first trimester? Four weeks? Implantation? Fertilisation? Ejaculation?... Of course, with assisted fertility, all these lines are blurred. (Do people born from in-vitro fertilisation have a soul?)

* There is a third element : some brands of Christian are against all forms of contraception as well (except for the rhythm method, which is OK because it doesn't work). This gives them an additional argument against abortion. (Though there might be two justifications for such a position: non-interference with God's will, in which case I would expect them to be against all assisted-fertility parenting; or filling the earth with one's fruits, in which case they would be in favour).
So, the only coherent position is :

23212. alistairconnor - 8/10/2004 1:37:49 PM

(Strike that last line. There is no coherent position.)

(sorry to disappoint)

23213. pelty - 8/10/2004 3:54:36 PM

"So we are expected to accept your cultural excuses for Paul's sexism... while still treating him as authoritative on, for example, homosexuality?"

Actually, you are not "expected" to do anything. The problem is that you are starting w/ a presupposition that I do not accept. I do not think that Paul demonstrates sexist behavior in the first place; that is not to say that *some* people have not taken a certain passage and run with it, but the weight of the evidence suggests that Paul had a pretty radical view of the role of women.

WRT homosexuality, I certainly do not expect you to accept Paul's authority on this (or any other) issue.

"... And by the way, did he have anything to say about abortion?"

No.

"I'm rather puzzled as to why that should be a specifically Christian issue. Is there some scriptural basis for that? I thought it was just some infallible pope's opinion."

I do not believe that it is a "specifically Christian" idea, although there is no denying that many Christians oppose abortion. I think it has to do w/ the sanction against murder and thus, if you take life as beginning at the moment of conception, abortion would be murder. I am not certain that non-Catholics would feel too comfortable taking their marching orders from a pope.

23214. thoughtful - 8/10/2004 3:56:22 PM

Jesus said it's wrong to kill blastocysts

Q for the bible scholars around here, where in the bible does Jesus say abortion is wrong?

23215. PelleNilsson - 8/10/2004 4:44:18 PM

On whose authority is it claimed that life begins at conception?

23216. jayackroyd - 8/10/2004 4:54:29 PM

None. But it is an obvious point to choose, less blurry than "viability" or "quickening".

23217. PelleNilsson - 8/10/2004 5:18:06 PM

Arbitrary then. Is it really that simple?

23218. alistairconnor - 8/10/2004 5:23:24 PM

Pelty : Actually, you are not "expected" to do anything. OK, true enough, I'm not actually looking for spiritual guidance from you. However, you are an articulate advocate of your cause, and I find your explanations quite illuminating with respect to the past and the present, given the huge Christian influence on our culture.

In Message # 23131 you seem to claim that when Paul seems to be anti-woman, he is really aiming to denigrate rival religions which happened to give important roles to women... fine... I certainly wouldn't call that "really weird rhetorical tricks" or anything. However, centuries of oppression of women, often justified by an apparently too-literal reading of Paul, have left their traces. So I can certainly see value in examining other elements of his teachings, to see whether there's other stuff that has been taken too literally.

Spong thinks he may have been gay, which would cast an interesting light on his ardently anti-homosexual teachings. On the other hand, perhaps this was merely a coded criticism of socio-educational practices of the Graeco-Roman world.

23219. pelty - 8/10/2004 5:31:45 PM

thoughtful:

"Q for the bible scholars around here, where in the bible does Jesus say abortion is wrong?"

Nowhere. That said, there are many things that Jesus did not touch on, so it is not an entirely useful avenue to go down. Most of those who argue against abortion would likely, as I mention above, go down the route of murder, life beginning at conception, etc.

23220. woden - 8/10/2004 5:52:43 PM

In Message # 23131 you seem to claim that when Paul seems to be anti-woman, he is really aiming to denigrate rival religions which happened to give important roles to women... fine... I certainly wouldn't call that "really weird rhetorical tricks" or anything.

Okay, let's say for argument's sake that your interpretation of Paul is the only 'right' one and that it is somehow wrong to take him at the letter of his words. If the reason he oppresses women is that rival Christian churches don't oppress them as much, by what rhetorical trick is that not still sexism?

23221. woden - 8/10/2004 5:58:39 PM

Jen, I have heard that "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven" type of line many times. It's clear from reading the Gospel that Jesus calls his followers to a high standard of behavior. It's also crystal clear that for Jesus, clinging to forms, formulas and institutions is totally wrong, what's in your heart is what's important. There's no way I can reconcile reading the Gospel with the behavior of his followers, to wit, in this thread, you and Pelty go off with totally unprovoked insults. I can understand that Christians aren't perfect but when time and time again, they seem to not care one single shred for the heart of Jesus's message, well, it's not really too beneficial to the eternal membership drive, now is it?

23222. PelleNilsson - 8/10/2004 5:58:50 PM

I don't think - if we buy Pelty's argumment - that it was a question of rival Christian churches but rather of the Greek mystery cults (Dionysos, etc) in which women were prominent.

23223. woden - 8/10/2004 6:02:37 PM

I think at various junctures he's fulminating against pagan sects, but at others he is against Gnostics and other Christian sects which were ultimately branded heretical.

23224. woden - 8/10/2004 6:07:22 PM

I used to be an apologist for religion in general. I grew up in a very liberal area and it's rare to find people who are zealous about their religion. It wasn't until I started interacting with many different stripes of Christianity online that I started to understand where the real religion-haters are coming from. I always thought that people who hated religion were crypto-classists and had authority mommy/daddy issues.

23225. pelty - 8/10/2004 6:14:26 PM

"So I can certainly see value in examining other elements of his teachings, to see whether there's other stuff that has been taken too literally."

OK, agreed.

"Spong thinks he may have been gay, which would cast an interesting light on his ardently anti-homosexual teachings. On the other hand, perhaps this was merely a coded criticism of socio-educational practices of the Graeco-Roman world."

First of all, to judge by his writings, I would not consider Paul an "ardent" adversary of homosexuality. The tendency in our culture (and in previous cultures as well) is to begin with the hot-button issue of the day and then to locate biblical support (or lack thereof) for the issue. This has been the case w/ homosexuality as well. "The Culture" has concluded that Paul constantly railed against. This is simply not the case. Was Paul against homosexuality? Yes. Was he against murder, envy, strife, witchcraft, etc.? Yes, and likely on a more "ardent" basis than the former, if the number of times such sins were mentioned are ang guide. The point is, this is not a topic upon which Paul was fixated. It is usually included in vice lists or in a condemnation of the greater culture around him (Rom. 1). Thus, I want to see if we can agree that this issue was not a burning one w/ him, although it certainly would be one that he would categorize as sinful.

23226. pelty - 8/10/2004 6:15:12 PM

Re: Spong's article, we obviously cannot walk through it line-by-line, but let's start w/ his intro and see if we can reach any kind of consensus on it...

"Nothing about Paul was moderate. He was tightly drawn, passionately emotional, filled with enormous feelings of self-negativity, seeking to deal with those feelings in the timehonored way of external controls, unflagging religious zeal, and rigid discipline."

Right here, we run into elements that Spong takes as "givens" but which are difficult to prove. "Nothing about Paul was moderate." What does he mean by that? If he is thinking of Paul's zeal to spread the gospel, then he is correct; yet within Paul's letters we see much in the way of moderation (1 Cor 8; 12-14) as Paul attempts to negotiate internal ecclesiastical matters. Thus, it would be nice if Spong was a tad more careful in his choice of wording. "Tightly drawn" in the second sentence is really reading into the letters a bit to much. These are but snapshots into the larger picture of a human being. It so happens that these are issues (the gospel, church order, etc) about which he has the most passion and thus is very intense in his writings about them. When you or I are discussing that which we are most passionate about, I would venture to say that we seem more "tightly drawn" than we might be when discussing upcoming travels or something of that ilk.

23227. pelty - 8/10/2004 6:16:02 PM

As for "feelings of self-negativity," Spong again presumes alot. I would like to see what he means by this, what evience he is using to reach this conclusion.

Spong then writes, "seeking to deal with those feelings in the timehonored way of external controls, unflagging religious zeal, and rigid discipline." The underlying assumption here is that these feelings (which he simply assumes as noted above) are borne out of a psychological deficiency of some type and that the actions of Paul as viewed in his letters are based not on any actual experience that he may have had with Jesus, but rather on these deficiencies. As a scholar, he should not simply throw out the possibility that Paul was genuinely motivated either by a real experience w/ Jesus, or certainly something that *Paul* considered real and thus drove him (even if mistakenly) to spread his message. I would argue that this explains the passion Paul puts into his letters and travels (and I am leaving aside the issue of the *reality* of his experience w/ Jesus; in this case, it makes no difference as long as *he* thought it was real) far better than a psychological deficiency of another sort (if we assume that Paul had some sort of psychological malfunction if his Jesus experience was not real).

23228. pelty - 8/10/2004 6:16:12 PM

"He could not, however, master the passions that consumed him. What were these passions? There is no doubt in my mind that they were sexual in nature, but what kind of sexual passions were they?"

Ok, did we just skip from A to Z here? He simply states, "There is no doubt in my mind that they were sexual in nature" without offering any real evidence in this regard. Given Paul's extant writings, how can we possibly know this? There is nothing to suggest this at all. He later points to the section in 1 Cor 7 and mishandles badly. A quick for example would be that he see 1 Cor 7.1 as Paul stating that it is best for a man not to touch a woman. Most scholars would agree that this is not Paul talking but rather the Corinthian church's question to Paul that serves as the launch pad for his discussion. Anyway, we can spend time discussing this article, but I am in no way ready to concede Spong's argument re: Paul's sexuality, an argument that even he calls "speculative."

23229. pelty - 8/10/2004 6:17:14 PM

"I don't think - if we buy Pelty's argumment - that it was a question of rival Christian churches but rather of the Greek mystery cults (Dionysos, etc) in which women were prominent."

You don't have to buy it, but this is indeed what I mean.

23230. pelty - 8/10/2004 6:24:15 PM

"I think at various junctures he's fulminating against pagan sects, but at others he is against Gnostics and other Christian sects which were ultimately branded heretical."

I would differ with you in a couple of ways. First, I do not think he was actively fulminating against "pagan" sects, only that he was interested in ensuring that the actions of the members of the church were not going to be confused (by those both inside and outside the congregation) as another Bacchic-type ritual. Church order was very important to Paul as he spends a great deal of time on it in 1 Cor.

Second, it does not appear that Paul argued against gnostics (and this brings up so many other issues that I do not know how to begin; suffice it to say there is little to indicate a form of Christian gnosticism before the early second-century (at the earliest). Full-blown Xian gnosticism does not become a real problem for the proto-orthodox church until the mid - 2nd cent.

Paul was, it seems, more interested in contesting those who argued that observance of Jewish laws was an integral facet of membership in the Jesus movement.

23231. woden - 8/10/2004 6:25:20 PM

You are a joke and I don't care what you think about Paul.

23232. thoughtful - 8/10/2004 6:27:38 PM

So the results of the stand of xtian right moral certitude against abortion is that it is based on an arbitrary decision by each fallible human xtian as jesus was mute on the issue.

So how on earth can you presume to judge what is right for everyone else? How can you be so arrogant in the eyes of god and the eyes of man as to presume you are taking the correct stance and no other stance is possible? Is it not possible that jesus was mute on the issue precisely because he felt it was an issue to be decided on circumstance (just as a for instance)? Especially when even on this issue, there are so many variables making each individual situation unique? Especially when there is human pain, suffering and death on either side of the issue?

If you recognize that even serious biblical and xtian scholars have different views on the morality of the issue, how can you claim to be right, so right that you feel justified in enforcing your views on others?

That i find amazing. that i will never understand.

23233. pelty - 8/10/2004 6:39:30 PM

OK, Woden.

23234. PelleNilsson - 8/10/2004 6:47:52 PM

This Spong thing is very tiresome and seems peripheral to the issue at hand.

23235. pelty - 8/10/2004 6:51:43 PM

"So how on earth can you presume to judge what is right for everyone else?"

How are you not doing the same type of thing? You are presuming that your position is correct and thus the "right" thing to do for society although there are clearly sizeable numbers who disagree w/your stance. It is the right of every American to fight for a cause through culturally acceptable channels (the legislative and judicial branches).

"How can you be so arrogant in the eyes of god and the eyes of man as to presume you are taking the correct stance and no other stance is possible?"

How can you be so arrogant to do the same? Clearly, in your eyes, my stance is not possible. I actually believe that other stances are possible; this is painfully obvious given the laws of the land. That said, there is no reason why I or anyone else could not attempt to change the law. That is how it works in our country. If a side gets enough people to vote their way on an issue, they win. It is a pretty good system.

"Is it not possible that jesus was mute on the issue precisely because he felt it was an issue to be decided on circumstance (just as a for instance)?"

Yes, it is possible.

"If you recognize that even serious biblical and xtian scholars have different views on the morality of the issue, how can you claim to be right, so right that you feel justified in enforcing your views on others?"

I do not claim to be "right," I just claim to believe that abortion is not something that I would like to see as the law of the land. Given that it is, though, I accept it and move on. But it seems to me that you are just as interested in enforcing your view on me as I am of my view on you. But again, that is how it works in the good ol'US of A.

23236. pelty - 8/10/2004 6:52:16 PM

"This Spong thing is very tiresome and seems peripheral to the issue at hand."

Which is?

23237. thoughtful - 8/10/2004 7:19:54 PM

No, pelty, I am not doing the same thing.

This is the same point I've argued before about freedom of religion...requiring that the state not establish a state religion is very different from the state establishing atheism as the state religion. One allows individuals to choose how/when/if to practice religion. The other bans individuals rights to practice any religion.

Making abortion legal allows individuals to choose how/when/if to carry a pregnancy to term. Making it illegal bans everyone from the right to terminate a pregnancy.

Making abortion legal does not REQUIRE that anyone get one. Making it illegal REQUIRES no one get one.

In the former, the choice is yours based on your own moral belief system. In the latter, there is no choice.

Those are two very different things.

23238. PelleNilsson - 8/10/2004 7:21:27 PM

If you don't know I cannot explain it to you.

23239. pelty - 8/10/2004 7:26:03 PM

"If you don't know I cannot explain it to you."

What I mean is, are you talking about homosexuality, abortion? I am not sure what you have in mind. Obviously, Alistair and I are interested in talking about Spong and it may be that we do not see him as peripheral at all. So if you have something else to bring up, have at it. I have not been following your mode of thought of late as we have not been in a discussion and given a limited quantity of time, I only deal w/ discussions in which I am active. Therefore, I may have missed your particular subject of interest.

23240. woden - 8/10/2004 7:29:51 PM

There is no equivalency at all between thoughtful's and pelty's stances on abortion. Thoughtful believes in choice, which does not obviate pelty's stance but accepts it. Pelty doesn't believe in choice, which does obviate thoughtful's stance. One is 'I know what is right for me, and will let everyone else decide for themselves' and the other is 'I know what is right for you, and if I get my way, you won't get to choose'.

23241. pelty - 8/10/2004 7:36:04 PM

"Making it illegal bans everyone from the right to terminate a pregnancy."

But this hints at the bigger issue of whether it is a morally acceptable act. If, for the sake of argument, it is not a morally acceptable act (not from a religious point of view, but a societal one), then the society would presumably no longer view it as a right. Now, I would argue that there are a decent number of those who are against abortion not on religious grounds but on the grounds that they see abortion as a form of infanticide. Good people can disagree on when life begins, etc. w/out bringing a religious element into it (in fact, I would prefer that the religious element be left out altogether). Thus, it is the responsibility of the anti-abortion crowd to make a solid, persuasive case against abortion on "secular" rather than religious grounds. I actually agree with you that what Jesus did or did not say on the issue is irrelevant. The question, in my mind, is abortion a moral act? To me, it is not; thus my opposition to it.

But is it possible that you do not like talking in terms of morality or do you just have a different set of idea about what morality entails?

23242. woden - 8/10/2004 7:39:13 PM

And Paul is writing railing letters to Christians, is he not -- as he sees it, correcting their errors? Is pelty now saying that Paul's statements about women aren't aimed at problems he saw with the Corinthians', etc., practice of the nascent religion?

That's not even adequate apologism, it's big-lie.

Gnostic beliefs predate Christianity by quite some time. There's people who argue that Paul himself was heavily influenced by gnostic thought, and point to his weird statements about predestination etc. to make their case. But more importantly, Paul wasn't himself really preaching to a well-established church so much as he was part of establishing a church, and he was fulminating against heretical 'errors' in that nascent church. So it's meaningless, you see, to talk about whether or not a 'rival' church had to be well organized and burgeoning in order for them to merit Paul's attention.

23243. woden - 8/10/2004 7:40:14 PM

Looks like I forgot to log out and back in again.

23244. pelty - 8/10/2004 7:42:25 PM

Woden,

You are correct on that. I do not disagree. But as I mention above to thoughtful, I think this is one level up from the base issue: Is abortion a moral act (from a secular standpoint, not a religious one)? If the majority of the population can be persuaded that this is an act that is the equivalent of murder, then it would be an issue of socially agreed-upon morality (similar to how murder is generally viewed today in the US).

Admittedly, I have very little hope that this will ever be the majority point of view, but there is no reason that someone should be banned for making their case. For what it is worth, I think that religious arguments in this arena are pointless.

23245. pelty - 8/10/2004 7:54:35 PM

"And Paul is writing railing letters to Christians, is he not -- as he sees it, correcting their errors? Is pelty now saying that Paul's statements about women aren't aimed at problems he saw with the Corinthians', etc., practice of the nascent religion?"

Sure he is, but why don't you tell me what you see as the major statements against women in 1 Cor. Let's get a feel for what you view as these awful statements, because I may well be missing what you have in mind here.

"Gnostic beliefs predate Christianity by quite some time. There's people who argue that Paul himself was heavily influenced by gnostic thought, and point to his weird statements about predestination etc. to make their case."

This was part and parcel of the things I did not want to get into, but there are very few scholars of whom I am aware that would hold that Paul was "heavily influenced by Gnostic thought." These days, Paul is seen first and foremost as a Jew.

23246. pelty - 8/10/2004 7:54:44 PM

"But more importantly, Paul wasn't himself really preaching to a well-established church so much as he was part of establishing a church, and he was fulminating against heretical 'errors' in that nascent church."

I would not say he was fulminating against "heretical" errors, at least, not to the Corinthians, as much as he was correcting bad practice in that particular congregation. Galatians may support your point, but even this may not be the case as Paul was clearly aware of and did not outright condemn Jews practicing Jewish ritual alongside belief in Messiah; his concern was the foisting of these practices upon Gentiles, so even in this letter the focus is more on practice than belief.

"So it's meaningless, you see, to talk about whether or not a 'rival' church had to be well organized and burgeoning in order for them to merit Paul's attention."

Not entirely true if we are talking about "Gnosticism" as a developing form of Xianity. There is no real evidence to suggest its existence (in its Xianized form; its form before the advent of Christianity, if indeed existed prior to Xianity, is virtually unknowable, although some have taken stabs at it) prior to the end of the 1st century, so therefore it would be unlikely that Paul would be addressing it in his letters.

23247. angel-five - 8/10/2004 8:40:05 PM

Sure he is, but why don't you tell me what you see as the major statements against women in 1 Cor.

The fact that you admit that he is doing so is all I need. If he is writing to correct practice, it isn't about what he dislikes in other belief systems (which was a really weak apology anyway) but what he dislikes in what his audience was doing. Cut and dried, that is it.

But you want to take specific statements in 1 Corinthians? That's fine. Is the first half of 11 and the relevant cite near the end of 14 specific enough for you, or do you require me to cut and paste them specifically?

This was part and parcel of the things I did not want to get into, but there are very few scholars of whom I am aware that would hold that Paul was "heavily influenced by Gnostic thought."

You mean, there are very few scholars, if any, other than the liberal theologians that you dislike so much, who will level such arguments at Pauline apologists. I already know it isn't a part of the party line, but that's no more meaningful to me than 'We know Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.'

I would not say he was fulminating against "heretical" errors, at least, not to the Corinthians, as much as he was correcting bad practice in that particular congregation.

Call it whatever you like. He's telling people what not to do, and that makes his sexism more relevant and immediate than your vague 'Oh, he was just talking about those other religions'. So what if he was? How on earth can you make that anything other than a sexist diatribe?

What smarter people do (at least, ones that don't try to cling to the belief that Paul is the first religious egalitarian) is say 'that's how it was in those times' and move on. You don't want to do that, though. Why?

23248. angel-five - 8/10/2004 8:43:11 PM

Not entirely true if we are talking about "Gnosticism" as a developing form of Xianity.

XIANITY was developing at that time! The Church, which was dominated by the early theology of your boy Paul and his circumcision issues, was not yet in the form we know it. That is to say, Paul was in the process of overhauling it.

Yet Paul is clearly addressing someone! In fact the entire point is that he's addressing a nascent group. This is where early Christianity was hammered out.

So why are you insisting that Paul couldn't have any gnostic thought in mind, because you say you can find no evidence that the Christian Gnostic church was established until later on? By those standards, Paul can't really be addressing Christians either.

Pop quiz, Pelty -- what's the evidence you're citing anyway, aside from letters from early Church fathers?

23249. angel-five - 8/10/2004 8:45:55 PM

You are correct on that. I do not disagree.

BTW, you do this a lot. Well, if you don't disagree, then why are you in your own words accusing Thoughtful of equivalent arrogance, etc. because she's doing just what you're doing?

You make these weird-ass baseless statements and then later go 'I don't disagree with that' as if it DIDN'T just contradict what you had been saying. It would be admirable if you were acknowledging the error so freely instead of blandly ignoring it and moving on.

23250. pelty - 8/10/2004 8:56:13 PM

A-5,

"The fact that you admit that he is doing so is all I need. If he is writing to correct practice, it isn't about what he dislikes in other belief systems (which was a really weak apology anyway) but what he dislikes in what his audience was doing. Cut and dried, that is it."

You miss the point. I was not saying that he was decrying other belief systems. I agree that he was talking about inner-church practices, but what I said was that he did not want his churches to look like/be confused as holding similar views to those religions for whom ecstatic ritual by women played a role.

"But you want to take specific statements in 1 Corinthians? That's fine. Is the first half of 11 and the relevant cite near the end of 14 specific enough for you, or do you require me to cut and paste them specifically?"

Sure. Tell me what you know of the textual history of 1 Cor. 14, please, and how that may or may not effect this issue.

23251. pelty - 8/10/2004 8:56:22 PM

"You mean, there are very few scholars, if any, other than the liberal theologians that you dislike so much, who will level such arguments at Pauline apologists."

Listen, I deal w/ this stuff on a daily basis and deal w/ scholars of every stripe. I love the work of many who the conservative branch of scholarship would call "liberal," so please stop w/ unfounded assertions. Before discussing this, why not investigate whether what I say is true or not? Look at people like John Gager, E.P. Sanders, etc. and see what they have to say about Paul' ethnicity and the heart of his belief system.

"What smarter people do (at least, ones that don't try to cling to the belief that Paul is the first religious egalitarian) is say 'that's how it was in those times' and move on. You don't want to do that, though. Why?"

Because that is the easier answer. I would rather pay close attention to his letters and see what they have to say for themselves. You may be right, you may not be, but at least I think due attention should be paid to areas that may demonstrate that women played a larger role than you may think in the spread of the gospel message.

23252. pelty - 8/10/2004 9:02:45 PM

"Pop quiz, Pelty -- what's the evidence you're citing anyway, aside from letters from early Church fathers?"

Regarding what? "Gnosticism."

"So why are you insisting that Paul couldn't have any gnostic thought in mind, because you say you can find no evidence that the Christian Gnostic church was established until later on?"

I am not saying it is impossible; there is evidence, if one wishes to interpret it in such a way, of a dualistic system (God vs. the god of this world, for example) that some took to be "gnostic", or in the case of Marcion, to represent a dualistic system that many would not categorize as "gnostic," but as I have stated, the pendulum has shifted towards thinking of Paul as a Jew above all else.

23253. Jenerator - 8/10/2004 11:05:06 PM

There's no way I can reconcile reading the Gospel with the behavior of his followers, to wit, in this thread, you and Pelty go off with totally unprovoked insults.

Excuse me? Your boyfriend is the one who freaked out, and rather easily too. In fact, he seems poised and ready to pounce on anyone about anything. Also, you, yourself, need to practice that what you preach, unless, you being a nonbeliever entitles you to go off on people??

Case in point, I think you called pelty a fucking prick something like 3 times in one post and then you say stuff like this:

23231. woden - 8/11/2004 4:25:20 PM

You are a joke and I don't care what you think about Paul.

I think that in all honesty, you don't need a reason to not follow Christ, you just use the actions of believers and the human condition as your excuse. All of mankind is hypocritical, not just Christians. So, if you need perfect adherents to believe in Almighty God, you might as well get comfortable with atheism.

That said, I don't really want to argue with you. I think highly of you, and if this kind of exchange is going to bring out the fangs in us both, I am not interested.

23254. Jenerator - 8/10/2004 11:13:18 PM

Pelty,

From what I've read, gnosticism didn't really become a major issue unto the 2nd century. In fact, I have seen repeatedly that the oldest manuscripts from gnostics sources are from late 2nd - 3rd century sources, suggesting that they were not at all the cohesive force so many believed them to be.

23255. Jenerator - 8/10/2004 11:20:28 PM

XIANITY was developing at that time! The Church, which was dominated by the early theology of your boy Paul and his circumcision issues, was not yet in the form we know it. That is to say, Paul was in the process of overhauling it.

The early community of believers was already in existence before Paul was converted. Paul was trained by the other apostles! If he had been preaching any gospel other than Christ, he would have been rebuked by the original apostles and eyewitnesses. The fact is and was, his theology was sound and it echoed what the others were already preaching.

23256. Jenerator - 8/10/2004 11:30:08 PM

Here you go SnowOwl:

23257. pelty - 8/10/2004 11:33:25 PM

"From what I've read, gnosticism didn't really become a major issue unto the 2nd century. In fact, I have seen repeatedly that the oldest manuscripts from gnostics sources are from late 2nd - 3rd century sources, suggesting that they were not at all the cohesive force so many believed them to be."

Well, this really gets into a question of "what is 'Gnosticism'?" Or, if you like, "What is Christian Gnosticism?" Some see it in the docetic (Jesus only appeared to be a man) tendencies that Ignatius tries to oppose in his letters and are also found in the Nag Hammadi texts.

Further, the Platonic elements are clearly from an earlier period. That said, you would be correct to say that we do not start seeing a campaign against people who we associate w/ "gnosticism" until the last half of the 2nd century and beyond. If pressed, I would argue that the mid-2nd cent is when these people (Valentinus, Cerinthus, etc) became threatening to the church as it sought to consolidate its authority (as seen in the works of Clement of Rome and Ignatius). Also, what to do w/Cerinthus? Is he a "gnostic?" If so, he is likely an early example.

I am not at all sure that the gnostics were "a cohesive force." They may well have believed themselves to be in the mainstream of Christianity; it is possible that a proto-orthodox person could be sitting next to a gnostic in a worship service. I would also want to be careful when assigning numbers to the various "gnostic" groups; I am not at all sure that they were very large, despite the attention given them by Irenaeus, et al. That said, I am not sure what effect a later dating of the Nag Hammadi Corpus would have on the cohesiveness of a given group. Would you elaborate, please?

23258. Jenerator - 8/10/2004 11:52:37 PM

Well, I think that the primary significance to a later dating of the gnostic inlfuence (specifically the Christian-era gnostics) shows that they were not an important factor in the earliest Christian church. Rather, as gnostics started to group together and form their own corpus of literature, the Christian believers had already gathered an informal canon of literature, and the living apostles and witnesses were still alive.

So, I guess what I am saying is that while mystical practices and/or ideas have always been around, they were not influencing the original canon of scripture (or the orginial Christian gosepl that we have today). It was only until later that the gnostics and other heretics were making claims that their texts and beliefs were authentic, and by then, Christian tradition had already been established.

23259. Jenerator - 8/10/2004 11:56:36 PM

Gnostic texts are newer than NT manuscripts.

23260. Jenerator - 8/10/2004 11:59:18 PM

Here's an interesting link.

Another question regarding Gnostic texts is their date of origin. The documents found at Nag Hammadi are quite old, probably dating from A.D. 350-400. The original writings are even older, but not prior to the second century A. D. Thus, the consensus of most scholars is that they appeared after the New Testament had been completed. The Gospel of Truth, which is attributed to Valentinus, actually quotes the New Testament at length. It would be odd to accept its authority over the New Testament.

23261. Jenerator - 8/11/2004 12:05:20 AM

Pelty,

An excellent analysis of Paul and Onesimus.

23262. pelty - 8/11/2004 12:08:49 AM

I guess we need to define "earliest Christian church." If you mean up to 100 CE or so, then I would agree, although others have contended otherwise. If you mean 2nd century, then I would disagree for reasons stated. That Irenaeus felt the need to expend the amount of effort that he did on "Against Heresies" suggests that the influence of the various groups were felt enough that he believed they needed to be refuted.

"Rather, as gnostics started to group together and form their own corpus of literature, the Christian believers had already gathered an informal canon of literature, and the living apostles and witnesses were still alive."

Their is no real evidence of a "gnostic corpus" as such. Yes, the Nag Hammadi Corpus (NHC) represents, possibly, books that were important to the person or group who put them together, but even that is dicey as we find bits of Plato's Republic and some Hermetic tractates in there as well making it all the more challenging to understand the beliefs of the collator or his community.

By the time we start seeing "gnostic" works, the apostles are dead. The aforementioned Cerinthus is alleged to have contact w/ John in Ephesus, but the first extant "gnostic" tractates are thought originally to have been written ~150 or so. The NHC represents copies of these in Coptic. But you are certainly correct that by this period there is evidence of authoritative status being given to the canonical gospels, the Pauline epistles (except for the Pastorals, I believe), and Hebrews, amongst others.

23263. judithathome - 8/11/2004 12:09:48 AM

Jen, you should just post a picture of yourself instead of those plastic-boobed cheerleaders. You are much prettier than they and I doubt your aim is to compare yourself to exhibitionistic, air-headed, vacuous show-offs of the type that are Dallas cheerleaders.

(and please, don't tell me they are lovely girls seeking their degrees or paying for their mother's nursing home bills....)

23264. pelty - 8/11/2004 12:11:03 AM

Ah yes, Jen. The Gospel of Truth is what I had in mind for the ~150 date.

I will try to get to the Paul and Onesimus stuff at a later time!

23265. Jenerator - 8/11/2004 12:22:54 AM

Judith,

I googled "Tejano-slut-for-Bush" and couldn't find any pictures, and since I have been compared to a DCC, I chose that picture instead.;-)

Thank you for the compliment, too!

23266. Jenerator - 8/11/2004 12:24:59 AM

Pelty,

I am talking about the earlist church that Acts records.

Btw, I always find it interesting that Athanasius listed the Christian canon (roughly 325?) and the Nag Texts are still younger than those.

Come back when you have time.;-)

23267. judithathome - 8/11/2004 12:53:07 AM

"Tejano-slut-for-Bush"

Ah, but you are better looking than Kay Bailey Hutchinson, too. ;-)

23268. Jenerator - 8/11/2004 1:03:44 AM

You're bad!

23269. woden - 8/11/2004 1:31:45 AM

Why must you divide everything up into these strict binaries, Jen? I said nothing about atheism nor about execting Christians to be perfect. I expect Christians to be slightly better than 8 year olds, not perfect, how's that? Without the benefit of belonging to a church, I still manage to get through a discussion like this one without a) being the first to throw an insult and b) lying. It's not anything to get excited about and not difficult to do those simple things.

Also, you, yourself, need to practice that what you preach, unless, you being a nonbeliever entitles you to go off on people??

Read carefully Jen: when throw out the first insult, do not whine about what comes next, i.e, people 'going off' on you. At the very least, you don't see Pelty indulging in that kind of behavior, not that it's anything special take credit for. I haven't preached anything, but if you want to know my opinion, I think one should return civility with civility and rudeness with rudeness. This is completely consistent with what I've done.

23270. judithathome - 8/11/2004 3:08:41 AM

Also, you, yourself, need to practice that what you preach, unless, you being a nonbeliever entitles you to go off on people??

What does being a non-believer have to do with being civil or not? Kuligin is a mega-believer and he never ceases to call names and insult people but gets huffy as hell when it is returned to him in kind. And even when it is not, he sees it where none is meant.

23271. rdbrewer - 8/11/2004 3:45:06 AM

Here you go SnowOwl

Hey, I asked for the pictures.

23272. pelty - 8/11/2004 4:19:59 AM

"I am talking about the earlist church that Acts records.

Btw, I always find it interesting that Athanasius listed the Christian canon (roughly 325?) and the Nag Texts are still younger than those."

Athanasius' list is from about 367 or so, but be aware that it is only authoritative for his area of control, so we cannot be 100% certain that his list would have been acceptable for the church universal at that point. Truthfully, it probably was close, but even in 325 or so, Eusebius records disputes over certain books that we now call canonical.

23273. SnowOwl - 8/11/2004 5:39:44 AM

Well, I'm very glad that that plastic looking person isn't Jen. I was finding it hard to say anything complimentary about it.

Interesting discussion of Gnostic influences, Pelty and Jen. This is the sort of discussion I really like to see here. Thanks.

23274. Jenerator - 8/11/2004 4:31:35 PM

Rd,

I don't have any pictures of myself readily available. But if I get some, I'll post 'em for you.;-) I do have a couple of my cute son, but I'd have to load them unto shutterfly first.

23275. Jenerator - 8/11/2004 4:34:06 PM

Pelty,

I have been reading a lot about the formation of the Christian canon. It's a subject of personal interest to me. I'm with Snowowl, I love this kind of discussion!

23276. alistairconnor - 8/11/2004 5:26:09 PM

I do have a couple of my cute son, but I'd have to load them unto shutterfly first.

King James influencing your speech?

Suffer the little children to be loaded unto shutterfly.

23277. alistairconnor - 8/11/2004 5:39:54 PM

I love this kind of discussion too, and never let my ignorance stop me from having opinions.

I've just been reading Corinthians, and it's something of a revelation to me (har) :

1Cor.11
[3] But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
[4] Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
[5] But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
[6] For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
[7] For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
[8] For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

Now there's not much one can do to spin this. Man is a god to woman.

Pelty, it may well be that the more egalitarian tendencies that Paul was criticising in the Corinthians' religious practices came from non-Christian sources. This in no way attenuates the force of his rigid hierarchy.

Actually, I imagine that "liberal" theologians contend that Paul goes a great deal further than Jesus in this respect. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't remember anything from the Gospels that puts women so explicitly in their place.

In which case, the practices of the Corinthians might have been more authentically Christian than Paul was prepared to countenance...

23278. Jenerator - 8/11/2004 5:58:26 PM

Alistair, Alistair, Alistair!! You really don't think that these scriptures are claiming that man is a God to woman?? Do you?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't remember anything from the Gospels that puts women so explicitly in their place.

Go back further than the Gospels and start in Genesis.

In which case, the practices of the Corinthians might have been more authentically Christian than Paul was prepared to countenance...

This is ludicrous. The Corinthians were Greek and their practices were pagan. The Christian faith was radically different in belief and practice.

23279. PelleNilsson - 8/11/2004 6:04:41 PM

Alistair abviously refers to the Christian congregation in Corinth. Paul wasn't writing to the pagans, was he?

23280. PelleNilsson - 8/11/2004 6:05:01 PM

... obviously ...

23281. alistairconnor - 8/11/2004 6:05:32 PM

Yes, yes, yes Jen. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Hardly a radical interpretation.

Go back further than the Gospels and start in Genesis.

Well, yes. Exactly. Perhaps Paul, as a Jew, was seeking to temper the excessive liberalism of Jesus.

23282. alistairconnor - 8/11/2004 6:19:26 PM

As Pelty mentions, there were (at least) two types of Christians in Paul's time : Jews who accepted Christ as the prophesied Messiah, and who might or might not still conform to the Jewish rites; and gentiles (pagans) who were converted by the message of Jesus.

This second group, who would have had no grounding in the Old Testament and whose faith was nourished by the Gospels and/or oral tradition, apparently needed Paul's admonishments about a whole lot of subjects.

Including the proper place of women.

23283. judithathome - 8/11/2004 6:19:52 PM

You really don't think that these scriptures are claiming that man is a God to woman?? Do you?

No, they are claiming that woman is subsurvient to man, which proves Woden's point quite nicely.

23284. angel-five - 8/11/2004 6:25:41 PM

I agree that he was talking about inner-church practices, but what I said was that he did not want his churches to look like/be confused as holding similar views to those religions for whom ecstatic ritual by women played a role.

You are saying that, er, Paul's diatribe about how women should sit down and shut up is because he was worried they might be thought to be like other churches where women weren't forced to sit down and shut up?

I have two responses to that, and the first is 'please'.

The second is, how on earth would that exculpate Paul's sexism?

Sure. Tell me what you know of the textual history of 1 Cor. 14, please, and how that may or may not effect this issue.

Oh, how wonderfully boring of a tactic this is.

Tell you what, I'll answer you this time, but if you expect to defend your points by dragging things out in this fashion instead of, you know, actually being able to defend your points, this will be an unprofitable conversation.

The Corinthians had apparently taken Paul's new age Judaism ideas and run with them. Blending Greek-style prophesy and ecstatic union into the mix would have been very predictable, and in fact that is what happened. But Paul was deeply concerned over the fact that the Corinthians were individualizing their religious experiences --choosing to interact with their God in a more gnostic, distributed fashion rather than through the patriarchal model of Paul's ideal church. This, of course, represents a supreme threat to central authority, so Paul came to lay down the Law with his ideas of the body of Christ, and came to bitch about what the Corinthians were doing.

23285. angel-five - 8/11/2004 6:26:14 PM

Is it your opinion that Paul's aim to cohere the Corinthian movement back into a patriarchal model exculpates his sexism to any degree whatsoever? Because it doesn't. It would have been perfectly easy for him to speak against those scary women giving voice to their prophesies without resorting to sexist social engineering.

And, really, sexist is a weak word for it.

Listen, I deal w/ this stuff on a daily basis and deal w/scholars of every stripe. I love the work of many who the conservative branch of scholarship would call "liberal," so please stop w/ unfounded assertions.

The conservative branch of scholarship calls anyone liberal if they don't toe the exact party line, so that doesn't much move me. You claim to like some 'liberal' bible scholars, but your earlier statements don't support that open mindset. Instead it's all 'hrm hrm hrm, Spong isn't credible, he isn't published in the right journals'. So you'll have to forgive me for not believing that one.

You may be right, you may not be, but at least I think due attention should be paid to areas that may demonstrate that women played a larger role than you may think in the spread of the gospel message.

And that would most definitely not be, because, you know, it'd be a very convenient talking point! What, you're talking down, down, down, Paul's sexism, which is overt, front-and-center, policy oriented and endemic, and scouring the NT for evidence that it was possible that women played 'a larger role than I may think' in the spread of the Gospel? Isn't that wonderfully selective of you, Pelty, and completely in keeping with someone who's less worried about the truth and more worried about building a happy little case for Pauline egalitarianism!

23286. angel-five - 8/11/2004 6:26:37 PM

By the way, women spreading the Gospel is not at all equivalent to women not being denigrated and assigned sexist roles for sexist reasons because of sexist values. Is the fact that slaves built the White House proof that slaves weren't mistreated in the antebellum South, or that people felt they were equal beings?

I am not saying it is impossible;

Then stop acting like you are.

23287. angel-five - 8/11/2004 6:31:06 PM

Excuse me? Your boyfriend is the one who freaked out, and rather easily too.

Do you really think that saying stuff like this makes it so, Jenerator?

Precisely what happened was that you came into a conversation that didn't involve or concern you and said a few rude things and suggested I wasn't actually doing what I was saying I was doing. Then you got slapped around a bit, which seems to be what you expect and crave, in the midst of some sound textual evidence, and rather than address it you just said 'Resonance is ranting!' (Which you do a lot, and people do notice it). Are you believing your own press releases now?

So, if you need perfect adherents to believe in Almighty God, you might as well get comfortable with atheism.

I think few if any people need 'perfect adherents' as their example if they wish to believe in your god. I do, however, think that they'd prefer to see people whose actions are a tad bit more in keeping with their statements than, say, you. You do realize that you're your own worst enemy when it comes to your proselytizing, right?

23288. angel-five - 8/11/2004 6:34:38 PM

The early community of believers was already in existence before Paul was converted. Paul was trained by the other apostles! If he had been preaching any gospel other than Christ, he would have been rebuked by the original apostles and eyewitnesses. The fact is and was, his theology was sound and it echoed what the others were already preaching.

Thankfully there is nothing in the Bible asking its adherents to be bright!

The entire existence of the epistles proves that you are wrong. Their entire thrust is to correct. Paul at various points is forced to talk himself up as an authority, because while he's been away others have come in who sounded better! And even the most conservative scholars will acknowledge that the Church changed shape under Paul. So, please, enough with the lackwit fluffery.

23289. angel-five - 8/11/2004 6:40:13 PM

Well, yes. Exactly. Perhaps Paul, as a Jew, was seeking to temper the excessive liberalism of Jesus...

...This second group, who would have had no grounding in the Old Testament and whose faith was nourished by the Gospels and/or oral tradition, apparently needed Paul's admonishments about a whole lot of subjects.

Including the proper place of women.

That is precisely it. I mean, you really can't fluff away what Paul says. 'Don't let them speak up in Church. Let them go home and be told by their husbands what's right.' You cannot adequately discuss that without admitting that it is, on the face of it, sexist.

23290. pelty - 8/11/2004 6:42:21 PM

Alistair:

"Pelty, it may well be that the more egalitarian tendencies that Paul was criticising in the Corinthians' religious practices came from non-Christian sources. This in no way attenuates the force of his rigid hierarchy."

In this case, I do not think that Paul is necessarily attempting to differentiate btwn the non-Christian and the Christian. That is more often a possible (and I stress possible; very little can be stated as a surety in these matters) explanation for the command that women should be silent in 1 Cor 14, assuming that this particular section is even legitimately from Paul, but we can wait for A-5 to get back to us on the variants of this passage.

23291. pelty - 8/11/2004 6:42:42 PM

The problem is, over all, that it is not easy to know the exact regard that Paul had for women. Again, we are dealing w/ bits and pieces of his views that offer only the briefest of glimpses into his thought processes. In Romans 16, which in some ways is quite instructive because it gives us insight into his social activities and interactions, women play a prominent role. To me, that says that Paul may not have had quite the misogynistic view that has been attributed to him over the ages. In 1 Cor 11, his interest is in making an argument about women's dress in the worship services. Now, there is no denying that Paul states that the head of woman is man, just as the head of every man is Christ. Some have argued that the Greek for "head" here can also be translated as "source," but I think most would reject that view. I think it is likely that Paul indeed did see an order to the creation that flowed from God->Man->Woman, but what should not be lost in this is that Paul also allowed/acknowledged that women would pray and prophesy in church, a rather liberating fact in and of itself when one understands that the Pauline churches were based in no small degree on a Jewish model in which women were, more often than not, separated from the men and certainly not allowed to pray aloud, teach, etc.

23292. pelty - 8/11/2004 6:42:51 PM

I won't get into it for the sake of space, but 1 Cor 7 is also relatively freeing as well. What one must recognize is that Paul had little interest in "liberation theology;" he saw his mission as urgent and important. The end was near and it was his job to spread the gospel message to as many as would hear it and to shepherd as many as would accept it. If maintaining the status quo would bring people into the fold, that was a worthwhile, temporary sacrifice to make for the greater good of spreading the message and the eventual reward of being w/ Christ. Thus, in 1 Cor 7 he is urging people to remain in the state in which they find themselves; being troublemakers will not advance the gospel.

Given the paucity and mixed nature of the evidence (breeze through Rom 16 and you will see that Phoebe is a "deacon", Junias, a woman called an "apostle" and imprisoned w/ Paul, not to mention several women who work hard in the Lord), I am very wary of assigning a misogynistic motivation to Paul. That is not to say that he definitely wasn't, but the evidence does not show that he definitely *was* either. I would argue that he probably was not.

As a sidenote, most would agree from the even more scant evidence that Jesus was very good to women (and they were good to him in return). It seems as though they supported him, were his disciples (and thus learned from him - gasp!), were portrayed as loyal when others were not, and they were, of course, the first witnesses of the resurrection.

23293. angel-five - 8/11/2004 6:48:35 PM

If Paul is some kind of egalitarian (instead of just using it rhetorically whenever it supports his point and ditching it when it isn't) then you just have to think, 'hmmm. Here he comes to a congregation where women feel empowered to speak up and take their place alongside men. Now, back home this will never fly, but he secretly digs the idea. Why wouldn't he go "Let's see what I can accomplish working with the local strengths of these people?'

Instead what we see out of Paul -- sit down, shut up, ask your husband if you have some questions. Where's the attempt to find the middle ground? Where's the attempt to direct women toward the 'proper' channeling of their fervor, where's the constructive use of their place in society? It isn't there.

Why? Because Paul was a sexist, and because Paul's place was threatened by the distributed model of egalitarian Christianity.

23294. pelty - 8/11/2004 6:54:16 PM

"But Paul was deeply concerned over the fact that the Corinthians were individualizing their religious experiences -- choosing to interact with their God in a more gnostic, distributed fashion rather than through the patriarchal model of Paul's ideal church."

Really? Then why not shut down prophecy altogether? Further, there is no indication of a tripartite ministry at this time; indeed, there is little in the way of leaders vs. followers. Order in worship is Paul's aim.

If you want to assign "gnosticism" in the developed form that you insinuate here, please provide evidence. I think your estimation of the effect of "gnosticism" is probably close to correct, but this notion of the "patriarchal model of Paul's ideal church" is difficult to find in the letters themselves. If you import your assumptions, then that is a different matter.

23295. woden - 8/11/2004 6:57:37 PM

Note the strawman: Paul's alleged misogyny, which is not the topic at hand. Sexism =/= misogyny.

23296. Jenerator - 8/11/2004 7:02:19 PM

Angel-five

The early community of believers was already in existence before Paul was converted. Paul was trained by the other apostles! If he had been preaching any gospel other than Christ, he would have been rebuked by the original apostles and eyewitnesses. The fact is and was, his theology was sound and it echoed what the others were already preaching.

The entire existence of the epistles proves that you are wrong.
No it doesn’t.

Their entire thrust is to correct.

No, that’s overly simplified. The thrust is to encourage, to equip, and to correct when necessary.
Paul at various points is forced to talk himself up as an authority, because while he's been away others have come in who sounded better!
Explain why you think this.
And even the most conservative scholars will acknowledge that the Church changed shape under Paul. So, please, enough with the lackwit fluffery

Of course it was changed by Paul, but you insinuate that he, alone, shaped it according to his own agenda. What you repeatedly fail to acknowledge is that he was trained by the other apostles after encountering Jesus personally! They were accountable to one another, and if their teaching was not sound, they were rebuked and/or sent away.

23297. pelty - 8/11/2004 7:02:36 PM

"Instead what we see out of Paul -- sit down, shut up, ask your husband if you have some questions. Where's the attempt to find the middle ground? Where's the attempt to direct women toward the 'proper' channeling of their fervor, where's the constructive use of their place in society? It isn't there."

Hmm, this is so interesting. Wasn't it three chapters earlier that Paul was seemingly accepting of the women praying and prophesying in church? Could there be something else going on in 1 Cor 14?

Which reminds me, I was not interested in the cultural history of the text, but in the textual variants or in this case, the placement of the passage in 1 Cor 14. In ancient manuscripts it is found in a couple of places. The first is between vss 33-36 and the other is after v 40. This has led some to question whether this text was even in the original or if it may not have been a later gloss. We cannot know for sure, but it again advises one to proceed w/ caution.

23298. pelty - 8/11/2004 7:07:31 PM

"Note the strawman: Paul's alleged misogyny, which is not the topic at hand. Sexism =/= misogyny."

Not intentional. Feel free to substitue "sexist," I suppose. The point still stands, if Paul is such a sexist, why is he greeting women who are fellow workers (wouldn't he seek to marginalize them?), urging the church in Rome to help Phoebe out in what could possibly be missionary activity of her own (let her make it on her own! She'll inevitably fail), etc.?

23299. pelty - 8/11/2004 7:08:34 PM

"I think your estimation of the effect of "gnosticism" is probably close to correct"

I meant to put "for the second century church" here. Sorry.

23300. woden - 8/11/2004 7:27:51 PM

Um, why would I substitute one word for another when they mean two different things? Nice try, and I see that some people here might buy it.

Maybe you should consult a dictionary and look up 'misogyny' and 'sexism' and see for yourself. Look up 'straw man' while you're at it.

23301. pelty - 8/11/2004 7:30:18 PM

OK, Woden. Maybe I will. Thanks for the advice.

23302. woden - 8/11/2004 7:31:58 PM

Your examples are meaningless. The fact that Paul did not demonstrate sexism at every possible opportunity or to the greatest possible degree does not refute the demonstrated sexism in his writings.

Refuting your points is like shooting fish in a barrel. Your 'logic' resembles that of Raul on RI.

The only challenge here is recalling the latin names for the fallacies you are spewing.

23303. pelty - 8/11/2004 7:34:39 PM

Great, Woden. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

23304. angel-five - 8/11/2004 7:47:41 PM

Really? Then why not shut down prophecy altogether?

Tell me how he could have sold that.

Further, there is no indication of a tripartite ministry at this time; indeed, there is little in the way of leaders vs. followers. Order in worship is Paul's aim.

??

There's 'little in the way of leaders vs. followers' except for Paul's bloody statements about the organization of the body of Christ and the fact that he's doing what he's doing! First Paul's sexism isn't sexism and now Paul's authoritarianism isn't authoritarian?

If you want to assign "gnosticism" in the developed form that you insinuate here, please provide evidence. I think your estimation of the effect of "gnosticism" is probably close to correct, but this notion of the "patriarchal model of Paul's ideal church" is difficult to find in the letters themselves.

I'm not 'insinuating' anything. I'm glad you will graciously concede that the metaphor is apt. And how hard is it to find patriarchy in Paul's letters? How about the very cite we've been discussing, Pelty? Woman is subservient to man, the body of Christ has a head, listen to me, not those other people -- and do you really want to argue that apostolic authority isn't part and parcel of Paul's approach? You have, I am sure, read 1 Corinthians. How's it open?

No, that’s overly simplified. The thrust is to encourage, to equip, and to correct when necessary.

The fact that the Corinthians, among others, had taken Paul's letters and run with them to the point that he had to write these letters proves they needed no encouragement nor equipping. What Paul wanted to do was encourage and equip his own message and correct 'when necessary' i.e. whenever he felt they had fallen into error.

23305. angel-five - 8/11/2004 7:48:43 PM

Paul at various points is forced to talk himself up as an authority, because while he's been away others have come in who sounded better!

Explain why you think this.

2 Corinthians 11.

1: Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.
2: For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
3: But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4: For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
5: For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles....

...But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.
13: For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14: And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15: Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
16: I say again, Let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little.
17: That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.
18: Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also...

23306. angel-five - 8/11/2004 7:49:27 PM

...Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I.
23: Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.
24: Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.
25: Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;
26: In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;
27: In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.
28: Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.
29: Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not?
30: If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities.
31: The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not...

Of course it was changed by Paul, but you insinuate that he, alone, shaped it according to his own agenda.

Again with that word. No, I don't insinuate any such thing. Once again, the fact that these letters exist is proof of that. It is, nevertheless, undeniable that Paul shaped Christianity and that his personal ministry was a force that shaped it. You can, of course, say that it was nothing but what he'd been taught by the apostles, but that's inference. You have, what, Paul claiming it in his own letters?

Wasn't it three chapters earlier that Paul was seemingly accepting of the women praying and prophesying in church? No.

23307. angel-five - 8/11/2004 7:53:54 PM

The point still stands, if Paul is such a sexist, why is he greeting women who are fellow workers (wouldn't he seek to marginalize them?), urging the church in Rome to help Phoebe out in what could possibly be missionary activity of her own (let her make it on her own! She'll inevitably fail), etc.?

As Woden noted, if this was all it took to exculpate sexism, then virtually nobody would be a sexist. You don't like the passages we're citing, fine, but other passages don't change them. They are what they are. If I were to say on one day 'Black people are lazy and inferior and should let white people run things for them' and on the next 'This black person seems to be trying hard, bravo' would that make me not a racist? Of course it wouldn't.

23308. pelty - 8/11/2004 7:59:26 PM

"There's 'little in the way of leaders vs. followers' except for Paul's bloody statements about the organization of the body of Christ and the fact that he's doing what he's doing! First Paul's sexism isn't sexism and now Paul's authoritarianism isn't authoritarian?"

Yes, I should have been more precise. Clearly, Paul envisions himself as having authority over the church, often from a distance. I should have said "local leadership" vs. followers. Surely, there was local leadership (although it is not clear what role the teacher had vs the administrator, the worker of miracles, etc.), but what is not clear is the degree of authority that these folks had over the congregation. I would hesitate to assign the authority later found in the bishops. Later authors envisioned Paul as playing the bishop role, but is it clear that the congregants of the 50s would have seen him this way? The evidence is mixed. (See 1 Cor 1)

"Woman is subservient to man, the body of Christ has a head, listen to me, not those other people -- and do you really want to argue that apostolic authority isn't part and parcel of Paul's approach?"

I had been thinking on the local level, as indicated above, which is more ambiguous. I would agree that Paul played the "apostolic authority card."

23309. angel-five - 8/11/2004 8:08:31 PM

This has led some to question whether this text was even in the original or if it may not have been a later gloss. We cannot know for sure, but it again advises one to proceed w/ caution.

There's a bit of difference between accepting what you have said and being duly cautious -- which I do accept -- and just 'proceeding with caution' when it suits your rhetorical purposes. Proceeding with caution works both ways. It can't just be a cover for doing away with some parts of the Bible that don't fit your schema.

What's more, in the letters of Paul you have an extremely apt example of argumentative writing. You have his considered rhetorical responses to non-extant arguments and writings. You have, in essence, one side of the story, carefully framed and presented. It was presented about two thousand years ago. Almost all the context that exists is elicited from them and similar works. That is much more reason to 'proceed with caution' in and of itself than the fact that at least some, if not all, of the letters were edited and recompiled at some point by someone else, more than once!

23310. pelty - 8/11/2004 8:16:17 PM

"As Woden noted, if this was all it took to exculpate sexism, then virtually nobody would be a sexist. You don't like the passages we're citing, fine, but other passages don't change them. They are what they are. If I were to say on one day 'Black people are lazy and inferior and should let white people run things for them' and on the next 'This black person seems to be trying hard, bravo' would that make me not a racist? Of course it wouldn't."

Ok, the passages you have cited are 1 Cor 14.33-35, which may or may not even be authentically Pauline, which may or may not be attempting to draw a distinction between G-R worship and that of the fledgling church. Further, you are flat out wrong when you say that Paul has trouble w/ the fact that women pray or prophecy in the service three chapters earlier. His issue is garb at such times.

Further, in 1 Cor 7 there is every indication of an equitable relationship btwn men and women in marriage. The point is, the evidence does not unilaterally point to a sexist Paul. We are working off of scant evidence, there is evidence that women may well have played a large role in his ministry and/or alongside his ministry, and therefore, it is absurd to assume that he must be a sexist.

23311. angel-five - 8/11/2004 8:16:31 PM

I would hesitate to assign the authority later found in the bishops. Later authors envisioned Paul as playing the bishop role, but is it clear that the congregants of the 50s would have seen him this way?

I think Paul envisions himself as playing the bishop role, Pelty. Whether or not the issue of apostolic authority per se was front and center at this time, framed in those terms, is one thing. Certainly it came into more dramatic focus later on, when the battle lines were more clearly drawn. But it's really inarguable that the same basic principles are at work. Paul is telling people to listen up and do what he's saying, because he's the authority, or he'll come by and discipline them himself. He's telling them not to listen to some other people who have 'false' authority. He's trying to compile and codify central authority under the apostles, which is another way of saying that he's trying to compile it under himself, since he places himself at the forefront of the apostles.

And if his own writings are to be believed, many among the Corinthians were saying that Paul was making so much of himself as an authority figure that he had to backpedal off and make it explicit that he wasn't baptizing people in his own name.

The same memetic structure is at work. I'm sure you'll agree with that.

23312. pelty - 8/11/2004 8:18:08 PM

"What's more, in the letters of Paul you have an extremely apt example of argumentative writing. You have his considered rhetorical responses to non-extant arguments and writings. You have, in essence, one side of the story, carefully framed and presented. It was presented about two thousand years ago. Almost all the context that exists is elicited from them and similar works. That is much more reason to 'proceed with caution' in and of itself than the fact that at least some, if not all, of the letters were edited and recompiled at some point by someone else, more than once!"

Agreed.

23313. angel-five - 8/11/2004 8:21:15 PM

Further, you are flat out wrong when you say that Paul has trouble w/ the fact that women pray or prophecy in the service three chapters earlier. His issue is garb at such times.

This is a clumsy red herring, Pelty. Tell me precisely where I said that Paul has trouble w/ the fact that women pray or prophesy in the service. You can't, because I didn't. What I said was that what you were saying isn't true, and I did it with one word -- No.

Further, in 1 Cor 7 there is every indication of an equitable relationship btwn men and women in marriage. The point is, the evidence does not unilaterally point to a sexist Paul. We are working off of scant evidence, there is evidence that women may well have played a large role in his ministry and/or alongside his ministry, and therefore, it is absurd to assume that he must be a sexist.

What is this, a false duality? The world isn't broken down into people who believe that women are fully equal to men and people who believe that women have no value whatsoever or can have no role whatsoever. Sexism just means that you show prejudice toward one gender at some point to some degree. You simply cannot sit there and say the equivalent of 'Well, Paul wasn't advocating that they be chained to their beds, so he can't be a sexist!'

23314. pelty - 8/11/2004 8:21:26 PM

"And if his own writings are to be believed, many among the Corinthians were saying that Paul was making so much of himself as an authority figure that he had to backpedal off and make it explicit that he wasn't baptizing people in his own name."

I would argue that this is not what we see going on her at all. Verse 10 is, in my opinion, the subject sentence here: "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought."

He then says that the congregation should not be divided by whom they see as their "spiritual father," but rather should be united under the banner of Jesus.

23315. pelty - 8/11/2004 8:22:33 PM

"Wasn't it three chapters earlier that Paul was seemingly accepting of the women praying and prophesying in church? No."

OK, I may not be fully comprehending what you mean by this. Please explain.

23316. angel-five - 8/11/2004 8:23:09 PM

I'm off for the day and will respond to anything else when I can.

23317. PelleNilsson - 8/11/2004 8:29:55 PM

To accuse Paul of sexism and/or misogeny is to scale stratospheric heights of anachronism. He was a child of his time and his background in a pathernalistic religion. The question is rather why Paul's views on the matter continues to influence much of the church today.

Even our fundamentlist Kuligin doesn't hold the view the every word of the scriptures contain the eternal truth as written. He places great emphasis on context for arriving at the proper interpretation. If I understand him right, which is far from sure, he maintains that there are elements of the scipture which do indeed contain the truth for all time while other elements are bound to the contemporary Zeitgeist.

The doctrinal development of the church since the middle ages has largely involved transferring stuff from the former to latter category. You may, for examlple, think of the church's views on usury and the Copernican system. The question then remains why this has not happened with Paul's views on the proper role of women. One reason, I think, that the lead times are generally very long when it comes to doctrinal change. But the second and more important reason is that the chúrch, to its disadvantage, is socially conservative and Paul fits well into the patriarchal structures that still dominate western society.

23318. pelty - 8/11/2004 8:41:45 PM

"What is this, a false duality? The world isn't broken down into people who believe that women are fully equal to men and people who believe that women have no value whatsoever or can have no role whatsoever. Sexism just means that you show prejudice toward one gender at some point to some degree. You simply cannot sit there and say the equivalent of 'Well, Paul wasn't advocating that they be chained to their beds, so he can't be a sexist!'"

I guess we are at odds at what is meant by "sexism." To your mind, the fact that Paul envisions an order within creation necessitates that there be some type of prejudice, some feeling that a woman is qualitatively inferior to a man. Frankly, I do not read it that way because of other indications within his letters that suggest a basic equality in character between the sexes. Galatians 3.28 may well speak to this. If I am wrong in my reading, then I will concede to you that Paul was sexist in some way on the spectrum you allude to above; I just happen to think that the order of creation Paul has in mind is meant to reinforce to the congregation the notion that there is to be order in the church. Just as there is a certain order within creation, so also let there be order within the church. Women may well have taken a libertine approach to worship, to a degree that Paul was uncomfortable with (either because 1-he does not want women to be free [which would be closer to your view, I would imagine] or 2-he desires that there be a modicum of propriety in the churches, that women wear veils on their heads as this is the proper means of worshipping God, praying, and prophesying). I am curious, could the fact that these women had been going "overboard" suggest that Paul had really loosened the reins on them with his message in the first place, but that they took it too far?

23319. woden - 8/11/2004 10:25:05 PM

Pelle -
Even our fundamentlist Kuligin doesn't hold the view the every word of the scriptures
contain the eternal truth as written. He places great emphasis on context for arriving at
the proper interpretation. If I understand him right, which is far from sure, he maintains
that there are elements of the scipture which do indeed contain the truth for all time
while other elements are bound to the contemporary Zeitgeist.

While it's possible that Kulgin both calls himself a Fundamentalist and holds the above views on interpretation of scripture, if he does, he is misusing the term. The commonly accepted usage of the word 'fundamentalist' is the exact opposite of one who does what you describe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist

When you consider the actual usage of the term, it renders the latest illogical ramblings even more irrelevant to my point.

23320. woden - 8/11/2004 10:27:02 PM

Just to be clear, I was not classifying your post as rambling, Pelle. Strange not to be able to edit.

23321. wonkers2 - 8/11/2004 10:46:36 PM

"Women may have taken a LIBERTINE? approach to worship???

23322. Jenerator - 8/11/2004 10:50:06 PM

Pelty,

Just rememer that if Christ can heal the crippled in front of the Pharisees and they still don't believe, then...

23323. wonkers2 - 8/11/2004 10:51:14 PM

Woden, good point re Pelle's comment on K-man's fundamentalism. Moreover, I haven't noticed K's willingness to concede that much of the scripture is "bound to the contemporary zeitgeist."

23324. wonkers2 - 8/11/2004 10:54:27 PM

Pelle hits the nail on the head with "The question is why Paul's view on the matter continues to influence much of the church today." [As you can see, I am reading the posts backward starting from the most recent.]

23325. wonkers2 - 8/11/2004 11:01:15 PM

Good Christians should be free to adopt what they find useful from the Scriptures and discard what is pernicious or obsolete in light of current knowledge and social needs.

23326. Jenerator - 8/11/2004 11:41:24 PM

Wonkers,

You have captured Spong's outlook completely.

23327. judithathome - 8/12/2004 1:23:16 AM

Well, not to be sarcastic but since no one has come back from the beyond and refuted that view, how do you know he's not on the right track in doing it that way?

According to you, God gave us brains...do you think he meant us not to use them?

23328. angel-five - 8/12/2004 5:29:54 AM

To accuse Paul of sexism and/or misogeny is to scale stratospheric heights of anachronism. He was a child of his time and his background in a pathernalistic religion.

That it was largely part and parcel of the times, I will not contest. That doesn't change what it was, though. No one is saying that Paul was aware of modern feminist theory and made his statements anyway, but that knowledge isn't necessary in order to be sexist. It is what it is.

When the Spanish colonized Latin America their clergy had impassioned debates as to whether the natives had actual souls or whether they were just spawn of Satan. That was par for the thinking of the times, but it was still bigoted thinking, no? The same holds true of Paul, assuming that the NT paints anywhere close to an accurate picture.

Pelty:

OK, I may not be fully comprehending what you mean by this. Please explain.

I meant 'No.' As in, no, I don't think your statement bears on the point, for reasons subsequently explained. Paul's statements 'three chapters earlier' doesn't obviate 11 and 14. It just paints a larger picture.

I guess we are at odds at what is meant by "sexism." To your mind, the fact that Paul envisions an order within creation necessitates that there be some type of prejudice, some feeling that a woman is qualitatively inferior to a man.

No, Pelty. In my mind, the fact that Paul envisions an order within creation in which the woman is subservient to the man, in nature, in the home, in the church, means that Paul envisions a sexist order. Does that help? It doesn't matter that that was the business of the day where he came from, or that it made sense to him.

23329. angel-five - 8/12/2004 5:30:12 AM

It doesn't matter whether Paul rubbed his hands together and cackled at the thought of oppressing women, which I doubt he did as I doubt it occurred to him at all. All that matters is that Paul believes in an immanentized order to creation laid down by his god in which women occupy a subservient position. That's a sexist system, by any definition you like.

Pelle does indeed hit the nail on the head when he says that the question is why we still stick to Pauline thought today. After all, we know better by now, at least most of us do. Paul's thinking may well reflect the best wisdom of his time, but it is simply oppressive and wrong by any modern standard.

And no, I don't find reasons to weave gossamer fantasies about whether this 'feminine libertine excess' might have been encouraged by some initial and unrecorded laissez-faire statement by Paul. As many scholars point out, the answer is as simple as the prevailing culture which the Corinthians found themselves in.

I am glad that you take the point about being cautious when caution is due, but I do wonder whether you take it seriously, or just take it whenever it's convenient to reinterpret something in the Bible to more closely match modern wisdom.

23330. angel-five - 8/12/2004 5:33:11 AM

And the problem with fundamentalism is that it's based on the idea that the bible is inerrant, the divinely inspired holy word of god, completely true and in no way false, BUT so many people read so much into the text and then take that too to be inerrant -- the revealed wisdom! Guess what? It doesn't work like that. You don't get to just infer what you like and excise what you don't and still stand upon an inerrant rock.

23331. angel-five - 8/12/2004 10:13:37 AM

I expect Kuligin to jump in at any moment, I should add. He might post something about how hermeneutics is an exact science that doesn't obviate fundamentalism -- rather, it is the simple act of determining exactly what the author intended with his words, such determination being arrived at by close and careful study of the words. Kuligin thinks that this reading into the words isn't reading into the words, and doesn't think much of the fact that he reads into the words things which generally already support his notions, because for him it's just illuminated truth and he's uncovering more of it.

Leave aside the obvious literary criticisms of this technique, for the moment. Forget about the fact that word meanings have so much play, even when nailed to the page as best as the author can, that hermeneutics even with the best of wills and the most exacting of comparisons can only transform a straight reading of the text into a Tarot reading of the words in sequence. We're still faced with the fact that for the reader the words are still a stratified, quantized inkblot, and throughout history people who have gone 'back to the text' and championed what they have read into it as the text itself.

Is it accidental that Christians who favor, say, the state application of violence whether it be in war, in policing, or in punishing criminals by executing them, tend to favor the NIV 'thou shalt not murder' over the KJV 'thou shalt not kill?' No. Do they favor it because they have exhaustively researched Greek, Aramaic, Coptic, etc source documents themselves and subjected their findings to the most stringent and objective analyses and social-context evaluations they can derive? No. They favor it because they like it better and it better fits their inkblot. For every scholar for whom this might be an unfair summation, there are likely a hundred thousand right-wing Christians for whom it is dead accurate.

23332. angel-five - 8/12/2004 10:13:51 AM

The point of being cautious about a two-thousand-year-old argumentative, socio-politically engineering text trying to sell people on an idea that is meant to convert them to a specific religious philosophy isn't that we can't know what it says. We can. We can read it, after all. It says what it says. The point of being cautious about it is that this isn't a frickin' manual on how to weave a basket or some other objective and non-psychologically-involved task, but a text which is primarily discussed by, and of importance to, people who have a strong vested interest in their own interpretation as to what it means.

There are few things more psychologically compelling to people than whether or not their primal beliefs are accurate and coherent and reflect well on them. The rule in these situations, as Pelle once had as a tagline, properly ought to be 'be most slow to believe that which you most wish to be true'. In practice the rule seems to be 'Know what you want to believe and go find things that support it so your religious stance seems the stronger for your research'. That is what people need to be cautious of when they start wandering away from literal interpretations of the text of Paul's letters, and, for that matter, the entire Bible or any similarly important text.

News flash -- it isn't going to be seamless. It isn't going to be completely coherent. It isn't going to necessarily speak to modern wisdom. It was written by fallible humans with right and wrong ideas, and no amount of theological spackle-pasting can change that unless you already think it's infallible, in which case you aren't honestly analyzing the text.

23333. PelleNilsson - 8/12/2004 11:18:23 AM

The concise history of doctrinal development

Early days = First we decide what we believe, then we pick the appropriate texts.

Later on = Our belief has changed, we must tweak the texts a bit.

23334. Jenerator - 8/12/2004 3:46:07 PM

Resonance,

What is frustrating about all of this is that you seem incapable of recognizing that women in the role of marriage are seen as PARTNERS with their husbands! It's not - "Women are subserviant to men, period." You repeatedly fail to acknowledge the scriptures that usually preceed the ones you claim to be sexist.

23335. judithathome - 8/12/2004 4:12:46 PM

Can you quote a line from the Bible saying that women are partners in a marriage, Jen? Just for future reference?

23336. wonkers2 - 8/12/2004 4:38:37 PM

Jen: "Wonkers, you have captured Spong's outlook completely."

Precisely. I might start going back to church if our local pastor were Spong or a Spongite! [I was the one who introduced Spong, most recently, to the Religion thread.)

My impression is that most of the things you get so steamed up about have little or nothing to do with the core tenets of Christianity. You remind me of my sister-in-law, a fervid recent RC convert who came back from services at our local Catholic church muttering "That's not a Catholic church" because it didn't have kneelers an because of a few other minor objections to their ritual. [She is a fundamentalist Catholic whose church observes the mass only in Latin. She didn't have a good answer to my question "What difference does the language make?"

23337. wonkers2 - 8/12/2004 4:53:23 PM

Vatican Shuts Child Porn Seminary

23338. pelty - 8/12/2004 5:22:40 PM

A-5,

"And no, I don't find reasons to weave gossamer fantasies about whether this 'feminine libertine excess' might have been encouraged by some initial and unrecorded laissez-faire statement by Paul. As many scholars point out, the answer is as simple as the prevailing culture which the Corinthians found themselves in."

I must disagree on this. The fact is, we have every indication that people of all stripes mistook the freedom offered by Paul, or at the very least, Paul recognized that the possibility was there. This is evident from a large chunk of Romans. That there may have been an excess of freedom expressed in the Corinthian congregation by the women is by no means "pie in the sky;" it is not an ironclad lock and I do not mean to suggest that it is, but it is also no fantasy.

" I am glad that you take the point about being cautious when caution is due, but I do wonder whether you take it seriously, or just take it whenever it's convenient to reinterpret something in the Bible to more closely match modern wisdom."

In the same way, I wonder whether you prefer to proof-text your assumption rather than legitmately consider other factors that may speak to a more complex scenario than you have outlined for us here. I am not saying and have not said that Paul is 100% for sure NOT sexist (although I think Pelle is correct to resist importing a modern designation into antiquity); I have said that there is room for discussion on this matter. This goes back to my first statement on this topic to Woden in which I said, "I think that you would find, if you really read Paul, that there is, at the very least, some ambiguity." I still believe this to be the case.

23339. Jenerator - 8/12/2004 5:42:15 PM

Wonkers,

To be honest, I don't think you have clue as to the core tenets of the Christian faith.

My "philosophy" is to agree on the essentials and debate the nonessentials. Latin mass versus English mass is a nonessential. That Christ died on the third day and was resurrected from the dead is an essential.
Judith,

Do you really want to talk about the role of women in marriage as partners? If so, I'd be glad to.

23340. wonkers2 - 8/12/2004 6:31:26 PM

Jen, I guess you are entitled to your opinion on whether I "have a clue as to the core tenets of Christianity." I guess my knowledge is about average or a bit above the average Christian whose knowledge is based on attending Sunday school as a child, church sporadically and a fair amount of miscellaneous related reading. Most of my irritation with organized religion arises from what I consider non-core ridiculous or incorrect positions on sex--e.g., masturbation, birth control, abortion, homosexuality--on science--e.g., stem cell research--and the like. I am also troubled by most of organized religion's "we are right and everybody else is wrong" attitude and their failure to take what I believe would be a Christian position against capital punishment and needless wars as in Iraq. Am I wrong that none of the above are core, obligatory tenets of Christianity?

23341. angel-five - 8/12/2004 6:55:50 PM

It's not - "Women are subserviant to men, period." You repeatedly fail to acknowledge the scriptures that usually preceed the ones you claim to be sexist.

No, what's frustrating for you about this is that you don't like being wrong at all. There's very little that's frustrating for me about this, but the fact that you can't get a simple argument through your head -- or, more likely, you aren't willing to publicly acknowledge having done so -- would be close to the mark.

First of all, the chapter of Corinthians you are speaking about does not speak of the woman not being subservient to man. Does the fact that it doesn't specifically address this issue mean that Paul found married people to be equal partners? No more than the fact that I have not, in this passage, denounced Marx means that I am now a Communist.

You keep harping about the 'other things' that have been said. Well, where do they speak about equality? They don't. What do the passages that speak about the relationship between a man and a woman actually say? They say God is the head of man and man is the head of woman. Grasp that.

You, like Pelty was doing, keep on doing the equivalent of saying 'Look, Paul, in this passage, isn't suggesting that women be chained to their beds! He's not a sexist!' And the only reason you aren't willing to acknowledge what a ridiculous argument that is, is that it's touching upon something you very much want and need to believe.

Anyway, yes, you want to talk about frustrating as though it's something you aren't exemplifying? You won't even grasp these points, just like you keep ignoring all the other ones I make. But you will pretend to actually be debating the issue while you piss and moan and snipe, running from the points and circling around to post something equally unreasoned. This is all you have ever done.

23342. angel-five - 8/12/2004 7:05:56 PM

I must disagree on this. The fact is, we have every indication that people of all stripes mistook the freedom offered by Paul,

What indications? Be specific.

In the same way, I wonder whether you prefer to proof-text your assumption rather than legitmately consider other factors that may speak to a more complex scenario than you have outlined for us here.

What's to 'proof-text'? Do you, or do you not, believe that Paul preached a 'body of Christ' where he said things like "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" and "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. "?

If so, is it that you would say that these things aren't sexist?

All this 'complex scenario' multitude of red herrings and straw men are beside the point. I have freely acknowledged that things are complex. I have repeatedly stated that other factors may be at work. I have never said that all there is to know about Paul is that he's a sexist. All I've actually said is very simple and direct and forthwith -- Paul preaches a sexist social order. The fact that you keep ignoring that clear message, tossing up distraction after straw man after red herring after 'should have been clearer' after 'my mistake' after 'I think we mean different things when we use the word sexist' suggests that you really don't want to engage honestly. If I'm wrong about that, well, prove it by engaging honestly on the main point.

23343. angel-five - 8/12/2004 7:18:55 PM

To be honest, I don't think you have clue as to the core tenets of the Christian faith.

Oh, like you do.

23344. angel-five - 8/12/2004 7:22:17 PM

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

"36": Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

"37": Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

"38": This is the first and great commandment.

"39": And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

"40": On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

23345. angel-five - 8/12/2004 7:42:53 PM

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

23346. angel-five - 8/12/2004 7:43:59 PM

Pop quiz. What law is he referring to?

23347. angel-five - 8/12/2004 7:44:16 PM

23348. angel-five - 8/12/2004 7:46:28 PM

Do you really want to talk about the role of women in marriage as partners? If so, I'd be glad to.

Well, she can speak for herself, but I think what she asked is for you to cite something from the Bible which actually does say what you claim the Bible says about women being partners in marriage. Not to go out on a limb or anything, but it's kind of hard to mistake what she did say, and your evasive answer is obvious for what it is.

23349. pelty - 8/12/2004 7:50:01 PM

"I must disagree on this. The fact is, we have every indication that people of all stripes mistook the freedom offered by Paul"

Rom 6.1, 6.15 indicates that Paul was aware that these types of questions could be possible responses (and it is likely that he had himself encountered these responses in both word and deed) to his gospel.

"What's to 'proof-text'? Do you, or do you not, believe that Paul preached a 'body of Christ' where he said things like 'But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God'"

Yes.

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

Maybe.

We'll go 'round and 'round on this. I do not believe that the first quote is necessarily sexist; you do. Discussing the order of creation (God->Man->Woman) in an attempt to demonstrate that there should be order in the churches is, from my POV, a different thing than making a statement on the value of an entire sex. You *may* be right that he holds the very view you state; that said, you do not bring enough to the table to convince me of this as there is evidence elsewhere that suggests a more complex picture. I have pointed out other statements where the relationship of men and women is equal for those "in Christ," but you apparently remain unconvinced. Fair enough. I am not sure that a whole lot remains to be said on the matter.

23350. pelty - 8/12/2004 7:50:30 PM

An interesting sidenote, it would appear that there was some debate over the thinking of Paul about women into the second century as well, if a romanticized version of Paul's travels is any indication. Clearly the church, at times using Paul's writings, moved into a mode where women were marginalized (although at the same time began to become respected if properly ascetic), yet we also see in Thecla a woman who was inspired and told by Paul to go "preach the word of God." Could it be that some saw in Paul not a slaver but an emancipator? This has little to do w/ your bone of contention I realize; I bring it up more because of the possibility that it reflects a different mode of thought than that that held the most sway in the 2nd cent and it may be of some interest to others who may be reading along.

23351. judithathome - 8/12/2004 9:59:59 PM

Do you really want to talk about the role of women in marriage as partners? If so, I'd be glad to.

Why do you think I asked you for a cite, Jen? Just to see my name on the screen? Yes, I want to know if you can show me in the Bible where it says women and men are partners. Because I have always seen the religious slant to be wives must support their husbands in all things and not much short of having them walk three steps behind the male. It's the basis for the woman being referred to as "the little woman" and for women saying they will have to ask their husbands about major purchases or decisions.

I have been around so many Christians who are married and feel that way, not to mention those who are appalled at the suggestion their wife work or have an opinion of her own.

23352. Ulgine Barrows - 8/13/2004 4:44:09 AM

confused as to who woden is to sakonige

23021. Mammals begin life as parasites. A fetus is usually welcome in the host's body, but it is undeniably a parasite.

23022. woden - 8/8/2004 4:46:41 PM

(This is res being too lazy to log out) Actually, you got that idea from me. And I was wrong at the time, and knew it, and was just trying to rile some fundamentalists. Fetuses aren't parasites, even if you choose to use the terminology usually reserved for different species living in and on each other. They are symbiotes.

What's an ectopic pregnancy, then? That fetus was most certainly welcome, but it was killing me.

kuliginthehooligan, if you had some big-ass tumor growing on one of your balls, would you kill it? Yeah, not the same thing. You had no choice, aha!

23353. wonkers2 - 8/13/2004 4:48:20 AM

Who really cares about the thinking of Paul about women into the second century? Are Christians supposed to be frozen in time? What do WE think about women in the 21st century. Isn't that a more interesting subject?

Cap'n Dirty sez "Women only go from good ter excellent!"

23354. judithathome - 8/13/2004 4:52:37 AM

Yes, it is, but when you are asking someone who believes everything that was written in the second century, you just want to get their sources down pat.

The problewm is, a lot of people think just like those guys back in the second century.

23355. wonkers2 - 8/13/2004 4:57:17 AM

True.

23356. Ulgine Barrows - 8/13/2004 6:19:42 AM

Holy shite, I'm not watching 24, I'm reading the back annals of this thread in the 23000s and they are extremely vituperative.

If you've not been pregnant, perhaps you don't know about the energy suck. 'Nuff said.

23357. angel-five - 8/13/2004 6:28:45 AM

Rom 6.1, 6.15 indicates that Paul was aware that these types of questions could be possible responses (and it is likely that he had himself encountered these responses in both word and deed) to his gospel.

That's 'every indication'?

Discussing the order of creation (God->Man->Woman) in an attempt to demonstrate that there should be order in the churches is, from my POV, a different thing than making a statement on the value of an entire sex.

Oh, come on, Pelty. That's just sticking your head in the sand WRT the point at hand. Why do you think Paul chose that particular metaphor, given what was happening among the Corinthians? You think he just lazily wrote down the first thing that came to mind? You think he had no intention of making a good analogy? Maybe all the other stuff he said about women was just as dodgily related to what he envisioned their actual role as being? You pretty much have to ignore it, in order to gloss over it.

I have pointed out other statements where the relationship of men and women is equal for those "in Christ," but you apparently remain unconvinced.

You have done no such thing. You've made allusion. The passages you have cited do not approach, let alone substantiate, this sort of claim.

This isn't round and round, this is willful evasion.

23358. angel-five - 8/13/2004 6:29:55 AM

Discussing the order of creation (God->Man->Woman) in an attempt to demonstrate that there should be order in the churches is, from my POV, a different thing than making a statement on the value of an entire sex.

Oh, really, that's what it is?

First off, it isn't God -> Man -> Woman, but God -> Christ -> Man -> Woman, in the passage cited. Which raises interesting notions about what Paul might have thought of the Trinity, but that's another matter. But it is seriously your contention that in that exact cite, Paul is talking about the order of creation?
Here's the entire cite:

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6: For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7: For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8: For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9: Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

You are saying that a) that is not sexist and b) that is just Paul discussing the order of creation. That isn't Paul saying that 'woman was created for man, woman is man's glory not God's, woman's place is therefore different from man when it comes to church'. That's just Paul rambling with no point in mind?

Seriously, straight up, this is what your point has become?

23359. Ulgine Barrows - 8/13/2004 6:45:32 AM

I don't believe in you anymore, angel-five.

I think you're a made-up login designed to get more hits on this site to feed the masses.

23360. angel-five - 8/13/2004 7:15:37 AM

I've been posting in this community since, what, 1997? So if I'm a provocateur I'm old school.

23361. Ulgine Barrows - 8/13/2004 7:53:59 AM

Seriously, straight up, this is what your point has become?

I don't believe.

23362. Ulgine Barrows - 8/13/2004 7:55:47 AM

My lips feel chapped with all the wind whistling round these parts.

23363. Ulgine Barrows - 8/13/2004 8:04:03 AM

I regret posting that.

Perhaps the wind was whistling through my ears.

Lord knows, there's no brain in there.

23364. woden - 8/13/2004 7:54:06 PM

His exact point was that seeing Paul as sexist betrays "a lack of sophistication" and that one who does so is "addle-brained."

So, many, many posts later, we finally get Pelty to condescend to explain it to us poor addle-brained kids, I now see that if I were sophisticated and clear-thinking, like Pelty, I would know that when Paul said "man is the head of woman" he really meant "God created man before he created woman, chronologically".

23365. pelty - 8/13/2004 11:09:36 PM

"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8: For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9: Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."

"You are saying that a) that is not sexist

Actually, I have said it may or may not be sexist as I have so little information to go on, but that in my opinion given the witness of other passages in Paul's letters, I do not find Paul to be "sexist" nor do I necessarily think that this passage *has* to be sexist.

"and b) that is just Paul discussing the order of creation. That isn't Paul saying that 'woman was created for man,"

I do think Paul is saying this, actually, as it is likely that he pulls it from the Genesis account. I do not see the Genesis account as particularly sexist (but it is not an issue into which I desire to delve further. This has taken enough of my time as it is). In it, Eve is clearly created to give companionship and a helper to Adam (and we do not have to take it as literal for this point to be true).

"woman is man's glory not God's"

Depends what you mean. If you see this as a value judgement, I would probably not agree with this; if you view it as yet further evidence of the progression of creation, then I'm with you!

"woman's place is therefore different from man when it comes to church"

No, given that Paul is discussing prayer and prophecy and indicates that both women and men partake in this. He is simply speaking to propriety of dress.

23366. pelty - 8/13/2004 11:09:44 PM

Of even further interest are verses 11 and 12 which say:

"In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God."

Here we see Paul make a case for the co-dependency of man and women under the stewardship of God.

Listen, you don't have to buy it; I don't really care if you do or don't. Feel free to continue to think of Paul as a sexist, it has no effect on my life. The point is, the sexist view of Paul is not an open and shut case (nor is mine, of course.

"Which raises interesting notions about what Paul might have thought of the Trinity, but that's another matter."

And an interesting one...

23367. woden - 8/14/2004 6:57:55 AM

"I do not see the Genesis account as particularly sexist (but it is not an issue into which I desire to delve further. This has taken enough of my time as it is). In it, Eve is clearly created to give companionship and a helper to Adam (and we do not have to take it as literal for this point to be true)."

Yes, you seem to enjoy posting blatantly sexist things, making some baseless assertion that it's not sexist and then avoiding any logical defense of your statement by either spinning filligrees of nonsense or simply ignoring. So keep telling the women how they ought to act (c.f. the original post of yours I objected to about what the women need to do about abortion) and we'll keep either ignoring or ridiculing you.

23368. angel-five - 8/14/2004 7:36:44 AM

Main Entry: sex·ism
Pronunciation: 'sek-"si-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: 1sex + -ism (as in racism)
1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

23369. wonkers2 - 8/14/2004 1:52:21 PM

Any comments on this piece on religion and stem cell research from Pelty or Jenerator or other Mote theologians?

23370. wonkers2 - 8/14/2004 1:57:26 PM

Sorry I'll try again. Stem cells & religion

23371. judithathome - 8/14/2004 4:51:13 PM

From Wonker's link:

Most people believe human life begins at fertilization and that each individual embryo is endowed with one soul at that time. But if religious assumptions are accurate, how can two soul/embryos merge into one person or one soul/embryo split into two in the two weeks after fertilization?

Logic suggests that a window period of up to two weeks might exist. In this time period, nascent human embryos, while constituting life forms, may not yet have matured into human individuals — what we call life.

Makes sense to me.

23372. angel-five - 8/14/2004 7:23:10 PM

Actually, I have said it may or may not be sexist as I have so little information to go on, but that in my opinion given the witness of other passages in Paul's letters, I do not find Paul to be "sexist" nor do I necessarily think that this passage *has* to be sexist.

In your opinion, a passage which says men and women should act in different ways because they were created in a different order for different purposes.... doesn't have to be sexist.

Right. I had wanted to believe better of you, but it's pretty clear that you're not willing to be forthright on this issue even when it's presented to you in the starkest and most forthright terms repeatedly. You seize at any straw that floats past and clutch to it until it goes under, then you seize at another, and when the case is fully on the table suddenly you don't want to discuss it further.

So I'm with Woden on this one. You can believe whatever you like. We'll be here to disagree with you whenever you post something disagreeable.

23373. pelty - 8/14/2004 11:38:10 PM

"In your opinion, a passage which says men and women should act in different ways because they were created in a different order for different purposes.... doesn't have to be sexist."

Huh? The reason they are told to act in different ways has everything to do w/ their mode of dress in the service. Just as today, it may not be advisable for a woman to wear a G-string to church, so in that period they were to wear head-coverings. This is not so much of a strain of analogies if a recent article in the JBL (Spring 2004) is in any way accurate. I tried to go point-by-point w/ you in the last post, yet you consistently ignore those verses which may suggest something else is going on both within the very passage and elsewhere. That is fine; again, I don't care if you buy it or not. I am even willing to grant your point that it may be sexist, but as I say, given the extant info, it is difficult to say he was w/ any certainty. The bottom line, though, is that it is far from clear that Paul was sexist, generally, or even in this passage.

"You seize at any straw that floats past and clutch to it until it goes under, then you seize at another, and when the case is fully on the table suddenly you don't want to discuss it further."

This is patently absurd. I have dealt with your issue, you have decided the possible explanation don't fit your presuppositions, and thus you have discarded them. That is fine, but the interpretations offered are not untenable given the context not only of the passage (not just the bit you like to excise) but of the whole *section* of 1 Cor.

"So I'm with Woden on this one. You can believe whatever you like. We'll be here to disagree with you whenever you post something disagreeable."

Sounds good. I look forward to it, A-5 (I am assuming you will be the point man).

23374. pelty - 8/14/2004 11:40:02 PM

"...we'll keep either ignoring or ridiculing you."

OK, Woden.

23375. angel-five - 8/15/2004 4:57:47 AM

Huh? The reason they are told to act in different ways has everything to do w/ their mode of dress in the service.

Listen.

The reason they are told to dress in different ways is because they are women.. You keep saying 'oh, it's the creation order' 'oh, it's just how they're dressing'. I'm sorry, but only a very severe idiot would not be able to grasp that the common denominator here is that they are women and that they are being told to act differently because they are women and the nature and purpose of woman is different from that of man. Only a very dishonest debater would pretend not to understand that if they did grasp it. So ask yourself 'WHY is Paul saying that the men and women should act differently?' Don't just wank about with the shape of the metaphors. Ask yourself, just as I am asking you now, 'Why does Paul expect women to act differently from men in church, and what explanation for that does he use, and what is the salient point of that explanation?' Don't sit and jabber that you don't know. He clearly says it in his own words (unless he didn't write those either).

I tried to go point-by-point w/ you in the last post, yet you consistently ignore those verses which may suggest something else is going on both within the very passage and elsewhere.

Oh, that is rich, coming from you, who have ignored and glossed so many point by point answers from me, and ignored so many verses, and when you were unable to ignore them, fobbed them off with 'Paul maybe didn't write that' or 'Well, I can't concretely explain precisely HOW these verses aren't sexist, but, look, here's some other verses!' When asked to explain how these other specific verses might bear on your point, you do not.

And now you're saying I'm ignoring things? You have just flat out decided to abandon the truth today, haven't you?

23376. angel-five - 8/15/2004 4:58:16 AM

If you really do want to discuss the verses, go ahead. Post them, and say, specifically, what they do, why you think they do it, and how they bear on the point. I'll address them as you do them. But I really doubt you're interested in actually contesting the issue directly, so I won't be holding my breath, because you know that you can't find anything in Corinthians that supports your point unless you make a straw man and attack it instead.

The fact of the matter is that Paul, at several points already cited, tells men and women to act differently, and his explanation of why they should act differently centers upon the intrinsic nature of each gender and why each was created, and who was created for whom by whom. That is sexism. If you can't grasp that then read, and reread, and reread, the definition of sexism until it sinks in. If you cannot understand that a system which treats and orders men and women differently due to a postulated difference in their basic essence and purpose, is by definition a sexist one, then you don't even understand what the word means at all, and you should read and re-read that definition some more. I am confident that by the end of this exercise you will at least be able to say what sexism means, even if you prove too recalcitrant to apply it to anything to do with your religion.

23377. angel-five - 8/15/2004 5:01:13 AM

By the way, I can't help but notice the way you react entirely differently to me, a man, and Woden, a woman, although our points are more or less exactly the same.

Someone perhaps a bit more genteel would maybe ignore it. Someone a bit more charitable might suggest that it's an accident. But I already gave to charity, so I'll openly muse as to whether your stance on what is or is not sexist is flavored unduly by your own personal defensiveness about sexism.

23378. angel-five - 8/15/2004 5:07:34 AM

I mean, I know it's trite -- accusations of sexism between participants in a discussion on sexism. It's a bit like how Sakonige used to say that anyone who disagreed with her was bigoted against Native Americans. I really hesitated to say it, as a result. But it's getting pretty hard to ignore -- the question is really sort of raising itself, isn't it?

23379. Halo - 8/15/2004 5:21:22 AM

That's just the sort of reply a man would give.

23380. PelleNilsson - 8/15/2004 7:33:23 AM

Nice too se you here, Halo.

23381. angel-five - 8/15/2004 9:25:38 AM

I'm recalling an old conversation from the Fray where Pelle asked me if I could hear the bone crack. So although I'll be happy to continue responding to Pelty and would indeed like to see him make a real case for what he's saying, it might be nice to walk the topic along a bit just in case we've reached an impasse.

There's been a bit of tangential discussion about who wrote what in the letters of Paul, whether they had been edited, compiled, et cetera. The traditional conservative Christian view is that the books of the NT were written by the people who are laid out in the text as the authors. A more modern view suggests that they, at least the gospels and some of Paul's letters, were written by other people and that the finished product represents the evolution of thought among various camps in the Jesus movements and Christ cults of the first century. That these were works in progress, studied by proto-Christians who developed the thoughts more and revised the work -- or, as in the case of some of the Pauline letters, assembled various arguments within them into a coherent whole.

For those who toe the conservative line, this is of course not an issue, but for anyone who does believe these books were edited and revamped, my question is -- how does this affect the concept of biblical inerrancy? Were the unnamed people who later edited and revised Biblical works thought to also be divinely inspired so as to preclude error?

I'm not really looking for a discussion in inerrancy per se -- it's one that's been had several times. Some people here believe firmly in biblical inerrancy, others such as myself obviously do not, that's a dead horse. But I do wonder if there are Christians who believe that the NT was subjected to revision AND still believe it is inerrant, and if so, how they have arrived at that conclusion.

23382. jayackroyd - 8/15/2004 11:34:03 AM

I'd settle for a firm position from Pelty on whether or not the Pauline materials are authentic.

23383. alistairconnor - 8/15/2004 11:58:15 AM

It's clear enough to me that Woden needs to have power on her head because of the Angel.

23384. pelty - 8/15/2004 6:35:49 PM

"The reason they are told to dress in different ways is because they are women.. You keep saying 'oh, it's the creation order' 'oh, it's just how they're dressing'."

Actually, it is both. And of course they are told to dress different ways because they are women; women generally do have different modes of dress than men. The mode of worship in this period necessitated that women wear head coverings for reasons of propriety. For the same reason that women (and men) today should dress modestly, so also should the women of that period dress modestly. The women are addressed this way because it is likely that they have apparently taken the freedom offered in Christ by Paul too far and have not been wearing the coverings. I repeat, this is a matter of propriety, not a form of submission. Presumably, if the men had been walking about w/ their robes open, he would have told them to "zip it up."

Further, please tell me why being the head of something necessitates authority. Couldn't Paul have simply said "exousia" if that is what he meant? Can you tell me how this word was used in other contexts in this period? As you say, I won't hold my breath on this one.

23385. pelty - 8/15/2004 6:41:24 PM

"By the way, I can't help but notice the way you react entirely differently to me, a man, and Woden, a woman, although our points are more or less exactly the same."

Not entirely true. When she says something that shows she put two seconds of thought into it, I will be happy to respond (and I have in the past. Of course she then responds w/ vitriol, so any attempt to converse on the subject is consequently shut down). If it is, "I am waiting to ridicule and ignore you (please let it be the latter!)", then I will be happy acknowledge her and move on. Plus, it is hard to give much credence to someone who runs off to grab her boyfriend when in a discussion and yet at the same time makes this great stand for feminism.

23386. pelty - 8/15/2004 6:45:19 PM

BTW, the above is not meant w/ venom, although it will surely be taken in such a way. I simply had no interest in continuing the unproductive exchanges btwn Woden and myself, so I acknowledge and move on.

23387. pelty - 8/15/2004 6:58:05 PM

"I'd settle for a firm position from Pelty on whether or not the Pauline materials are authentic."

I cannot give you one, unfortunately. Scholarship does not dispute the Pauline authorship of Rom, 1&2 Cor, Gal, Phil, 1 Thess, and Phlm, but calls the others into question. They base this on any number of reasons from vocabulary to style to deeper issues of content. Yet it seems to me that these selections of the "authentic" Paul seems arbitrary in their own right. Often, it comes down to issues of what sounds "early" or sounds like what we would expect the "apocalyptic Paul" to sound like. Or they may see indications of a development of church structure beyond what they believe to be in place in the 50s-60s CE. The problem is, they are basically woring off of presuppositions that are not necessarily unassailable. I would question (and have questioned) scholars asking them if this approach is not essentially arbitrary in nature, and they to a person have said that this is true. There is no substantive reason that the Pastorals could not be written by the "real" Paul and the "undisputed" books be by a pseudonymous author. That said, there are some interesting issues in this arena with which I still grapple, so I take a rather agnostic position on this issue for the time being, until I have had further time to review and reflect on the issues. I have no problem w/ the undiputed books and to them I would add 2 Thess as well (this book is disputed by about 50% of scholaship and accepted by the same amount). The eschatological arguments (which form the major area of objection for this book) are not particularly persuasive to my mind.

23388. pelty - 8/15/2004 7:02:28 PM

Thus, when discussing Pauline topics, I tend to stay within the seven undisputed books as these are generally accepted by all (to be more precise, I really try to stay within the "Big Four" - Rom, 1&2 Cor, Gal - because there are some who are only "certain" about these four).

23389. angel-five - 8/15/2004 8:31:01 PM

Actually, it is both. And of course they are told to dress different ways because they are women; women generally do have different modes of dress than men.

Why?

The mode of worship in this period necessitated that women wear head coverings for reasons of propriety. For the same reason that women (and men) today should dress modestly, so also should the women of that period dress modestly.

Why?

The women are addressed this way because it is likely that they have apparently taken the freedom offered in Christ by Paul too far and have not been wearing the coverings.

I see you have taken your earlier, ostensibly musing premise that it's all a reaction to Paul's laissez faire teachings which he had to amend in 1 and 2 Corinthians, and converted it to a likely probability. How odd.

I repeat, this is a matter of propriety, not a form of submission.

Congratulations! Not only is this a straw man, it's also stupid.

First because it is, indeed, a form of submission. They are being asked to cover their heads because Paul doesn't find it seemly for them to pray with uncovered ones -- it is submission to his apostolic authority.

Second, it doesn't matter whether or not it's a form of submission. It doesn't need to be in order for it to be sexist. Have you even read the definition yet? It won't bite you.

23390. angel-five - 8/15/2004 8:32:17 PM

Plus, it is hard to give much credence to someone who runs off to grab her boyfriend when in a discussion and yet at the same time makes this great stand for feminism.

That's the second time you've said this, and it's still not true. The fact that you'd think so, however, when faced with no evidence whatsoever, is pretty telling.

Further, please tell me why being the head of something necessitates authority.

This is still a straw man. But I'll note that you had no problem acknowledging the authoritarian nature of the passage before. More backsliding?

I cannot give you one, unfortunately. Scholarship does not dispute the Pauline authorship of Rom, 1&2 Cor, Gal, Phil, 1 Thess, and Phlm, but calls the others into question.

Oh, please. When you find a passage in 1 Corinthians you don't like, you just say 'Paul probably didn't write that bit!'

(to be more precise, I really try to stay within the "Big Four" - Rom, 1&2 Cor, Gal - because there are some who are only "certain" about these four).

Not including you, apparently? Or are you only certain about them when you aren't talking about the parts you don't like to talk about?

23391. pelty - 8/15/2004 8:43:39 PM

"Oh, please. When you find a passage in 1 Corinthians you don't like, you just say 'Paul probably didn't write that bit!'"

Umm, no. I invite you to go back and read what I actually did say.

"Not including you, apparently? Or are you only certain about them when you aren't talking about the parts you don't like to talk about?"

No, I am uncertain about that portion for reasons mentioned before.

23392. woden - 8/15/2004 8:56:09 PM

He's ignoring me because I'm addressing the central points of his arguments. When you bother to address his strawmen he just thinks he's succeeding in diverting attention from his fallacies. Pretty pathetic tactics.

23393. Jenerator - 8/15/2004 11:08:17 PM

Judith,

Re: Thoughts to marriage as a partnership. Quoting the infamous scripture from Ephesians that wives must submit to their husbands, allow me to post the surrounding scriptures.

21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Wives and Husbands

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[2] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[3] 32This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

To start, one HAS to note that the husband is to (1)submit to his wife out of reverence for God (so in other words, it is an act of holiness to for the man to submit to his wife), (2) the husband is called to be as Christ in the relationship, (3)husbands are called to love their wives and demonstrate it in all they do, and (4)the husband is to leave his family in order to begin his new family with his wife.

23394. Jenerator - 8/15/2004 11:09:11 PM

These are incredible standards that the man is to live by in his marriage.

How did Christ love the Church? Well, he met their every need, loved them and prayed for them continuously, effortlessly, and completely. Guided them in wisdom, always, always, always had their best at heart. Christ served the Church as a servant, and above all, he gave of himself for the Church.

Now, this is the standard that husbands are to abide by.

23395. Jenerator - 8/15/2004 11:14:33 PM

The marriage is built on a dual servanthood. Nowhere is man given less of a responsibility than the woman in marriage.

23396. judithathome - 8/15/2004 11:54:35 PM

Jen,

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything

How do you get that the husband is submitting to the wife out of that?

Sorry, I don't see this as saying it is a partnership...the first thing it says is that the husband is the head of his wife. Yes, it says the husband leaves his family to be with the wife but the primary thing, the first thing mentioned is that the wife submit to the head of the house, which is the husband.

Your original claim was that the bible said a man and a woman were partners in a marriage. A partnership doesn't begin with one party submitting to the other. That makes it more a master/servant situation.

23397. Magoseph - 8/15/2004 11:56:30 PM

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.

23398. Wombat - 8/16/2004 12:10:05 AM

Now if they could only make it a one pager with words of three syllables or less...

23399. angel-five - 8/16/2004 4:45:15 AM

Umm, no. I invite you to go back and read what I actually did say.

I invite you to go back and answer the dozen or so questions outstanding to you, Pelty, rather than squirrel about with word choice.

No, I am uncertain about that portion for reasons mentioned before.

Well, you mentioned that it had appeared in a few different spots in different textual versions of Corinthians, and, at the time, you waffled about how one needed to be cautious about whether or not it was really Paul's writing. Now you're talking about Corinthians really being Paul's writing. So, your 'reasons mentioned before' seem to contradict what you're saying now, and you'll forgive me if I find your vagueness to be awfully convenient for you at the expense of the truth.

23400. angel-five - 8/16/2004 4:48:02 AM

To start, one HAS to note that the husband is to (1)submit to his wife out of reverence for God (so in other words, it is an act of holiness to for the man to submit to his wife),

I should thank Jenerator for linking the passage. It is very nice and to the point as far as the discussion goes. But on what planet does this passage say what she says it says? Because it says no such thing! It says 'love your wives.' Can it be that Jenerator thinks 'love' and 'submission' are the same thing? Do I hear the rattling of manacles in the background?

23401. angel-five - 8/16/2004 4:52:35 AM

How did Christ love the Church? Well, he met their every need, loved them and prayed for them continuously, effortlessly, and completely. Guided them in wisdom, always, always, always had their best at heart. Christ served the Church as a servant, and above all, he gave of himself for the Church.

Yes because as we all know the Church predates Christ... or something.

23402. angel-five - 8/16/2004 4:57:48 AM

I'm gonna sit here and wait for someone to demonstrate, even attempt to demonstrate, how that passage incites husbands to submit to their wives! That is just the grossest, rankest, stupidest lie uttered in this thread in a few weeks, and that's saying a lot.

23403. pelty - 8/16/2004 6:31:18 AM

"Now you're talking about Corinthians really being Paul's writing. So, your 'reasons mentioned before' seem to contradict what you're saying now, and you'll forgive me if I find your vagueness to be awfully convenient for you at the expense of the truth."

"...you waffled about how one needed to be cautious about whether or not it was really Paul's writing."

Come on, A-5! You surely are not so ignorant about text criticism that you cannot figure this one out! I will allow you to have the pleasure; it should not be too difficult. The baby does not need to be thrown out w/ the bathwater.

"I invite you to go back and answer the dozen or so questions outstanding to you"

You first. Plus, your questions are pointless. Why do women have different modes of dress than men? I don't know. Do you wear a skirt regularly? If not, why not?

Why dress modestly? No other reason than a general desire (Jewish and Xian) that men and women dress w/ restraint. This is not a position specific to Paul.

Is there really anything left to say on this topic? You are convinced that I am a waffler who will set up straw men in an attempt to avoid answering your question at any cost, that I am a hopeless sexist who does not even understand the meaning of the word, and that I don't know my elbow from my arse; I am convinced that you are either stubborn, purposefully obtuse, or simply a dullard who cannot or will not read the text within the framework of the Pauline material or within the framework of the section of the letter and of the passage itself, and that you don't know your elbow from your arse.

In any event, this is really going nowhere and we are not likely to have a meeting of the minds. Can we be done? Many other topics surely await us...

23404. angel-five - 8/16/2004 6:59:32 AM

Come on, A-5! You surely are not so ignorant about text criticism that you cannot figure this one out!

Yes, it's easy. Either Paul wrote all of it or he did not. First you were saying no, now you're saying yes. Either Corinthians was all written by Paul or it was not. You can't just take the bits you don't like and seize upon some kind of excuse as to them being possible glosses.

You first.

Show me any questions I missed answering.

Plus, your questions are pointless. Why do women have different modes of dress than men? I don't know. Do you wear a skirt regularly? If not, why not?

They're only pointless if you're hell-bent on not seeing the obvious and making yet another straw man. Paul doesn't sit and say that men and women have different modes of dress. He sais that women should cover their heads or be sinful, while it is sinful for men to do so, while in church, and he says why. I ask you why. You are currently doing your best to not answer that question, and I think we both know why.

Why dress modestly? No other reason than a general desire (Jewish and Xian) that men and women dress w/ restraint. This is not a position specific to Paul.

Show me where Paul makes it an issue of both men and women dressing 'w/ restraint'.

Is there really anything left to say on this topic?

You mean, aside from answering simple questions, Pelty?

There is clearly a whole lot more to say on this topic. You're just unwilling to say it.

Can we be done?

Oh, we can be done whenever you like; I'm just not going to let you go on posting and pretending you've addressed the point fairly. If you want to stop, stop anytime you like. It is as easy as not posting, and that's easy. But so long as you keep making wrong-headed posts about the discussion, I'll keep answering them. The choice is yours.

23405. angel-five - 8/16/2004 7:01:20 AM

Of course, I might eventually get bored. There's always that tactic.

23406. angel-five - 8/16/2004 8:33:33 AM

Ask yourself, Jenerator, why you have to mislead in order to make your Biblical points, and what that means about your points.

Ephesians 5

That's a link to an e-text of Ephesians 5, KJV. It's the chapter which Jenerator excised a cite from (ironically while claiming to be providing the context). I am supposing she thought no one would go and look at the text.

It is a short chapter, and in the ensuing posts I'll put up the whole thing so anyone minded to can read it and see what I'm saying.

23407. angel-five - 8/16/2004 8:34:46 AM

1: Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;
2: And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour.
3: But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
4: Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
5: For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
6: Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
7: Be not ye therefore partakers with them.
8: For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:
9: (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)
10: Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.
11: And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
12: For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
13: But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
14: Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.
15: See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,
16: Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
17: Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.
18: And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

23408. angel-five - 8/16/2004 8:35:47 AM

19: Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
20: Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
21: Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
22: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23: For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24: Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25: Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26: That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28: So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29: For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31: For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32: This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33: Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

23409. angel-five - 8/16/2004 8:37:46 AM

The simplest most cursory reading of this chapter shows that the 'submit to one another' bit is not directed at husbands and wives. It is directed at the Ephesians in general, and so there can be no mistake on the part of the reader as to whether or not this applies to EVERYONE, the Author then goes on to clarify the relationship between husbands and wives -- wives submit and reverence, husbands love and cherish.

I know, it's sneaky and hard to follow! You have to read entire sentences and know subjects from verbs!

23410. angel-five - 8/16/2004 9:01:31 AM

The one crystal clear thing that shines through in all this chimpery is that the author of these books views men and women as having different roles and different purposes based upon why the Judeo-Christian god made them.

We see it again and again -- Christ is the head of man, man is the glory of Christ, Man is the head of woman, woman is the glory of Man. Man and woman are commanded, at least some of the time, to act differently precisely because they are men and women and have different roles. We see it in marriage, we see it in church, we see it out walkin' around in public.

That is sexism.

That is the simplest definition of sexism, in fact.

Some people, like Pelty, find reason to question whether Paul was a sexist, because (although they get pretty vague on this point) there are some points where Paul doesn't bother to assign different roles to men and women explicitly. What's important to understand is that that doesn't matter. If you think that, say, blacks should let white people govern them because that's how nature seems to intend it to go, the fact that you think both can drive cars safely doesn't change anything other than the degree of racism you're exhibiting! There isn't anyone in this conversation (I hope) who would say that 'well, you can't call someone a racist for saying that whites should be in charge of blacks, if they also say both of them can drive.' Guess what? It's precisely the same logic at work when Pelty says 'I do not think we can fairly call Paul a sexist, because because because.'

Part of the problem is that 'sexist' is a scary and highly negative word for some people to apply to a figure they revere. Oh, well.

23411. angel-five - 8/16/2004 9:02:26 AM

Some people also apparently have difficulty with the 'complexities' of sexism -- i.e. someone can be fairly progressive in certain areas when it comes to gender, and still be quite sexist. Pelty and Jenerator have insisted that Paul was egalitarian about women in some ways. They haven't done much of a job to substantiate that (preferring to repeatedly assert it) but the simple point is that even if they were right, it wouldn't touch upon the very explicit points in his letters where Paul offers his theories that men and women have to act differently based on his god's immanentized plan and purpose for each. Will they admit this? No. Hell, they won't even admit any of it's sexist. But the rest of us can see it, and aren't hamstrung by the political realities of being religious in a secular debate forum, so we can admit it whenever we like.

23412. Roy Bean - 8/16/2004 9:40:00 AM

Good use of immanentized in a sentence.

23413. alistairconnor - 8/16/2004 9:50:54 AM

Pelty : The baby does not need to be thrown out w/ the bathwater.

When you find a turd floating in the bathwater, you declare "That's an interpolation... the baby didn't do that!"

23414. Jenerator - 8/16/2004 3:40:47 PM

Judith and Resonance,

Both of you failed to even look at the scriptures I posted. No, you focused solely on 'wives submitting'. You are guilty of ripping scripture out of context! Also, if you had actually read what I wrote you would see that men bare a huge responsibility in marriage; some argue that their role is more difficult than the role of the wife.

How can you sit there and accuse me of "lying" when you didn't even read what I wrote????

Men are to model Christ in the marriages!!! Do you even have the foggiest idea as to what that means?

The bottom line is that you have a problem with the word "submit" and you have a perverted sense of authority.

23415. Jenerator - 8/16/2004 3:43:26 PM

Resonance,

I do not use the KJV out of preference for other versions. This might come as a shocker for you, but I prefer to use versions that do not rely on the Textus Receptus.

23416. Jenerator - 8/16/2004 3:49:55 PM

Judith and Resonance,

Jesus preached the servanthood of man. First and foremost Christ came as a servant. We believers are called to serve one another, and this includes marriage. If you do not believe me, look at Phillipians chapter 2.

Again, what I think what you both are struggling with is the word "submit". I suspect that "submit" conjures images of S & M or of slave labor, but that's wrong.

Husbands are called to love their wives as Christ loved the church (*Resonance, the church means his body of believers). The marriage is a partnership of love in that the man serves his wife in every way, and she submits to his leadership. This does not mean that she walks 20 feet behind him or that she is called to suffer in silence. Rather, it means that she trusts him in matters to lead the home spirtually, morally and finacially.

I encourage you to read about the Titus 2 man and woman.

23417. woden - 8/16/2004 3:59:04 PM

"Rather, it means that she trusts him in matters to lead the home spirtually, morally and finacially. "

But that's not sexist?

I'm starting to think that the religious people on this thread actually don't have the ability to reason. It sounds like I'm saying this to be rude, but that is what I sincerely think. Res and I talked about this for a while.

Do you all realize that you're loudly shouting "2+2=5!!!" and earlier, making some pointed put-downs of people who don't submit to your 2+2=5 theories.

The idea that you really aren't capable of understanding or that you never bothered to study logic is the only thing that allows me to think charitably of you right now.

23418. woden - 8/16/2004 4:02:03 PM

I mean, look at the definition of sexism and then look at what YOU are saying about the scripture. You are basically BRINGING UP examples of blatant sexism yourself as a purported example of non-sexist scripture. Why would you do that? It could only be that you don't understand what you're saying.

23419. woden - 8/16/2004 4:05:10 PM

Why not just say, yeah, this literature is sexist but personally I find nothing wrong with living that way because A, B, and C.

There are lots of churches and believers who just embrace those teachings wholeheartedly without trying to say a cat is a dog in order to make it all palatable.

23420. Jenerator - 8/16/2004 4:08:04 PM

No, it's not sexist Woden. You'll see when you get married. There will be some things that you inherently trust Resonance with.

The bottom line is that Christians share a world view that nonbelievers have a difficult if not impossible time understanding. It doesn't mean that we're not capable of reasoning, it means that you and I share understandings or truths that are not reconcilable.

Furthermore, you and Resonance are the only ones who are regularly and routinely trying to tear down people with your unnecessary condescension. That shows me that you are incapable of even the most basics of civility.

Trust me, I am just as frustrated as you, but I am not shouting the obscentities or the accusations that I, and most lkely a host of others, would see as fitting.

Also, what I find completely telling is that both you and Resonance consider yourselves experts in this, and there are two doctoral students who post here!! No, it's always got to be us Christians who have a problem with logic, never you. Maybe you need to examine your motives and misconceptions in all of this. You seemingly bring your own understandings to the table and then cite scripture you believe supports your position(s). That is a common mistake to make, but heaven forbid anyone try and tell you otherwise.

All of this talk is a waste of time. I commend pelty on his patience.

23421. Jenerator - 8/16/2004 4:09:34 PM

Woden,

One last thing, if you would, explain to me what men loving their wives as Christ loved the church means.

23422. Jenerator - 8/16/2004 4:10:34 PM

This is a sick generation.

23423. woden - 8/16/2004 4:19:57 PM

As you are fond of pointing out, there is objective truth, Jen.

"No, it's not sexist Woden. You'll see when you get married. There will be some things that you inherently trust Resonance with."

But...that's not the same thing as what you just said. You said the husband is the leader of the wife, not that the wife trusts the husband with some things.

"The bottom line is that Christians share a world view that nonbelievers have a difficult if not impossible time understanding. It doesn't mean that we're not capable of reasoning, it means that you and I share understandings or truths that are not reconcilable. "

Well, you just admitted that you are not using the same paradigm as non-believers. In the system of logic, there's no such thing as truths that cannot be reconcilable. That is the definition of logic and how it works! I am okay with that, if you are going on faith, that's fine. But why would you blatantly say you are not using logic and then get really angry at me for pointing it out? It's the same thing you keep doing. You should not talk to non-believers about your faith if you're just going to abandon the common system of thought and then get worked up and mad at the non-believers.

23424. judithathome - 8/16/2004 4:20:18 PM

Both of you failed to even look at the scriptures I posted

Jenerator, I would appreciate it if you would not make assumptions about me. I read every single word of what you posted. Your problem with me seems to be that I understood it all too well. Perhaps you should get over this idea that because people disagree with you, they are automatically stupid.

23425. woden - 8/16/2004 4:21:39 PM

>there are two doctoral students who post here!!

You have heard of the fallacy "appeal to authority"?

Jen, have you studied rhetorical logic and symbolic logic in school? Yes or no.

23426. judithathome - 8/16/2004 4:23:48 PM

Rather, it means that she trusts him in matters to lead the home spirtually, morally and finacially

Because a wife couldn't possibly trust herself in these matters.

Jen, if you need a new fridge, and see one on sale at a great bargain, do you wait and ask your husband about it or do you buy the damned thing and have it delivered to your house?

23427. judithathome - 8/16/2004 4:25:31 PM

There will be some things that you inherently trust Resonance with.

Yes, Woden, because just loving him is not enough. When you enter the magic kingdom of marriage, and get the secret handbook, you'll see that you really CAN trust the man.

23428. woden - 8/16/2004 4:41:49 PM

You know what, not that someone should have to take any special course in school to be able to follow this.

Jen, you are posting things in plain english, then you are MAD at me for simply reading what you wrote. YOU posted that scripture says the man is in charge of the wife, not me. Then you're mad because I say that is sexist.

Then you get mad because I said you weren't logical and proceeded to post that you were not using the system of logic, ie, you are using truths that cannot be reconciled.

It's like, you are hopping mad at us for not having the magic truth filter or whatever that only people in your church can use, which makes words mean something other than what they mean in the English language.

23429. judithathome - 8/16/2004 4:45:01 PM

Furthermore, you and Resonance are the only ones who are regularly and routinely trying to tear down people with your unnecessary condescension.

Jen, for you to say this is ridiculous...you constantly condescend to people who are non-believers. You do it to me all the time...you bring up your education level and your superior understanding of God's word; you charge me with not having read your cites and if I've read them, with not understanding the core meaning or indeed, any of it.

You've even confronted me before about what college I attended knowing full well I never attended college at all. So don't go setting Woden and Res as the gold standard in condescension; you've set the bar fairly high yourself.

23430. woden - 8/16/2004 4:52:29 PM

This is what Jen is saying: I'm not using logical thought, I'm using revealed truths that cannot be reconciled. But you are a mean, condescending person for saying I'm not logical.

My only other alternative is to think you're just being malicious but I chose to think that you simply didn't understand. But I'm a jerk for doing so. Whatever!

23431. woden - 8/16/2004 4:54:25 PM

Pelty and Jen: The man is in charge of the wife, he is the leader, she is not. But you are horribly wrong if you think that means men and women have different roles based on sex.

23432. wonkers2 - 8/16/2004 5:03:55 PM

Hardly anyone will admit to supporting sexism today, so who cares what St Paul's position was? Plenty of people are opposed to stem cell research. What about pelty, Jen or K-Man? See my earlier posting of what I found to be an interesting article which tries to reconcile the pro and con positions on stem cell research. Message # 23370

23433. thoughtful - 8/16/2004 5:39:54 PM

Just stepping in to suggest that perhaps a definition of sexism would help this argument along.

Seems to me that sexism in jen's mind suggests that women are demeaned, mistreated, and disrespected. She's suggesting that that is not the xtian way in that it places a counterbalancing requirement on men's behavior just as it does on women. Men are to be obeyed, but they are not to ask the unreasonable. Men are the final arbiters in decisions, by they need to consider the women's pov in making that decision.

Seems to me that J@h et al are suggesting that sexism is any required/expected/suggested behavior differences from women vs men simply because they are women. So the fact that women are not allowed to be the final arbiter in any decision (unless the man says they can) just because they are women is sexism.

23434. judithathome - 8/16/2004 6:02:43 PM

Yes, and it would be the same if the Bible suggested that men submit to their wives and that wives were next to God and husbands were to defer to their wives in all things godly.

Main Entry: sex·ism

Pronunciation: 'sek-"si-z&m

Function: noun

Etymology: 1sex + -ism (as in racism)

1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women

2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

23435. alistairconnor - 8/16/2004 6:07:10 PM

I think that it's absurdly anachronistic to accuse Paul of sexism (misogyny is another issue).

Someone name me an author, say pre-18th century, who is not sexist?

(OK, maybe we can find two or three... but you get the point)

There are a lot of writers I have immense respect for, but there is stuff you just have to make allowances for. The fact that Erasmus or Montaigne were sexist bastards casts a certain light on their thinking, but does not me to discard it en bloc.

This is because I am capable of critical thought, and do not find it necessary to apply someone else's body of doctrine to compensate my abdication of personal moral judgement.

23436. judithathome - 8/16/2004 6:12:11 PM

I don't care if authors are sexist...what I resent is someone trying to tell me they are not when they clearly are. And then telling me what is written is not what is there. And then saying I am some sort of mental defective because I dont agree with them and don't live my life the way they feel I should. And then acting as though I am the one who just doesn't understand.

I get it. I just don't buy what they are selling.

23437. woden - 8/16/2004 6:18:46 PM

Yes, well. Of course it's only natural that someone of Paul's generation would be sexist. My point was never that it was somehow outrageous or wrong that this is the case.

Originally I was talking about pro-lifers and why their stance won't ever be mainstream. That's because they are living their lives based on doctrine written by a sexist person. I was then insulted. Jen is still insulting me "sick generation" and then whining that res and I are being mean to her.

It's a perfect example of what I was talking about, actually. Why would I ever want to be involved in a movement that is mainly religious - so I can be insulted for my beliefs, and lied to?

I appreciate this is boring for people, but if you introduce the stem-cell topic, don't you think the same thing is going to happen again?

23438. alistairconnor - 8/16/2004 6:26:36 PM

I suspect that the religious people are reluctant to talk about stem cells because they are confused : they don't have an established doctrine on it, and are unwilling to think for themselves.

Or perhaps there is a straightforward doctrinal position, but it's an indefensible one.

23439. judithathome - 8/16/2004 6:37:43 PM

Well, they aren't saying much about it so it's one or the other.

Maybe the memo hasn't come down from on high about it as yet.

23440. woden - 8/16/2004 6:44:45 PM

I didn't even touch on the part about how it's wrong for me to cite scripture and say what I think it means.

It's humorous, Jen's church says I have no right to do that, and I was just supposed to know and obey that.

23441. judithathome - 8/16/2004 6:58:48 PM

Or be pulled in by it before understanding it, which we can never do unless we study it properly for years and with the right people, not the ones who don't understand it prpoerly, either.

23442. judithathome - 8/16/2004 6:59:35 PM

properly, which obviously I can't do, not being able to even spell it.

23443. thoughtful - 8/16/2004 7:00:47 PM

Well, I think the heart of the problem is inerrancy.

If you say that Paul said what was correct for the time (or as important at that time for distinguishing the newly forming xtian religion from other more popular ones, and is now no longer necessary) and that through the light of modern interpretation it would be acceptable to soften those requirements...just as with the dietary laws...or the requirement that women cover their heads to pray...then that would allow one to be non-sexist and xtian. But that's opening up a huge door of human interpretation on what is supposed to be completely inerrant text.

Therefore if you won't open that door, you are left with following a largely sexist doctrine and saying it is sexist and so what...that's the way god intended. Or you are left with following a largely sexist doctrine but saying, in your view, it's not sexist...or at least not harmful in the way it distinguishes the sexes, just as gynecology, prostate surgery and hysterectomies are sexist but not harmful.

Those are the options I see.

23444. Jenerator - 8/16/2004 7:13:15 PM

You have heard of the fallacy "appeal to authority"?

Jen, have you studied rhetorical logic and symbolic logic in school? Yes or no

Yes, Woden, I have.

23445. Jenerator - 8/16/2004 7:15:09 PM

Also, I am still waiting for you to explain to me what it means for a husband to love his wife as Christ loved the church.

23446. The Summer Woman - 8/16/2004 7:31:01 PM

If you don't mind, I will take a stab at it.

Christ loved the Church because it was through the Church that his message and love could be spread. Therefore, for a husband to love his wife as Christ loved the Church might mean that a man must spread his message and his love through his wife. It could simply be an exhortation to go and multiply.

23447. Jenerator - 8/16/2004 7:45:45 PM

Summer,

Are believers to submit to the authority of Christ? Is Christ our authority? If so, how then do we submit on a practical basis?

23448. PelleNilsson - 8/16/2004 7:59:52 PM

One would assume that Christ considered the church to be subservient to his teachings. So Paul's words could be read as "love your wife if she obeys you".

woden and A5 sees Paul's letter to the Corinthian's as an expression of a specifically Christian sexist ideology. As a follow-up to thoughtful's post I think it can be seen from another angle. Paul was culturally a Greek. Corinth was a Greek city. There is no doubt that, seen through the raster of today's values, hellenism was a sexist culture. A respectable Greek woman was veiled when she appeared in public. Given that, the letter can be seen as an attempt by Paul to assure the Corinthians that the new religion was one that respected the accepted societal norms and values. That may have been important because for the general observer there are many similarities between Christianity and the orgiastic mystery cults, such as the central place awarded to the mystery of death and resurrection, the importance of the holy meal and so on.

Generally speaking, its is rather profitable to analyze Paul in term of a politician who tries to packetize his message for maximum appeal while trying to safe-guard its ideological core.

23449. PelleNilsson - 8/16/2004 8:01:03 PM

I composed my latest before I read Jen's latest.

23450. iiibbb - 8/16/2004 8:01:15 PM

I'm going to stay out of this argument... however.... Christ loved the church so much he gave his life away, took on all the burdens of our sins so that we wouldn't have to be responsible for them.

It's almost a blank check, all we have to is submit(accept) this gift.

Personally, I try not to mix symantics and religion. I was watching that show about Paul that Peter Jennings or Dan Rather or whoever did. He asked a minister what he had to say about all the inconsistancies in the Bible... to which the minister replied, "Well, it's God's message, but it was written by people that were only human, so it isn't perfect".

I can live with that.

The church is an extended family, I think that's it's main function. I helps people who don't have anyone. Back in the day, a lot of religions were very closed to outsiders. Christianity became popular because it was all about setting up support systems for those who didn't have money or families... you could count on the church to take care of you if you couldn't.

I think that's the central concept. That's the part I try to subscribe to and live toward. Try not to live only for myself, but try to make a contribution that may not get you a reward in the end.

It's obviously impossible to live up to this standard, and that's where Jesus comes in.... if you choose to subscribe to that.

23451. iiibbb - 8/16/2004 8:08:16 PM

As far as the modern issues of abortion... stem cell research and whatnot.

It's mainly a matter of when does life begin... conception or birth? Personally, I think it's conception.

The conflict is our government doesn't officially sponsor any religions, and so some people may not believe that life begins at conception. That's between them and God as far as I'm concerned...

but I think there's nothing wrong with limiting late-term abortions (except in cases where the woman's life is in danger... or rape). I can't see why someone would wait longer than 3 months to decide whether to keep a child. I think by that time you have a clear responsibility for your actions.

In all other cases I'm basically pro-choice... because I admit I have no clear mandate to tell others what to do... but we have to accept some kind of standard, because I don't think life is limited to whether you can live outside the womb or not. There's lots of people that would die without some kind of external support, either by drugs or technology...

Said my peace... enjoy your argument.

23452. angel-five - 8/16/2004 8:23:47 PM

No, you focused solely on 'wives submitting'. You are guilty of ripping scripture out of context! Also, if you had actually read what I wrote you would see that men bare a huge responsibility in marriage; some argue that their role is more difficult than the role of the wife.

How can you sit there and accuse me of "lying" when you didn't even read what I wrote????

I read what you wrote. It's apparent that you did not. I didn't rip it out of context -- you're the one who deliberately excised the quote so as to make it look like the 'submit to each other' line applied to husbands and wives. Yes, you did that deliberately. Yes, that's dishonest. Yes, you're angry that you got caught. Yes, that's all very stupid of you. Yes, go rant some more at Woden when she's simply pointing out exactly what you're doing.

23453. angel-five - 8/16/2004 8:25:16 PM

Just stepping in to suggest that perhaps a definition of sexism would help this argument along.

I posted one already. In fact, I think it's the same one that Judith just posted. It isn't helping the thumpers comprehend the word, though. It's just making them crankier.

23454. angel-five - 8/16/2004 8:28:01 PM

Message # 23436

This is exactly correct.

23455. angel-five - 8/16/2004 8:30:41 PM

Yes, Woden, I have.

Then how come you can't exhibit an ounce of it?

FWIW I don't believe you ever had training in logic. You show zero familiarity with its formal operations.

Generally speaking, its is rather profitable to analyze Paul in term of a politician who tries to packetize his message for maximum appeal while trying to safe-guard its ideological core.

That's what I was getting at when I said you have to be cautious about reading the text.

23456. thoughtful - 8/16/2004 8:40:45 PM

Q? Wasn't there also desire to make sure Paul, formerly Saul, was creating a church that was very distinct from the jewish religion? In temple men's heads are covered, women's are not...sabbath on sat. vs. sunday.

23457. The Summer Woman - 8/16/2004 8:55:52 PM

Are believers to submit to the authority of Christ? Is Christ our authority? If so, how then do we submit on a practical basis?

I'm sorry, Jen. I can't connect your questions to the interpretation I suggested.

23458. woden - 8/16/2004 9:02:51 PM

>Also, I am still waiting for you to explain to me what it means for a husband to love his wife as Christ loved the church.

Why? That's your idea that you're selling, not mine. But since you'll say I'm ducking, I'll answer it.

The Church is an institution which worships and obeys Christ. So I guess he's saying that a wife should worship and obey her husband. In the hierarchy, Christ is clearly at the top, his followers underneath. Paul is clearly using this analogy to reinforce the other things he says which make it clear that the wife is to be led by the husband.

If Paul wanted to say that husbands and wives were equal, he would have chosen some kind of relationship of equality to illustrate this, not a relationship of God to worshippers.

Just because Joe at Joe's Bible College says something else doesn't automatically make it true.

23459. thoughtful - 8/16/2004 9:03:19 PM

i's b's, I don't understand your position....you believe life begins at conception, but you are pro choice? You believe there should be limits on late-term abortions and you see no reason to end pregnancy after 3 mos (though ultrasound/amnios often don't reveal fetal defects until 4 mos or later), but you have no mandate to tell others what to do. I have absolutely no idea where you stand on the issue then.

Are you pro-stem cell research?

23460. woden - 8/16/2004 9:08:41 PM

It doesn't advance your argument to ask me irrelevant questions and demand an answer.

Before you go off about it, I agreed with your conclusion - that the husband is supposed to be the leader in the relationship according to this passage. This is what you said yourself. If you want to argue against it, be my guest but I can't see why you'd argue against your own beliefs.

23461. iiibbb - 8/16/2004 9:10:45 PM

It's the difference between what I would personally do... i.e. I abstain because I don't want to have to deal with being involved in an abortion that's my responsibility...

... but I believe the subject is abiguous enough that I'm not going to project my belief onto others.... it's between them and God as far as I'm concerned. I don't feel I know the right answer well enough to tell someone else... but I think I know the answer well enough to not want to be responsible for an abortion.

As far as stem cell research... that whole subject is muddled because there are sources other than embryos... and they can be cultured. I do think there is plenty of room for immoral behaivior in the field, but I don't feel the subject is inherantly immoral.

I don't care if my position is ambigous. I am trying to straddle my beliefs and the principles this country is based on.

23462. thoughtful - 8/16/2004 9:28:23 PM

i wasn't suggesting your position was ambiguous, only that your explanation was. I think i understand it better now.

Re stem cells, my understanding is there is a difference between those of embryos and those that are cultured, esp since there is an extremely limited number of lines...far less available than initially suggested by the bushies when they changed the regulations to existing lines.

23463. iiibbb - 8/16/2004 10:41:17 PM

I'm just confident that no matter what moral compass I may be using... it's likely going to be as wrong as almost everyone else's on any single matter.

I make an honest effort to do my best, do what's right, and help other people where I can. I recognize I'm not perfect... I trust that most of what God wants is the effort to do right as best you can figure it out... If you get it wrong... well... Jesus has got you covered.

I just don't think arguing over semantics (after several translations, and many political itterations of the bible) is what God is looking for.

23464. jayackroyd - 8/16/2004 10:45:23 PM

Dan Savage has an interesting comment on the McGreaveys, marriage and gays:

If it does nothing else, the McGreevey marriage highlights the chief absurdity of the anti-gay-marriage argument: Gay men can, in point of fact, get married -- provided we marry women, duped or otherwise. The porousness of the sacred institution is remarkable: Gay people are a threat to marriage, but gay people are encouraged to marry -- indeed, we have married, under duress, for centuries, and the religious right would like us to continue to do so today -- as long as our marriages are a sham. As long as we're willing to lie to ourselves, our wives, our communities, our children, and for someone like McGreevey, our constituents. A closeted gay man like McGreevey can even marry twice and have both his marriages regarded as legitimate. Even as an openly gay man, McGreevey can remain married to his wife and smoke all the pole he likes on the side. There ain't no law agin' it, Sen. Santorum. But how does this state of affairs protect marriage from the homos, I wonder? If an openly gay man can get married as long as his marriage makes a mockery of what is the defining characteristic of modern marriage -- romantic love -- or if he marries simply because he despairs of finding a same-sex partner, what harm could possibly be done by opening marriage to the gay men who don't want to make a mockery of marriage or who can find a same-sex partner?

23465. Jenerator - 8/16/2004 10:57:30 PM

Well, you know what Woden? You and I are at an impasse. Neither one of us is agreeing with one another's position and we both think we're right.

The bottom line is that I AM A FEMALE CHRISTIAN WHO DOES NOT SEE PAUL AS A SEXIST, nor do I, THE FEMALE CHRISTIAN, have a problem with the biblical understanding of wives submitting to their husbands. From my academic as well as personal studies of the scriptures, I have never interpreted them as you and Resonance have.

And, from what I have seen and experienced with both of you, you don't care what other people think - you're already convinced you understand more than a practicing believing Christian - female or not.

23466. thoughtful - 8/16/2004 11:12:43 PM

Hmmm. I guess I'm just dense. I'm trying to understand your take on this situation Jen, and shouting it loudly doesn't add clarity.

If it is correct for a woman to obey a man and that is NOT sexist then it can only be that a woman qua woman is in fact subservient by her very nature.

In other words, it is not (what is the word?) "dog-ist" to treat a dog as subservient to humans as dogs by their very nature are in fact subservient and dependent. Dogs are created subservient, so it is only correct and proper to treat them thusly and it represents no "-ism" at all.

Is that your argument?

23467. Jenerator - 8/17/2004 12:08:34 AM

My argument is that marriage is based on the nation of dual servanthood, and that woman are called to serve their husbands and husbands are called to serve their wives. Both are called to serve in different but complimentary ways. Submitting out of love is not sexist; some are applying their 21 century take on "submitting" as inherently sexist, when in actuality, it was not intended to be.

23468. Jenerator - 8/17/2004 12:10:22 AM

I can see someone saying, "The bible says we're to 'serve our fellow man'!! Well, that's sexist and who does the Bible think I am, some kind of waitress!?!"

23469. anomie - 8/17/2004 12:16:23 AM

Pleasure to see the activity in your thread, Jen.

Glad you're as feisty as ever. As mystifying too...and exasperating...

But, really, it's been good reading for the short time I had today.

23470. anomie - 8/17/2004 12:19:16 AM

Woden,

Hello. I'm an old poster, at least twice your age, and half your intelligence. A5 may remember me, and we both have probably had a good chuckle as you've discovered the amazing things some Christians can do with language.

I've enjoyed your exchanges, and hope to see more of both you and A5 here. He always livens things up.

23471. anomie - 8/17/2004 12:20:10 AM

A5,

Hello. Always good to see you here!

Cheers!

23472. wonkers2 - 8/17/2004 12:23:00 AM

So what if Paul was a male chauvinist pig? I assume that nearly men of his era were. Until recently women were little more than chattel in this country. If memory serves, women didn't get the right to vote until the early 20th century. Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, yet we still consider them among the greatest presidents while rejecting their position on slavery. It's called enlightenment. There is no reason why we can't take from Paul what is applicable to our lives today and forget about the parts that have been superceded by modern manners, science and morals. Why is that so hard for you to grasp, jen, pelty?

23473. Jenerator - 8/17/2004 12:29:20 AM

Wonkers2

Religion a la carte doesn't appeal to me.

Hi anomie!!

23474. wonkers2 - 8/17/2004 12:34:28 AM

Well, your tortured attempts (and Pelty's) to deny that St Paul was sexist aren't very convincing. The place of women in western society has improved a lot in the last 100 years or so, but not due to fundamentalists and scripturalists.

23475. thoughtful - 8/17/2004 12:44:59 AM

OK, Jen, I think I'm getting closer to understanding but here's my problem. You say complementary ways, but that to me implies balance (i do the cooking, you do the dishes).

However, the paul text suggests an imbalance in power in the relationship between man and woman if the man is the final arbiter in all decisions. Further it suggests an inflexibility in that relationship so that role reversal is not possible. So for example, if the husband is a lit major but can't add 2+2 and the wife is a finance guru, isn't the couple better off if the wife handles the finances instead of the husband? Or can the wife only handle the books with husband's permission? Is it hers to serve by standing mutely by while husband proceeds to lose all the family assets in poor financial decisions?

And what happens if the husband should become ill...stroke, gambling problem, alzheimers? Is it still her role to abide by his decisions, irrational though they may be? Or under those circumstances, would she be able to serve by taking charge?

You see, I'm all for partnership and complementary relationships. I do the taxes and hubby does the electrical work. Believe me, we are both happier and better off doing it that way. On expenditures of any consequence, we make those decisions together...be it buying a tractor for him or an appliance for me. We both have veto power. We both consider each other's needs/wants in making those decisions.

23476. thoughtful - 8/17/2004 12:45:06 AM

To push the complementary analysis further, a master and slave have complementary and well-defined roles. One is to set tasks, make decisions, provide food, clothing, shelter. The other is to obey, perform tasks, ask no questions. Master has to consider slave's welfare if he expects to keep him alive. Slave works to keep master happy if he expects to be kept alive. Both in some sense serve each other, both in some sense benefit from the relationship, and both are dependent on each other. Both have an important role to play. But clearly there is an imbalance of power and control and decision making.

So, as with slave and master, to define the role for the wife as always subservient, even if complementary in some regard, is still sexist.

23477. thoughtful - 8/17/2004 12:52:22 AM

The reason why I'm pushing this is to understand what happens when a husband fails in his god-given role. I'm assuming man is to be the provider (though I may be wrong). So here's my girlfriend, extremely religious, aching for children all her life and yet having none because her very religious husband is incapable of holding a real job for any length of time. (He has 2 masters degrees and studied paralegal besides.) He's dragged her off to many locations in places around the world where he loses his job and she always ends up being the sole wage earner. As the dutiful xtain wife, she has done as he's wished and gone where he's asked. As such, she's never been able to afford the luxury of children, which I know just breaks her heart. And even at that...even at that, she makes dinner in the a.m. in the crockpot before she leaves for work, and then has to rush home to feed him, because he won't even dish a stew out of a pot for himself!

She never complains about him, I never criticize their relationship.

But to me, this is just nuts.

So what does the bible allow when a man fails to consider his wife's needs and wants and fails to perform his role as head of the family? When is it her turn to say, enough! Ever?

23478. anomie - 8/17/2004 12:53:37 AM

Thoughtfull! Hi! Good analysis.

...from the peanut gallery.

23479. anomie - 8/17/2004 12:55:33 AM

iiibbb,

Why the exception for rape? Is this punishing the child for the sins of the father? I never understood this.

I say, track the rapist down and do him in...in a Christian capital punishment way.

23480. wonkers2 - 8/17/2004 1:03:29 AM

Frank Richter offers the following as a way out of the stem cell research vs. religion dilemma:

"Embryologists tell us that 14 DAYS AFTER FERTILIZATION the embryo begins a 'primitive streak' where a backbone forms, organs start to grow and genes are turned on. During these 14 days, a single undeveloped human embryo can split into two distinct embryos producing twins. Likewise two emhbryos can fuse together producing a single new embryo.

"Most (?) people believe human life begins at fertilization and that each individual embryo is endowed with one soul at that time. But if religious assumptions are accurate, how can two soul/embryos merge into one person or one soul/embryo split into two in the two weeks after fertilization?

"Logic suggests that a window period of up to two weeks might exist. In this time period nascent human embryos, while constituting life forms, may not have matured into human individuals--what we call life."

The above formulation could provide a basis for reconciling the religious call for a respect for human life at whatever stage and the scientific community's call for stem cell research in an effort to protect and preserve human life.

???

Message # 23370 for link to article.

23481. Jenerator - 8/17/2004 2:02:43 AM

Thoughtful,

I like your definitions up-thread. I have read your posts on the matter, and I appreciate your levity. Regarding your scenarios in Message # 23475, they're somewhat silly. While we're called to submit to our husbands, we're both to be stewards of what we have. If the husband comes downwith Alzheimers, the wife should take care of him in a respectable manner. We're not suddenly blinded because we're married. Also, in scripture (can't rememember which one) the woman is the keeper of the books - probably because woman usually has the aptitude and theinclination there. If neither one does, it gets worked out.

Judith asked me if I would impulsively buy a bargain priced fridge without consulting my husband, implying that doing so would constitute some form of sexism. Well, I would consult with my husband and if he pointed out that we couldn't afford it, or we shouldn't do it, I wouldn't buy it.

He and I talk about things. In fact, the only times the word submit comes up is when my husband jokingly says, "Get in there and do the dishes!" To which I promptly role my eyes. He then goes in to the kitchen, giggles and loads them into the dishwasher out of love.

23482. Jenerator - 8/17/2004 2:08:31 AM

Thoughtful,

One thing you have touched upon is what happens if a man does not fulfill his role in marriage. This happens a lot. In fact, I read that the divorce rates in Christians is higher than nonbelievers, which tells me that there is a definite crisis. I don't have a definite answer, but the scripture does say that if a woman is unequally yoked, her gentle demeanor can win over her husband.

If it's a marriage between two Christians and the husband is not fulfilling his role, I would encourage them to go to Christian counseling, to have accountability partners, to pray and to fast over the situation. I know that it's tough, and I think that the woman will have to use her best judgment.

23483. anomie - 8/17/2004 3:16:19 AM

"He then goes in to the kitchen, giggles and loads them into the dishwasher out of love."

You got a video? Extraordinary claims require proof. as they say.

Anyway, that's some pretty powerful eye-rolling, Jen.

23484. judithathome - 8/17/2004 4:13:41 AM

Jen, c'mon. I was asking you if you would feel comfortable deciding for the both of you...not to send you into debt or anything. IF you needed a fridge and were palnning to get one, and you saw one at a huge bargain, would you get it? Not would you get it on a whim just because it was some cool color and not if it would plunge the family into debt.

I don't have a definite answer, but the scripture does say that if a woman is unequally yoked, her gentle demeanor can win over her husband

Yes, that is certainly something to try, all right. I have no idea what a gentle demeanor could do if the man is a drunkard or a gambler or an abusive SOB, though.

Sometimes things just aren't meant to be.

23485. angel-five - 8/17/2004 5:11:47 AM

Furthermore, you and Resonance are the only ones who are regularly and routinely trying to tear down people with your unnecessary condescension.

Well, to people like you, anyway. You have this habit of taking how people treat you and assuming it's how they feel toward all Christians, all women, all people, all etc. The problem is that they're only talking to you, and in fact they do show a marked difference in how they address other people. So the evidence suggests that it's got less to do with how we view people and more to do with how we view you.

Is it really condescension? You basically don't know what you're talking about WRT sexism -- the word has an objective meaning, you know. You continually screw up your logic and insist that cites say things that they do not say -- indeed, you try to cut and paste them in a way which reinforces your point at the expense of the truth.

You get chances to explain what you meant, on the off chance that you might just have not been communicating it well, and you don't take them. And you never engage on the issue at hand despite our tries to get you to do so. Whenever you are faced with a rational argument your brain seems to seize up. Is it condescension to address someone who exhibits these qualities as if they exhibit these qualities? No.

I treat these fora as meme pools, and take a pragmatic point of view on posters, based on whether someone's participation adds anything useful or interesting -- either memes I don't have, or a means of testing the ones I do. There's just nothing new, interesting, or useful in your posts, ever, and nothing that I can't find elsewhere quickly and easily. It's trite, tired and boring to interact with you, it always goes predictably, and it has been that way ever since you came to this community. Hence my attitude toward you. If you don't like that, then, don't interact with me.

23486. angel-five - 8/17/2004 5:19:31 AM

The bottom line is that I AM A FEMALE CHRISTIAN WHO DOES NOT SEE PAUL AS A SEXIST, nor do I, THE FEMALE CHRISTIAN, have a problem with the biblical understanding of wives submitting to their husbands. From my academic as well as personal studies of the scriptures, I have never interpreted them as you and Resonance have.

Could that possibly be because you start out believing that the bible is inerrant and that the Church fathers were all good people and that your god is a nice guy? Might that have something to do with it? Might that explain why your interpretations always differ so severely from those of people who have a fresher and less baggage-laden perspective on the text?

And, from what I have seen and experienced with both of you, you don't care what other people think - you're already convinced you understand more than a practicing believing Christian - female or not.

No. We do, however, believe we understand more than you. That doesn't require much going out on limbs, Jenerator. You post what you believe and we read it. The rest follows naturally in any place with free speech.

23487. angel-five - 8/17/2004 6:43:45 AM

Let's take a straw poll. How many people reading this thread would, if asked, reply that they are at least nominally Christian?

23488. angel-five - 8/17/2004 10:08:38 AM

John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

John 15:9-10 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.

If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Isn't it funny when Jenerator's cites end up causing her trouble?

23489. angel-five - 8/17/2004 11:43:34 AM

We believers are called to serve one another, and this includes marriage. If you do not believe me, look at Phillipians chapter 2.

Well, I do not believe you, and so I went and looked at Phillipians chapter 2. And got a refresher course in why I never believe you.

Phillipians 2 doesn't even mention marriage, you dolt. It does not even allude to it. 'If you don't believe me, look at Phillipians chapter 2.' What kind of freakishly hapless impulse leads you to say things like that?

Whatever it is, the same thing is at work in your 'encouragement' to read Titus 2. Hell, Jenerator, I encourage you to read Titus 2.

1: But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:
2: That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.
3: The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
4: That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
5: To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
6: Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded.
7: In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,
8: Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.

23490. angel-five - 8/17/2004 11:44:45 AM

Haven't you claimed to study the Bible? Did you even open it when you were studying it?

One last thing, if you would, explain to me what men loving their wives as Christ loved the church means.

Well, according to Jesus, it means you love them as long as they keep your commandments and carry your words in their heart.

23491. thoughtful - 8/17/2004 3:55:55 PM

Jen, there are inherent contradictions in your explanations. If a man is a gambling addict, no amount of charm is going to sway him from spending down the family assets and plunging the family deeply in debt. Certainly there are enough physically and mentally abused women who have never been able to "charm" their way out of a beating as they are not the cause, but the victim.

How on earth is a woman expected to get a man to go to xtian counseling if he chooses not to go? He is the final arbiter after all. In fact, chances are, in the case of my girlfriend, he's not unhappy with the situation at all. If he were, he could certainly manage to hold down a job, any job. Rather, isn't the xtain woman's role to learn to obey and accept the decisions her husband makes? Isn't it her role, if she's unhappy with the result, to pray harder? Become more self-sacrificing and understanding for the sake of her husband and the family?

If a woman is always to be obedient to the husband, she is not allowed to independently choose to divorce him or certainly not divorce him without permission.

23492. judithathome - 8/17/2004 6:15:40 PM

Good points, thoughtful.

23493. Jenerator - 8/17/2004 7:37:42 PM

thoughtful,

If a husband becomes abusive or is struggling with addiction and is defiant about it or unrepentant about it, I think that the wife needs to do whatever she needs to do to ensure that she and/or the kids are safe. Some Christian counselors (don't know what percentage) suggest temporary separation with reconcilaition in mind as an alternative to staying in an abusive marriage. Ideally, the Christian wants to have his/her marriage restored and healthy, but if s/he is married to a rebellious and unrepentent person, it might be time for a divorce. I'd say for each situation the person needs to seek Godly advice, sound counsel and to pray about it.

God hates divorce, but he gave it to the Israelites when marriages were perverted from their original function and design.

I have a friend of mine who is married to an alcoholic. She struggled for years and years, but the time came when she understandably had enough of it. He would sometimes get so drunk that he would pass out and not come home during the night. It eventually came to the point where he got two DWI's. You can imagine what this situation would do to her or to any of us.

She struggled against despair and hopelessness. She felt angry and disappointed. She was scared he was going to kill himself or someone else while drunk; she felt all kinds of things.

23494. Jenerator - 8/17/2004 7:37:51 PM

What she told me she did was seek out support from both AA and a Christian counselor. Those two functioned as a place to vent and share her frustrations; however, the time came when the situation at home needed to change. She wasn't willing to be around someone who was destroying his life and endangering the lives of his loved ones.

She moved out, and he began to drink more. She continued to pray for him.

Not quite 6 months later, he crashed his car, but no one saw what he did and he felt a real sense of conviction penetrate his heart.

He and his wife started having contact again, but under her rules that they wouldn't sleep together while separated, he would go to Christian counseling, and would not drink.

Eventually the relationship got to this point where they were able to reconcile and they have been able to stay married and work through an extremely difficult time.

23495. judithathome - 8/17/2004 7:42:51 PM

If a husband becomes abusive or is struggling with addiction and is defiant about it or unrepentant about it, I think that the wife needs to do whatever she needs to do to ensure that she and/or the kids are safe. Some Christian counselors (don't know what percentage) suggest temporary separation with reconcilaition in mind as an alternative to staying in an abusive marriage. Ideally, the Christian wants to have his/her marriage restored and healthy, but if s/he is married to a rebellious and unrepentent person, it might be time for a divorce. I'd say for each situation the person needs to seek Godly advice, sound counsel and to pray about it.

This is also known as common sense. And even ungodly people possess that.

23496. Jenerator - 8/17/2004 7:43:56 PM

Resonance,

I scroll past your posts. You needn't waste your time addressing me.

23497. thoughtful - 8/17/2004 7:51:55 PM

Jen, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that a woman should be obedient to her husband so long as it's practicable, but can opt out of the marriage when it is no longer so. It's up to her to decide which conditions constitute impracticable.

23498. judithathome - 8/17/2004 7:59:46 PM

Jen, you're making a mistake if you skip Res' posts.

Sometimes I feel the urge to do that to Kuligin but I feel I should do him the courtsey of reading what he has to say since he takes the time and trouble to say it.

You can't hope to understand a person's stance if you refuse to listen to it.

23499. judithathome - 8/17/2004 8:00:43 PM

courtesy

23500. Jenerator - 8/17/2004 8:01:29 PM

I would think that a Christian woman with accountability partners and Christian couseling will do what's safe and right for her family.

You're trying to make it all seem so cavalier. Well-being is hardly a metter of practicality. If we're talking about abuse or addiction, it's hardly like anyone says, "It's over, I'm opting out and will submit no more."

My point to you was that if the situation endangers her or her children, or if she is married to a rebellious, unrepentant glutton, she should not stay in the home. There is a chance that the marriage can be restored eventually - the goal is to keep the marriage intact.

23501. Jenerator - 8/17/2004 8:03:12 PM

Judith,

I appreciate your point.

23502. judithathome - 8/17/2004 8:03:17 PM

You're trying to make it all seem so cavalier.

Where do you get that idea?

23503. Jenerator - 8/17/2004 8:06:04 PM

if I understand you correctly, you're saying that a woman should be obedient to her husband so long as it's practicable, but can opt out of the marriage when it is no longer so.

From this.

23504. thoughtful - 8/17/2004 8:35:55 PM

Jen, read carefully. the word is "practicable"
def=Capable of being effected, done, or put into practice; feasible. See synonyms at "possible".

I didn't say "practical".

23505. judithathome - 8/17/2004 8:39:54 PM

Jen has posted in Suggestions that someone else take over the hosting of this thread; she also said she didn't see any need for the tread any longer.

Anyone want to volunteer to host?

23506. thoughtful - 8/17/2004 8:40:36 PM

See, that's where I get confused. To me there is a world of difference between being in an abusive home which puts her and children's lives and/or physical well being at risk. I read that and think I understand your point that marriage is to be preserved unless under the direst of circumstances. Then you throw in, "a rebellious, unrepentant glutton" which just means someone who is difficult to live with, setting the bar, in my view, at a much different standard...much closer to the "cavalier" charge you cavalierly charged.

Just when I think I'm understanding your point, I get confused again.

23507. angel-five - 8/17/2004 9:25:58 PM

I scroll past your posts. You needn't waste your time addressing me.

That would be awfully convenient for you, but I think we both know you don't.

Phillipians 2 and Titus 2. Read 'em sometime. You might like them.

23508. woden - 8/17/2004 9:49:47 PM

Anomie - nice to meet you, and thanks for the compliment!

23509. Jenerator - 8/17/2004 10:55:27 PM

Bye y'all.

Satan, I hope you enjoy hosting the forum.

23510. SnowOwl - 8/18/2004 12:04:46 AM

Do I hear the pitter patter of little cloven hooves in this thread?

23511. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/18/2004 12:12:18 AM

I'M READY, BABY!

23512. anomie - 8/18/2004 1:14:10 AM

Jen! I hope you're not signing off the Mote too. I'd miss you.

You're evasive sometimes, and exasperating sometimes, and sometimes infuriating, but you're very real and I appreciate that about you.

May the heat die down. So to speak.

23513. angel-five - 8/18/2004 1:34:24 AM

Ok, as presumptive host of this thread now that Jenerator has declared disinterest in it and sees no need for the thread to continue, I should post my plans.

My plans are: nothing.

This is a thread which doesn't catch a whole lot of traffic unless two or more people are debating. I may encourage two knowledgeable people to square off now and again but mostly I like the thread the way it already is.

This is a place where everyone is already free to post so long as they mind the RoE, so I won't change that either. Don't troll, don't try to quash discussion, try to keep conflicting religious ideologies from dictating the course of a discussion -- these are my proposed guidelines. But they are only guidelines -- the posters in this thread will determine how it goes, not me. Frankly I wouldn't want to try to strictly control a place like this or be responsible for what gets posted here.

I reserve the right to do whatever I damn well like, and plan to do next to nothing at all.

Now, the thread itself --

Religion and philosophy, the former more than the latter, are things people tend to have stronger opinions on than an education in, which is just fine by me. But this is the Net and there's no reason we can't link plenty of good resource sites. We have some already; I would like more, especially good ones. Please feel free to submit good links on religion and philosophy. I want balanced sites more than I want ardently partisan ones, but if a site is good it'll be linked. The information will be useful even if it's never linked in a discussion. I'd like people to cough up some good links to start; as discussions ensue and more good sites are linked or mentioned, I'll add to the list.

23514. Jenerator - 8/18/2004 1:50:29 AM

My parting gift to you, Resonance.

23515. angel-five - 8/18/2004 1:57:04 AM

Oh, you actually didn't leave when you said bye? How hard to predict.

And it's my very own link on what happens to sinners when they die! I'll have to peruse bibletools.org and see if it's linkworthy.

23516. angel-five - 8/18/2004 1:57:47 AM

By the way, I thought you were scrolling past my posts. It's gratifying to see that I was right about that too.

23517. Jenerator - 8/18/2004 2:00:11 AM

The least you could do is thank me for handing over such a powerful position. Look at all of the control you now have!!! Anyway, have fun kiddo.

23518. anomie - 8/18/2004 2:02:20 AM

..., Long live the thread host!

23519. pelty - 8/18/2004 6:08:20 AM

Jen,

Not worth quitting over, frankly. Just take a break and come back when your annoyance has died down a bit. Someone link Bobby McFerrin for her, would ya?

23520. pelty - 8/18/2004 6:24:09 AM

Briefly, because of (or perhaps in spite of) Alistair's wonderful mental picture, I will mention why *some* scholars think 1 Cor 14 is not an original part of what most take to be an authentically Pauline letter.

Let's examine the passage in question, so we are all on the same page. I am using the NIV version because it is the first one listed on BibleGateway and, frankly, none of the versions on BG are that wonderful. As a rule, NIV is an OK, but not great translation WRT being relatively exacting when translating from the Greek. It does do a nice job of giving the sense of the passage in a readable form. As we are not too concerned w/ translation issues in this particular case, I think we can live w/ the NIV. Onwards...

"What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.
29Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.

23521. pelty - 8/18/2004 6:24:44 AM

34As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.[9]
39Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way."

OK, as mentioned before, in the manuscript tradition, the disputed passage is found *either* in its present position *or* following what is now verse 40. To some scholars, this suggests a later scribal gloss since you would expect to find a passage in the same place if it were an original part of the letter (this is one of the main objections, along w/ early manuscript witness, to the belief that the passage in John about the woman caught in adultery is authentic).

Further, if you read the passage sans disputed passage, it might well be argued that the section flows more sensibly than it does w/ the disputed section included. See if you agree or not...

23522. pelty - 8/18/2004 6:25:06 AM

"What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.
29Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.[9]
39Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way."

Note the continuation of the discussion re: prophets. This is the argument for the exclusion of the debated passage. I think it may have some merit to it *for the reasons stated above* as opposed to some supposed socio-theological agenda. Buy it or not, I care not.

23523. angel-five - 8/18/2004 7:22:33 AM

Some people apparently think that 1 Corinthians isn't of a single piece, but that it was blended from two letters Paul allegedly wrote, just as 2 Corinthians is taken as a pastiche of several letters.

Unity of the epistles

...Some scholars believe that certain of the Epistles are not single letters, but rather made up of two or more texts which were merged together:
Romans 16 may have been a separate letter to the church at Ephesus to introduce the deaconess Phoebe. It was tacked onto the end of the letter to the Romans at an unknown date.
1 Corinthians may be a blending of at least two letters.
2 Corinthians appears to be made up from at least three separate letters.
Philippians may have originally been two or three separate letters.

23524. angel-five - 8/18/2004 7:23:38 AM

From Authorship and Date of NT writings

Romans	55 CE	53-58 CE	Paul
1 Corinthians	50-56 CE	50-56 CE	Paul
2 Corinthians	53-56 CE	53-56 CE	Paul, possibly in sections
Galatians	CE	47-56 CE	Paul
Ephesians	57-58 CE	85-95 CE	Paul (disputed)
Philippians	58 CE	62-63 CE	Paul
Colosseans	56 CE	65-95 CE	Paul (disputed)
1 Thessalonians	48-51 CE	48-51 CE	Paul
2 Thessalonians	48-51 CE	48-51	Paul (small dispute)
1 Timothy	55 CE	c. 64 or c. 120	authenticity doubted
2 Timothy	c. 56 CE	c. 64 or c. 120	as above
Titus	55-57 CE	c. 64 or c. 120	as above
Philemon	57 CE	60-61 CE	Paul (small dispute)

Among the writings claiming to have been written by Paul, several are in dispute, while another (2 Corinthians) is alleged to have been compiled from parts of several letters. The ending of 1 Corinthians may have been formed the same way, and there is some degree of manuscript evidence to show that the ending of 1 Corinthians has been disturbed.

23525. angel-five - 8/18/2004 7:23:58 AM

From 1 Corinthians

Paul's authorship of 1 Corinthians, apart from a few verses that some regard as later interpolations, has never been seriously questioned. Some scholars have proposed, however, that the letter as we have it contains portions of more than one original Pauline letter. We know that Paul wrote at least two other letters to Corinth (see 1 Cor 5:9; 2 Cor 2:3-4) in addition to the two that we now have; this theory holds that the additional letters are actually contained within the two canonical ones. Most commentators, however, find 1 Corinthians quite understandable as a single coherent work.

23526. angel-five - 8/18/2004 7:40:21 AM

Other notes:

It's commonly held that Paul wrote at least the bulk of 1 Corinthians in response to two letters from the Corinthians, and that a large part of the book is him responding, in order, to points raised by these letters. So Paul, if this traditional view is observed (and, therefore, 1 Corinthians is actually an authentic letter, not one compiled later by Paul or someone else) is not completely free in how he raises his statements or addresses the Corinthians, but is rather working with a framework of specific points and queries relating to specific problems in Corinth. These letters have apparently been lost, so we know not what their contents were -- aside from what we can glean from Paul, if we take the letters to be accurate and fair. Therefore even if we're working with the idea of a seamless and unified Pauline authorship of 1 Corinthians, we can't necessarily look at the work as if it is Paul expressing a coherent series of thoughts which flows naturally from start to finish. Instead we're looking at half of a give-and-take correspondence in which the lost half is heavily influencing the latter, extant half. If this is the case (and nearly everyone holds it to be so) then you can't really decide what's seamlessly a part of the book and what's an insert -- at least, you can't do so as easily as Pelty would.

Secondly, those people who do attempt to glean what was going on in Corinth at the time from Paul's letters do find that there were significant questions linking womens' actions in church and prophesying. Apparently there was some, ah, uppityness going on among the Corinthian women, who didn't necessarily want to have to wear a veil, and felt they could speak out in Church as well as any man. So once again if 1 Corinthians was solely of Pauline authorship and of one piece, the passage Pelty is questioning isn't incongruous.

23527. angel-five - 8/18/2004 7:44:36 AM

The third thing that comes to mind is that this is supposed to be an authentic letter of Paul. What scholarship I've reviewed says that while letters of this kind were often dictated to scribes who didn't always record things verbatim, Paul isn't likely to have done this, but rather written the letter himself, about things he felt very strongly about. If that's the case, then the presence of seemingly-related but mildly tangential bits in an otherwise unified passage would seem to strengthen the case for single authorship. Who here hasn't had something to say and while saying it, gone tangential for a moment as something else occurred to them? Perfected and smooth thoughts rarely come to people, and rarely if ever appear without significant revision and editing. People aren't perfect writers.

Taken together these arguments and more bear heavily upon the point. The overwhelming bulk of conservative Christian theology holds that 1 Corinthians is authentic. But if it isn't, then the idea that 1 Corinthians is composed of more than one letter assembled later into the book itself addresses Pelty's issue. The author of the pastiche, unless 1 Corinthians is indeed an outright fabrication, would have blended the two letters and edited them together where he felt the pieces best fit.

Moreover, the idea that a scribe may have changed the text of 1 Corinthians isn't something that can necessarily be tossed out entirely -- but it may not be a matter of addition as much as excision of surrounding lines. Pelty also mentions that various versions of the text all have that line about women not speaking in church, so, the question points less to one scribe's interpolation and more to the existence of differently edited pastiches.

23528. PelleNilsson - 8/18/2004 8:23:57 AM

You are now the host, A5. I used the e-mail address you have listed in WX. I hope that's OK. I also sent you the address to the magic ring.

23529. angel-five - 8/18/2004 8:40:48 AM

The hosting page is significantly updated from what I remember it being! But it still has that giant space olive motif on it.

OK, people, remember, if you have interesting links, get 'em here. Over the next week or so I'll update the links bar with them.

23530. The Summer Woman - 8/18/2004 9:05:42 AM

Disparate thoughts and things -

1. I found the most interesting parts of this discussion to be those which touched on the early history of Christianity. This is an excellent site that I found on the subject. There is also a discussion board there, though small. This site takes a comparative approach to world religions, has many links to other such sites, and provides texts of the gospels of various early Christian sects - not just those that eventually led to the development of the Catholic church. There is also a section on the theories of the historical Jesus, and a related site on Early Jewish writings. I would like to suggest it for a link here:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

2. One aspect of the discussion here about contraception and abortion has dealt with the role that men should or should not have in decisions relating to what takes place in a woman's body. On one level, there is something ludicrous about this, since, without men, nothing at all would be taking place in women's bodies. The fact remains that should a man chose not to be a father and financial supporter of his child, the woman will have no choice but to fill these functions unless she puts the child up for adoption. One has to ask why many men feel "comfortable" with such a choice. Is it solely because they are not -literally - left holding the bag? (continued)

23531. The Summer Woman - 8/18/2004 9:07:48 AM

I think the explanation may be at once banal and profound. It is obvious to even very young children that women have babies. But most young children and children of the early elementary years don't really understand what the man's role is - or that he even has one. It has often been stated that young children should not be told more about sex than they are able to handle. In large part, I agree with this, with one exception that I think is crucial to changing the way our society views men and conception: as soon as they understand "where babies come from" little boys need to be told what they have to do with creating babies. Not to do so is to leave a hole in their sense of self that doesn't get filled until the demands of puberty put sex, rather than fatherhood, in the forefront of how they define themselves. If it is understood that men and women create human beings, it becomes possible to make the role, and the responsibility, of fatherhood central to a male child's sense of self.

Which brings me to a touchy subject: What role do men have in a woman's decision of whether or not to carry a fetus to term? The focus of the discussion is always on the woman, but is this right? We feel that it is right because the burden of the "mistake" falls on the woman, and many men are relieved not to have anything to do with the "mistake". The fact that the mistake is not viewed as being equally shared by both parties suggests that the role of men is seen as peripheral to pregnancy - a view that is absurd, but there it is. Which brings me back to the issue of how the "man's part" of babymaking is presented to young children. Children need to start out with a sense that creating new human beings (or not creating them) is something that men and women do together, something of which men are an essential, not peripheral, part. (By the way, I'm pro-choice.)

23532. The Summer Woman - 8/18/2004 9:09:18 AM

3.Here is a very brief history of abortion in the US - which was legal until after the Civil War:

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_000400_abortion.htm

4. A very small point: Thoughtful said "but, pelty, to people who believe life begins at conception, iud is NOT an option as it does not prevent conception...only pregnancy. (22903)

Well, in the ideal scenario that may be true, but IUD's are not as effective as other methods of birth control. I have a wonderful child that was conceived in just such a fashion. I had another pregnancy with an IUD which put me in the position of having to chose whether or not to try to carry to term an infant with an IUD embedded in its developing brain and which also carried a 50/50 chance that both the baby and I would die of sepsis before the baby was ever born.

I don't recommend IUD's.

5. An interesting juxtaposition of posts by our new host:

(22908. angel-five )There is simply far more to be gained by working with people than there is to shriek hellfire at them, and it is at times like this that I am most glad that whatever gave rise to me gave me the power of independent reason, rather than slavish adherence to inflexible principle, when it comes time for me to decide what is right and moral and just in a world which ten commandments can neither control nor cage nor command.

23485. angel-five There's just nothing new, interesting, or useful in your posts, ever, and nothing that I can't find elsewhere quickly and easily. It's trite, tired and boring to interact with you, it always goes predictably, and it has been that way ever since you came to this community.

23533. The Summer Woman - 8/18/2004 9:10:35 AM

I see that the discussion has moved on to other things since I wrote my post. Sorry to have moved a bit off-topic.

23534. angel-five - 8/18/2004 9:13:19 AM

In searching for a new tagline for this thread I came across a few gems.

Albert Einstein:

What is the meaning of human life, or of organic life altogether? To answer this question at all implies a religion. Is there any sense then, you ask, in putting it? I answer, the man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost disqualified for life.

and

The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious -the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science.

Algernon Black:

Why not let people differ about their answers to the great mysteries of the Universe? Let each seek one's own way to the highest, to one's own sense of supreme loyalty in life, one's ideal of life. Let each philosophy, each world-view bring forth its truth and beauty to a larger perspective, that people may grow in vision, stature and dedication.

F. Forrester Church:

Religion is the human response to being alive and having to die.

Margaret Mead:

We will be a better country when each religious group can trust its members to obey the dictates of their own religious faith without assistance from the legal structure of their country.

23535. angel-five - 8/18/2004 9:14:52 AM

Mark Twain:

Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion- several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight.

H.L. Mencken:

We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

Stewart Holbrook:

Almost everyone who has read history in a more than casual manner knows that when the great figure of God appears in a controversy, the shooting cannot be far off.

G.K. Chesterton:

It is the test of a good religion whether you can make a joke about it.

Lord Acton:

Fanaticism in religion is the alliance of the passions she condemns with the dogmas she professes.

Mohandas Gandhi:

Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is.

and

It is easy enough to be friendly to one's friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion. The other is mere business.

Pearl S. Buck:

It may be that religion is dead, and if it is, we had better know it and set ourselves to try to discover other sources of moral strength before it is too late.

Theodore Dreiser:

If I were personally to define religion I would say that it is a bandage that man has invented to protect a soul made bloody by circumstance.

23536. The Summer Woman - 8/18/2004 9:18:37 AM

Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is.

I like that one very much. Seems to describe the thread quite well, too.

23537. angel-five - 8/18/2004 9:26:47 AM

I would like to suggest it for a link here

Done.

23538. pelty - 8/18/2004 5:17:18 PM

"If this is the case (and nearly everyone holds it to be so) then you can't really decide what's seamlessly a part of the book and what's an insert -- at least, you can't do so as easily as Pelty would."

Maybe not as regards the whole letter, but it is not always difficult to find potential seams. BTW, I have never claimed that the book is seamless, although most do see it as a unified work. You are certainly correct that we are seeing half of a conversation (which may well account for some of the seams just as easily as the notion that we have a couple of letters patched together), but your despair over determining seams is *perhaps* (in other words, you may also be right; there is obviously no consensus on this passage) overdone, at least in regards to our passage. In this instance, I think it *may* be possible that such a seam has been identified.

One thing I would like to see, and if you can pull anything up on this A-5, I would appreciate it, is whether we have evidence of the type of epistolary pastiche that you talk about occurring elsewhere in the ancient world. That is, was it commonplace for people to "glue" letters (or other works) together into a unified whole or is this pretty much the only evidence for it? If you don't have time to do such a search, I understand. This question was brought up on a Pauline discussion list, but no one was really able to give a conclusive answer on this; maybe my luck will be better here?

23539. judithathome - 8/18/2004 5:49:39 PM

with one exception that I think is crucial to changing the way our society views men and conception: as soon as they understand "where babies come from" little boys need to be told what they have to do with creating babies. Not to do so is to leave a hole in their sense of self that doesn't get filled until the demands of puberty put sex, rather than fatherhood, in the forefront of how they define themselves. If it is understood that men and women create human beings, it becomes possible to make the role, and the responsibility, of fatherhood central to a male child's sense of self.

What a fine idea! I think this would go a long way to solving some of the problems teenage boys have with their attitudes about women and sex. These days, they get so many of their ideas from rap videos and popular culture.

23540. judithathome - 8/18/2004 5:51:36 PM

Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is.

This one gets my vote.

But I like ths one, too:

The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious -the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science.

23541. angel-five - 8/18/2004 9:48:43 PM

Maybe not as regards the whole letter, but it is not always difficult to find potential seams. BTW, I have never claimed that the book is seamless, although most do see it as a unified work.

But the question is very important to your stance, which is, why, one senses, you are happy enough leaving your stance upon it so vague. Because none of the answers can be good for fundamentalism. If the letter is a whole then you have a clearly sexist Paul. If the letter is a compilation of Paul's letters, then you have the questions of who compiled them, what drove the editing process, and why it was presented as an authentic epistle, and you still have a clearly sexist Paul.

If the letter has interpolations not written by Paul -- or if the letter is a compilation which has been subject to these interpolations as well -- then the news is even worse. About the only person for whom the news is good is Paul, because the bright side of this for fundamentalists is that they can infer, wherever something disagreeable is found in 1 Corinthians, that Paul didn't write it. But Paul's dead and doesn't much care now, so it sucks that that's the limit of the good news.

The bad news is that you have a tradition which has rested upon biblical infallibility and clear, unmolested authorship of 1 Corinthians, which in turn depended upon the idea that this work came into being honestly and was preserved from the days of Paul. This has taken a lot of faith, but it has been the prevailing view.

23542. angel-five - 8/18/2004 9:48:58 PM

If it is decided that other people wrote whatever they liked into the manuscript AND did so thoroughly enough that different versions of that manuscript all included the gloss AND were thought authentic, the obvious question that is raised is -- what else wasn't written by Paul?

And let's be clear -- you have no way, whatsoever, of determining what is Pauline and what isn't. All you can do is determine what is a bad interpolation -- by word choice, by incongruity, by inclusion of ideas or data that historically don't appear until later.

But you have no apparatus for determining the skillful interpolations from the rest of the text, and once you have accepted that people could plug in what they like and have it be accepted as authentic -- yes, even bits that you now find easy to say 'that's different from its surroundings', especially those -- then you have thrown the doors open wide to all manner of possibilities which are more subtle than the one you speak of now.

This is, of course, one of the reasons why so many people have argued so hard for the authenticity of 1 Corinthians.

If you admit that the 'detection process' could be compromised in those early days, to the extent that multiple versions of the text have the same interpolation, and to the degree necessary for them to overlook what seems to you to be an easy to see interpolation, and that moreover the two ensuing millennia would pass and at the end of them the vast majority of Christian scholars would still argue that 1 Corinthians is of one piece.... then you are, unfortunately, admitting that far subtler revisions may have gone unchallenged until now.

23543. angel-five - 8/18/2004 9:51:47 PM

So, in light of this, Pelty, the question as to what you do believe becomes a bit more pressing. It's obvious that the hedging and 'maybes' are convenient to your stance as you can enjoy the best of both worlds --depending upon solid Pauline authenticity when it suits you, excising unfortunate quotes when it suits you. Too convenient for my tastes. So, is 1 Corinthians an authentic Pauline letter, or has it been compromised by other sources? One or the other.

23544. pelty - 8/18/2004 10:10:35 PM

"If it is decided that other people wrote whatever they liked into the manuscript AND did so thoroughly enough that different versions of that manuscript all included the gloss AND were thought authentic, the obvious question that is raised is -- what else wasn't written by Paul?"

I think you misjudge the manuscript evidence (assuming you have looked at it). The *vast* majority of manuscripts, early and late, are in agreement about what the text of a letter like 1 Cor says. Now, to be clear, this does not mean that there are not variants to be found; clearly there are. These variants, though, do not represent fundamental shifts in vocabulary, letter structure, etc. This is why the passage in dispute stands out to scholars as something relatively unusual.

23545. PelleNilsson - 8/18/2004 10:10:52 PM

This "one or the other" stuff reminds me of Ace.

23546. pelty - 8/18/2004 10:11:03 PM

"And let's be clear -- you have no way, whatsoever, of determining what is Pauline and what isn't."

Agreed. There is no way to know for sure that Paul wrote any of these letters, but only the most hardened skeptic would say he did not write the "core four", whether through an amanuenses or by his own hand.

"But you have no apparatus for determining the skillful interpolations from the rest of the text, and once you have accepted that people could plug in what they like and have it be accepted as authentic -- yes, even bits that you now find easy to say 'that's different from its surroundings', especially those -- then you have thrown the doors open wide to all manner of possibilities which are more subtle than the one you speak of now."

23547. pelty - 8/18/2004 10:11:11 PM

In a way, you are right. If someone is skillful enough to have forged a portion of the letter at an early enough date that it was faithfully reproduced in the vast majority of manuscripts, then we would almost certainly not be able to tell. Has this happened? Possibly. That said, where we do have early attestation to Pauline sayings (and by early I mean late-1st cent to early-2nd cent) they line up w/ the extant letters. One could argue that these works have been corrected to line up w/ the Pauline materials, I suppose, but most are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to these materials it seems.

The problem w/ your approach is that it is not a very practical way to approach ancient texts because we would ultimately have to say "we don't know" about almost every facet of antiquity. Ultimately, I suppose that *is* the answer and I am OK w/ that to some extent, but in order to work w/ the extant materials, we have to assume that, in this case, the materials were not compromised at so early a juncture that the changes would be virtually undetectable. It makes me wonder, though, if we are not giving enough credit to those who valued the letters as documents to be kept (and this appears to have been the case early on; cf. 1 Clement). Would they have been interested in preserving the words of the founder of their congregation? Possibly, maybe even probably. If so, would they then feel comfortable manipulating them? A definite "maybe," but not a "definitely".

23548. angel-five - 8/18/2004 10:16:36 PM

This "one or the other" stuff reminds me of Ace.

Bite your tongue. It has got to be one or the other, and I was trying to forestall more waffling.

23549. pelty - 8/18/2004 10:18:06 PM

"Too convenient for my tastes."

Perhaps, but that is the way of scholarship. Very little is "certain" when it comes to these issues.

"So, is 1 Corinthians an authentic Pauline letter, or has it been compromised by other sources? One or the other."

But that is the problem. It does not *have* to be one or the other. Something can be genuinely Pauline and yet, when it stands out as something that does not "fit" from a text critical perspective, can have elements that may not be original. Again, we can never know for sure if their are early, undetectable interpolations, but some certainly posit that the 1 Cor 14 passage is a later, detectable one. FWIW, the scholars who make this claim are not of a conservative stripe, at least not the claimants of which I am aware. They may have their own agendas, I grant you, but this should not be painted as a conservative position trying to PC-ify Paul. I imagine many in the conservative pews would stand by this statement and apply it in ways that you, woden, et al suggest.

23550. angel-five - 8/18/2004 10:37:23 PM

This is why the passage in dispute stands out to scholars as something relatively unusual.

This is why the passage in dispute stands out to a small minority of scholars as soemthing relatively unusual, you mean.

There is no way to know for sure that Paul wrote any of these letters, but only the most hardened skeptic would say he did not write the "core four", whether through an amanuenses or by his own hand.

Are you then a hardened skeptic? Because you seem to be saying that there are parts of 1 Corinthians he did not write -- at least, you are doing so when it's convenient. And as I have brought up, you can't just firewall it off at one passage -- either the text was altered or it wasn't, and if it was, the doors are thrown open to other interpolations, alterations and bits of selective editing. So what is it, did Paul write the passage or didn't he, in your opinion?

That said, where we do have early attestation to Pauline sayings (and by early I mean late-1st cent to early-2nd cent) they line up w/the extant letters. One could argue that these works have been corrected to line up w/ the Pauline materials, I suppose, but most are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to these materials it seems.

Most not including you, at least when it's convenient to your argument, Pelty.

And there are many explanations as to why the sayings could be attested to by other people which do not depend upon 1 Corinthians being an authentic, unmolested work. The first and most obvious is that this wasn't the modern world, and most of the people who encountered Paul's teachings and sayings probably did so second-hand, through letters, through arguments, through other preachers, etc. These people didn't spend two years in a room with him getting to know what he'd say and what he wouldn't.

23551. angel-five - 8/18/2004 10:37:58 PM

Another obvious choice is that these attestations do not extend to cover the whole of 1 Corinthians. They instead focus on bits and pieces of it. So the attestations can't be used to substantiate the authenticity of 1 Corinthians. At most they can be used to substantiate parts of 1 Corinthians as being, probably, Pauline. But that obviously doesn't bear on whether Paul wrote all of it, or whether he wrote 1 Corinthians in one piece, or whether other people put what they found convenient into it, does it?

The problem w/ your approach is that it is not a very practical way to approach ancient texts because we would ultimately have to say "we don't know" about almost every facet of antiquity. Ultimately, I suppose that *is* the answer and I am OK w/ that to some extent,.

Oh, I completely agree that a) we don't know is the ultimate answer and b) in order to do any work from the text you have to make some assumptions and c) that isn't unreasonable to do, if you want to do your exegesis.

The problem is manifest, nonetheless, that somewhere between point A and point B the assumptions become forgotten for what they are, and are instead represented as ground truths. Most Christian discussion on the epistles requires those assumptions to be made, and when people argue their conclusions they can't afford to dwell on the fact that assumptions were necessary. Well, it's all well and good for people to say 'what if' for the purposes of exploratory readings, but that uncertaintly can't be conveniently discarded along the way when it suits us. All readings of this text should be heavily marked by the caveat that 'No, really, honestly, we don't know'. Almost none of them are.

23552. angel-five - 8/18/2004 10:38:49 PM

we have to assume that, in this case, the materials were not compromised at so early a juncture that the changes would be virtually undetectable.

When the issue of authorship and authenticity of the materials come to the forefront, however, you end up begging your own question. You're basically building a case for Pauline authenticity in 1 Corinthians and other epistles that depends upon the assumption that 1 Corinthians and other epistles haven't been compromised!

This is why I don't accept your current line of argument and why I am repeatedly pressing you for something more substantial.

23553. angel-five - 8/18/2004 10:49:10 PM

"So, is 1 Corinthians an authentic Pauline letter, or has it been compromised by other sources? One or the other."

But that is the problem. It does not *have* to be one or the other. Something can be genuinely Pauline and yet, when it stands out as something that does not "fit" from a text critical perspective, can have elements that may not be original.

(See, Pelle?)

If it has elements that may not be original, then it follows a priori that the letter has been compromised by other sources! For you to say anything else is silly!

What you want to argue is that the presence of an interpolation doesn't mean that there are no unmolested authentic Pauline bits in the epistle, or even that these bits aren't 95% of the epistle. But you know, I believe, that you can't do that directly anymore. Instead you have to admit that you're assuming that's what's happening, which is useful to your position but, despite what you insinuate, not good scholarship at all, especially when someone has to drag the admission out of you that it's all heavily dependent upon assumption, and when you are obviously reluctant to bring this admission to bear upon your conclusion and whether or not 1 Corinthians was authentic.

Look, this is all very simple. You have yourself admitted that you have to make the assumption that it is mostly if not all authentic, and you have admitted that you cannot tell interpolation from text if it was done skillfully enough -- i.e. if it isn't clumsy. You have admitted that 1 Corinthians is a response to other letters and that therefore one can't just necessarily read it with an eye for organic smoothness to determine what is and is not an interpolation, even a clunky one. So put it all together.

Don't just say 'well that's scholarship' if the results bear on the point.

23554. pelty - 8/18/2004 11:03:45 PM

"This is why the passage in dispute stands out to a small minority of scholars as soemthing relatively unusual, you mean."

Do you even know what you are talking about? It is by no means a "small minority" of scholars. I won't venture a guess, as I have not taken a poll on the issue, but it is not some fringe element that has at least called the section into question.

"So what is it, did Paul write the passage or didn't he, in your opinion?"

Round and round we go. The answer is, "I don't know. Maybe, maybe not." I am not saying this to be purposefully evasive, honestly. I simply do not have the foggiest idea whether this was written by him or not.

23555. pelty - 8/18/2004 11:04:14 PM

"When the issue of authorship and authenticity of the materials come to the forefront, however, you end up begging your own question. You're basically building a case for Pauline authenticity in 1 Corinthians and other epistles that depends upon the assumption that 1 Corinthians and other epistles haven't been compromised!"

Well, again, this is based on text critical methods that demonstrate that the text as we have it is relatively solid (given allowances for variants, etc. If you will, grant me that I am aware of variants and other textual issues surrounding all NT docs). I am not alone in this; the whole academic community agrees that 1 Cor is authentically "Pauline." I say this not to appeal to authority, but simply to say that this is a working assumption in biblical studies.

I grant you that there is the possibility of compromise at an early period, although I think a case can be made for an early cognizance of these works as "authoritative" or "scripture" and thus there would likely have been a move to be a bit more protective of these texts, but we cannot assume this. If there was a compromise of the texts at the earliest juncture, then there is no way to detect it. Period. Therefore, I grant you your point that I build my case on texts that *could* have been compromised at an early juncture. But if you have a problem w/ this, then you need to take up your issue not only w/ me, but also w/ biblical scholarship as a whole. Further, if this is the stance you prefer, we are at an impasse.

23556. pelty - 8/18/2004 11:04:24 PM

" At most they can be used to substantiate parts of 1 Corinthians as being, probably, Pauline. But that obviously doesn't bear on whether Paul wrote all of it, or whether he wrote 1 Corinthians in one piece, or whether other people put what they found convenient into it, does it?"

No, and I thought I was careful in my presentation of this. It clearly only confirms that the selected passages are the same as the letters we now accept as Pauline; it tells us very little about whether the letters from which these passages came resembled our current forms.

23557. angel-five - 8/19/2004 12:03:14 AM

It is by no means a "small minority" of scholars. I won't venture a guess, as I have not taken a poll on the issue, but it is not some fringe element that has at least called the section into question.

Let me phrase this in an unmistakable way. In the same series of posts you say that the entire academic community is sure that 1 Corinthians is Pauline: I am not alone in this; the whole academic community agrees that 1 Cor is authentically "Pauline." I say this not to appeal to authority, but simply to say that this is a working assumption in biblical studies. And then you say Do you even know what you are talking about? It is by no means a "small minority" of scholars [that think the passage in question in 1 Corinthians 14 stands out as something unusual]. I won't venture a guess, as I have not taken a poll on the issue, but it is not some fringe element that has at least called the section into question.

This may be compatible, but you are using the arguments to two different and incompatible purposes. And, as you yourself have acknowledged and I have linked, "the whole academic community" is by no means in agreement that 1 Corinthians is authentically Pauline.

Round and round we go. The answer is, "I don't know. Maybe, maybe not." I am not saying this to be purposefully evasive, honestly. I simply do not have the foggiest idea whether this was written by him or not.

This would be a lot more convincing if you weren't talking up the 'maybe not' when Paul says something we don't like, and 'maybe' when you want to say that 1 Corinthians is authentically Pauline. When the discussion was on 1 Corinthians 14 as it possibly bore upon whether Paul's doctrine was sexist, your statements were certainly not 'foggy'. And when you say 'the entire academic community is in agreement that 1 Corinthians is authentically Pauline', that isn't foggy.

23558. angel-five - 8/19/2004 12:03:27 AM

You are using the ostensive 'uncertainty' as two definite positions, in fact! And when it's pointed out that they're mutually incompatible you say 'Well, I don't really know, haven't got the foggiest, actually'. You understand why this might cause some people to find your position to be nothing more than epistemological sophistry and willful fallacy, right?

Well, again, this is based on text critical methods that demonstrate that the text as we have it is relatively solid

The basis of these methods depends upon the base assumption that you have already acknowledged is only an assumption. Therefore it is somewhat dishonest, or sloppy, to use the methods to support your argument when the subject is whether or not the basis for the methods is sound.

Therefore, I grant you your point that I build my case on texts that *could* have been compromised at an early juncture.

Or texts that were never uncompromised! Or texts that were assembled out of authentically Pauline material (i.e. the two letters) but, due to the definition of 'authentic', are not themselves authentic. I could take 1 and 2 Corinthians and assemble them into something which says, as a whole, something completely different than what you'd argue Paul was actually saying.

If nothing else, the posts of the last few days raise the serious question as to whether 'Pauline authenticity' and 1 Corinthians is a simulacrum. Given that the shape of the Christian church depends very, very heavily upon the Pauline school, this is an extremely significant question, and despite what I cited above you prefer to just gloss over it and assume that what you're arguing for is actually true. (Which does, I'll grant, make it a lot easier for the argument! But is unfortunately neither logical nor scholarly nor sound.)

23559. angel-five - 8/19/2004 12:06:32 AM

But if you have a problem w/ this, then you need to take up your issue not only w/ me, but also w/ biblical scholarship as a whole. Further, if this is the stance you prefer, we are at an impasse.

It isn't 'biblical scholarship as a whole', Pelty, which agrees with your position here. It is only the biblical scholarship which agrees with your position, which agrees with your position, if you will.

What's the impasse? You've already admitted that your assumptions are assumptions, that you can only identify 'obvious' interpolations, etc. There is a way to move forward from this. You just don't wish to walk it, because you think it will undermine your point.

23560. pelty - 8/19/2004 12:28:21 AM

"And, as you yourself have acknowledged and I have linked, "the whole academic community" is by no means in agreement that 1 Corinthians is authentically Pauline."

Let's look at your posts again. First, there is this:

1 Corinthians 50-56 CE 50-56 CE Paul [NOTE THAT IT IS NOT "DISPUTED"]

Then there is this: Paul's authorship of 1 Corinthians, apart from a few verses that some regard as later interpolations [DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR?], has never been seriously questioned. Some scholars have proposed, however, that the letter as we have it contains portions of more than one original Pauline letter. We know that Paul wrote at least two other letters to Corinth (see 1 Cor 5:9; 2 Cor 2:3-4) in addition to the two that we now have; this theory holds that the additional letters are actually contained within the two canonical ones. Most commentators, however, find 1 Corinthians quite understandable as a single coherent work."

23561. pelty - 8/19/2004 12:28:29 AM

So how is it that you have established 1 Cor as not authentically Pauline? Beyond the stance that I have granted that there is at least the possibility of early, undetectable interpolations, this repeats pretty much what I have been saying. This certainly represents what the majority of scholarship thinks about 1 Cor.

Now, if we want to use your stance as a starting point, that we can never be 100% sure that Paul wrote 1 Cor, then that is fine, but then there is really nothing to debate. That said, you really have to throw out almost every text that we attribute to a person from antiquity as we ultimately have no way of knowing whether or not they *really* wrote something. Did Plato write "Timaeus" or is it simply the figment of another person's imagination that decided to attribute it to Plato? Are there portions w/in the work that are really not Plato's? If so, we cannot speak of the work as being Platonic nor can we understand what "Platonic thought" really is. This is an extreme approach to historical study and ultimately allows us to draw no reasonable conclusions. Is this the approach you wish to take? If so, I have nothing further to add because there is no way around your basic presuppositions. If you wish to take a more reasonable approach, then perhaps there will be more to discuss.

23562. anomie - 8/19/2004 12:50:34 AM

Summer Women,

I caught your commenst about the man's role in procreation, and child rearing. Perhaps we can take the topic to Gender or here later. It's an interesting topic.

An observation that may color every aspect of the topic is that the man's role is seen mostly in terms of dollars. Everything else runs a distant second.

23563. uzmakk - 8/19/2004 12:56:43 AM

You're not going to get me to nurture a wee bern, anomie.

23564. anomie - 8/19/2004 12:58:26 AM

a wee bern? Translation?

23565. uzmakk - 8/19/2004 12:59:32 AM

small baby

23566. anomie - 8/19/2004 1:27:10 AM

Oh. Hey Uz! Howzitgoin?

And, I'm not in the nurturing time of my life either. But those grown kids never stop appreciating the check.

23567. anomie - 8/19/2004 1:27:25 AM

Oh. Hey Uz! Howzitgoin?

And, I'm not in the nurturing time of my life either. But those grown kids never stop appreciating the occasional check.

23568. uzmakk - 8/19/2004 3:39:44 AM

The grown kids have to settle for attention from the crusty old bastard. Nurturing is out of the question.

23569. anomie - 8/19/2004 3:52:06 AM

I take it you're not a nuturer, then. Now, just how do you feel about that, Uz?

Ha!

23570. angel-five - 8/19/2004 4:07:30 AM

Then there is this: Paul's authorship of 1 Corinthians, apart from a few verses that some regard as later interpolations [DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR?], has never been seriously questioned. Some scholars have proposed, however, that the letter as we have it contains portions of more than one original Pauline letter. We know that Paul wrote at least two other letters to Corinth (see 1 Cor 5:9; 2 Cor 2:3-4) in addition to the two that we now have; this theory holds that the additional letters are actually contained within the two canonical ones. Most commentators, however, find 1 Corinthians quite understandable as a single coherent work."

Yes, let's look at that again. Do you spot the difference between 'I am not alone in this; the whole academic community agrees that 1 Cor is authentically "Pauline." ', the phrase you used in Message # 23555 and 'Most commentators, however, find 1 Corinthians quite understandable as a single coherent work.' which I cited in Message # 23525 and you again cited in Message # 23560? I am sure you do, as you initially agreed with the latter! Where? In Message # 23520 where you said 'I will mention why *some* scholars think 1 Cor 14 is not an original part of what most take to be an authentically Pauline letter.'

In other words, the cite you re-cited proves my point, which was that you were backsliding on your terms in order to artificially strengthen your point for the moment.

My guess is that you didn't like that, because you launch into a few straw men in your next post.

23571. angel-five - 8/19/2004 4:08:20 AM

So how is it that you have established 1 Cor as not authentically Pauline?

Where did I say that it wasn't authentically Pauline? To take a page from you, all I said was that there is scholarly doubt about it --but unlike you, I don't then argue both sides of the doubt depending on whichever best supports my point at the moment, Pelty.

Beyond the stance that I have granted that there is at least the possibility of early, undetectable interpolations, this repeats pretty much what I have been saying.

Why do they have to be both early and undetectable? All they have to be is ones you haven't detected, and as at least a significant portion of Pauline scholarship is in debate as to whether the verse in 1 Cor 14 is a later interpolation, it's not as if we're talking about going over the documents with foolproof science. It's educated guesswork. Your argument is that the verse from 14 is suspect because a few texts differ on its placement and because it can be excised and the surrounding verses make coherent sense to you. Well, tell me something, Pelty -- what other verses in Corinthians can either of these be said about?

This [i.e. my cite] certainly represents what the majority of scholarship thinks about 1 Cor.

What's 'this'? That there are interpolations? That some think that there are interpolations? That some think 1 Corinthians is a composition of more than one letter? I thought you were saying that 'the whole academic community' thought it was authentically Pauline. What is it that the majority of scholarship (not the whole academic community, now) thinks about 1 Cor? Please be specific as your vague terminology has caused us much digression and unnecessary delay, not to mention it has raised serious points about your argument.

23572. angel-five - 8/19/2004 4:09:34 AM

Now, if we want to use your stance as a starting point, that we can never be 100% sure that Paul wrote 1 Cor, then that is fine, but then there is really nothing to debate. That said, you really have to throw out almost every text that we attribute to a person from antiquity as we ultimately have no way of knowing whether or not they *really* wrote something.

This is a red herring and a false duality all at once. That's hard to pull off, you know. But it wouldn't be necessary at all if you simply did address my real position.

Your position has been that scholarship can distinguish between authentically Pauline letters and ones that are not, authentically Pauline verses and later glosses. This cannot be done with 100% certainty as you have noted, and parts of it come with much less certainty than others. My stated position is rather similar to this. Why then would you seek to reduce my own position -- which partially draws upon the very scholarship that you are using as your authority --to 'we cannot say at all whether anything was authored by anyone?' I do wonder why you're having difficulty addressing what I have actually said, and sticking to the same qualifiers and terms as you make your argument.

23573. angel-five - 8/19/2004 4:10:48 AM

The reality is that while, yes, in a Humean sense we can't be sure whether or not anything is real, in pragmatic practice we do have the tools of inquiry. I believe in using them.

I also note that you're back to ignoring about 95% of the points I make. Do you understand that you can't make the authority of the scholarship the thrust of your argument when the query involves whether the scholarship is correct? Do you understand that the methodology and conclusion of the scholarship is itself at question? Do you understand that once you start arguing for the existence of interpolations which were accepted by the early Church as authentic and indeed are still accepted by a lot of people today as authentic, that you cannot simply stop it there, that you cannot limit yourself to 'early' and 'undetectable' alterations to the text when the only limitation is that they had to be Pauline enough for people to buy them? That the method of dating variant versions of the texts is itself largely dependent upon the accepted Pauline order which is in turn dependent upon the methodology and conclusion which we're questioning, which are indeed at the unavoidable heart of our inquiry?

This isn't a matter of 100% certainty or none at all. To take a page from your own statements, however, it does draw the entire process into serious question. Your problem is not that you can't be 100% sure ever of anything, but that you only want to be unsure about some things, and aren't willing to be as unsure about others, regardless of their actual probability of being true.

Whether or not we can continue the discussion, Pelty, isn't dependent upon whether I abandon a fallaciously derived point of view which I never held. It's whether you're willing to cease with the straw men and red herrings and address what I am saying, in clear English. Are you?

23574. angel-five - 8/19/2004 4:11:58 AM

It's 'bairn', but what do rhino-riding barbarians know about Scots?

23575. uzmakk - 8/19/2004 4:22:11 AM

Who said anything about Scots?

23576. uzmakk - 8/19/2004 4:25:42 AM

Greetings, A-5. To spend any time here on the Mote would take a great deal of time and effort; so much needs correction.

23577. angel-five - 8/19/2004 5:22:18 AM

The work of an apocalyptic nomad is never done.

23578. Magoseph - 8/19/2004 6:34:41 AM

To spend any time here on the Mote would take a great deal of time and effort; so much needs correction.

Tell us about the corections the Mote needs in Suggestions, why don't you?

23579. The Summer Woman - 8/19/2004 6:59:51 AM

anomie - I will certainly check out the gender thread.

Thank you.

23580. pelty - 8/19/2004 7:14:23 AM

A-5,

Let me put it to you this way. I have never met a person in my academic pursuits who has not thought that 1 Cor. is authentically Paul. I study under one of the more "liberal" of academics; he is not willing to grant anything beyond the "core four" as being Pauline. Perhaps, depending on what he had for lunch, he may even grant 1 Thess. So you can play the pedant and say that not *every* scholar believes 1 Cor to be authentically Pauline, but in everything I have read, everyone I have been in discussions with, and everyone I listen to at conferences, etc., 1 Cor. is understood to be Pauline. I have used "some" and "most" simply because I prefer to be cautious. I do not know *for sure* that everyone holds this position, but the vast, vast majority do. While you seem to want to have everything in black and white, it just ain't so. There are shades of grey. Here's an idea: examine the manuscript evidence, internalize the variants and their impact on the letter, and then draw your conclusions. If you decide that there is too much in there that we cannot be sure about vis a vis Pauline authorship, then take the agnostic position on it and be done w/ it.

23581. pelty - 8/19/2004 7:14:31 AM

"Why do they have to be both early and undetectable? All they have to be is ones you haven't detected, and as at least a significant portion of Pauline scholarship is in debate as to whether the verse in 1 Cor 14 is a later interpolation, it's not as if we're talking about going over the documents with foolproof science."

Again, do the text critical work and get back to me. No one claims text criticism is a foolproof science, but it can at least demonstrate whether the text we have in hand is established and does a good job of finding interpolations or scribal error when they can be detected. It is not foolproof, but it is what we do.

"Do you understand that you can't make the authority of the scholarship the thrust of your argument when the query involves whether the scholarship is correct?"

You are the one making a claim against the accepted position. Prove your point. You have not done so thus far. That there are interpolations does not bother scholars as we understand that they occur and are able to be sniffed out. You may argue that there are some we might miss, but if they are, then they were probably inserted and normalized prior to the advent of the extant manuscript tradition and ergo we will never know about them. So prove that 1 Cor is not Pauline. You will not be able to do so anymore than I can "prove" it is. Tell me, what other factors lead scholars to view 1 Cor as authentic? What arguments do you mount against these? I am open to being convinced.

23582. angel-five - 8/19/2004 7:46:05 AM

I grant you that there is the possibility of compromise at an early period, although I think a case can be made for an early cognizance of these works as "authoritative" or "scripture" and thus there would likely have been a move to be a bit more protective of these texts, but we cannot assume this.

Here's one nexus of this issue that confuses me as to your argument.

You see, you are already arguing (depending on the point at hand, either strongly or cautiously) that the texts have probably been compromised. You say this specifically in reference to 1 Corinthians 14 although it is not the only case where Pauline epistles are supposed to have potentially been altered. This compromising is something that, even today, with the staggering weight of analysis that has been poured onto the Pauline epistles in the last two thousand years, people are still divided on as to whether or not it happened.

Your implication is that it's obvious to a lot of people that the verse in 1 Cor 14 at least LOOKS like an interpolation, and that this notion is at least partially supportable, although no more than that, by the textual evidence. Your other implication (correct me if I'm wrong) is that this is NOT an early compromising of the text.

Yet you argue in the cite above about the possibility that these texts, even early on in the Church, might have been recognized as being important, authoritative works of Scripture, and steps might have been taken to preserve them inviolate. My question is, if later, clumsy interpolations can get into the text and be accepted by most people, how do you think your argument holds up against what you're levelling it against -- other, subtler glosses and the like? Because it seems a very problematic argument to make, especially as you have already agreed to some degree that you can't know with reasonable certainty that the texts haven't been altered in ways you haven't thought of yet.

23583. angel-five - 8/19/2004 7:46:35 AM

The unfortunate fact about most studies of this sort (you'd know more about them than I would) is that they often unfortunately end up falling back on self-referential data. While there are ways to analyze the text based on historical data (some relatively forthright, like, reference to historical happenings, some more complex and hypothetical like the presence or absence of certain ideas and motifs which are thought to have followed a certain timeline of development) there are also ways which end up falling into the category of 'the scholarship says this is what Paul sounds like, the scholarship says this isn't what Paul sounds like'. There are text criticisms, which unfortunately depend upon a weeded corpus of extant texts, not an unmolested historical body of writing that has survived relatively intact to this day but a body of writing that has survived several attempts, by the Church, to find the heresies and burn them throughout the ages.

And of course there's a disquieting truth in all this, which is, that most of the people doing research on Paul and the early Church already have a well-developed ideology about what those two things are supposed to be like, not to mention those who have strong religious convictions about Christianity and/or work for the Church itself. This isn't molecules in a flask or anything so scientific -- as you say this is criticism, which when applied to the Bible usually leaves the standard rules of literary criticism far behind... and literary criticism is hardly a science itself.

What I'm getting at is that the uncertainty mounts up after a while to a degree which precludes your statements, even swaddled in foggy 'possiblys' and 'maybes'. Can we say anything is or is not Pauline with 100% surety? We can't say anything is anything with 100% surety.

23584. angel-five - 8/19/2004 7:46:44 AM

Can we say anything is or is not Pauline with 100% surety beyond a reasonable doubt? (Which is more or less the basis for what we think of as proof.) The answer is no, unfortunately, due to many factors like the self-referentiality of much Bible study, like the Church's propensity from time to time to burn the works which it hasn't pronounced acceptable or canonical, and like the idea that a lot of Biblical scholarship never gets very far from the preconceived notions of the scholar, and like the idea that there is no such thing as Biblical scholarship which isn't impinged upon, in some fashion, by the political realities surrounding anything to do with the Bible and its schools of interpretation. This is serious 'A Canticle for Leibowitz' territory, you know.

However, as you no doubt would stridently argue, this doesn't mean we can't say anything about the so called gospel of Paul. We can obviously say some things, at least on the basis of establishing them beyond reasonable doubts --this is your argument, and I do agree with it to some extent. The problem is that the certainty required for your selective excisions of Paul is about five sigmas past that point of reasonable doubt, IMO, and to take up the slack you end up imputing your own belief system.

It isn't accidental, you know, that we're having this argument about a passage that is extremely controversial by modern standards of gender equality, as opposed to something comparably insignificant. It isn't accidental that there is such a weight of scholarship insisting various things about 1 Cor 14 and not, say, the incest passage in 1 Cor 5. And it isn't accidental that you bring 'interpolation' arguments to bear in this case. I believe that what you want to believe is driving your argumentation, and not the other way around.

23585. angel-five - 8/19/2004 8:00:52 AM

So you can play the pedant and say that not *every* scholar believes 1 Cor to be authentically Pauline, but in everything I have read, everyone I have been in discussions with, and everyone I listen to at conferences, etc., 1 Cor. is understood to be Pauline.

You would prefer to level this argument against me, I know, from the position of your authority as part of the biblical scholarship tradition. But I did link three cites which raise issues about the authorship of 1 Corinthians. You tell me to take it up with biblical scholarship -- very well. You do the same.

. While you seem to want to have everything in black and white, it just ain't so. There are shades of grey.

You don't say? That's been my argument for quite some time, now, Pelty. Rather rich of you to discover it just now.

Again, do the text critical work and get back to me.

Please, as if this isn't a smokescreen. I'm talking to you, and you are proffering arguments. You can't fob them off now and say 'well, go do the work yourself'. You put them up and I'm addressing them, and if you don't want to continue there are more honest ways of saying so.

No one claims text criticism is a foolproof science, but it can at least demonstrate whether the text we have in hand is established and does a good job of finding interpolations or scribal error when they can be detected. It is not foolproof, but it is what we do.

And that is fine, so long as you do not attempt to put more weight on the verity of your findings than is due, and that is what you try to do from time to time. 'What you do' is the best you can given the constraints of your subject matter, Pelty, but you shouldn't mistake 'best we can do' with 'sufficient to substantiate all we want to substantiate'.

23586. angel-five - 8/19/2004 8:01:29 AM

You are the one making a claim against the accepted position. Prove your point.

Once again, this is a straw man. You're the one saying what can and can't be excised as an interpolation. This isn't an accepted position in your community, but depends rather heavily upon other things, as you yourself have already said! What I'm doing is making the case against your case, and I am making it, which is probably why you are anxious to stand behind the rock of authority at this point.

So prove that 1 Cor is not Pauline. You will not be able to do so anymore than I can "prove" it is.

Fortunately this isn't what I'm interested in doing. It is enough for me to cite people who find it possible that it is now (after all, that's all you're doing, right? Not making definite statements, but just voicing careful possibilities, and finding the presence of those possibilities enough to incite caution in deciding whether or not Paul had a sexist vision.) Now suddenly you want it to be definitive! That's strange, old chap.

The point at hand is that good arguments against your stance (that you can clearly decide what is and is not Pauline based upon text incongruity and so on) do exist. Were I like you, I'd at this point say 'Take it up with them!' But I'm not doing that, because I'm advancing the argument myself, just as you have for your position.

23587. The Summer Woman - 8/19/2004 8:05:54 AM

The problems of language translation must also be dealt with here. Maybe even before the techniques of redaction criticism can be addressed. Alas, these can only be discussed with any depth whatsoever by those who can actually read the texts in their original languages, and I am not one of those. Sigh.

23588. angel-five - 8/19/2004 8:06:36 AM

possible that it is now

should read

possible that it is not authentically Pauline

There should be no amphiboly upon what we mean when we say authentic and Pauline. Is 2 Corinthians thought to be Pauline? Yes, it is thought to be assembled from Paul's letters and express his beliefs. Is it thought to be authentic? No, it is not thought to have been written, as it now stands, by Paul.

The arguments in the cites I made about 1 Cor aren't that it isn't Pauline, but rather that it isn't authentic. And fortunately, my argument against your 'we can excise this because it doesn't fit the flow of the letter' doesn't depend upon 1 Cor not being Pauline... just that it isn't an authentic seamless letter, and that it is a response to another letter enumerating various things which we do not, and will never, have access to.

So please do stop already with the definitional sliding of who's saying what.

23589. pelty - 8/19/2004 6:20:30 PM

"My question is, if later, clumsy interpolations can get into the text and be accepted by most people, how do you think your argument holds up against what you're levelling it against -- other, subtler glosses and the like?"

This is a fair question and deserves a fair treatment. I am not in the office today and want to bone up a bit myself on the manuscripts (since you won't do it for me!! ;-) ). My guess would be that we are dealing w/ a few (if we are lucky) 3rd cent. manuscripts, a larger quantity of 4-6th cent. manuscripts, and a sizeable amount of medieval texts. Also, as we stated, we have citations of Pauline materials from the 1st two cents., but they can prove only that those particular quotes were attributed to Paul (although this still can be of some help). It can also be stated that letters to the Corinthians were viewed as authoritative and placed in a canon by 150 and then again in 175 (the first by a "heretic", the next by a "proto-orthodox" source) So if there are subtle interps that were placed in the texts prior to the advent of the manuscript tradition, then we will likely never catch them.

23590. pelty - 8/19/2004 6:20:53 PM

However, once we begin to see the manuscripts in quantity, we can start establishing the text, finding variants, etc. If you have eight manuscripts that say A B C and a ninth that says A B D, all other factors being equal (age, scribal quality, manuscript family, etc), we can make a decision. There is a possibility that A B D may be right; sometimes the more difficult reading is the correct one. But often we will go in the opposite direction, again, all things being equal, because of the volume of manuscripts stating it is A B C. Now, this is obviously not foolproof, but you have to realize (and maybe you do) that the type of issues/variants we are talking about here are not usually the addition of passages or even sentences. Usually, it is an obvious scribal error, a change in a verb tense, or the addition of a "Xristou" to "Iesous", that type of thing. So when there are obvious errors and glosses, they are usually detectable. The reason that the 1 Cor 14 passage is a bit more difficult is that the passage is attested pretty well (although I would like to look into this a bit more to be sure on the dates of manuscripts/fragments, etc.), but the placement of it varies. It may well be that it is a "valid" Pauline statement that properly belongs after v 40. It also could be valid as found currently.

23591. pelty - 8/19/2004 6:21:20 PM

"It isn't accidental, you know, that we're having this argument about a passage that is extremely controversial by modern standards of gender equality, as opposed to something comparably insignificant. It isn't accidental that there is such a weight of scholarship insisting various things about 1 Cor 14 and not, say, the incest passage in 1 Cor 5. And it isn't accidental that you bring 'interpolation' arguments to bear in this case. I believe that what you want to believe is driving your argumentation, and not the other way around."

I agree w/ all of this, but I personally have no preference for it to be one way or the other (believe it or not). My point has always been that there is some dispute over Paul's position vis a vis women (which indeed did arise from feminist theology). Many see him as not quite the sexist/misogynist/etc. that you believe him to be. They base this on info gleaned from elsewhere in the "authentic" Pauline texts; further, they advance the possibility of interpolation of 1 Cor 14. There are no guarantees that they (or I) are correct, but at the same time, it is not the "open and shut case" that I feel that you believe it to be.

23592. pelty - 8/19/2004 6:21:30 PM

"But I did link three cites which raise issues about the authorship of 1 Corinthians."

Admittedly, I may have missed the thrust of exactly how you believe Pauline authorship to be called into question w/ your posts. If you have the patience, would you mind laying it out again for me. I read those posts as saying, "These are believed to be Pauline, but may have some interpolations (which is what I am saying and which I take to mean that *they believe* they have *found* these interps). Also, it is possible that we have a couple letters 'pasted' together (which does not make something non-Pauline. Many see 2 Cor as a pastiche of letters, but do not question the Pauline authorship [all] of these letters)." Did I understand your point correctly or did I miss something? If I did understand your point, then I would disagree that these raise questions over the authorship of the letter(s); rather, they raise issues over the form and unity of the letters, which is not the same thing.

23593. angel-five - 8/19/2004 6:59:00 PM

So in other words, there's, what. 100 years between when the letters were allegedly written and when they were first canonized by a heretic. At the time where the Gospels were being written! so it's not as if there wasn't a whole lot of theological elaboration going on. And 1 Cor was sent to a community which, we already know, didn't have any qualms about taking Paul's letters and mashing them together -- we know about 2 Corinthians, after all.

Just to frame the moment for us.

Did I understand your point correctly or did I miss something?

Yes, you missed an entire post. The post right before yours, in fact. Message # 23588

If I did understand your point, then I would disagree that these raise questions over the authorship of the letter(s); rather, they raise issues over the form and unity of the letters, which is not the same thing.

You didn't apparently understand the point. And I do believe you don't understand what reworking form and unity can do to tone, thrust, and theme.

23594. angel-five - 8/19/2004 7:07:06 PM

Let me make the point for you. Here's two of your last three posts redux.

"My question is, if later, clumsy interpolations can get into the text and be accepted by most people, how do you think your argument holds up against what you're levelling it against -- other, subtler glosses and the like?"

I agree w/ all of this, but I personally have no preference for it to be one way or the other (believe it or not). My point has always been that there is some dispute over Paul's position vis a vis women (which indeed did arise from feminist theology). I am not in the office today and want to bone up a bit myself on the manuscripts (since you won't do it for me!! ;-) ).

My guess would be that we are dealing w/ a few (if we are lucky) 3rd cent. manuscripts, a larger quantity of 4-6th cent. manuscripts, and a sizeable amount of medieval texts. Also, as we stated, we have citations of Pauline materials from the 1st two cents., but they can prove only that those particular quotes were attributed to Paul (although this still can be of some help). It can also be stated that letters to the Corinthians were viewed as authoritative and placed in a canon by 150 and then again in 175 (the first by a "heretic", the next by a "proto-orthodox" source) So if there are subtle interps that were placed in the texts prior to the advent of the manuscript tradition, then we will likely never catch them.

If you have eight manuscripts that say A B C and a ninth that says A B D, all other factors being equal (age, scribal quality, manuscript family, etc), we can make a decision. There is a possibility that A B D may be right; sometimes the more difficult reading is the correct one. But often we will go in the opposite direction, again, all things being equal, because of the volume of manuscripts stating it is A B C. Now, this is obviously not foolproof!

23595. angel-five - 8/19/2004 7:07:20 PM

The reason that the 1 Cor 14 passage is a bit more difficult is that the passage is attested pretty well (although I would like to look into this a bit more to be sure on the dates of manuscripts/fragments, etc.), but the placement of it varies. It may well be that it is a "valid" Pauline statement that properly belongs after v 40. It also could be valid as found currently.

"It isn't accidental, you know, that we're having this argument about a passage that is extremely controversial by modern standards of gender equality, as opposed to something comparably insignificant. It isn't accidental that there is such a weight of scholarship insisting various things about 1 Cor 14 and not, say, the incest passage in 1 Cor 5. And it isn't accidental that you bring 'interpolation' arguments to bear in this case. I believe that what you want to believe is driving your argumentation, and not the other way around."

This is a fair question and deserves a fair treatment.

23596. angel-five - 8/19/2004 7:10:02 PM

It took about four minutes.

I also note that you're returning to the sexist argument. I don't know why. You've already admitted that Paul proscribes behaviors based on gender, and justifies it based on differences in the genesis and purpose of that gender. That's sexism by any definition you like. It isn't necessarily misogyny, which is what you consistently argue it is not -- but you need to understand that the two words don't mean the same thing. Do you understand that? Then put it into practice.

23597. judithathome - 8/19/2004 7:49:31 PM

If you'd like to see just how sexist these things are, check out a book called The Excellent Wife. It is being taught in churches across the land in conjunction with counseling sessions for couples whose marriages are faltering. It is based on the writings of Paul.

The girl who cuts my hair showed me her copy yesterday. It looked like a manual for Stepford wives.

23598. jexster - 8/19/2004 8:31:44 PM

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

23599. jexster - 8/19/2004 8:35:12 PM

What does the Catholic Church mean by the phrase, extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

23600. pelty - 8/19/2004 8:49:12 PM

"I also note that you're returning to the sexist argument."

I am not returning to it; it was brought up only because it was the genesis of our discussion and the reason that we flowed into the current discussion. Again, I do not care whether it is or is not sexist, just that there be recognition that it is not at all cut-and-dry.

"That's sexism by any definition you like. It isn't necessarily misogyny, which is what you consistently argue it is not -- but you need to understand that the two words don't mean the same thing."

Yes, but historically, Paul has been portrayed as both, that is why I put them both in there.

23601. pelty - 8/19/2004 8:49:37 PM

"You didn't apparently understand the point. And I do believe you don't understand what reworking form and unity can do to tone, thrust, and theme."

Sure I do, but I am not sure what this has to do w/ whether the original author of the letter(s) is legitimately Paul. Unless you are saying that the split comes at 1 Cor 14 (or thereabouts) and thus causes some confusion. It should be mentioned that that 1 Cor is not unified would be considered a minority position ("Most commentators, however, find 1 Corinthians quite understandable as a single coherent work."). It remains to be proven that the letter should be considered letters (and I am not saying you need to do it, simply that it is not a strong leg upon which you base your argument).

Anyhow, I have a serious set of exams in about a week and really need to concentrate on my studies. I find myself (pleasantly, for the most part) distracted by The Mote and thus will need to postpone further discussion for the next couple of weeks. I will pop in now and again, but I allow this to take up more time than it should, so it will not be as sustained an effort. I apologize for this, but feel it only fair to let you know that I will not be able to devote the time to our discussion that it deserves. I will try to check out the manuscript info as time permits, though.

23602. angel-five - 8/19/2004 9:00:56 PM

Yes, and while the discussion of Paul is interesting, the entire area is pretty gray. We can make guesses and do some forensic analysis but it's mostly about the premises you start with and the case you base off them. We're both making cases, and they aren't epistemologically worthless ones -- but we're dealing with something hidden behind two thousand years worth of history, revision, and a Church which burns the evidence it doesn't like. It's a fun academic discussion in this sense, but most of the evidence is gone, most of the context can only be mocked up, and the main characters aren't about to answer any questions -- leaving behind only a few highly argumentative pieces of work which were polemically penned and assembled in the face of arguments to the contrary.

The last few hundred posts of this thread are proof of how that sort of context can cause a broad point of view to be channeled into a specific set of arguments which do not accurate reflect that point of view! If someone two thousand years from now only had Pelty's posts to go by, they might likely assume he is a passionate proponent of Pauline egalitarianism, focused in on a handful of doctrinal issues which were extremely important to him, and stubbornly insistent about defending the authenticity of a few works! This in turn would shape a Peltian school of thought which, in the round, would be at best a gross distortion of his original point of view.

The matter of modern Christian practice is a different story, one in which better context exists, much more is on the record, and definite cause and effect arguments can be put on the table. Because there are plenty of people for whom interpolations, authorship, etc. are moot points -- they believe the Bible to be wholly inerrant, a complete, unchanged manual for modern living, written by exactly who the Bible says it's written by and put into practice as is. And they do act on these beliefs. And they say so.

23603. angel-five - 8/19/2004 9:06:01 PM

You don't have to believe that Santa Claus exists in order to predict that early Christmas morning, most American children are going to get out of bed and rush downstairs to find their presents. All you have to know is that the children believe in the story of Santa Claus.

We have had a few female fundamentalists over the years in the Mote and the Fray before it, who have stubbornly and devoutly insisted on Biblical inerrancy and that the Bible is the complete manual for Christian living. Do they stay silent in church and ask their husbands when they have a question, or cover their heads while praying? No, but that just means they're selective in what they choose to act on in the Biblical injunctions. So we can't really even address their position as coherent, despite their claims that it is. What we're left with is a minority population which seizes upon the more invidious items in the Bible which match their dispositions nicely, and ignores the bits which don't, just as they ignore any commentary here that points out the problem with their stance.

What's my point? The Church has been irresponsible. Leaving aside the existence of people like Reverend 'God hates fags' Phelps who actively promulgate the hatred, the Church has been negligent in its rank and file in allowing the selective types to flourish under its aegis.

Pelty's pretty insistent, despite his cautious rhetoric, about the existence of interpolations and the general idea that Pauline thought isn't necessarily sexist. I've been shooting holes in his case, but the fact of the matter is, I welcome what he's doing. I do believe that Church doctrine is sexist in and of itself, but am pleased to see an effort in progress to 'rediscover' a version of Paul which might lead to a less sexist and wrongheaded Church. There's the value of the Pauline discussion.

23604. The Summer Woman - 8/19/2004 9:14:17 PM

"What does the Catholic Church mean by the phrase, "extra ecclesiam nulla salus"?

It means that no one outside the Church (Catholic) will be saved. Only people who inside the Church will be forgiven their sins and saved.

23605. angel-five - 8/19/2004 9:14:44 PM

Sure I do, but I am not sure what this has to do w/ whether the original author of the letter(s) is legitimately Paul.

Did you even read the post, Pelty? Answer some of your own questions, will you? The answers are there and I do get tired of reiterating them.

And quit making straw men, please! The point isn't whether the original author of the letters which may have been assembled into 1 Cor is or is not Paul. The point that the purported nature of 1 Cor --response to non-extant letters with specific points that Paul is enumerating and replying to in order -- is itself a strong argument against the case you made for incongruity in the passage you want to call an interpolation, and that even if the original author of the source material was Paul, the idea that 1 Cor might be the edited product of more than one original letter also severely damages your argument for the interpolation's existence, for reasons I've laid out for you.

It remains to be proven that the letter should be considered letters (and I am not saying you need to do it, simply that it is not a strong leg upon which you base your argument).

Do you believe that your own stance in this vein is strong? Hell, you're basing it on uncertainty itself! IAC as I've laid out it isn't necessary to prove that 1 Cor isn't authentic, but instead composed from different missives into an epistle, in order to raise serious doubts as to your interpolation argument. The idea that 1 Cor might be a composition is only icing on the cake.

23606. The Summer Woman - 8/19/2004 9:49:25 PM

jexter - I find all religions wonderfully absurd, full of superstitions and paganisms. I enjoy all the gold, saints, priests, imams, rabbis, icons, gods and goddesses, Dahli Lamas, fertility goddeses, holy places, animistic rituals, shrines, artifacts of saints, temples, calendars, churches, grottoes, tabernacles, Mosques, and, on and on.

I do not care for televangelists, however, even though they have wonderfully gaudy sets and chairs that look like thrones.

My husband and I went to Paris, and while there we went to Notre Dame. We were both moved by the grandeur of it and felt that we understood how the faithful could be awed by the majesty of it and feel that they were in the presence of something divine. The flickering votives drew us to them and we each lit one for my husband's mother whom we had both loved. She was the daughter of a baptist minister, and would have been pleased. We both cried.

23607. The Summer Woman - 8/19/2004 9:52:38 PM

judithathome - Isn't it odd that these groups do not put Paul in historical context, shrug their shoulders, and say, "He just didn't know any better." Instead, they use his words to defend their desire to subjugate women.

23608. judithathome - 8/19/2004 10:06:57 PM

Summer Woman, yes, it is very odd.

And this made me smile:

It means that no one outside the Church (Catholic) will be saved. Only people who inside the Church will be forgiven their sins and saved

I know of so many churches which feel this way, too, and they are not Catholic. So my feeling is, there is going to be a mighty rude "awakening" for some of these folks.

23609. anomie - 8/20/2004 2:56:26 AM

I think this is the oddest thing about protestantism. They deny the authority of the "church", in favor of a personal relationship with "God, Jesus". But then they obviate the personal relationship with interpretatations of "innerant" scripture. Emphasis on "interpretation".

Same concept different bank.

23610. jexster - 8/20/2004 4:55:09 AM

Hey great discussion..but I think this is the key:

Translation or Interpretation?

Many people translate the Latin phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus as “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” This translation does not seem entirely faithful to the Latin meaning, and contributes to the misunderstanding of the phrase.

The Latin word “extra” is both an adverb and preposition. Depending on its use in a sentence, the word has different meanings. When used to describe spatial relations between objects, the word is translated as “beyond” or “outside of” (e.g., Beyond the creek is a tree; or, James is outside of the room). When used to describe abstract relations between concepts or intangible things, the word is commonly translated “without” (e.g., Without a method, it is difficult to teach). Within the phrase in question, extra is a preposition describing the abstract relationship of the Church to salvation. Considering the Latin nuances of the word, a proper translation would be, “Without the Church there is no salvation.” This translation more accurately reflects the doctrinal meaning of the phrase.

23611. woden - 8/20/2004 5:48:35 AM

The Catholic Church has backed away from that doctrine since Vatican 2. I looked through my catechism very thoroughly and could not find a definitive statement that there is no salvation outside of the Church.

When people say the Church with a capital 'C', I always think that's referring to the Catholic Church. But I think in this discussion that's not correct.

23612. wonkers2 - 8/20/2004 5:53:49 AM

Jex, either way it makes little sense.

23613. The Summer Woman - 8/20/2004 8:52:23 AM

What's that? The Catholic Church has backed away from it you say? What good is that? What good are they to anyone then? They've got to believe it, or at least want to believe it, like Jen - or they're no good to anyone.

23614. Ulgine Barrows - 8/20/2004 10:08:47 AM

23140. Jenerator - 8/10/2004 6:49:52 PM
"Doctors performm abortions because it makes them rich, and they're easy to do. Abortion clinics are like cattle-calls, and the patients are just numbers."
Well, please introduce me to a rich abortionist, Jenerator. I think you don't know about the real pay scale.

23160. Jenerator - 8/10/2004 7:15:39 PM
"Adoption is always available."
No, it's not. I'm a crack whore. Nobody wants my chillllld! You want my child, Jenerator?

23509. Jenerator - 8/18/2004 8:55:27 PM
"Bye y'all.
Satan, I hope you enjoy hosting the forum."

Jenerator. I am sorry to see you go, this way. Take care of your soul. I will miss your point of view. Stay steadfast!

23615. jexster - 8/21/2004 8:55:12 PM

For the second year in a row, our parish has a semninarian from

St. Stephen's House, Oxford

Last year a dyke, this a queen...both nose bleed high orthodox and both extremely smart, skilled preachers.

Ryan delivered his first homily at today's masses.

23616. angel-five - 8/22/2004 6:50:56 AM

They have Jesus costumes for children?

I'm sorry, but you just know that the kids in the Spiderman and Wolverine costumes are gonna be eating this kid's candy behind the Stop N' Go Halloween night, kung fu pose or no.

23617. jexster - 8/23/2004 11:10:36 AM

Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus Flock to Catholic Shrines at Fatima and Lourdes

23618. wonkers2 - 8/23/2004 6:13:37 PM

Jenerator, I hope you don't abandon the Religion thread now that you are no longer host. It wouldn't be as much fun without you and K-man to beat up on! :-)

23619. wonkers2 - 8/23/2004 6:17:23 PM

And although our viewpoints are quite different, I thought you did a good job of hosting the thread.

23620. Jenerator - 8/23/2004 8:32:55 PM

I have been asked to come here and post in this thread.

Sits up in chair

I will try my hardest to engage Satan in a discussion without the puerile name calling I resort to when annoyed.;-)

I see that there are quite a few posts on 1 Cor. still out there, but may I ask, what are the residual questions lingering?

23621. angel-five - 8/24/2004 12:22:01 AM

but may I ask, what are the residual questions lingering?

Remember you asked for specific questions when you craft your answer.

There are two sets -- on sexism, and on authorship.

The definition of sexism which has been cited for this discussion is fairly germane (this one is from Merriam Webster Online).

Main Entry: sex·ism

1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

We also have several different cites from 1 Corinthians. This is from 1 Cor 11:

3: But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6: For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7: For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8: For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9: Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

23622. angel-five - 8/24/2004 12:22:17 AM

There is also the much-debated bit from 1 Cor 14:

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

Two quotes, two definitions.

I'd argue that the first quote completely exemplifies the second definition of sexism -- an authoritarian arguing that men and women must act differently in public because they are different genders made for different purposes. And, indeed, you can't find anything in 1 Corinthians or the entire Bible for that matter which goes against this belief, which, as many people have pointed out, was of a piece of the prevailing wisdom of the day.

The second cite is astonishingly clear and indicative of the first definition of sexism -- outright discrimination against women. If you would argue otherwise you have to establish a) how a commandment for men and women to act differently in church because each gender is different for different reasons and has different purposes doesn't foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex, and/or b) how Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law isn't discrimination.

We can just keep it at that, if you like, or we can also bring back to the table the quotes from Ephesians, Phillipians and Titus which were a part of the earlier discussion.

23623. angel-five - 8/24/2004 12:30:06 AM

The questions on authorship aren't going to be terribly fruitful for you to discuss, as you are on the record as believing that the Bible is the inerrant and complete word of your god -- so it doesn't much matter, as far as you're concerned, how 1 Cor was authored, what it was responding to, whether or not it was altered in the 100 years between its writing and its first alleged canonization, and specifically whether or not the cite from 1 Cor 14 was written by someone besides Paul. The words say what the words say, and to you they are the inerrant and inspired word of your deity and the question to you is rather not how they were written but how you can account for your adherence to a religion which demands that you can't speak in church AND claim to believe in the authority and comprehensive nature of your good book.

The discussion itself, however, is pretty interesting. Who wrote 1 Corinthians? How is that determined? Is it authentic or is it a composite? Was it altered after the original author wrote it? If so, was the person who altered it also inspired by your God?

23624. pelty - 8/24/2004 12:51:54 AM

Just popping in briefly, but hope to have more time in a few weeks (exams all next week). Quick note on the manuscripts offers little of interest beyond that they are solid, but the earliest ones come to us from ~200 CE which is much beyond (obviously) the date of the authoring of the original(s).

The other stuff will have to wait, A-5, although I feel like the source of our disconnect on this particular issue is our respective starting points. You seem to want to take the most skeptical stance that we should assume the text to be interpolated (at an early date therefore making said interpolations unidentifiable), perhaps a patchwork of letters, and generally discombobulated and, therefore, of little use for the application of text critical methods.

23625. pelty - 8/24/2004 12:52:07 AM

I begin from a position that affirms the *possibility* of your stance, but I view it as too skeptical to be practical (in this particular case; 2 Cor. may be a different ball of wax. A "unified" 1 Cor. is the majority position [I did do a little research on that] and so, for that reason along w/ my own reading of the text, I tend to view the letter as unified. I *do*, however, see how an argument could be made in another direction; it is just an argument that is not persuasive to me). If we start from your set of presuppositions, the game is over before it begins, at least as far as finding the early interpolations. I do affirm the possibility of later interps that can be discovered once we have a number of manuscripts that can be compared one to the other.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but you assert that this process of finding late interps is essentially pointless because the letter may well be compromised already and is already, as a whole, of dubious value as a text. Is this close? Am I missing a major tenet of your position? I am doing this for myself as much as others given the fast and furious nature of the posts, so your further illumination and elucidation would be appreciated.

23626. anomie - 8/24/2004 2:01:55 AM

"...how you can account for your adherence to a religion which demands that you can't speak in church AND claim to believe in the authority and comprehensive nature of your good book."

Easy. Paul was writing to Corinth about Corinthian women, not to Jen and not to Texas women.

23627. angel-five - 8/24/2004 2:27:18 AM

You seem to want to take the most skeptical stance that we should assume the text to be interpolated (at an early date therefore making said interpolations unidentifiable)

I wouldn't say that's the stance I'm saying is the correct one. I do want that stance to be given more thought, however, given what you've put on the table.

You aren't just strictly speaking examining the text so much as you're building a case for what Paul thought, based on the idea that 1 Corinthians has been compromised and that some bits of it, you claim, are likely not Paul's work. This goes beyond textual criticism, doesn't it, Pelty? Your stance uses an argument from text criticism scholarship on 1 Cor to substantiate an idea which is neither textual nor critical and, in any case, isn't in 1 Corinthians!

The case for the authenticity of 1 Corinthians depends heavily on the idea that it was set aside early on and viewed as canonical (by early on we mean 100 years after it was authored, btw) and therefore it would have been hard for it to be tampered with before it was widespread enough to resist such tampering. Above all else, this case requires that 1 Corinthians to be authentically Pauline -- but the argument you're forwarding weakens the case for 1 Corinthians being authentic. You're arguing for a late interpolation in 1 Cor 14, primarily because 33-35 are found after 40 in three different manuscripts. The only problem is that this passage, with all the qualities which you claim make it obvious that it could be an interpolation, wasn't weeded out as a late insertion. And if that's the case, how do you define what parts of Pauline thought expressed in 1 Corinthians are authentically Paul and which are merely Pauline? This is an issue because you're proposing something about Paul's thoughts, you see.

23628. angel-five - 8/24/2004 2:28:04 AM

The problem with the textually derived concept of Paul is that no one's encountered him to verify it. No one can, in fact. We have an idea of Paul based on his supposed authorship of several works (some more likely his work, others less) and by mention of him in Acts, but deriving Paul from Pauline epistles is both a leap of faith and a question begged.

Personally I believe it's possible to analyze the epistles and do some good guesswork based on scholarship what might have been an interpolation not present in earlier versions of the text -- but if you do so in the manner that you have, you weaken the case for saying Paul said many of the other things you would attribute to him. Why? Because the idea that the historical Paul is someone that can be known to us depends strongly on the idea that he's accurately depicted by the Pauline epistles and that he authored them, and that's very much held up by a lick and a promise.

150 years pass from the alleged composition of 1 Corinthians and the first extant manuscript we have. 100 of those years pass before, you claim, someone decided 1 Corinthians was worthy of being canonized and therefore protected. This was a time where Scripture was essentially evolving, as the way people viewed the teachings and story of Jesus changed with time and thought, but people thought little wrong with 'updating' the Jesus philosophies with current thought and recording it as if the original figures were speaking -- in fact, it was common practice.

23629. angel-five - 8/24/2004 2:28:22 AM

An entire religion was being born and shaped by polemics and politics and philosophizing... and lest we think that somehow Paul's work was thought to be above such alteration, we have all these different epistles -- including one from the Corinthians -- which scholars now believe were indeed altered and edited and recompiled in this exact manner. We're forced to confront the fact that there may be a real difference between what Paul thought and what we now know as Pauline thought, is the point here.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but you assert that this process of finding late interps is essentially pointless because the letter may well be compromised already and is already, as a whole, of dubious value as a text.

The text is what the text is, any alterations to it don't change its value as a text. The fact that so many people incorporated the epistle to the Corinthians into their canonical group of texts shows that it had a high value to them; it is clearly an excellent example of Pauline thought. It expresses the complex thoughts it expresses regardless of who wrote it and how, and who altered it and how. However, the interpolations and the 150 years gap between 1 Corinthians supposed genesis in a time when Pauline thought was evolving and the oldest extant manuscript you can find are what make it very hard for you to argue about what Paul thought. Do you apprehend the difference?

23630. angel-five - 8/24/2004 2:37:23 AM

Now. If you would like to argue that Paul was an egalitarian, or, in any case draw a more convincing argument against Pauline sexism being an open and shut case, I'd direct you to this site, which is a very thorough elucidation on the passage in question.

It presents three different interpretations on 1 Cor 14:33-35 --the first being that, yes, that's Paul talking and what he might have meant by it, second, your interpretation that it's an interpolation, and third that this is more Pauline call and response where he's mimicking what someone's said to him and then discussing it. The third option is much more friendly to your desired argument than the one you've chosen, IMO.

Even if you do not choose to find value in that third argument (and I put it up here simply because you might find it useful, even though it does give you better ammunition for your argument) you should note the extensive list of scholars mentioned who DO believe that 33-35 are authentically Pauline, and why.

I do heartily recommend this link to anyone who's following along and scratching their head. It's a good read.

23631. judithathome - 8/24/2004 2:37:37 AM

Anomie, you said:

Easy. Paul was writing to Corinth about Corinthian women, not to Jen and not to Texas women.

...but that isn't really holding today. There is a movement out there for Christian women called "The Excellent Wife" and it adheres to the writings of Paul and mentions the quotes from Corinthians all through the book.

I think it is a backlash on feminism. Seems like they prefer the woman to kowtow to the man and stay at home with the kiddos rather than work. It is very "male-dominate centric" and that's fine, if that's the way you want to live your life. But it is definitely sexist and so long as the women who live by it don't mind that,they might well ask who am I to complain? Not my choice to live that way but whatever.

I think there are many different ways to have an excellent marriage...I have one myslef. But it isn't based on the teachings of Paul.

23632. angel-five - 8/24/2004 2:44:19 AM

Here is an article written by one of the people mentioned in the above link, who forwards the argument that the cite from 1 Corinthians is actually Paul mocking the statement.

an excerpt:

Briefly, I read First Corinthians 14:34-36 to be a complicated textus. Verses 34 and 35 trace a ply from the Corinthian Letter to Paul and verse 36 is Paul's reply (for a detailed analysis of the structure (textus) of a letter, see Odell-Scott 1991: vi). The first ply (verses 34 and 35) is a quote from a faction in the Corinthian church asserting that female silence in worship is expressive of women's subordination to men as dictated by law. Paul traces from their letter to him in his reply to them for a very good reason. Paul wishes to make clear exactly what it is to which he is responding. Paul traces letter for letter, word for word their position.

(34) The women should keep silence in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the laws says. (35) If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

To this trace from the Corinthian letter addressed to Paul he replies:

(36) What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?

Once again, something for you to consider given your stated desire, should this argument come up again.

23633. angel-five - 8/24/2004 2:44:52 AM

Here is an article written by one of the people mentioned in the above link, who forwards the argument that the cite from 1 Corinthians is actually Paul mocking the statement.

an excerpt:

Briefly, I read First Corinthians 14:34-36 to be a complicated textus. Verses 34 and 35 trace a ply from the Corinthian Letter to Paul and verse 36 is Paul's reply (for a detailed analysis of the structure (textus) of a letter, see Odell-Scott 1991: vi). The first ply (verses 34 and 35) is a quote from a faction in the Corinthian church asserting that female silence in worship is expressive of women's subordination to men as dictated by law. Paul traces from their letter to him in his reply to them for a very good reason. Paul wishes to make clear exactly what it is to which he is responding. Paul traces letter for letter, word for word their position.

(34) The women should keep silence in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the laws says. (35) If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

To this trace from the Corinthian letter addressed to Paul he replies:

(36) What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?

Once again, something for you to consider given your stated desire, should this argument come up again.

23634. wonkers2 - 8/24/2004 2:46:17 AM

The Excellent Wife=The Stepford Wife? Is that contemporary Christianity?

23635. angel-five - 8/24/2004 2:53:32 AM

The Excellent Wife=The Stepford Wife? Is that contemporary Christianity?

No. But it is contemporary fundamentalism, I'm afraid.

I feel strongly that when we talk about the Biblical Paul and the Biblical Jesus that we're talking about simulacra -- that, essentially, the entire Christian church is based upon simulacra. And that doesn't mean it's of no use! But the comparative lack of real contemporary evidence about Jesus and Paul means that the Christian Church has to go on the gospels and Pauline thought. The problem is why so many people have chosen the nastier interpretations possible and made a religion out of them. And that's why I personally welcome Pelty's liberal ideation about Paul, even though I find it flawed and ascientific.

23636. anomie - 8/24/2004 3:02:57 AM

Judith, Even those excellent religious wives don't stay silent in church, I bet. And they probably don't ask for much clarification from their husbands either.

My point was really that it's of no value to proclaim Biblical inerrancy. As I've made the point before, as long as interpretation remains in doubt or in dispute, inerrancy is pointless, and there's usually an easy way to disrupt any agreement on interpretation, or in this case, applicability.

Jen can rightfully limit the context to the historical Corinthians if she wishes. I think that's what she does in fact.

23637. anomie - 8/24/2004 3:08:38 AM

23638. Bill Russell - 8/24/2004 3:13:55 AM

A present for Christians and others looking for religion:

http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/windowmovie.html

For what it's worth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

23639. Magoseph - 8/24/2004 3:22:29 AM

Welcome, Bill, it's nice to see you here.

23640. Bill Russell - 8/24/2004 3:34:55 AM

Hi. I'm an Agnostic. I think, perhaps.

23641. angel-five - 8/24/2004 4:15:18 AM

Anomie:

I found the perfect place for you to worship!

Here's a link:

Your friend,

Angel-Five.

23642. Bill Russell - 8/24/2004 10:28:45 AM

"A callous, heartless religion is that which defines it's God as a cold and unmerciful deity, quick to anger and even quicker to condemn it's people to an eternity in fire. I know of only one such God and he is the God of Christianity."

-Sherman Milliken- [Playwrite and Author of books on world religions]{1923}

23643. PelleNilsson - 8/24/2004 10:34:40 AM

Go away Bill. This is a place for serious discussion where opnions are welcome but spam is not.

23644. Bill Russell - 8/24/2004 11:02:00 AM

Are you THE moderator, Mr. Pill?

heh !!

23645. Bill Russell - 8/24/2004 11:04:49 AM

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

Krishnamurti

23646. anomie - 8/24/2004 1:05:34 PM

A5, And good morning to YOU too. Man, I'm glad I saw that in the morning instead of last night.

23647. judithathome - 8/24/2004 3:10:45 PM

Those women sound very controlling, anyway. I'm sure they set the conditions of their relationships. You know, it's possible to control another from a subserviant position. Expectations and nagging are powerful tools sometimes

Those women are told to sublimate their wishes to their husbands and to praise his ideas, even if they don't agree with them. Nagging is a no-no; they are expected to be plesant and aggreeable at all times and to be cheerful even if they feel bad. The husband is in the catbird seat...I think the controlling aspects of marriage to an "Excellent Wife" come more from the male side than the female.

This is like the advice given by Marabelle Morgan back in the seventies. She recommended the wife be completely subsurvient to the husband, even to the point of meeting him at the door dressed in nothing but Saran Wrap. I'm surprised she didn't tell women to fetch his slippers in their mouths.

23648. Ruth-k - 8/24/2004 4:48:49 PM

Good morning all. My name is Ruth and I'm new to this forum.

Glad to see you here, Bill!

23649. judithathome - 8/24/2004 4:58:12 PM

Welcome to the Mote, Ruth and Bill!

23650. Bill Russell - 8/24/2004 5:01:47 PM

"When I dream of the perfect religion, I dream of that which is the utmost anti-thesis of Christianity."

-Sir Frederick Pheller- [19-20th Century Philospher] {1912}

"The two great European narcotics, alcohol and Christianity."

-Friedrich Nietzsche-

23651. Jenerator - 8/24/2004 5:03:25 PM

Yay!!! Ruth is here!

23652. Jenerator - 8/24/2004 5:04:06 PM

Resonance,

I appreciate your thoughtful and concise posts. I will definitely address them on my next conference period.

Thanks!

23653. Ruth-k - 8/24/2004 5:12:59 PM

Jen, I found a new church for you, babe

23654. Bill Russell - 8/24/2004 5:14:04 PM

23655. Bill Russell - 8/24/2004 5:16:44 PM

Jefferson again:

Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.

More Jefferson:

The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.

23656. Bill Russell - 8/24/2004 7:00:15 PM

A man is none the less a slave because he is
allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.

... Lysander Spooner

23657. angel-five - 8/24/2004 7:48:08 PM

Are you THE moderator, Mr. Pill?

No, he's a moderator, and I am the thread host.

There is no hard and fast equation for determining between spam and enthusiasm, Bill, and there will be no line in the sand for you to cross. You and your opinions are welcome here, but spam is not, so try to keep the cites to a minimum on your own and, as is Mote custom, try to match cites with your own individual analysis instead of simply dropping it in.

23658. Bill Russell - 8/24/2004 8:15:47 PM

"try to match cites with your own individual analysis"

I choose quotes and articles with my individual anyalsis and approval in mind.

Do I need to say, "I agree" at the end? It seems to go without saying.

23659. Bill Russell - 8/24/2004 8:19:53 PM

I post some articles as 'food for thought'. That often stimulates responses to which I then respond. I may have no opinion at all, until I read others interpretations of what was posted.

23660. PelleNilsson - 8/24/2004 10:24:18 PM

I may have no opinion at all, until I read others interpretations of what was posted

That is revealing.

"I don't have a clue about what I'm posting but let's see if someone else has."

You need to do better, Bill. Much, much better.

23661. Bill Russell - 8/25/2004 3:23:55 AM

You need to do better, Mr. P. Much, much better. I know you can do it, if you but try.

23662. Bill Russell - 8/25/2004 3:25:53 AM

Jefferson's word for the Bible?

"Dunghill".

I agree with Uncle Thomas. Don't you?

23663. wonkers2 - 8/25/2004 3:28:04 AM

Welcome to the Mote, Bill. Don't be deterred by our resident candidate for a job with the CIA at Abu Ghraib. I found your quotes interesting and on target.

23664. Bill Russell - 8/25/2004 4:00:00 AM

Thanks, Wonk. We will get along fine.

23665. Bill Russell - 8/25/2004 4:04:21 AM

"When we speak of the Christian religion at it's most rudimentary level we must always be cautious to reserve our estimations as to who and what we are dealing with.

You see, were it not for it's folowers, there might have been some value to these Christian virtues.

However, with what this dogmatic system has become as a result of it's spokespeople, it is best to steer clear of this bastardized religion."

-Gillain Forester- [19th Century Scholar] {1886}

Yep! Seems about right...

23666. SnowOwl - 8/25/2004 4:13:48 AM

However, with what this dogmatic system has become as a result of it's spokespeople, it is best to steer clear of this bastardized religion

Okay, Bill. Since you agree with this post why don't you lead a discussion on why Christianity is a bastardized religion? What's meant by bastardized in this context?

23667. angel-five - 8/25/2004 4:19:59 AM

I choose quotes and articles with my individual anyalsis and approval in mind.

That's fine by me. However you clearly have strong opinions on some things, Bill, and I guarantee that in this thread you'll do better by offering a few cites and discussing them in even depth than you'll do with several a day. It isn't always the case, but it is in this case; less is more.

And please understand that I am speaking up not because you have been disruptive here or because you aren't welcome, but simply because I have observed your posting style in the religious and philosophical threads in other fora, and feel that a stitch in time might save us nine. You are welcome to your own point of view, you're welcome to share it, as is anyone here, but if this thread becomes a flood of cites, people will tune out. As the thread host I don't want to see that happen, but neither do I want to take undue action when better alternatives exist. So if you don't mind, I'd appreciate you keeping my wishes in mind in this matter, as I'm trying to respect yours, so we can move forward in a constructive manner and have a thread with a good signal-to-noise ratio, which people will continue to read.

Regds, A-5

23668. Bill Russell - 8/25/2004 5:00:14 AM

Bye...

23669. Bill Russell - 8/25/2004 5:12:28 AM

One more, just to answer the 'bastardization' thingy:

Christianity = Bastardized Paganism

Christians like to think that they are superior to pagans and heathens, but they know so little about their own religion that they do not even realize that much of christianity is actually a bastardization of paganism.

Yes, christianity incorporated paganism left, right, and center. For example, Christmas and Easter are originally pagan festivals. Amazingly, the christian cross is originally a pagan symbol. And here is a quote about Easter:

Easter

originally a Saxon word (Eostre), denoting a goddess of the Saxons, in honour of whom sacrifices were offered about the time of the Passover. Hence the name came to be given to the festival of the Resurrection of Christ, which occured at the time of the Passover. In the early English versions this word was frequently used as the translation of the Greek pascha (the Passover). When the Authorized Version (1611) was formed, the word "passover" was used in all passages in which this word pascha occurred, except in Act 12:4. In the Revised Version the proper word, "passover," is always used.
(Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary)

So there you have it. Easter is actually the name of a pagan goddess. Also, what do Easter Eggs have to do with Jesus? Easter Eggs are not mentioned in the Christian bible. Easter Eggs actually celebrate new life, they are a pagan tradition, as is the very name itself.

If you are like me in that you want to celebrate the Christmas time but you want nothing to do with Christian B.S., then call Christmas by its original name: Yuletide. Christmas is actually a bastardization of the pagan festival of Yule. So wish people a "Happy Yuletide" instead of a "Happy Christmas".

23670. angel-five - 8/25/2004 5:23:53 AM

Yes, the amount of Christian ritual and lay practice that is derived from other religions, especially pagan traditions, is astounding. It's the product of proselytizing missionary work in pagan cultures. The major holidays, the little gimmicks, even a lot of the myths themselves, derive from older traditions.

FWIW the easter egg motif may derive from the spring search for snake eggs, honoring (I believe) Astarte of the high peaks, who is even mentioned indirectly in the Bible.

I should point out, Bill, that you're free to leave, but your last post will fit in very well here. So if you change your mind, no worries.

23671. Bill Russell - 8/25/2004 5:36:23 AM

' your last post will fit in very well here. '

That's nice to know, but I wouldn't have known had I not posted something and got an inquiry about it. That is what I try to do. In the past (on other forums) I posted items or quotes to stimulate interest. The hosts didn't like my posting negative things about Christianity, so they made excuses to ban me.

23672. Bill Russell - 8/25/2004 5:39:43 AM

I post some articles as 'food for thought'. That often stimulates responses to which I then respond.

23673. Bill Russell - 8/25/2004 7:45:26 AM

"less is more."

Yep! I got your message.

23674. Bill Russell - 8/25/2004 7:48:27 AM

" Astarte of the high peaks, who is even mentioned indirectly in the Bible. "

Can you give us the chapter and verse. And how is that important to this discussion?

23675. Bill Russell - 8/25/2004 7:49:38 AM

" Christianity = Bastardized Paganism "

Yup! Prove it wrong....

23676. clydefo - 8/25/2004 8:57:08 AM

Bill Russell, you introduced yourself as an "agnostic...perhaps". Does that mean you are a "for real" agnostic and seriously entertain a notion that the universe may have a supernatural origin or like me, use the label primarily to calm the organized-religion wackos enough to engage in rational discussion?

I agree with Jefferson's views of Christianity, to the extent that you've expressed them accurately. But why evoke the words of such a hypocritical moral degenerate as he to make the argument? Imagine being a black teenager reading about all men being created equal in something called Thomas Jefferson High School.

To the extent that you wish to do so, I hope you are more adroit at laying out the mythillogical, Pagan origins of the Jesus Myth than I have been. Many here are in denial about their tragic fate, and overestimating their importance in the overall scheme of things, want desperately to believe that their consciousness is eternal. Like most of us, I'm sure they enjoy their lives in the magical and enthralling present, but sadly, they waste far too much time on their knees, agonizing with their rational selves over whether they will spend eternity hanging out with Granny and Jesus. Or not.

We're all like family here, so watch your back.

23677. Bill Russell - 8/25/2004 9:14:24 AM

" Does that mean you are a "for real" agnostic and seriously entertain a notion that the universe may have a supernatural origin "

Yes, for sure. And I also pray for knowledge, but never ask for anything for myself at least nothing material.

I may be a Deist, like many of our Founding Fathers, but I am open to any and all thoughts on religion as long as they make some sense to me.

I was raised a very strict Baptist and graduated from a 'Church of the Brethren' Bible College (four year). Those two helped me to form my opinions as to what I do not believe.

ag·nos·tic

Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-

Function: noun

Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know —more at KNOW

Date: 1869

: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable;

broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

That's me.

23678. Bill Russell - 8/25/2004 9:22:19 AM

" I agree with Jefferson's views of Christianity, to the extent that you've expressed them accurately. But why evoke the words of such a hypocritical moral degenerate as he to make the argument? "

I quote what I think is the truth, no matter who is credited for saying it. Who am I to judge whether or not the person quoted is a hypocritical moral degenerate or not. What has been written about them may not even be true.

23679. clydefo - 8/25/2004 9:36:59 AM

"I was raised a very strict Baptist and graduated from a 'Church of the Brethren' Bible College (four year). Those two helped me to form my opinions as to what I do not believe."

What do you not believe?

23680. Bill Russell - 8/25/2004 10:00:17 AM

"What do you not believe?"

I do not believe the Bible.

Some parts of the Bible may be true, but I have no way of knowing what is true, and what is not true.

I do not believe the Bible to be the word of any god. It was written by imperfect men (no women) ages ago, then later translated many times.

Translations are never perfect. Many Bible scholars argue about the meaning of the scriptures and what was their original meaning.

So many Christian religions (thousands), I could not begin to study them all in my lifetime. So many versions of the Bible. How do I choose?.

23681. Ulgine Barrows - 8/25/2004 10:02:43 AM

Is there gloating, that kuliginthehooligan and Jenerator aren't posting?

I'm not with that pogrom.

23682. Bill Russell - 8/25/2004 10:10:38 AM

For what it's worth:

In a sermon of October 1831, Episcopalian minister Bird Wilson said,

Among all of our Presidents, from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion.

23683. Ulgine Barrows - 8/25/2004 10:16:10 AM

Hi, Bill.
That's quite a tongue-in-cheek comment.

23684. clydefo - 8/25/2004 10:19:47 AM

You go, guy!

23685. Bill Russell - 8/25/2004 10:41:42 AM

" Hi, Bill.
That's quite a tongue-in-cheek comment. "

Which one?

23686. Ulgine Barrows - 8/25/2004 10:44:29 AM

23682

23687. Bill Russell - 8/25/2004 10:54:48 AM

'Among all of our Presidents, from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion.'

Why do you think that's 'tongue-in-cheek'? It's a fact.

23688. Macnas - 8/25/2004 11:02:51 AM

This reminds me of some debates in the Fray, about paganism/christianity, all those years ago.

23689. Bill Russell - 8/25/2004 11:11:22 AM

What did you learn from those debates?

23690. Macnas - 8/25/2004 11:36:26 AM

Learn? nothing other than debate is enjoyable for its own sake.

23691. PelleNilsson - 8/25/2004 12:00:11 PM

Yes, Macnas, I remember too. We once had a thread with the rather cryptic name Homoousios or Homoiousios where phillipdavid (remember him?) argued strongly for the hypothesis that Paul was influenced by gnosticism, an issue that popped up in the recent discussion as well.

23692. Macnas - 8/25/2004 12:36:32 PM

I don't remember the thread, but I do remember phillipdaved.

I think in this thread, more than any other for obvious reasons, you see discussions being replayed quite a lot.

That sounds a bit mean doesn't it?. I don't intend it to though, points of view vary so much, as does style of argument, that sometimes a well worn debate matter is just as interesting the next time around.

23693. Jenerator - 8/25/2004 3:11:28 PM

phillipdavid was an extremely nice guy, but I distinctly recall Kuligin discovering that PD was a major plagiarist. Virtually everything he claimed as his own was from various new age websites.

23694. Jenerator - 8/25/2004 3:12:45 PM

Bill,

What's interesting is that I can find just as many pro-Christian snippets spoken by influential men.

23695. judithathome - 8/25/2004 4:56:48 PM

Is there gloating, that kuliginthehooligan and Jenerator aren't posting?

No, quite the opposite. Several of us at RI asked Jen to return because we want her input. And I think everyone is eagerly awaiting Kuligin's getting settled into his new post (location) so that he can have time to come back and dive in to the debate.

23696. pelty - 8/25/2004 5:31:13 PM

Is that where KtH is, Judith? Is he on his way back to Namibia?

23697. marjoribanks - 8/25/2004 5:37:56 PM

I seriously doubt that Hooligan discovered or revealed anything like that about our old and dear friend PD.

First of all, he was an original through and through. Second, he was not - ever - a person to parrot anyone else's view let alone those gleaned from random websites. Thirdly, he had a truly original and powerful take on the matters that are discussed in this part of the forum - those largely unique takes still reverberate with me and I am grateful that he shared them.

23698. judithathome - 8/25/2004 5:42:01 PM

Pelty, I'm not 100% sure but I think he mentioned he was going back out on a missionary post. I don't know if it was to be in the same place as the last one or to a new one.

23699. Bill Russell - 8/25/2004 6:08:09 PM

Interesting thought:

The fool who thinks he is a fool is for that very reason a wise man;
But the fool who thinks he is a wise man is rightly called a fool.

-Dhammapada 63

From "365 Buddha: Daily Meditations," edited by Jeff Schmidt. Reprinted by arrangement with Tarcher/Putnam, a division of Penguin Putnam Inc.

23700. marjoribanks - 8/25/2004 6:10:37 PM

Bill,

Check out the Suggestions thread for a minute.

23701. angel-five - 8/25/2004 6:40:30 PM

Can you give us the chapter and verse.

Asherah=ashtoreth=astarte=eostre=ishtar=isis..... ostara=easter. It's the basic mother goddess motif, Bill. The snake egg represents infinity and was part of the spring rite originally.

Go to the Biblegateway link toward the top of the bar to the right of the text and search the bible for Asherah, or Ashtoreth, and you're going to get a ton of hits. Among the more notable worshippers was Solomon (1 Kings 11).

And how is that important to this discussion?

... because it's a discussion on pagan motifs and influences on Church rituals, Bill? Not to go out on a limb, but I think that might be why I mentioned a pagan motif and influence.

23702. Bill Russell - 8/25/2004 6:54:03 PM

Bill,

' Check out the Suggestions thread for a minute. '

I did, thanks for the suggestion. Go there for my response.

23703. Bill Russell - 8/25/2004 7:48:34 PM

Heaven's Unitarian Population

Why are there are no Unitarians in Heaven?

Because they heard there was a choice between going to Heaven or a discussion group about the existence of Heaven.

;^)

hahahaha

23704. Bill Russell - 8/25/2004 8:55:06 PM

Proverbs 9:8

' rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee. '

But not on this forum.

heh !!

23705. Bill Russell - 8/26/2004 12:51:28 AM

Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easily, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god market was fairly glutted and heaven crammed with these phantoms.

Robert Ingersoll

23706. Bill Russell - 8/26/2004 10:58:03 AM

Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.

Andre Gide (1869 - 1951)

23707. Bill Russell - 8/26/2004 8:59:38 PM

Difference of opinion is helpful in religion.

- Thomas Jefferson

Yep!

23708. Ulgine Barrows - 8/28/2004 7:24:35 AM

23695. judithathome, thanks, I was wondering.

23685. Bill Russell
Well, Bill, 'professor' is one of those words that have several meanings.
USA presidents have 'professed' religion.

Off to read some Bhagavad-Gita, Ulgine

23709. Bill Russell - 8/28/2004 10:28:21 AM

' USA presidents have 'professed' religion. '

But of course. What the preacher said is still true. Try reading it again, and notice WHEN he said it.

23710. Ulgine Barrows - 8/28/2004 10:36:45 AM

I noticed the WHEN the first time.
Yes, I thought you might get tricky about the year.
23687. Bill Russell
Why do you think that's 'tongue-in-cheek'? It's a fact.

And it's a fact, I thought you were being 'tongue-in-cheek', because of the year of the quote and the source mentioned.

You neglected to mention the source in your second post.
So now, we know you set them up like bowling pins.

23711. Ulgine Barrows - 8/28/2004 10:49:38 AM

And it's tiresome to mention, but if you really believed that

Difference of opinion is helpful in religion.

you might have commented on the Bhagavad-Gita, instead of WHEN.

23712. Bill Russell - 8/28/2004 6:23:52 PM

pro·fes·sor

Pronunciation: pr&-'fe-s&r

Function: noun

Date: 14th century

1 : one that professes, avows, or declares

23713. jexster - 8/29/2004 12:39:05 AM

I have sad news to report..Kulligan has been arrested and is now incarcerated in an Athens gaol.

Rooters - KullignanTheSewerMan, AKA Michael Horan, wearing a sign "Israel is the fulfillment of prophecy - the Second Coming is Here - Repent" and a kilt, Kulligan disrupted the Men's Marathon today in Athens, attacking the leading runner from Brazil.

Charges are pending psychiatric examination

23714. jexster - 8/29/2004 12:39:32 AM

Praise jaysus

23715. wonkers2 - 8/29/2004 4:59:16 AM

I can almost believe it!

23716. kuliginthehooligan - 8/29/2004 4:34:56 PM

"I seriously doubt that Hooligan discovered or revealed anything like that about our old and dear friend PD."

Unfortunately, it is true marjoribanks. I found that PD plagiarized paragraph after paragraph of a book I basically stumbled upon while doing a Masters thesis. In short, the book's main point was that Jesus was one of many "sons of God" and that each of us could become equally the same as he was.

I was shocked, because PD always portrayed the material as his own. And it wasn't just a sentence here or there, it was wholesale paragraphs which amounted to pages of material.

Go figure.

23717. kuliginthehooligan - 8/29/2004 4:38:07 PM

"First of all, he was an original through and through."

PD's thoughts were no more original than my own. The things he believed have been around for quite a while. Consider, for example, his like of Origen. Perhaps you think PD's thoughts were original because you had not had contact with said thoughts previously, marjori?

"Second, he was not - ever - a person to parrot anyone else's view let alone those gleaned from random websites."

But what he did do, unfortunately, was copy words from other sources and pretend they were his own.

"Thirdly, he had a truly original and powerful take on the matters that are discussed in this part of the forum - those largely unique takes still reverberate with me and I am grateful that he shared them."

I can recommend the very book that he copied from, marjoribanks, if you are interested.

Just for clarity, I am only referring to PD's comments on reincarnation, Jesus doing what any believers can do, and so on.

23718. wonkers2 - 8/29/2004 6:18:35 PM

Original thoughts are uncommon.

23719. Bill Russell - 8/30/2004 12:34:27 PM

A wise man indeed!

Do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.

Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642)

23720. jexster - 9/1/2004 12:21:49 PM

"Keyes: Cheney's Gay Daughter Is a Sinner"

23721. jexster - 9/1/2004 12:55:19 PM

In case you-know=who is still about...

Courtesy Westboro Babdist Church's GodHatesFags website

And in hell he lift his eyes, being in torments...and he cried and said...have mercy on me...dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. The smoke of their torment ascendeth forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night." Luke 16:23,24; Revelation 14:11.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew Shepard has been in hell for 2152 days.
Eternity - 2152 days = Eternity

23722. Absensia - 9/1/2004 9:54:28 PM

By Keyes definition, any heterosexual couple who uses contraception or who knows they can't conceive are also sinners.

23723. kuliginthehooligan - 9/1/2004 10:23:48 PM

nonsense

23724. Absensia - 9/1/2004 10:54:37 PM

Keyes said: "The essence of ... family life remains procreation. If we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are saying that it's possible to have a marriage state that in principal excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism."

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm

If there is no chance of procreating...say one partner cannot conceive, then sex must be, following keye's reasoning, simply selfish hedonism, even if it is a hetrosexual relationship. If contraception is used for the specific purpose of stopping procreation, it's the same thing. Deal with it.

23725. kuliginthehooligan - 9/1/2004 10:58:52 PM

Procreation is not the SOLE motivation for sex, Absentia, thus my comment of "nonsense." You are taking Keyes' comment out of context of his view on the entire matter. In other words, in order for your position to be valid, you must also show where Keyes says that sex is ONLY for procreation and nothing else. Then I'd agree with you. So get to it.

23726. wonkers2 - 9/1/2004 11:43:22 PM

Methodists are Babdists who can read.

23727. judithathome - 9/1/2004 11:46:30 PM

She's not taking it out of context. That is what he said. The example he gave was on of a marriage wherein the couple could not procreate. Absensia was right in her assessment of what the man said.

I saw the interview and he did indeed mean that.

23728. kuliginthehooligan - 9/2/2004 12:08:00 AM

Again, I don't think the full context is taken into consideration. There are TWO main reasons for sex, pleasure and procreation. What Keyes is saying is that BOTH are in the design, not just one. Homoesexuality by definition leaves no room for procreation. That is Keyes point.

I'm not saying, btw, that I agree with his premise entirely, just that I think false conclusions are being made here because his opinion on the matter is not being correctly understood.

23729. wonkers2 - 9/2/2004 12:10:46 AM

Glad to hear that K-man is a sex for fun guy. I was beginning to worry that he had done it only four? (or is it five?) times!

23730. jexster - 9/2/2004 6:40:04 AM

23731. Ulgine Barrows - 9/2/2004 7:24:10 AM

kuliginthehooligan, glad to see you posting again.

Absensia, I will have to look up this Keyes person.

FAMILY
Etymology: Middle English familie, from Latin familia household (including servants as well as kin of the householder), from famulus servant
1 : a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head : HOUSEHOLD

Lots of gays struggle with not being able to procreate. If gay couples adopt a child that would otherwise be aborted, and make a family....

23732. Bill Russell - 9/2/2004 5:18:16 PM

' Lots of gays struggle with not being able to procreate. '

What makes you think gays can't procreate? They can plant their seeds the same way heteros plant their seeds, married or not married.

The laws of nature do not requires a government certificate.

23733. concerned - 9/2/2004 6:20:03 PM

I just finished reading the semifictional novel 'Julian' by Gore Vidal about the Roman Emperor who made it his mission to reestablish belief the 'old gods' and to stem the tide of Christianity some time after Christianity had already become the single most influential religion in the Roman Empire.

There was a moderate amount of discussion as to the roots of the nascent Catholic religion in this novel, but, fwiw, the most noteworthy objections to Christianity as an actual religion were presented in the novel as its beliefs in a better life in the hereafter and that Christianity promoted itself as the exclusive avenue to such an afterlife.

23734. concerned - 9/2/2004 6:22:11 PM

....belief in the 'old gods'....

This is what happens when I go into overdrive cutting and pasting.

23735. Wombat - 9/2/2004 6:52:00 PM

Julian is an interesting--and well-written--novel that says as much about Gore Vidal as it does about the protagonist.

What I found most interesting about the book was how the non-Christian religions--and I include Judaism--did not seek to convince (force?) others to practice their religion.

23736. concerned - 9/2/2004 7:02:33 PM

I'm sure the claim of being the excluse 'way' contributed materially to that. There was also the effect resulting from the orientation toward afterlife that Christians were perceived as not being as easily influenced/controlled by material considerations (mostly poor) and that they were seen to engage in excessive amounts of internecine violence over religious doctrine.

A little like today's Muslims but toned down several notches.

23737. concerned - 9/2/2004 7:03:30 PM

...exclusive...

23738. Wombat - 9/2/2004 7:10:05 PM

Well, Christianity did have several hundred years worth of very nasty religious wars--and a major reformation--to arrive at its current state. Islam has yet to do that.

23739. concerned - 9/2/2004 7:14:24 PM

Unfortunately, Islam has been regressing as a practiced religion for nearly a millennium while Christianity is nearly inseparably associated with what we think of as modern civilization.

23740. concerned - 9/2/2004 7:20:47 PM

One of the impressions I got from Gore Vidal's book was the great mutability of early Christianity (and to a lesser extent, other religions) what with its borrowing pagan religious holidays and elements of Mithraism, etc., this propensity in itself a source of objection and ridicule at the time.

All of which bolsters my feeling that Islam desperately needs and can be brought to at least the philosophical level of the Enlightenment by external influence, if necessary.

23741. PelleNilsson - 9/2/2004 7:39:59 PM

The tragedy of Islam is that it was well underway to accomplish that in the 13th century but then stagnation and retrenchment set in.

"Julian" is a good book, but I hold "Creation" as Vidal's masterpiece when it comes to exploring the ancient world.

23742. concerned - 9/2/2004 7:43:47 PM

Thanks. I also just finished Costain's 'The Silver Chalice', a fictional account of the Holy Grail which is also a decent read, so I might look for 'Creation'.

As a side note, my mom met Paul Newman around the time he was in the cinematic flop of the same name.

23743. concerned - 9/2/2004 7:44:17 PM

'The Silver Chalice', that is.

23744. Bill Russell - 9/2/2004 10:16:27 PM

A bit of violent CHRISTian history:

The Crusades were military expeditions undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the "Holy Land" from the Muslims. ie, the church sanctioned killing. There were 8 crusades/wars.

In 1095, Pope Urban II launched the First Crusade, ordering crusaders to Jerusalem to kill the Muslims.

23745. kuliginthehooligan - 9/2/2004 11:06:38 PM

Actually, if you read the speech made by Urban II in launching the first Crusade, you get the sense that their intentions were pure, at least then. They were being asked to come to the aid of other Christians who were being slaughtered and overrun by the militant followers of Mohammed. I'd don't see anything wrong with going to help them out.

However, the later Crusades became a fiasco, and even at one point the West decided to take it out on the East, weakening them even further. Then there's the Children's Crusade...

23746. Bill Russell - 9/3/2004 12:13:17 AM

" Then there's the Children's Crusade... "

Continue, please >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

23747. concerned - 9/3/2004 2:46:17 AM

March of Dimes

23748. Bill Russell - 9/3/2004 9:58:03 AM

In 1231, Pope Gregory IX (Catholic) instituted the papal inquisition in order to kill heretics (non-catholics). Non-catholics were killed by methods including burning at the stake.

In 1478, following the Crusades and the reconquest of Spain by the Christian Spaniards, Pope Sixtus IV authorized the Spanish Inquisition. The Spanish Inquisition sought to "purify" the people of Spain by killing Jews, Protestants and other non-catholics. The Spanish Inquisition's reign of terror finally ended in 1834.

On 4 March 1519, Hernando Cortés and his army landed in Mexico with the intention of conquering the native Mexicans (Aztecs) for Spain. Impressed with their ships, horses, artillery, and white skin color, the Aztecs foolishly thought that the Spaniards were divine beings. Far from being divine, the Christian Spanish invaders murdered thousands of Aztecs who attempted to defend their country, raped the women, and plundered the country. The Christian Spaniards believed that their murderous invasion was supported by God, and they even had their priests (frex, Father Olmedo) perform "Mass" before battles, praying for the protection of God.

In 1542, Pope Paul III established the Roman Inquisition. While not as bad as the Spanish Inquisition, the basic idea was still to drive out and kill non-Catholics. This was the institution that would later put Galileo on trial.

King Henry VIII (1491-1547) of England killed many catholics that opposed him.

Martin Luther (1483-1546) founded the Protestant religion. With it, religious wars spread through Europe. Catholics killed Protestants and then Protestants killed Catholics.

Amen

23749. PelleNilsson - 9/3/2004 1:30:02 PM

Bill forgot to link his source for the above and #23744.

spl's soapbox - religion

23750. KuligintheHooligan - 9/3/2004 3:21:33 PM

Bill,

re: children's crusade

I can't recall which Crusade it was, but the argument basically went something like this. Jesus said that you must be like a little child in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, and that means that you must be innocent as they are innocent. Therefore, if we send our young ones off to battle the evil Turks and Mohammedans, God will certainly honor that and give us victory.

Of course, what happened instead was that vast amounts of children and young people were captured and enslaved by the Muslims.

23751. wonkers2 - 9/3/2004 4:13:13 PM

Spl's soapbox is an interesting site. It illustrates the folly of accepting or relying on literal interpretations of the Bible.

23752. Bill Russell - 9/3/2004 4:19:46 PM

What kind of interpretations of the Bible should be accepted or relied upon? In your opinion.

23753. wonkers2 - 9/3/2004 4:31:33 PM

If one must rely on the Bible, the interpretations should be continually updated to account for scientific and social knowledge and developments since the good book was set forth. To be useful the Bible should be a living document adapted to embody civilization's finest moral, social, political and scientific insights.

23754. Bill Russell - 9/3/2004 4:37:03 PM

" interpretations should be continually updated "

By what Authority?

23755. Bill Russell - 9/3/2004 4:38:09 PM

" If one must rely on the Bible "

I do not, nor 'must' anyone.

23756. wonkers2 - 9/3/2004 5:03:23 PM

By what authority.

By consensus of civilized and informed thought.

23757. Bill Russell - 9/3/2004 5:16:20 PM

Define civilized and informed thought. Is it what THE Pope says it is?

8^)

23758. Bill Russell - 9/3/2004 5:25:03 PM

Or is it a consensus of the Bush family, since G.W. operates as a messenger of a god or gods?

23759. wonkers2 - 9/3/2004 5:26:32 PM

The Pope's opinion would be one small factor among many.

Civilized and informed thought: the opinions of foremost scientists, lawyers, politicians, theologians, philosophers, novelists, playwrigths, poets, sociologists, psychologists, musicians, artists, religious leaders, et al.

23760. judithathome - 9/3/2004 5:28:26 PM

It's a consensus of informed thought. You know, people who are INFORMED. Getting together and coming to informed conclusions.

Everything is just a joke to you, isn't it, Bill? Too bad you aren't more funny.

23761. wonkers2 - 9/3/2004 5:36:06 PM

For example, among educated people in the modern civilized world a consensus has developed that slavery is bad, capital punishment is barbaric, discrimination on account of race, religion, national origin, sex or age is wrong, democracy is good, women should be allowed to own property, vote and not be subservient to their husbands, sex of just about any type between consenting adults is okay, children shouldn't be beaten by parents or teachers, universal education is good, etc.

23762. Bill Russell - 9/3/2004 5:43:26 PM

" opinions of foremost scientists, lawyers, politicians, theologians, philosophers, novelists, playwrigths, poets, sociologists, psychologists, musicians, artists, religious leaders, et al. "

Oh!,

The UN of opinions. Now I get it. So, how do I get to be a member? I ran for USA Congress twice. I also serve on two state of Hawaii boards on mental health. I demand equal time.

23763. Bill Russell - 9/3/2004 5:45:41 PM

"You know, people who are INFORMED."

Uh huh. And who chooses these people? Is it done like in a democratic republic, in which 'we, the people' choose?

23764. Bill Russell - 9/3/2004 5:50:28 PM

Will the Coptic Pope be included?

http://www.app.com/app/story/0,21625,1022503,00.html

Pope Shenouda III, 81, the leader of the Coptic Orthodox Church based in Cairo, Egypt, will visit the church tomorrow to perform a consecration service at the Holmdel parish with an entourage of Coptic priests, bishops and security. It will be the pope's second time at the church, which recently completed improvements on the 5-year-old facility.

"We want His Holiness to find everything is in place to be consecrated," said Georgy, the priest of St. Mina for the past four years.

Pope Shenouda, who was at St. Mina in 1998 for a ribbon-cutting ceremony, will pray over two altars, several icons and a baptismal tank within the church during the consecration service.

The consecration of a Coptic church happens once for newly constructed church buildings, said Christine Gabriel, a spokeswoman for the St. Mina Coptic Orthodox Church.

"The significance of the pope's visit is for the entire church congregation to receive the blessings of his holiness Pope Shenouda III through the fruits of his great work and teachings," Gabriel said. "It is also the moment in which the building of our church will be finalized by making it a holy place where our Lord's presence is ongoing."

For the 15-year-old congregation, which has about 300 families, the pope's visit is a high honor for many Coptic Orthodox Christians in the region.

There are 17 Coptic Orthodox churches in New Jersey, at least three in New York and more than 100 in the United States, said Georgy.

The pope also has opened more than 500 Coptic Orthodox churches in Europe, Georgy said.

23765. wonkers2 - 9/3/2004 6:12:37 PM

I'm not suggesting a political system, only that morality continutes to evolve and is not frozen in time in accordance with literal interpretations of the Bible, the Koran or the Talmud. Jefferson and Washington were great and wise and moral men who owned slaves. Today, we venerate and apply their wisdom and ignore their deficiencies.

23766. Bill Russell - 9/3/2004 6:19:08 PM

" Jefferson and Washington were great and wise and moral men who owned slaves. "

They justified slavery from the Bible. How do today's USA leaders justify the slavery caused by "The New World Order" of global trade?

Also from the Bible?

23767. wonkers2 - 9/3/2004 6:36:31 PM

Not sure I agree with your premise concerning the "new world order of global trade." The system could stand several improvements in the areas of labor rights and protecting the environment, but I'm not ready to scrap it.

23768. Bill Russell - 9/3/2004 6:42:48 PM

"I'm not ready to scrap it."

Perhaps you could study the effects of "free" trade vs fair trade. Because of our trade policies, many children in China, India, Pakistan work 12 hours days, seven days a week to make products for "shop 'til we drop" Americans. They usually die young.

These children as well as adults have no labor laws to protect them, such as the USA has had for many decades.

23769. Bill Russell - 9/3/2004 6:49:00 PM

Does anyone want to answer my question?

"Will the Coptic Pope be included?"

23770. wonkers2 - 9/3/2004 7:09:30 PM

"Will the Coptic Pope be included?"

The more the merrier!

Labor rights are non-existent in most of the world outside Europe and the U.S. and they aren't what they should be even in the United States. The question is what to do about it? I'm not sure. The U.S. and our friends in Europe could try harder to get labor rights and environmental protection included in trade negotiations.

The EC enforces a variety of stardards, including labor and human rights, on members and prospective members. There is no theoretical reason why the WTO or the UN couldn't do the same. NAFTA contains labor rights provisions, albeit not very effective ones.

23771. Bill Russell - 9/3/2004 7:14:42 PM

"The EC enforces a variety of stardards, including labor and human rights, on members and prospective members. There is no theoretical reason why the WTO or the UN couldn't do the same. NAFTA contains labor rights provisions, albeit not very effective ones."

Yep!!

And the grand ol' USA lags far behind, while we Americans shop 'til we drop, buying products from the slave labor of children and adults around the world.

23772. PelleNilsson - 9/3/2004 7:17:07 PM

Many developing countries see the imposition of Western standard labour rights as neo-colonialism aimed at rendering them non-competitive. It is not a black-and-white issue.

23773. Bill Russell - 9/3/2004 7:17:12 PM

FYI concerning "The Coptic Pope":

http://starbulletin.com/2004/08/28/features/story2.html

23774. Bill Russell - 9/3/2004 7:19:19 PM

From the above link:

The pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church will be in Hawaii next week for the dedication of the denomination's Honolulu church.

Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria, Egypt, will preside at the Tuesday morning consecration of the altar at St. Mark Coptic Church, 1052 Ilima Drive. Bishop Serapion of the Los Angeles province that encompasses Hawaii and other visiting church officials will also participate.

The Rev. Anastasi St. Anthony is pastor of the local church, which has about 120 members. Before buying the Alewa Heights church, formerly Grace Bible Church, the Coptic congregation had worshipped for several years in a Catholic chapel in Kaimuki.

Pope Shenouda III, 81, was elected 33 years ago to lead the Coptic Orthodox Church, an Egyptian branch of Orthodox Christianity, after years as a teacher, seminary president and leader of the church's education programs.

During his tenure as pontiff, the number of Coptic congregations in the United States has grown from two to more than 40, a reflection of the emigration of Christians from the Middle East because freedom to practice their religion is affected by Islamic fundamentalism.

23775. PelleNilsson - 9/3/2004 8:29:12 PM

Bill, you refer to "the Coptic pope. But there are, of course, two Coptic popes.

23776. Bill Russell - 9/3/2004 8:37:16 PM

" there are, of course, two Coptic popes. "

I'm listening >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

How many Catholic Popes?

23777. KuligintheHooligan - 9/3/2004 8:44:59 PM

"And who chooses these people?"

Bill, pay attention to wonkers' formulations. He always says "educated" people, and then, when you come to disagree with him, he just says you aren't educated. He has his rebuttal built right into his definitions.

Fact is, on some of the items wonkers listed, "educated" people simply disagree. But he would prefer to squash and silence those who disagree with his position.

Recall, this is the wonkers who considers himself "more Christian" than others.

23778. Bill Russell - 9/3/2004 8:45:40 PM

Thanks for the Coptic info, Pelle.

I found this:

http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/c/co/coptic_christianity.html

23779. Bill Russell - 9/3/2004 8:46:35 PM

Famous Copts

Boutros Ghali, the only Coptic Prime Minister of Egypt

Boutros Boutros Ghali, Secretary General of the United Nations

See also: List of Coptic Popes

23780. Bill Russell - 9/3/2004 8:48:31 PM

' "educated" people simply disagree. '

Yep! We would be greatly surprised and shocked, if they didn't disagree.

23781. judithathome - 9/3/2004 9:02:21 PM

He always says "educated" people, and then, when you come to disagree with him, he just says you aren't educated. He has his rebuttal built right into his definitions.

Fact is, on some of the items wonkers listed, "educated" people simply disagree. But he would prefer to squash and silence those who disagree with his position.

There you go again, Kuligin...putting words in peoples' mouths and saying they believe things they don't believe.

You always accuse me of doing that to you but here you are, doing the same thing to Wonkers.

23782. KuligintheHooligan - 9/3/2004 9:09:20 PM

Silly, judith. wonkers has done precisely this numerous times in discussions with me, always fallen back on the "well, then they (those who disagree with him) must not be educated." I know it because I've seen it.

23783. judithathome - 9/3/2004 9:53:05 PM

But I'm only pointing out that you do the same thing. Those of us who disagree with you about the Bible can't possibly know what we're talking about because we haven't studied it as long and thoroughly as have you.

Same thing.

23784. KuligintheHooligan - 9/4/2004 12:09:30 AM

juds,

It is not the same thing. If you want to talk intelligently about ANY topic, you must be well versed in it. On the whole, you know very, very little about the Bible, so when you look to critique it or people who have studied it, you fail due to your ignorance.

That is far different than the blanket, "All who disagree with me are uneducated, period." That is what wonkers does. I disagree and then he says, "Like I said Hooligan, only the educated think this way."

It would be tantamount to me saying something like this: "All reasonable and ethical people trust the teaching of the Bible."

I trust you can see the difference.

23785. wonkers2 - 9/4/2004 12:12:35 AM

It is true that labor rights are not a black and white issue. And it's also true that some of the proponents of international labor standards are motivated more by their own self interest than the welfare of the foreign workers whom they are ostensibly trying to protect.

Trying to establish labor rights in a dictatorship is futile as is attempting to mandate minimum wages in countries whose productivity and per capita incomes are below the poverty level.

One possible way to get at the problem would be for industrialized nations (OECD) to require their corporations to observe certain labor and environmental standards in every country in which they operate, regardless of the local laws. These would be basic standards or rights such as non-discrimination based on sex, race or religion, equal pay for men and women, recognition of their workers' rights to organize and bargain collectively, including the right to strike, and observe basic health and safety and environmental standards comparable to those in the home country. In fact, 20-30 years ago the OECD countries adopted such a set of "guidelines," for multinational corporations, but without an enforcement mechanism. Therefore the guidelines tend to be ignored. In theory, at least, it would be possible to put some teeth into such guidelines rather than making them voluntary.

Although mandating higher wages would not likely be effective, there is no reason why multinational corporations should be allowed to be gross polluters, or fail to observe workplace health and safety standards, or discriminate against women or anyone, just because the host country allows them to do so. There is no excuse for a multinational company to dump pollutants into the air or water in developing country or to fail to treat its workers fairly and afford them due process in the workplace as is required in industrialized countries.

23786. wonkers2 - 9/4/2004 12:18:41 AM

Companies from advanced industrial nations should not be allowed to export their technology without exporting as well civilized policies for treating their employees and respecting the environment. But the bankers who represent their countries at the WTO are reluctant to contaminate their free trade ideology with "peripheral issues" involving employee rights and environmental standards. Ultimately this will change to a system along the lines of regulations imposed by the EU on its members and on prospective members before they are allowed to join.

23787. wonkers2 - 9/4/2004 12:30:59 AM

K-man, I don't recall saying that "all who disagree with me are uneducated." I simply don't believe that the Bible, as written, provides valid answers to all contemporary problems. At least not without great reinterpretation and elisions.

And I am saying that civilization has progressed in many ways beyond where it was when the Bible was written--in the role of women in society, in the relationship between men and women, sexual morality, in science, etc. Regarding the Bible as a static document leads some people such as your self, to false conclusions on such issues as women's rights, homosexuality, medical research, capital punishment. You hold onto these conclusions long after most educated people in modern societies have moved on to a more humane and Christian consensus based on knowledge acquired in the centuries since Christ.

23788. wonkers2 - 9/4/2004 12:59:37 AM

Bush is going to do exactly what Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rove tell him to do. He has no interest in the details or merits of public policy issues beyond their political effect, aside from doing whatever he can to help the rich get richer.

23789. clydefo - 9/4/2004 1:44:49 AM

"...If you want to talk intelligently about ANY topic, you must be well versed in it...23784. KuligintheHooligan

Untrue.

23790. Bill Russell - 9/4/2004 1:46:23 AM

Why?

23791. clydefo - 9/4/2004 2:18:45 AM

Intelligence can, and hopefully will, be brought to any discussion.

23792. Bill Russell - 9/4/2004 2:34:43 AM

"Intelligence can, and hopefully will, be brought to any discussion."

But not on this forum...

23793. judithathome - 9/4/2004 2:36:12 AM

If you feel that way, why are you here?

23794. Bill Russell - 9/4/2004 2:38:58 AM

"why are you here?"

To offer intelligence and knowledge. And why are you here, Judith?

23795. judithathome - 9/4/2004 2:45:19 AM

Evidently, to be driven up the wall by your rude and irritating ways.

23796. Bill Russell - 9/4/2004 2:50:52 AM

Whatever.....

23797. Bill Russell - 9/4/2004 2:52:46 AM

Whatever.....

"On the whole, you know very, very little about the Bible, so when you look to critique it or people who have studied it, you fail due to your ignorance."

23798. Bill Russell - 9/4/2004 2:53:42 AM

Amen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

23799. clydefo - 9/4/2004 2:57:16 AM

There is much intelligence and wisdom here; unfortunately, there is also much willful ignorance.

23800. Bill Russell - 9/4/2004 2:59:58 AM

Go figure!!

23801. Bill Russell - 9/4/2004 3:01:28 AM

"Those of us who disagree with you about the Bible can't possibly know what we're talking about because we haven't studied it as long and thoroughly as have you." = Judith

23802. wonkers2 - 9/4/2004 4:07:05 AM

Sorry, we do know what Kman is talking about it. We have listened to his ignorant drivel over and over. Not sure about Bill Russell who is a bit more eliptical, but perhaps equally opinionated and off the mark at least on economics and politics. [He appears to be a hopless Naderite, alienated, but without coherent and realistic ideas for change, possibly, a closet Ted Kaczynski-ite.]

23803. Bill Russell - 9/4/2004 4:35:28 AM

LMBO

23804. Bill Russell - 9/4/2004 7:56:04 AM

For Christians and would be Christians, some light on the subject of Christianity as a religion:

It was Paul and not Jesus who invented Christianity and established the church. As it has been said, "Jesus didn't come to start a new religion. He came to end religion."

23805. Ulgine Barrows - 9/4/2004 7:56:40 AM

23732. Bill Russell - 9/3/2004 3:18:16 PM

' Lots of gays struggle with not being able to procreate. '

What makes you think gays can't procreate? They can plant their seeds the same way heteros plant their seeds, married or not married.

The terrain is harsh for their eggs & seed, and adoption more difficult.

23806. Bill Russell - 9/4/2004 7:57:31 AM

Jesus failed. Jesus wept.

23807. KuligintheHooligan - 9/4/2004 1:47:51 PM

wonk,

There you go again with the "most educated" nonsense. Over 80% of Americans believe in the existence of God, no doubt one of those primitive beliefs held long ago that "most educated people," according to you, don't believe.

But the stats bely your position, unless you are going to say that over 80% of Americans are uneducated. And so on.

23808. KuligintheHooligan - 9/4/2004 1:50:32 PM

"Regarding the Bible as a static document leads some people such as your self, to false conclusions on such issues as women's rights, homosexuality, medical research, capital punishment. You hold onto these conclusions long after most educated people in modern societies have moved on to a more humane and Christian consensus"

This is simply false. Again, you built in your "out" with "most educated people," and you have indeed used that in the past to then conclude that those who disagree with you must, de facto, be "uneducated." But that is just plain silly, let alone it ignores the facts of teh matter.

With respect to the four issues you cited above, in all four of them the majority of Americans believe the way that I believe.

23809. Bill Russell - 9/4/2004 1:54:29 PM

" Over 80% of Americans believe in the existence of God "

Over 80% of Americans believe in the existence of a god or gods.

Christians claim to believe in three gods, yet they also claim there is but one god.

23810. KuligintheHooligan - 9/4/2004 1:57:54 PM

The number is in fact somewhere around 86% I believe. That's a ton of uneducated people. The worldwide % hovers around 80 too.

23811. Bill Russell - 9/4/2004 1:58:14 PM

Most of the people of this planet are not Christians. Most European 'Christians' seldom if ever attend a church service, and many American 'Christians' are the same way.

23812. Bill Russell - 9/4/2004 4:45:05 PM

What did the Yogi say when he walked into the Zen Pizza Parlor?

"Make me one with everything."

When the Yogi got the pizza, he gave the proprietor a $20 bill. The proprietor pocketed the bill. The Yogi said "Don't I get change?"

The proprietor said, "Change must come from within."

23813. Bill Russell - 9/4/2004 5:15:44 PM

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040904/D84STKLG0.html

VATICAN CITY (AP) -

Pope John Paul II kept up his campaign against gay marriage Saturday, telling the ambassador from Canada - where some provinces allow same-sex couples to wed - that such unions create a "false understanding" of marriage.

.................................................

What about a 'false understanding'of RC Priest pedophiles? Are Priest/Boy sexual relationships 'marriage'?

23814. KuligintheHooligan - 9/4/2004 5:45:05 PM

That's a red herring, Bill, but regardless, it is clear that many of those abusive priests were homosexuals. In fact, the RCC priesthood has been a haven for homosexual men for years.

23818. clydefo - 9/4/2004 7:41:39 PM

"Over 80% of Americans believe in the existence of God..." 23807. KuligintheHooligan

This only demonstrates how easy it is to brainwash children.

23833. Bill Russell - 9/4/2004 9:54:51 PM

To me, Jen exemplifies the most extreme/simple thinking of all the religious fanatics and displays the most characteristic style of religious nonsense online.

He/she/it rarely comments on anything worthwhile, he/she/it just posts LDS and RC and other CHRISTian stuff. He/she/it cannot engage in a discussion at all.

But, that's on his/her/its good days. PMS days can't be that far away.

Enjoy !!

23834. PelleNilsson - 9/4/2004 9:55:11 PM

Posts were moved to Inferno.

23835. anomie - 9/4/2004 10:08:49 PM

Whew! Thanks Pelle. Even I was getting tired of that crap, and I usually don't care who posts what where.

23836. anomie - 9/4/2004 10:12:05 PM

Mr Kulligin, Glad to see you're alive and well. Where are you these days?

Had a chuckle with you commenting on your so-called knowledge of the Bible in response to Judith. You have indeed copped out of many of arguments and questions appealing to your esoteric scholarship. You use it to avoid simple, direct questions as well as to change the subject to your familiar turf.

You know this, don't you?

23837. anomie - 9/4/2004 10:42:21 PM

Jen,

Your obession with A5 is endearing, but do you have to make us all suffer?

23838. Bill Russell - 9/4/2004 10:44:41 PM

A reminder:

Difference of opinion is helpful in religion.

- Thomas Jefferson

23840. KuligintheHooligan - 9/4/2004 10:52:45 PM

"You have indeed copped out of many of arguments and questions appealing to your esoteric scholarship. You use it to avoid simple, direct questions as well as to change the subject to your familiar turf."

Whatever. You wouldn't know "esoteric scholarship" if it bit you in the behind.

23841. KuligintheHooligan - 9/4/2004 10:58:19 PM

anomie, I caught onto your game some time ago, and have chosen to just ignore it. I got sick and tired of people who took potshots, asked fifty questions, and then never returned for several weeks to engage any of my responses. It just isn't worth the time.

I'll take judith any day to someone like you. At least she sticks around and answers some things. You show up, what, every three weeks or so, ask a ridiculous number of questions, often with no relationship to present discussions, and then expect me to sit here and waste my time attempting answers, when you don't engage the discussion anyway. It's just not worth it.

You can call it "esoteric scholarship" all you want to. I just call it a big waste of time to engage you in anything meaningful. So just so you know, I will continue to ignore you.

23842. anomie - 9/4/2004 10:59:48 PM

Well, as long as you and Judith are making up then.

23843. KuligintheHooligan - 9/4/2004 11:01:03 PM

"This only demonstrates how easy it is to brainwash children."

This is just a silly response. Children are taught to believe in Santa Claus too, but at some point in time, a child questions it.

What % of Americans truly believe in Santa Claus? I've often seen something akin to this coming from skeptics here: "Belief in God is tantamount to belief in Santa Claus."

At some point, when you grow older you begin to test the things your parents taught you. Belief in Santa Claus becomes unreasonable. Belief in God remains reasonable and will always remain as such.

23844. KuligintheHooligan - 9/4/2004 11:02:08 PM

"Well, as long as you and Judith are making up then."

Well, we aren't "making up," but I am somewhat disturbed that Bill has gotten so under her skin. I prefer to maintain that distinction if I can!

23845. anomie - 9/4/2004 11:03:51 PM

Kulligin,

The questions you're talking about are the ones that have no sensible answer from within your religious construct. They are usually rhetorical and point to your absurd assertions about truth. You just won't admit it. So they're hardly worth discussing. And when I do stick around you do as I stated earlier - change the subject.

23846. anomie - 9/4/2004 11:05:45 PM

Kulligin, Ha! I understand about Bill. Nobody can pick on our Judith - or our Kulligin, for that matter!

23847. KuligintheHooligan - 9/4/2004 11:11:16 PM

anomie, I have learned the hard way in this forum on this matter, but don't worry, you aren't alone in all of this. Snowowl is another on my list of people to just not bother attempting any meaningful debate or discussion with. pelle too, even though he is here virtually every day, unlike yourself.

The latest of such discussions involved paganism and Christianity's supposed theft of its major tenets from it. After I posted extensively in rebuttal, I got zero engagement in the substance and facts. Just not worth my time anymore.

On the other hand, I've had discussions with alistair and jay which have been fruitful, even though we didn't agree one iota. At least the discussions went somewhere.

23848. KuligintheHooligan - 9/4/2004 11:14:29 PM

In engagement with you, anomie, the most recent example concerned your questions about the inerrancy of Scripture. You said it was an "extra biblical" doctrine, but then I endeavored to show that Scripture time and time again speaks of God's words as being without error. Your response? None, once again. So I decided to stop wasting my time formulating answers.

You may feel free to call that whatever you like. I don't care one way or the other. But in the seven years that I have frequented The Fray and The Mote, elusive could hardly be a word to describe me. In fact, the opposite is probably more reasonable a description, in that I am willing to engage over and over again topics, and beat a horse to death.

23849. anomie - 9/4/2004 11:38:50 PM

Kulligin,

Ah, but I did respond and I'm glad you brought it up. Those arguments about scripture claiming its own inerrancy are so easy to debunk it's almost childish.

I can just say, well it;s not talking about other books...or it was written before the cannonization...or that it must include the Gosple of Thomas, since some call that "scripture" too. Or, okay, but then it doeasn't apply to books written after the statment. Too easy. And one need be no scholar to see the leaks in the boat. It's sunk.

23850. anomie - 9/4/2004 11:41:59 PM

Kul,

Take the hard one. The one you've run away from. Let's go over the innerrancy audit trail. Explain how inerrancy is a valuable religious tenet when it comes to interpretations and understanding. What good is a perfect instruction book if everyone builds flawed houses.
Inerrancy, Kulligin...what good is it?

23851. anomie - 9/4/2004 11:43:27 PM

At least Catholics can claim the authority of the church. There's value in THAT. What authority does inerrancy possess?

23852. arkymalarky - 9/4/2004 11:57:55 PM

Inerrancy and immutability are not synonyms.

23853. arkymalarky - 9/4/2004 11:58:39 PM

That was not specifically to Anomie, btw.

23854. KuligintheHooligan - 9/4/2004 11:59:45 PM

There are several publications out there which tackle your particular question, anomie. James Boice and RC Sproul have both written some material on answering the question, "Inerrancy, what good is it?" I suggest you do a search for similar material. "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" would be an excellent place to begin, and you could easily find it on the Net.

The quick and dirty of it is, biblical inerrancy is rooted in the character and nature of God, whose words are perfect, and it serves as a basis toward which to work when it comes to understanding Scripture. In other words, if we didn't have an inerrant original, we'd have no hope that anything said therein is correct. However, given inerrancy, we know that if we are rigid and consistent with our hermeneutic, we can obtain the truth.

The only way that your contention could be correct (namely, errant interpretations make an inerrant original pointless) is if that is ALL we did was make errant interpretations. But the existence of the potential of errors does not in itself negate the usefulness of an inerrant original.

Obviously tons more can be said about this. That is why I suggest you do some reading on it.

23855. Bill Russell - 9/5/2004 12:00:01 AM

" At least Catholics can claim the authority of the church. There's value in THAT. "

Sorry, I don't see the 'value in THAT'. EVERY human organization become corrupt over time, and churches are no exception. After all, we humans were made in the image of a god.

23856. Bill Russell - 9/5/2004 12:00:50 AM

Or so CHRISTians claim.

23857. KuligintheHooligan - 9/5/2004 12:01:31 AM

"Inerrancy and immutability are not synonyms."

What has this got to do with the current discussion, arky? Did someone use the word "immutability" and I missed it?

23858. KuligintheHooligan - 9/5/2004 12:04:50 AM

"I can just say, well it;s not talking about other books...or it was written before the cannonization...or that it must include the Gosple of Thomas, since some call that "scripture" too. Or, okay, but then it doeasn't apply to books written after the statment. Too easy. And one need be no scholar to see the leaks in the boat. It's sunk."

Again, you simply are not addressing the issue here with these random comments. The fact that you think biblical inerrancy can be so easily sloughed off within the Christian framework of belief only exposes your ignorance on the topic, anomie. I'm not trying to be coy here, but you really need to go and read up on it. I'm sure, given your intellectual abilities, that you'll see that you are making the issue simplistic when it is not so.

Of course, any appeals to authority in any field involve a certain degree of circularity. Perhaps that is all you are trying to get at here.

23859. arkymalarky - 9/5/2004 12:07:50 AM

Hmmm. Let me see. I threw that off the cuff, not preparing to have to think in the middle of a holiday weekend.

A great deal has changed in 2000 years, and becausethe way people live has changed, Christian and non-Christian alike, people seem to argue that those changes are either proof of errancy on the part of the Bible or examples of misguided Christians who don't follow it as they should. I don't necessarily think it's either.

It's like the Constitution.

When the discussion comes from the standpoint of literal vs metaphorical, the question of errancy is irrelevant, imo. If I don't believe in a literal flood but I do believe the story of Noah is an important life lesson from God to man, I'm not equivocating to suit the Bible to my POV.

23860. anomie - 9/5/2004 12:15:22 AM

Kuligin,

You're just being silly. And encouraging me to read up on it doesn't make it any less silly.

In a roundabout way you admit that the value of inerrancy is questionable. Disciplined study and conclusions are always in dispute and doubt. What's more, you wouldn't give a wooden nickle if someone used your same rationale for the Book of Morman, say or some other "scripture".

Funny you mention the Chicago Statements, the one source I've read. They even admit that interpreation is a big problem but they're gonna affirm inerrancy anyway. Read up on it indeed. Like where would I read that inerrancy of the Bible is more valuable than inarrancy of Kuligin's Mote posts? And as for that, should we take your assertions as inerrant? If not, why? I'm sure I've asked this before. And, if not, then shouldn't you be a little less certain when you praise your understanding at the expense of other beliefs.

23861. anomie - 9/5/2004 12:17:58 AM

Arky, My point was that Catholics can bet their soul on church authority. There's no such safety in the inerrancy doctrine.

Catholics, for all their faults seem to believe in a real god who provides real guidance through a living church, rather than a text.

23862. anomie - 9/5/2004 12:22:22 AM

And God says, okay stupid humans, here's some markings that express inerrant truth and instruction. Now I know you all don't know what it means, but study hard. Some of you will get it right and live in heaven. But most of you will never get it right and you'll burn in hell. But this is my gift to you. And now go and study. Don't bother me anymore. I gave my last clues, tips and tricks on a Greek Island a long time ago. No more help.

Well...okay, here's a "Holy Spirit"! If you can figure that one out, you're half way to heaven.

Some religion!

23863. anomie - 9/5/2004 12:24:55 AM

Arky, I know what you mean, but I bet Kuligin believes in a world-wide flood, the Ark, the whole bit.

23864. arkymalarky - 9/5/2004 12:26:39 AM

Thanks Anomie. When I posted that I was thinking of the entire argument as it's been approached here over the years.

23865. arkymalarky - 9/5/2004 12:27:43 AM

I'm too slow (or too lazy to link to the post I was referring to)--23864 was to 23861.

23866. KuligintheHooligan - 9/5/2004 12:37:39 AM

I'm sorry that my suggestion that you read up more on the topic and become aware of the issues and arguments is deemed "silly" by you, but that is precisely the problem. You've never actually wanted to get familiarized with the topic. Rather, you prefer to spout the same tired arguments. That is precisely why I don't feel like engaging you on it.

Perhaps someone like pelty would be more interested in engaging you on this topic. It is like the issue I have faced consistently here, people saying, "Ah, the Bible is filled with errors," but then when I ask them to point them out, they fail to do so, or fail to stick around and engage my responses on the supposed errors.

Also, you are confusing interpretation and the possibility of error with the substance of the original. The former does not negate the latter, any more than the wrong use of a certain product negates the original intention of that product. Again, the only way for your argument to be valid is if ALL interpretations are ALWAYS wrong.

"They even admit that interpreation is a big problem but they're gonna affirm inerrancy anyway."

Please provide the specifics on this from the Chicago Statement. It shouldn't be too difficult for you to find.

"the one source I've read"

This is good to see. No doubt you are an expert on it as well.

23867. anomie - 9/5/2004 1:06:12 AM

Kuligin,

Enough. I have engaged you. YUou have admitted the problem. Inerrancy breaks down at the interpretation stage for some. Let's keep it simple and real.

Now, the next step YOU should take is to advise us how we know who is right and who is wrong. You can'r do that with any certainty. You can't do it even with a very high degree of consensus. You won't even try. No amount of reading up will help you here.

And my discussion starts with the assumption that the original text is inerrant. I conceded that already. Why are you saying I'm confused? You're just appealing to your limited scholarship again.

AND, you've failed to show why your principles or the Chicago Statements won't transfer to other texts. They will, BTW, but with the same lack of reason.

I've engaged you. You've conceded the main point.

23868. anomie - 9/5/2004 1:08:46 AM

And I'm not gonna go researching for you online. You know interpretation was discussed in Chicago, admitted as a problem, and dismissed with some gobbledy gook about disciplined study (and essentials of the faith, I believe).

23869. anomie - 9/5/2004 1:12:44 AM

I was not suggesting you try to prove any one set of interpretations here. You and I know you can't. I'm happy to leave it there.

23870. SnowOwl - 9/5/2004 5:21:44 AM

Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored.
Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will
encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is
at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that
His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our
confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.

It's all good stuff, anomie. Where there are inconsistancies we don't bother our pretty little heads about them. We just hope that one day we'll be able to come up with a convincing explanation for them.

23871. Bill Russell - 9/5/2004 5:55:03 AM

" Where there are inconsistancies we don't bother our pretty little heads about them. "

Why bother? No one knows whether a god or gods exist or not.

Billions of people on Earth, and most are led and mislead my some sort of religion and many unethical and immoral religious leaders.

23872. Bill Russell - 9/5/2004 10:17:18 AM

Did you know?:

There is no creed or formal set of beliefs that you have to hold to be a Quaker. This is because:

Quakers think that adopting a creed is taking on belief at second hand - they think that faith should be more personal than that and based on a person's inner conviction and on taking part in a shared search for the truth with other Quakers.

Quakers believe that faith is something that is always developing and not something frozen at a particular moment in history that can be captured in a fixed code of belief But it is possible to list many ideas and beliefs that are generally accepted by Quakers...

23873. anomie - 9/5/2004 12:08:16 PM

SnowOwl,

Yep. It's interesting to paraphrase Christian beliefs, as you just did, using simple language to express the very same concepts and see their reaction.

23874. anomie - 9/5/2004 12:09:54 PM

...and if you don't use the same brainwashing, chant-like language, they accuse you of not understanding, and then try to explain it to you, using more brainwashing lingo.

23875. wonkers2 - 9/5/2004 2:34:49 PM

The Quaker religion is among the least obnoxious of all religions.

23876. Bill Russell - 9/5/2004 4:34:43 PM

Yep!!

Unitarian is another.

23877. judithathome - 9/5/2004 5:20:09 PM

The Quaker religion is among the least obnoxious of all religions

Except for that tiny slip which gave us Richard Nixon.

23878. Bill Russell - 9/5/2004 5:28:34 PM

Nixon claimed to be a Quaker, just as Bush claims to be a CHRISTian.

I didn't believe Herr Nixon, and I don't believe Herr Bush.

Go figure!

23879. PelleNilsson - 9/5/2004 5:31:00 PM

LMBO

23880. Bill Russell - 9/5/2004 5:33:45 PM

I knew Herr Nixon. Nixon was a friend of mine. (not really)

And Nixon was no Quaker and no CHRISTian.

23881. Bill Russell - 9/5/2004 6:30:26 PM

Bush is no CHRISTian, although the Bible does approve of war. Slavery too.

23882. clydefo - 9/6/2004 4:36:30 AM

Late Sunday night as tropical storm Frances was lingering over the Tampa area, the WFLA weatherman took the anchor person to task for referring to the vagaries of Mother Nature. He said, to paraphrase, "I might be going out on a limb here (as though he were risking admonishment) but it's not Mother Nature, it's God exerting his will". I don't know if the guy was ragged-out at the end of a long day, or if supernatural explanations are a coming trend in meteorology.

23883. angel-five - 9/6/2004 5:05:20 AM

Well, I take vacation with my GF and when I come back there's a billion posts. Not much new, but, traffic all the same.

Whatever the hell Pelle had to move, people, don't do it again.

Query: If God gets involved in hurricanes, how come so many of them hit the homes of Southern Baptists?

23884. Bill Russell - 9/6/2004 5:13:29 AM

"how come so many of them hit the homes of Southern Baptists?"

Could it be that Southern Baptists live in the south?

23885. Bill Russell - 9/6/2004 5:13:44 AM

"how come so many of them hit the homes of Southern Baptists?"

Could it be that Southern Baptists live in the south?

23886. Bill Russell - 9/6/2004 5:13:50 AM

"how come so many of them hit the homes of Southern Baptists?"

Could it be that Southern Baptists live in the south?

23887. angel-five - 9/6/2004 5:26:35 AM

Also, you are confusing interpretation and the possibility of error with the substance of the original. The former does not negate the latter, any more than the wrong use of a certain product negates the original intention of that product. Again, the only way for your argument to be valid is if ALL interpretations are ALWAYS wrong.

That's not true at all. Biblical inerrancy is meaningless as a pure concept -- it requires the text of the Bible to have a defined meaning for it to have any value. A generalized faith that the Bible is absolutely inerrant, and that any error arising from it is simply an error in interpretation, is not a logical belief nor is it to be addressed with the forensic tools of logic -- it is an article of faith and can merely be testified or denied.

If the text itself does not directly bear out its own truth in self-evident and logical ways, but requires some hermeneutical monkey-wrenching, then one cannot speak of the inerrant nature of the text, but must also extend that proffered-for-the-sake-of-argument inerrance to the act of interpretation as well (where it's more properly called infallibility). In this the dancer cannot be distinguished from the dance, as centuries of scholarship into language and literature itself firmly bears out, and if Kuligin wishes to argue against it I invite him to do the studies into criticism (not just the coiffed and neutered Biblical variants of it, but literary criticism as a whole) himself. Many of us here have done that work, but he has not, and it will be interesting to see if he is as eager to practice as he is to preach.

23888. angel-five - 9/6/2004 5:28:29 AM

What most people (i.e. people for whom the question is not academic) mean when they talk about the inerrant inspired word of the Judeo-Christian god is what they understand that word to be. Words themselves cannot be inerrant if they are ambiguous, but require the reader to supply an understanding of those words which can then be judged to be true or false, errant or inerrant. And this mediation between the words and the understanding is in no way shape or form anything that can be considered inerrant, even by the most strident of biblical fundamentalists, unless they're willing to arrogate themselves as being directly inspired by God. No doubt some of them will.

A shorter way to say this is that, assuming the Bible is inerrant, when Kuligin reads the Bible and believes it to be inerrant and argues from the position of biblical inerrancy he is really arguing his own understanding of the Bible which, as I'm sure even Kuligin would agree, is errant, from a fallible person. This should obviate, from the get go, any argument from the position of biblical inerrancy, simply because humans are fallible and they're the ones reading the book.

Any proper search for the meaning of a text that we start out deeming to be the inerrant word of a deity should be a humble one, constantly mediated by our realization that even if this deity is infallible, we are not, and that the act of arguing for one's interpretations of the bible (small or large, complex and devious or simple and forthright, seeming to follow the exact language of text or spiraling through complex allegory) -- while it is part and parcel of scholarship upon that text -- can never be supported in any way by the idea that the Bible is an infallible document.

Of course, that's just how it should be, not how it is.

23889. angel-five - 9/6/2004 5:29:09 AM

Russell: Press the post button once, and don't refresh the screen. Reading your one liners once is quite enough.

23890. Bill Russell - 9/6/2004 5:58:31 AM

"Press the post button once, and don't refresh the screen. Reading your one liners once is quite enough."

I agree!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm having computer problems not operator problems. After my wife uses the computer to play bridge, it is messed up, so I have to shut it down and start it again. That solves the problems, but I often forget to do it, as it doesn't happen EVERY time.

23891. KuligintheHooligan - 9/6/2004 3:14:49 PM

"when Kuligin reads the Bible and believes it to be inerrant and argues from the position of biblical inerrancy he is really arguing his own understanding of the Bible which, as I'm sure even Kuligin would agree, is errant, from a fallible person. This should obviate, from the get go, any argument from the position of biblical inerrancy, simply because humans are fallible and they're the ones reading the book."

This would only be true is humans, being errant, only and always make errors, but this is not the case. Humans do not act errantly 100% of the time, and in fact, in given instances or situations, can act entirely without error (such as in scoring 100% on a test, and so on).

Again, the only way angel-five's argument here makes sense is if humans always err. Having the capability of erring, and erring itself, are two entirely different things.

23892. wonkers2 - 9/6/2004 3:48:58 PM

CATHOLICS ALLOWED PRO-CHOICE VOTE

They can back abortion rights candidates, if they agree on other issues.

Anti-abortion Catholics can support pro-choice candidates, as long as they agree with the candidate on a range of other issues.

That pronouncement in an Italian magazine from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican's top spokesman on Catholic teachings, went unnoticed in the din of presidential election-year politics.

But it could reververate in a close election, which pits President Bush, a conservative Christian abortion opponent, against Democratic Sen. Kerry, a Catholic who favors abortion rights.

[Headline article in Detroit Free Press 9-7-04]

At last something sensible from Ratfinger!

23893. wonkers2 - 9/6/2004 4:11:49 PM

DONATIONS BY NUNS TO EMILY'S LIST QUESTIONED

The Immaculate Heart of Mary sisters, the blue-robed nuns who have educated legions of Catholic children in southeastern Michigan, donated $200 to Emily's List, which raises money for Democratic female candidates who support the right to have abortions.

Despite the church's teachings against abortion, the IHMs made the donation in August 2003 to promote electing more women into office, said Sister Mary Katherine Hamilton, IHM vice president.

"We were'nt making a political statement in terms" of abortion," she said.

Archdiocese of Detroit spokesman, Ned McGrath said arch diocesan officials are puzzled about the HIMs donations, which they learned about from the Free Press.

McGrath said Cardinal Adam Maida, who has repeatedly spoken about the "moral evil of abortion," would be "prepared, if necessary, to address what happened with the appropriate pastoral response." He declined to elaborate.

"Supporting legitimate causes for the advancement of women is one thing," said McGrath. "Support for Emily's List, with its defining litmus test for abortion rights is quite something else."

[From the Detroit Free Press 9-7-04.]

Contributions may be sent to Emily's List at www.emilyslist.org.

23894. wonkers2 - 9/6/2004 4:24:03 PM

On inerrancy: Ted Williams batted only .400 or thereabouts in his best year. That is, arguably the greatest batter of all time, was wrong sixty percent of the time.

23895. judithathome - 9/6/2004 6:11:28 PM

Again, the only way angel-five's argument here makes sense is if humans always err. Having the capability of erring, and erring itself, are two entirely different things.

Humans DO err all the time...according to your very words, we are born in sin and live in sin every day until we are saved and even then, we have to work constantly to live our lives correctly because man's very nature is sinful. So even the smallest infaction against God is errant...we wake up one morning and gripe about having to go to work: we've erred because we are supposed to "make a joyful noise" and griping is not joyful.

Man sins every day, almost every hour. There is no way to live a perfect life...we will always sin in some way.

23896. Bill Russell - 9/6/2004 7:20:57 PM

" we will always sin in some way. "

Speak for yourself.

23897. PelleNilsson - 9/6/2004 7:34:39 PM

Sin against what, Judith? If not against the will of God, what then?

23898. Bill Russell - 9/6/2004 7:39:56 PM

We sin angainst other humans, but mostly we sin against our fellow creatures.

Animal cruelty is rampant, expecially in CHRISTian nations.

23899. angel-five - 9/6/2004 8:14:11 PM

Again, the only way angel-five's argument here makes sense is if humans always err. Having the capability of erring, and erring itself, are two entirely different things.

Not at all to the former and the latter is what you're failing to properly understand.

Your position may be succinctly summed as follows:

You believe in the inerrant Bible.

You believe that in order to correctly understand the inerrant Bible one has to apply human scholarship to it and figure out exactly what the author intended to mean based upon extratextual analysis (a practice which literary criticsm now regards with the phrase 'the intentional fallacy' and rightfully disdains).

You believe it's possible people could be right in this scholarship, although they are not infallible.

However, you cannot know, which is why you yourself cannot espouse readings of the text as inerrant. You are a fallible human; the best you can do is say 'Well, this is what I think it means' but inerrance cannot ever enter your presentation without being fallacious. You have no infallible way of knowing whether your fallible interpretation of the inerrant text is in fact inerrant itself.

To this you would usually like to respond 'Big Deal, Angel Five, but if we listen to you, we can't ever argue X Y or Z because we can't ever know if we know it.'

And my response to that is, 'Yes, and you should think about that more.'

23900. Bill Russell - 9/6/2004 8:17:39 PM

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and the whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity."

-John Adams- [U.S. President]

"The name of Christ has caused more persecutions, wars, and miseries than any other name has caused."

-John E. Remsburg- [Author] {1910}

23901. judithathome - 9/6/2004 8:24:11 PM

Sin against what, Judith? If not against the will of God, what then?

As Bill said, against others. We can be prideful and spiteful and cruel to others in a lot of things we do. We can feel superior; we can think we are better than others or smarter or we can do spiteful things, as was evidenced in this very thread by one of the resident Christians just last week. We can sneer at others, we can call them names, we can be smug about many things. We can judge others...there are a number of thngs we do everyday that are not nice and claiming that we don't do them at all is one of those many things.

23902. Bill Russell - 9/6/2004 8:32:55 PM

Arrogant Americans.

Americans are probably the most arrogant of all 'CHRISTian' peoples

What are American preachers preaching?

Christianity? Or Satan worship?

23903. PelleNilsson - 9/6/2004 8:59:35 PM

I'm sorry if my question sounded snide, Judith. The point I wanted to arrive at, and which you confirm, is that we all have value systems. We try to adhere to them and when we fail, as we invariably do from time to time, we feel sorry about it. You don't have to be a believer to have values.

It is wrong to assume that religion shapes values. The role of religion is to codify and give legitimacy to pre-existing values. Take the ten commandments for example. Four of them refer to religious practices. The other six codify social norms without which no society can survive.

In the past, Kuligin has quoted Jean-Paul Sartre a couple times: "If there is no God everything is permitted". I guess Kuligin sees Sartre as some kind of anarcho-nihilist and that the quote means that "everything will and should be permitted". That is not true. Sartre was certainly a non-believer, but he was also a moralist in the Kantian tradition. I took the trouble to look up that quote and read it in context but by then the debate had moved on to other issues. But from what I understand, Sartre point of departure was the question "should I be my brother's keeper?" to which he answered an emphatic yes. We have a responsibility towards others and we should try to fulfill that to the best of our abilities.

23904. Bill Russell - 9/6/2004 9:03:44 PM

"should I be my brother's keeper?"

We don't need to be of any religious bent to understand that.

23905. KuligintheHooligan - 9/6/2004 9:07:09 PM

"Humans DO err all the time...according to your very words, we are born in sin and live in sin every day until we are saved"

judith, in the context of the discussion, we are talking about humans and their ability to make or not make errors. My point was that humans do make errors, but they also do not make errors. In some instances, they act perfectly. A-5's contention that inerrancy is negated because humans make mistakes misses the mark, because making mistakes doesn't mean that in this or that particular circumstance that they MUST make mistakes. There is a big difference.

23906. PelleNilsson - 9/6/2004 9:08:16 PM

Bill

Animal cruelty is rampant, expecially in CHRISTian nations.

Can you provide some empirical evidence showing that animal cruelty is generally more common among Christians than in other cultures?

And don't come up with the Jansenites of India. We know all about them.

23907. Bill Russell - 9/6/2004 9:13:28 PM

Here is but one site:

http://www.all-creatures.org/

23908. PelleNilsson - 9/6/2004 9:15:28 PM

Jainits, sorry. The Jansenites was a protestant sect.

23909. KuligintheHooligan - 9/6/2004 9:23:17 PM

A-5, your argument cuts boths ways then. If it works with respect to the Bible, then it works wrt everything else too. In other words, you can never know if your intepretation of Shakespeare is correct, or for that matter, if your interpretation of my posts are correct either. Your position ultimately results in complete disarray.

Again, one can say "Humans err," but that is not equal to saying, "Humans must and always make mistakes." The former states a fact, but the latter is a false conclusion from the former. Yet, you continue to make this false conclusion.

Are your posts always wrong, angel-five??

23910. KuligintheHooligan - 9/6/2004 9:26:58 PM

The whole field of textual criticism makes your points moot in any event A-5.

23911. Bill Russell - 9/6/2004 9:28:29 PM

Thomas Jefferson:

I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature.

They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.

Jefferson again:

Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.

More Jefferson:

The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.

23912. KuligintheHooligan - 9/6/2004 9:35:56 PM

"The name of Christ has caused more persecutions, wars, and miseries than any other name has caused."

The words of Jesus: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to teh earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'"

Matthew 10:34-36

23913. KuligintheHooligan - 9/6/2004 9:39:02 PM

Here is the error (no pun intended) in your current line of thinking, A-5:

"he is really arguing his own understanding of the Bible which, as I'm sure even Kuligin would agree, is errant, from a fallible person"

You de facto conclude that, because I am a fallible person, that I must be making a mistake in my understanding and/or interpretation of Scripture.

You then go on to critique this position that you say I hold:

"You believe it's possible people could be right in this scholarship, although they are not infallible."

Of course it is possible that they could be correct, just like fallible people can drive to work each morning without causing an accident, or fallible people can score a perfect score on an exam, or how fallible people can build bridges that do not fail, etc.

23914. KuligintheHooligan - 9/6/2004 9:40:20 PM

The potential for fallibility does not necessarily produce fallibilitiy in each and every instance. You are errantly concluding, though, that it must.

Which leaves me to ask again, are your posts always wrong angel-five?

23915. PelleNilsson - 9/6/2004 9:41:22 PM

your argument cuts boths ways then. If it works with respect to the Bible, then it works wrt everything else too. In other words, you can never know if your intepretation of Shakespeare is correct, or for that matter, if your interpretation of my posts are correct either.

Exactly, Kuligin. You are starting to get it.

23916. KuligintheHooligan - 9/6/2004 9:44:12 PM

Here it is again from your previous comments:

"This should obviate, from the get go, any argument from the position of biblical inerrancy, simply because humans are fallible and they're the ones reading the book."

No, no, no. Just start filling in other things in your quote above, like driving to work for example.

"This should obviate, from the get go, any argument from the position that PEOPLE CAN DRIVE TO WORK WITHOUT ACCIDENTS, simply because humans are fallible and they are the ones DRIVING TO WORK."

Insert anything you like into the sentence. Doctors cannot possibly perform good surgery, because they are fallible. Scientists are fallible too, A-5, but you seem to place a ton of faith in their work.

From your own posts you can't even conclude, then, that what you are saying today is in fact worth listening to. In your own posts are contained the refutation of your own arguments.

23917. Bill Russell - 9/6/2004 9:44:20 PM

'You are starting to get it.'

One of the very few in America...

23918. KuligintheHooligan - 9/6/2004 9:45:51 PM

"Exactly, Kuligin. You are starting to get it."

Then stop wasting our time posting things that are by definition - your definition - wrong.

From now on, I will consider everything that pelle says to have no basis in fact. Hey, wait a minute, I've been doing that already.

23919. alistairConnor - 9/6/2004 9:51:58 PM

The Jansenites was a protestant sect.

Wrong, Pelle. The Jansenites were a fundie Catholic sect, who struggled with the Jesuits for hegemony over Catholic doctrine during the counter-reformation, second half of the 17th century. Pascal was basically a Jansenite. They lost, and were firmly repressed under Louis XIV.

23920. PelleNilsson - 9/6/2004 9:56:30 PM

Bill. Regarding animal cruelty and your source (learn to link!), that is a Christian site which advocates against animal cruelty. I asked for an empirical cross-cultural comparison of the frequency of animal cruelty.

It amazes me that you, a veteran of many forums, think that you can come in here and make declarative statements without having the knowledge or the facts or at least some plausible arguments to back them up.

23921. KuligintheHooligan - 9/6/2004 9:59:01 PM

"It amazes me that you, a veteran of many forums, think that you can come in here and make declarative statements without having the knowledge or the facts or at least some plausible arguments to back them up."

You do this all the time, pelle.

But who cares, really, since we already can conclude that you, being a fallible human being, cannot possibly say anything that is inerrant.

23922. Bill Russell - 9/6/2004 10:04:48 PM

LMBO

23923. PelleNilsson - 9/6/2004 10:06:18 PM

Kuligin. I'm posting my opinions here just as you do. But unlike you and your sect, I am not vain enough, or ignorant enough, to claim that I am in the possession of the eternal truth

23924. Bill Russell - 9/6/2004 10:10:05 PM

"I am not vain enough, or ignorant enough, to claim that I am in the possession of the eternal truth"

So, you leave that to Jesus and one of the other two CHRISTian gods?

23925. PelleNilsson - 9/6/2004 10:11:00 PM

Thanks Alistair. I know nothing about the Jansenites except that I saw them mentioned once in the same context as the Huguenots so I jumped to a conclusion. I guess the connection was that they were both persecuted.

23926. PelleNilsson - 9/6/2004 10:18:14 PM

we already can conclude that you, being a fallible human being, cannot possibly say anything that is inerrant

Such a conclusion would be a logical fallacy. It also contradicts the position you have taken upthread.

23927. KuligintheHooligan - 9/6/2004 10:18:17 PM

"I am not vain enough, or ignorant enough, to claim that I am in the possession of the eternal truth"

Don't stoop to hyperbole, pelle. Do you or do you not believe that what you post here is true and valid? Or it is just completely rife with errors, being the fallible human being that you are?

23928. KuligintheHooligan - 9/6/2004 10:19:07 PM

"Such a conclusion would be a logical fallacy. It also contradicts the position you have taken upthread."

Tell that to Angel-Five, who doesn't seem to get it. But then he tends to major in logical fallacies.

23929. KuligintheHooligan - 9/6/2004 10:19:43 PM

And oh humorless, Swede, you missed the irony in my comment you just quoted in any event.

23930. PelleNilsson - 9/6/2004 10:23:46 PM

One doesn't look for humour in your posts, Kuligin. Not anymore, in any case.

23931. KuligintheHooligan - 9/6/2004 10:27:07 PM

Now you dodge the issue. First hyperbole, now a dodge.

Let's face it, you just admitted that Angel-Five's argument contains a "logical fallacy" and you didn't even realize you had done so. But thanks all the same, oh humorless one.

23932. Bill Russell - 9/7/2004 1:33:36 AM

"There is one notable thing about our Christianity:

bad, bloody, merciless, money-grabbing and predatory as it is - in our country particularly, and in all other Christian countries in a somewhat modified degree - it is still a hundred times better than the Christianity of the Bible, with its prodigious crime- the invention of Hell.

Measured by our Christianity of to-day, bad as it is, hypocritical as it is, empty and hollow as it is, neither the Deity nor His Son is a Christian, nor qualified for that moderately high place.

Ours is a terrible religion. The fleets of the world could swim in spacious comfort in the innocent blood it has spilt."

(Mark Twain, "Reflections on Religion)

23933. Bill Russell - 9/7/2004 6:02:13 AM

LMBO

See below...

23934. Bill Russell - 9/7/2004 6:04:27 AM

Illinois Republican U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes injected religion into his race against Democratic candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday.

Archived Images: Illinois Republicans At The RNC

According to a list of quotes put out by the Democratic candidate, Keyes said in a radio interview at the Republican National Convention that Jesus would not vote for Obama.

The quote was part of a list Obama sent reporters of Keyes' accusations and epithets about him since Keyes became a candidate, NBC5 political editor Dick Kay said.

Kay also reported that Keyes called Obama a "socialist and a liar" on a cable access news show on Monday. Obama said he wants to win big to give Keyes a spanking because Keyes wages a scorched earth campaign.

Keyes then went into a very long analysis of the word "spanking" and suggested it might be related to slavery and insulting to African-Americans. He would not answer when asked directly if he was insulted.

Keyes, who has focused his campaign on abortion, said that his statement about whom Jesus would vote for was based on Obama's pro-choice votes in the Illinois Senate.

"Christ would not stand idly by while an infant child in that situation died," Keyes said. "And I'm not the only person, obviously, who thinks if you are a representative of me, I cannot vote for you if you would ignore the dignity and claims of that child's life. So, yes, I did respond quite logically -- you'll see it's quite logical, right -- with the conclusion that Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved."

23935. angel-five - 9/7/2004 6:43:53 AM

Insert anything you like into the sentence. Doctors cannot possibly perform good surgery, because they are fallible. Scientists are fallible too, A-5, but you seem to place a ton of faith in their work.

Are you not getting this on purpose, or are you genuinely not getting this? I'm inclined to think the former, because you're not supposed to be stupid.

Fallible persons can be right. They just cannot argue that their interpretation is inerrant, unless they believe themselves to be infallible. The math of this is very very simple, Kuligin.

Your red herring here is 'But that means that we can't believe anything ever!' which is rubbish. You can believe you're right. You can even believe you're infallible if you wish, closet papist that you are. You can go on thinking that you're right. You just can't logically invoke biblical inerrancy to support your interpretation of what the Bible means. The best you can do is say 'I believe the bible is inerrant, my interpretation of inerrant chapter X is un-inerrant exegesis Y'.

It's predictable that you'd try to reduce this to absurdity, but it shows, as Pelle pointed out, that you just aren't getting it. Hell, you ridicule the most basic truth expressed in this discussion so far as being something ludicrous.

Oh, and Kuligin: You don't know jack about 'text criticism'. You only know about those bastardized schools of it which are broken to the whip of Christian 'research'. If you really want to get into a discussion of literary criticism, hell, start up any time you like.

23936. angel-five - 9/7/2004 6:51:59 AM

Honestly, what is so hard about grasping that we can't logically be sure of an interpretation of something? Because it seems to me to be nothing more than the evidence of intelligence at work. In order to be absolutely sure of something, you must leave logic behind and embrace faith. Which is all well and good except for people like Kuligin trying to backslide enough to use the logic and not get caught.

It is great that Kuligin believes he has encountered truth, but he needs to understand the fundamental fallibility in his methods is something that the rest of us will notice, even if he chooses not to do so.

23937. angel-five - 9/7/2004 7:09:58 AM

Let us cut to the quick of this, as I am sure Kuligin will post a lot of non-contributory babble if we don't.

Kuligin, do you believe you are infallible?

If not, do you believe you can properly claim your reading of the bible to be inerrant? If so, how? If not, why are you bitching?

23938. Bill Russell - 9/7/2004 7:11:43 AM

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

23939. Bill Russell - 9/7/2004 7:13:24 AM

" why are you bitching? " = CHRISTian?

23940. Bill Russell - 9/7/2004 10:06:11 AM

There is no fire like greed,
No crime like hatred,

No sorrow like separation,

No sickness like hunger of heart,

And no joy like the joy of freedom.

Health, contentment and trust

Are your greatest possessions,

And freedom your greatest joy.

Look within.

Be still.

Free from fear and attachment,

Know the sweet joy of living in the way.

-from the Dhammapada

23941. KuligintheHooligan - 9/7/2004 5:08:52 PM

Perhaps I missed something here, Angel-Five, but where on earth did I ever say that I was infallible, inerrant, or that all my interpretation of Scripture was such? Why is it that you have shifted the discussion subtly from its original focus?

23942. KuligintheHooligan - 9/7/2004 5:12:50 PM

Aaaah, I found it here. Once again, Angel-Five, you have attempted to change my position and place words in my mouth with this:

"You just can't logically invoke biblical inerrancy to support your interpretation of what the Bible means."

I never said that my interpretation of Scripture must be correct because Scripture is inerrant. The two simply do not follow. But that you now attempt to make it appear that this is what I believe just makes you look desperate.

I said God's Word is without error. I never said nor implied that my interpretation of God's Word is inerrant. However, what I did say is that, just because I am a fallible human being, this doesn't negate the possibility that my interpretation could be correct.

Again, you just don't follow too closely and instead choose to -once again - create a straw man argument that I supposedly hold and then tear it down. Your tactics, Angel-Five, are tired and old.

Go back to arguing with pelty. Perhaps he has more patience for you than I do.

23943. PelleNilsson - 9/7/2004 5:47:11 PM

So to summarize.

The bible contains the word of God and is therefore inerrant.
But the word is not immediately available. The text must be interpreted to yield the correct meaning.
All men are faillible including those who interpret the text of the bible.
That they are fallible does not mean that they are consistently wrong. Sometimes they are right.

The following question then arises. What criteria should be used to separate the correct interpretations from the false ones given that those who define such criteria and apply them to the interpretations are also fallible?

23944. jayackroyd - 9/7/2004 6:27:33 PM

God tells us?

23945. jayackroyd - 9/7/2004 7:27:45 PM

AP:

Some 100 to 120 girls have defied France's ban on Islamic head scarves in school, the education minister said Wednesday, and at least five boys from the country's tiny Sikh community have been barred from class for refusing to remove their turbans.

The defiant girls are in talks with school officials trying to persuade them to remove the head coverings, said Education Minister Francois Fillon, giving the first complete figure made public since the start of the school year Sept. 2.

Good for them, I say.

23946. angel-five - 9/7/2004 7:39:26 PM

Perhaps I missed something here, Angel-Five, but where on earth did I ever say that I was infallible, inerrant, or that all my interpretation of Scripture was such?

THAT'S THE POINT.

I'm not shifting the focus. This has been the point all along. How simple do I have to make the math of this for you, in order for you to actually do it, instead of blathering about nonsense?

Bible = according to you, inerrant.

You = according to you, not inerrant.

Bible = literal words and meanings.

You = read and interpret Bible to supply non-literal words and meanings.

Straight reading of Bible = according to you, inerrant.

Your reading of the bible = also, according to you, inerrant.

Do you come out and say that last? No, but it's unfortunately implicit when you argue for biblical inerrancy. You aren't arguing that the Bible is inerrant a priori, but have a specific interpretation of it in mind as that which is inerrant (surprise, surprise, it's your interpretation). You also argue that there are wrong ways to read the Bible, which further solidifies your point. The fact that you never say this is irrelevant, Kuligin, because it's implicit in the act of proselytizing an inerrant Bible!

Now we see you saying 'Look, I never said my own interpretation is inerrant'. Which was the whole point of all this. You have probably never used that phrase, Kuligin, but it is implicit, QED, in the act of arguing from an inerrant Bible. As has also been demonstrated, it's part and parcel of readership. You really don't like that, and start talking about changing the subject while you, well, change the subject. But no one's fooled.

23947. angel-five - 9/7/2004 7:40:05 PM

The problem is that you're fallible. And, being fallible, even if you have the capability of being inerrant on something (i.e. getting a 100% on your test) you don't have the infallible capability of saying when you're inerrant! In fact, you believe you are right on a regular basis, and as I am sure you would admit if pressed, you are often in error when you don't initially believe yourself to be. (This discussion is a nice case in point for that. Honestly, Kuligin, go back and read your statements thus far.)

The simple and unfortunate truth is that the concept of inerrance isn't one that can have any traffic with human-mediated understanding. The limit, as I've already expressed, is the idea of having reverence for the source document because it, within itself, contains the inerrant truth. One should humbly delve within hoping to discover this truth, not trumpet it while wrapping oneself up in implied inerrance. This, too, is something that you don't like at all, but it's unfortunately inescapable once you begin to consider the matter.

23948. angel-five - 9/7/2004 7:53:33 PM

Kuligin: we already can conclude that you, being a fallible human being, cannot possibly say anything that is inerrant

Pelle: Such a conclusion would be a logical fallacy. It also contradicts the position you have taken upthread.

Kuligin:Tell that to Angel-Five, who doesn't seem to get it. But then he tends to major in logical fallacies.

No, it's unfortunately you who isn't getting it. To get it, I suppose, one needs a bit of epistemology.

The usefulness of a concept like 'inerrance' depends upon specific applications. That something somewhere could be completely correct is only a matter of philosophical debate for the sophomore. The meat lies in the question, 'is X inerrant?'

'Possibly inerrant' is a useless concept. And Possibly Inerrant is the best that you, a fallible human, can come up with. Can you be right? Sure. Can you know you're right with the sort of certainty required to speak of inerrance? No. This is the part that's so hard for you to get, and it's very easy to grasp so I have to wonder what's up.

To sum it succinctly: Even if you are right, you cannot infallibly demonstrate it, but more importantly, you, being fallible, cannot know whether or not you nailed it inerrantly.

23949. jayackroyd - 9/7/2004 7:54:22 PM

I haven't read all the traffic on this subject, but that is a nice summmary of a subtle idea that had never crossed my mind.

That is, the Koran may the inerrant word of God as heard by the Prophet, but any attempt by a human being to explain what any of it means cannot be inerrant.

Is this insight the result of post-modern literary thinking? Or did somebody think it up earlier?

23950. wonkers2 - 9/7/2004 7:55:11 PM

Doesn't the Bible say that all humans are errant?

23951. jayackroyd - 9/7/2004 7:59:42 PM

However, what I did say is that, just because I am a fallible human being, this doesn't negate the possibility that my interpretation could be correct.

Let me try to help, A-5.

Yes, that's right kuligan. But it also doesn't rule out the possibility that your interpretation could be incorrect.

On a side note, what makes this all so tricky is that unlike a surgeon who makes an error, it's hard to know when your interpretations are false. There's no dead patient on the table when you make a mistake.

23952. Bill Russell - 9/7/2004 8:00:27 PM

"Jesus would not vote for Obama."

Alan Keyes

LMBO

23953. jayackroyd - 9/7/2004 8:01:16 PM

Yeah, Wonk. What A-5 has done is shown that you can't have an inerrant interpretation of even an inerrant scripture, because humans are (necessarily, or they wouldn't have sinned in the first place) errant.

23954. jayackroyd - 9/7/2004 8:01:46 PM

"has done is shown" is better said "has shown."

23955. angel-five - 9/7/2004 8:10:55 PM

What criteria should be used to separate the correct interpretations from the false ones given that those who define such criteria and apply them to the interpretations are also fallible?

Well, according to critical scholarship in the round, if one is starting from the concept that the text is inerrant, the only way to demonstrate that an interpretation is inerrant would be to construct a logical proof from the words of the text. The New Critics would like that.

Here's the root of the matter:

The problem is, of course, that those who hold the Bible is inerrant fall into two camps -- those who believe that every word of the Bible is literally true as written (which, as the history of this thread shows, is problematic, and, IAC, Kuligin is demonstrably not one of these) or those who hold that parts of the Bible were written in different, non-literal ways.

This latter school cannot argue for Biblical inerrance. Why? Because, in the latter case you are talking about an inerrant reading of the Bible! The text itself isn't what we're talking about, but the reading, which is what generates our understanding. And Kuligin would insist that it can and must be understood via scholarship, guesses as to what the author meant, historical context, text-to-text comparison, and so on -- all errant processes. Who's the reader? The errant human! Can the errant human be right? Yes. Can the errant human be, over a short course of time, inerrant on some topic? I suppose. Can they know that they're inerrant? No.

23956. Bill Russell - 9/7/2004 8:11:53 PM

Aldous Huxley:

At least two thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity, idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religious or political idols.

23957. pelty - 9/7/2004 8:12:21 PM

If I may briefly interject, it seems to me A-5 that you are indeed placing words in Vic's mouth. I see no evidence in this exchange which demonstrates that KtH believes his interpretation to be inerrant. There are likely a number of issues that he would acknowledge that Christians can have disagreement on and still be considered "Christian" (that is, there are [at least] two hermeneutical approaches to a given issue). An example is the classic "freewill" vs. "predestination" debate (I do not know where KtH falls on this, but he would surely admit that he may fall on the "wrong" side of the debate). Thus, it would seem that there are issues upon which KtH might hold to a certain position because of his interpretation of the data, but would not say that this position is "inerrant," that is *has* to be right because he, KtH, makes no mistakes.

23958. angel-five - 9/7/2004 8:12:46 PM

Therefore the reader cannot argue inerrance at all with any specific interpretation in mind. Game, set, match.

Once again, this is something that literary criticism has understood for quite some time. The inerrance of a text is epistemologically worthless if the reader is errant. The author is dead, the reading is what generates meaning for the reader, the reader isn't infallible. Serious literary critics, both formalists and pomos, point and laugh at the sort of ridiculous hoopla that Biblical 'criticism' gets up to. And this is why Biblical criticism is now mostly its own school, with its own tools, which aren't questioned or analyzed in a fair light.

23959. PelleNilsson - 9/7/2004 8:14:09 PM

Well, Kuligin has become snared in his own web. I also think his position is in contradiction to Luther's teachings. Luther translated NT into German for the express purpose to make it available to everybody. He thought that the word of God was accessible for the ordinary man without the need for intermediaries.

What Kuligin is doing here is to mount a defense for his own caste of professional bible interpreters. That is why he always resort to the argument "go study before you address those complicated issues". Very un-Lutheran.

23960. Bill Russell - 9/7/2004 8:14:15 PM

Everything ever written by mankind is errant.

23961. jayackroyd - 9/7/2004 8:14:39 PM

I see no evidence in this exchange which demonstrates that KtH believes his interpretation to be inerrant.

A-5 is not making this claim.

23962. angel-five - 9/7/2004 8:15:12 PM

If I may briefly interject, it seems to me A-5 that you are indeed placing words in Vic's mouth. I see no evidence in this exchange which demonstrates that KtH believes his interpretation to be inerrant.

Then read a bit more.

BTW, have you abandoned the Pauline argument entirely as has Jenerator, and are now wishing to move on, or are you just still severely constrained for time and can't offer any more than brief interjections on current topics?

23963. Bill Russell - 9/7/2004 8:15:25 PM

The Bible was written by men. No women wrote any of the Bible.

23964. jayackroyd - 9/7/2004 8:17:29 PM

A-5

Not to be too stupid, I hope, but aren't translators also human? Doesn't any inerrancy claim have to be, a la the Koran, of the work in its original tongue?

23965. angel-five - 9/7/2004 8:18:52 PM

Is this insight the result of post-modern literary thinking? Or did somebody think it up earlier?

Well, world history is full of religious ascetics and mystics who eschewed any sort of literal logical statements on their faith because they led inexorably to error. The idea that truth can be encountered, but not explained, is older than Gnosticism, and that's older than Christianity, if that's what you're asking.

Zen Buddhism is pretty much a case study in this realization.

23966. PelleNilsson - 9/7/2004 8:19:15 PM

In my humble opinion my Message # 23943 defines the core problem much more succintly than A5's verbosity. His Message # 23955 is particularly instructive in this respect.

23967. angel-five - 9/7/2004 8:20:44 PM

Not to be too stupid, I hope, but aren't translators also human? Doesn't any inerrancy claim have to be, a la the Koran, of the work in its original tongue?

Well, that one's a real puzzler. Certainly many people have claimed that the different translations of the Bible are also inerrant.

If you belong to the Vic school and say that 'there's an inerrant reading out there somewhere and we will find it' then I suppose the root language doesn't matter.

23968. Bill Russell - 9/7/2004 8:22:43 PM

"but aren't translators also human?"

Yep!

And there are millions of translations.

23969. angel-five - 9/7/2004 8:23:02 PM

In my humble opinion my Message # 23943 defines the core problem much more succintly than A5's verbosity

Pelle, some people prefer the Baroque rococo to the utilitarian Kierkegaardian Swedism.

23970. pelty - 9/7/2004 8:25:40 PM

"BTW, have you abandoned the Pauline argument entirely as has Jenerator, and are now wishing to move on, or are you just still severely constrained for time and can't offer any more than brief interjections on current topics?"

Still time-strapped, although it seemed to me that we had reached an impasse to some degree. I will try to dip back into the latest posts to see where it was left as time permits.

23971. angel-five - 9/7/2004 8:25:53 PM

What Kuligin is doing here is to mount a defense for his own caste of professional bible interpreters. That is why he always resort to the argument "go study before you address those complicated issues". Very un-Lutheran.

This, on the other hand, is precisely right. That it has been said many, many times already in past years does not diminish the essential weight of the message. Kuligin with his hermeneutics is that which Luther railed against, and is every bit as philosophically feudal as the Catholic Church which he rails against.

23972. Bill Russell - 9/7/2004 8:26:20 PM

"The two great European narcotics, alcohol and Christianity."

-Friedrich Nietzsche-

"If Jesus Christ were to come today, people would not even crucify him. They would ask him to dinner and hear what he had to say, and make fun of it."

-Thomas Carlyle-

"A callous, heartless religion is that which defines it's God as a cold and unmerciful deity, quick to anger and even quicker to condemn it's people to an eternity in fire. I know of only one such God and he is the God of Christianity."

-Sherman Milliken- [Playwrite and Author of books on world religions]{1923}

23973. jayackroyd - 9/7/2004 8:30:03 PM

Zen Buddhism is pretty much a case study in this realization.

"What are you doing?!?"

"What are you saying?!?"

23974. angel-five - 9/7/2004 8:36:12 PM

"What is the Buddha?"

"This flax weighs five pounds."

23975. pelty - 9/7/2004 8:38:56 PM

"The idea that truth can be encountered, but not explained, is older than Gnosticism, and that's older than Christianity, if that's what you're asking."

Snort. Come on, A-5. At least *try* to be even-handed. Gnosticism *may* be older than Christianity, but you need to define what you mean by "Gnosticism" and illustrate where we see this developed system in place prior to, say, the first century C.E. While it is nice to be acquainted with someone who is so confident about what he knows, your unqualified remarks in this instance suggest to me that you would be well-served to read some of the more recent literature on this topic. A good place to start would be Michael Williams' "Rethinking 'Gnosticism'".

23976. pelty - 9/7/2004 8:42:01 PM

Ah, I shouldn't have posted that as it will lead into a lengthy conversation. I just ask that you be slightly less omniscient in your pronouncements. There is much room for discussion and debates on matters such as this. Nothing has been established as "concrete" in this regard.

23977. jayackroyd - 9/7/2004 8:42:09 PM

If you belong to the Vic school and say that 'there's an inerrant reading out there somewhere and we will find it' then I suppose the root language doesn't matter.

I don't think that's fair. What he has said is that with sufficient study, including study of the scriptures in its original tongue, one can come to an understanding of the text. As you say, that can't be an inerrant understanding, as it requires a substantial amount of human judgment.

But that raises another interesting question. The Gospels pretty much have to be errant--Christ delivered his various homilies and parables in Aramaic, but the Gospels were written in Greek.

Well, FTM, they have to be errant anyway. There's no claim that the words of the Gospel are directly spoken from God; the claim is that they are accurate recollections of humans who were there. Leave aside the plausibility of that claim; the Gospels HAVE to have errors.

23978. jayackroyd - 9/7/2004 8:43:08 PM

23974

I'm typing the rest of my responses with a slipper on my head. Good thing I don't own a cat, or a sword.

23979. PelleNilsson - 9/7/2004 8:46:42 PM

My next theme will be the use and misuse of hermeneutics. But that will have to wait until tomorrow. Tonight I will only have time for brief sojourns here due to other important events (football game Sweden-Croatia, qualifying game for the World Cup 2006. Croatia is good.) Getting ones priorities right is important.

23980. angel-five - 9/7/2004 8:54:21 PM

your unqualified remarks in this instance suggest to me that you would be well-served to read some of the more recent literature on this topic.

Don't you mean 'more recent literature which I agree with?'

Anyway, let me clarify for you. The idea that elements of Gnosticism well predate Christianity is very old and very well established, and it is the basic central point of these elements --i.e. the belief in gnosis itself -- to which I refer. When you mention a need to talk about a developed system in place prior to, say, the first century C.E. you are, of course, speaking about Christian Gnosticism as your reference point. And I take your point. But just as NT Christianity is very heavily dependent upon older Judaic OT motifs (not to mention all the old sacrifice and redemption stories to which the Christ tale has been linked, which aren't Judaic at all) so was Christian Gnosticism dependent upon earlier wisdom.

If you're content with that, so am I. If not, say so, and I'll go get my texts.

23981. pelty - 9/7/2004 9:10:42 PM

"Don't you mean 'more recent literature which I agree with?'"

Heh, partially. But it also does a nice job of deconstructing the term "Gnosticism" and the very system that we call "Gnosticism." "Gnosticism" is a modern construct.

"so was Christian Gnosticism dependent upon earlier wisdom."

Certainly, you see Platonic, astrological, Hermetic, (perhaps Sethian?), etc. elements throughout the NHC, but it is difficult to find evidence for any coherent system of "Gnosticism" of any variety (Christian, Jewish, or otherwise) prior to the first-second century. You may have some primary texts from the pre-Christian era in mind that are "gnostic"; if so, would you mind citing them? I would definitely be interested in anything you might suggest in this regard. Thanks.

23982. jayackroyd - 9/7/2004 9:17:54 PM

Sethian? Is that Egyptian?

23983. pelty - 9/7/2004 9:20:53 PM

Yes.

23984. wonkers2 - 9/7/2004 10:43:16 PM

There's a whole lotta' errancy goin' on both in the Bible and in interpretations of the Bible. The parts of the Bible that make sense in light of present knowledge and conditions today's world are worthy of respect. The rest should be ignored or deleted.

23985. Bill Russell - 9/8/2004 2:14:29 AM

' The parts of the Bible that make sense in light of present knowledge and conditions today's world are worthy of respect. The rest should be ignored or deleted. '

Yup!!!

And each individual needs to decide that for him/herself. Complacency, however, interefres with that, and most Americans just don't care to even think about it.

23986. Bill Russell - 9/8/2004 2:15:36 AM

interferes

23987. angel-five - 9/8/2004 5:42:32 AM

The parts of the Bible that make sense in light of present knowledge and conditions today's world are worthy of respect. The rest should be ignored or deleted.

I disagree with this, actually, Wonkers, although I am sure it is just with the words you used and not your intent.

The fact is that many people take the Bible for a manual, and to understand their actions and motivations, it is necessary to read and understand the whole thing. It is also important to read the entire thing to get a better understanding of Christianity as an institution (although, of course, there are lots of other things that need to be studied too in order to understand the practice of modern Christianity and the psychology of modern Christians).

As a manual for self-instruction it's important to respect the parts we find moral and useful today, but also important to understand the parts we do not, and why we do not respect them, and why they are no longer useful, and why they were never moral. After all, there's a reason they were canonized, and understanding them paints a picture of Christian social engineering. We need to know why it was popularized if we are to understand the religious psychology of Christian thought as it started, as it evolved, and as it is today.

23988. wonkers2 - 9/8/2004 6:06:48 AM

That works for me although it would be a tall order.

23989. angel-five - 9/8/2004 7:42:55 AM

There's no claim that the words of the Gospel are directly spoken from God; the claim is that they are accurate recollections of humans who were there.

Mostly, the idea of the inerrant Bible comes from a passage in (IIRC) 1 Timothy which says that Scripture is directly inspired by the Judeo-Christian god. This has evolved into the modern belief of inerrance, and the modern thumper (at least one that knows something) would typically answer that the Bible was all inspired by their god, and that's the basis for it being inerrant. Thereby they skip over your questions of authorship.

However, this brings its own trouble to the table. First, of course, you have a text asserting its own veracity, which is logically problematic.

Second, even if you get past that, you have the query: what did the author mean by 'Scripture'? After all, there were a whole lot of different ideas back then as to what was Scripture and what wasn't, and as we all know lots of Scripture never made it into the Bible.

So fallible humanity rears its head once more. Somewhere the decision was made as to what was Scripture and what wasn't, by fallible people.

Of course, some will just take their out by saying 'The people who canonized the NT were divinely inspired too'. This is, as you can see, a handy little device to use. But the obvious problem is, 'Says who?' And the who always ends up being someone that's fallible. Unless, I suppose, it's the Pope, but I think it was a Pope that declared Popes to be infallible on matters of dogma, so, we're back to problem 1 again.

23990. angel-five - 9/8/2004 7:43:34 AM

The idea of inerrance came into being before people had to contend with fuller knowledge of how texts, reading, and meaning work. It is a concept that cannot be put into play without becoming meaningless, and always, when discussed by humans, heads straight either toward baseless assertion or infinite regression. You pretty much need to believe it's turtles the whole way down, which is, once again, an act of faith independent of, insupportable by, and incapable of supporting any logical argument.

Now, of course, someone can perfectly well believe in an inerrant Bible, believe in their inerrant interpretation of it (whether or not they choose to think of it in those terms), believe in the divine inspiration of the council that canonized the Bible under Athanasius, believe in the divine inspiration of the author of Timothy, believe there's no contradictions in any of this, and be perfectly fine. After all, as Kuligin repeatedly insists, just because something is capable of error doesn't mean it's incapable of not making a mistake over some interval of action. But logically and epistemologically there is no means by which any human can support this belief, or know when they're being inerrant, know when a text is inerrant, etc. It requires that faith, which indeed is what Kuligin is relying upon. And faith is fine, so long as no one attempts to alloy it with fact, or fact with faith. Unfortunately that is what Kuligin spends most of his day doing.

23991. Bill Russell - 9/8/2004 8:03:41 AM

" faith is fine, so long as no one attempts to alloy it with fact, or fact with faith. "

As long as you have faith in THE RC Pope, you have no problem. He will tell you what to believe and what to do with your life and what not to do. You can forget studying the Bible. THE Pope will do the studying and interpreting for you.

Lazy "shop 'til they drop" Americans should like it!! We should all be Roman Catholics.

23992. concerned - 9/8/2004 8:37:56 AM

23993. concerned - 9/8/2004 8:49:03 AM

Wonkers -

I'm particularly intrigued by your reference to 'deleting' parts of the Bible. How do you suppose that might be gone about?

This isn't a (particularly) loaded question, btw:) I'm curious.

23994. Bill Russell - 9/8/2004 8:51:51 AM

'deleting' parts of the Bible.

Check out "The Jefferson Bible".

23995. angel-five - 9/8/2004 9:16:45 AM

Say, Wonkers: do you have the guts & integrity to extend that observation to Islamic 'holy' writings?

Why would it require guts or integrity to do that?

23996. concerned - 9/8/2004 9:18:58 AM

As other than a hypothetical, I mean.

23997. angel-five - 9/8/2004 9:22:17 AM

What, is he supposed to be nervous about someone issuing a 'kill Wonkers' fatwa?

23998. Bill Russell - 9/8/2004 9:39:50 AM

http://ktla.trb.com/news/local/ktla-090804priest_lat,0,7142328.story?coll=ktla-news-1

Mahony Ordered to Release Files on Accused Priests

Judge rejects claim that prosecutors in sexual abuse cases were interfering with Church operations in violation of the Constitution.

Sigh..............

23999. wonkers2 - 9/8/2004 12:06:04 PM

Concerned, how about with an indelible felt-tip pen?

24000. wonkers2 - 9/8/2004 2:47:09 PM

Concerned, my beliefs apply to extremists/fundamentalists/fanatics/true believers in all religions.

24001. Bill Russell - 9/8/2004 3:56:34 PM

When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow.

Anais Nin

24002. jayackroyd - 9/8/2004 5:40:38 PM

And faith is fine, so long as no one attempts to alloy it with fact, or fact with faith.

Yeah, I've never really understood that. If I say that evolution is a fact, and the guy across from me says that it's not. And I ask him why he says that, and he says "I put my faith in God and the Bible, and the Bible does not include evolution."

Argument over. We disagree, but there's no point of discussion. It's always seemed to me that the chimerical pursuit of factual support for religious teachings is evidence of a lack of faith, of doubt, of a need for external reassurance.

24003. jayackroyd - 9/8/2004 5:43:10 PM

Say, Wonkers: do you have the guts & integrity to extend that observation to Islamic 'holy' writings?

The Koran deals with some of the issues we've raised. Translations are invalid, for example. People interpreting the Koran have the same problems of people interpreting the Bible. As a5 has noted, the only religions that dodge these problems are those that reject text entirely.

24004. judithathome - 9/8/2004 6:21:34 PM

A-5...could you link the discussion on inerrancy to the front page news column?

24005. wonkers2 - 9/8/2004 7:13:23 PM

In my Sunday school (Episcopalian), we were taught that there was NO conflict between evolution or other science and Christianity. The view was that Christianity was able to accommodate any and all developments in science.

24006. jayackroyd - 9/8/2004 7:19:53 PM

Yeah, so were we in my low church protestant sunday school.

As I've said before, though, this kind of thing sets you on the slippery slope toward secular humanism.

24007. concerned - 9/8/2004 7:24:55 PM

I don't see what the problem is with being relentlessly rational regarding real world matters, yet still allowing some suspension of disbelief regarding the unknowable.

24008. jayackroyd - 9/8/2004 7:26:00 PM

Sure. But that's an agnostic position, not a believing position.

24009. PelleNilsson - 9/8/2004 7:33:06 PM

You have a point there, concerned. I have never understood the efforts spent on trying to explain the miracles described in the bible, e.g. the parting of the Red Sea as being somehow caused by natural but unlikely events. The whole point is that they are indeed miracles, manifestations of God's omnipotence.

24010. jayackroyd - 9/8/2004 7:37:03 PM

To seek natural explanations for supernatural phenomena reflects a lack of faith, IMO.

24011. wonkers2 - 9/8/2004 7:49:38 PM

"That's an agnostic position, not a believing position?"

Why would you say that, Jay. My understanding is that believing in creationism, Noah's Ark, etc., is not a requirement of Christianity. Believing or disbelieving them has nothing to do with agnosticism or the tenets of Christianity. They are fables with about the same value as Aesop's fables or Grimm's fairy tales.

24012. judithathome - 9/8/2004 7:51:02 PM

Not according to some...they are very real to a lot of people.

24013. wonkers2 - 9/8/2004 7:52:58 PM

Doesn't atheism or agnosticism involves doubt or disbelief in the Apostle's creed or other central religious tenets, or more basically, the belief in the existence of God.

24014. judithathome - 9/8/2004 8:06:57 PM

I don't believe in God and people say that makes me an atheist...I've always heard that disbelief in God is atheism and not being sure, or questioning the existance of God is agnosticism.

24015. PelleNilsson - 9/8/2004 8:16:01 PM

I think agnosticism covers a very wide field of opinion. I for example deny the existence of a god that is present in the world but I cannot deny the possibility of a god that once set the whole thing in motion (the big bang) and, perhaps, keeps it in motion (dark energy) along the line of Aristotle's unmoving mover. Is that atheism or agnosticism?

24016. jayackroyd - 9/8/2004 8:16:06 PM

24011--

Well, when do you stop? There are supernatural events that are at the very heart of Christian belief, not to mention the completely anti-rational Trinity.

concerned remark on the unknowable is what I was responding to. Believers don't suspend their disbelief. They believe, regardless of evidence to the contrary. Agnostics talk about the unknowable.

24017. jayackroyd - 9/8/2004 8:18:07 PM

24015

That's agnosticism--leaving the door open for supernatural events leading to the existence of the universe or human beings.

Atheism is denying any supernatural role.

24018. PelleNilsson - 9/8/2004 8:31:03 PM

That is the maximalist interpretation, I think, but it fits with the idea that atheism like religion is a belief system which ultimately rests on unprovable assumptions.

I brought in the big bang and dark energy because there are sceptics who think these theories are suspect because they fit too nicely into the judeo-christian traditions of a creator god and the time arrow with a beginning and an end.

24019. Bill Russell - 9/8/2004 8:33:33 PM

de·ism
Pronunciation: 'dE-"i-z&m, 'dA-

Function: noun

Usage: often capitalized

Date: 1682

: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe

24020. clydefo - 9/8/2004 8:43:23 PM

The traditional definition of Atheism makes an assertion (God does not exist) that cannot be proven. Some modern Atheists define their position as being "disbelief in God is reasonable". Easier to argue but it may be seen as Atheism-lite or creeping Agnosticism.

24021. jayackroyd - 9/8/2004 8:44:08 PM

I brought in the big bang and dark energy because there are sceptics who think these theories are suspect because they fit too nicely into the judeo-christian traditions of a creator god and the time arrow with a beginning and an end.

As we go back to the first couple of seconds, these cosmology guys start shuffling their feet and coughing nervously. They really are in something of a mess right now.

24022. jayackroyd - 9/8/2004 8:45:47 PM

Like Clyde said.

I'm an atheist. I do not believe in God or the tooth fairy.

24023. Bill Russell - 9/8/2004 8:50:27 PM

I do not believe in God nor the president of the USA.

24024. PelleNilsson - 9/8/2004 8:53:04 PM

Yes. The theory is so heavily theory-impregnated and has so many adjustable variables that it can accommodate almost any variation is the observations, but for each adjustment a measure of doubt creeps in. It starts to be like the Ptolomaic system when each improvement in the observations had to matched by adding more epicycles to the model.

24025. Bill Russell - 9/8/2004 8:54:12 PM

LMBO

24026. clydefo - 9/8/2004 9:06:11 PM

"As we go back to the first couple of seconds, these cosmology guys start shuffling their feet and coughing nervously. They really are in something of a mess right now". 24021. jayackroyd

Those cosmology guys have made progress. They are back to the first fractions of the first second. So far they still haven't discovered any supernatural causation.

24027. jayackroyd - 9/8/2004 9:09:21 PM

24024

And while all this epicycle jiggering is going on, they're missing most of the matter in the universe and can't answer the "how did it start?" question except with fanciful, untestable nearly metaphysical stories. The anthropic principle also raises difficulties.

The good news is that they know that it's a mess. Those poor Christians have been working the thing for two thousand years, and they still don't know they're in a mess.

24028. jayackroyd - 9/8/2004 9:12:18 PM

They are back to the first fractions of the first second. So far they still haven't discovered any supernatural causation.

TJOP.

And, clyde, they're not observationally anywhere near there. There are results from quantum mechanics that are consistent with their theories, but that's not the same thing at all.

Heck, we're still in the middle of the universe--looking up from the north pole or down from the south, we see the same stuff, at the same distances. How can that be?

24029. jayackroyd - 9/8/2004 9:16:51 PM

And there's no "discovery" in their in standard model.

Nobody "discovered" inflation, for example. They jammed it in to account for degree of uniformity observed in the universe. But that's backward science. They changed the theory to fit the observation. They didn't create a theory with inflation, and then examined testable results stemming from that theory. Rather they noticed that a uniform expansion wouldn't allow planets to form, and since there are planets, they had to fix the theory.

The universal structure they were surprised to see wasn't predicted by the theories. Dark energy is being introduced out of whole cloth. The Hubble has messed things up.

Which is good. That's how science makes progress, by getting all messed up every once in a while.

24030. clydefo - 9/8/2004 9:46:19 PM

"That's how science makes progress, by getting all messed up every once in a while." 24029. jayackroyd

Science may be a "two steps forward, one step backwards" process, but in all of their revisionist theories, backtracking, etc, I've never heard a scientist say, "OK, we now think that God did it"! Inflation and Dark Energy are fantastic concepts, whether true or not. I put them in the same category as Relativity, about which one scientist said, "it's not that it's hard to understand, it's hard to believe."

24031. jayackroyd - 9/8/2004 9:53:32 PM

clyde--

The troubles that cosmologists are having is not an argument for the existence of God. The standard cosmology model is not in the same league as relativity or quantum mechanics, which have elements that are extremely counterintuitive. Special relativity is without a doubt true. Quantum mechanics has a tremendous collection of confirming experiments.

My point is that there are no tests for the existence of dark energy or the period of inflation. The theoreticians observed an inconsistency between the theory and observation, and "fixed" the theory. That's backwards.

24032. concerned - 9/8/2004 10:11:24 PM

Re. 24016 -

Believers tend to get tripped up by advancing hard and soft science which continually infringes on the boundaries of the 'unknowable'.

It seemed well enough at the time when Muhammad wrote in the Koran that the earth is flat, but that goof is now a giant missing fig leaf in the emperor's new clothes of Islamic validity if I may mix metaphors.

24033. concerned - 9/8/2004 10:16:41 PM

To me, admitting the existence of 'God' can mean as little as assigning a label to whatever has existed before or exists beyond the boundaries of the currently 'known' without any attempt at definition being necessary. OTOH, how much I feel this way bout 'God' depends on what mood I'm in at the moment.

24034. jayackroyd - 9/8/2004 10:17:58 PM

The last 300 years have been hard on people who follow the beliefs of nomadic middle eastern tribes in the millenium before last. Once you concede the Koran is wrong about the shape of the planet, all the rest is up for grabs. Inerrancy is a high bar to jump.

24035. clydefo - 9/8/2004 10:43:19 PM

"The troubles that cosmologists are having is not an argument for the existence of God" 24031. jayackroyd

If this is not an issue, then we are more or less in agreement. Why are we in the Religion thread?

24036. wonkers2 - 9/8/2004 10:44:41 PM

I tend to judge religions primarily on utilitarian grounds. I grew up four blocks from a small church which had an adjacent parcel of land big enough for a playground, a football and baseball field. Many of the parishoners were LSU professors and their families. The young minister and his attractive wife were very approachable and especially interested in activities for young people. Sunday school was well attended and my recollection is that we were not taught to take the Bible lessons as literal history, but rather as parables or little moral lessons. The seven days and nights of creation could have been seven million years and were perfectly compatible with modern physics and evolution. We had a wonderful organist and choir. We had a young people's group that conducted it's own vespers service every Sunday night followed by dinner which we took turns preparing and square dancing. This group became a wholesome center of social activity which attracted teens from other congregations and other denominations. The young people's group sponsored social service activities and a huge barbecue for the entire church once a year. The bottom line was that the little church served a variety of very practical community social, athletic and spiritual needs, especially for young people. Our church was very inclusive, not divisive and clannish. I can't remember any talk about the big religious issues we hear about today, like abstinence, teen sex, abortion, sexual orientation, evolution v. creationism and the like. Since that time I haven't found another church that served my needs or my family's needs in quite the same way. Now I don't feel a particular need which could be fulfilled by a church or organized religion.

24037. concerned - 9/8/2004 10:50:34 PM

The theoreticians observed an inconsistency between the theory and observation, and "fixed" the theory. That's backwards.

That may be the case, but perhaps a fluctuation in the prevalence of causality was judged to be the least objectionable explanation here given the circumstances.

24038. wonkers2 - 9/8/2004 10:56:41 PM

I have never had much interest in arguing about the existence or nature of God. It's not susceptible to proof either way, so it seems to me arguing about it is a waste of time. I do see value in arguing about, in concrete terms, what it means to be a Christian or to lead a Christian life, especially when certain "Christians" try to impose their beliefs on everyone--on abortion, sexual morality, school curriculums, medical research and the like.

24039. judithathome - 9/8/2004 10:57:38 PM

The traditional definition of Atheism makes an assertion (God does not exist) that cannot be proven.

Just like Christianity.

24040. concerned - 9/8/2004 10:58:12 PM

wonkers -

how's this for utilitarian?

Christianity -cowpox

Islam - smallpox

24041. concerned - 9/8/2004 11:00:23 PM

Re. 24038 -

I just describe God something like I did here, and if the other person objects I tell the asshole to go fuck his mother.

24042. Bill Russell - 9/8/2004 11:00:57 PM

Christianity = Pablum for the fearful ignorant.

24043. judithathome - 9/8/2004 11:01:01 PM

How holy of you.

24044. judithathome - 9/8/2004 11:01:31 PM

24043 was to Con.

24045. jayackroyd - 9/8/2004 11:03:08 PM

The traditional definition of Atheism makes an assertion (God does not exist) that cannot be proven.

The fact the some people believe in nonsense doesn't mean that people who don't believe in nonsense have some burden of proof to disprove the nonsense.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

24046. Bill Russell - 9/8/2004 11:03:54 PM

Religion = Whatever Mama and Papa say it is.

24047. wonkers2 - 9/8/2004 11:10:29 PM

"Christianity=cowpox; Islam=smallpox."

I would be inclined to insert the word "fundamentalist" in front of Christianity and Islam. Then we would be in agreement. These religions range, in practice, from useful to harmless to virulent. The same goes for business corporations. Both systems have pluses as well as a lot of minuses.

24048. Bill Russell - 9/8/2004 11:37:47 PM

Religion = Opium of the masses

24049. Bill Russell - 9/8/2004 11:40:26 PM

Make that 'opiate' of the masses.

24050. Marshame - 9/9/2004 12:48:22 AM

The thing I like about religion is that it provides a comforting explanation and hope. When people face the illness/suffering and death of loved ones, faith can give tremendous comfort and assurance.

24051. Bill Russell - 9/9/2004 1:04:01 AM

"When people face the illness/suffering and death of loved ones, faith can give tremendous comfort and assurance."

But, only for believers. Let's all just say we believe, so we can have the comforts.

24052. concerned - 9/9/2004 1:07:18 AM

"Christianity=cowpox; Islam=smallpox."

I would be inclined to insert the word "fundamentalist" in front of Christianity and Islam.

That works for me:)

24053. Marshame - 9/9/2004 1:12:54 AM

Bill if by saying it you believe it, then more power to you.

I've been to my share of funerals, and the ones for the Christians are definitely different in nature. The "hope" is palpable. Worst funeral I ever went to was for an old atheist. The "speaker" talked about good old George and how he loved to play golf and loved his cadillac, so let's all just imagine good old George "up there" somewhere driving his cadillac and playing golf. I swear that's what was said. The end of a life and the best we can do is imagine good old George "somewhere" playing golf. I prefer the Christian version of heaven, where we are reunited with our family and loved ones and are in glorified bodies, free from disease and suffering. The deal for George was a group "wish", while the Christian heaven at least has 2000 years of history and theology to back it up.

24054. Bill Russell - 9/9/2004 1:30:27 AM

Heaven is whatever we imagine it to be, since the Bibble says little or nothing about it.

24055. Bill Russell - 9/9/2004 1:33:44 AM

"Bill if by saying it you believe it, then more power to you."

I do not believe in the three christians gods, so I don't say it.

24056. Bill Russell - 9/9/2004 12:43:03 PM

Jesus was not a peace-loving Jew:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword."

(Jesus according to Matthew 10:34, KJV)

"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

(Jesus according to Luke 22:36, KJV)

24057. pelty - 9/9/2004 3:14:49 PM

"Jesus was not a peace-loving Jew"

Who said he was?

24058. pelty - 9/9/2004 3:18:00 PM

"I do see value in arguing about, in concrete terms, what it means to be a Christian or to lead a Christian life, especially when certain "Christians" try to impose their beliefs on everyone--on abortion, sexual morality, school curriculums, medical research and the like."

Yes, after all, Christians have no right to work through the proper channels to achieve their legislative ends. It is, presumably, OK for secular humanists to "impose" their beliefs on everyone, though, right, wankers?

24059. wonkers2 - 9/9/2004 3:22:04 PM

Yep, because we are right. The fundies are ignorant, barbarians.

24060. wonkers2 - 9/9/2004 3:30:36 PM

Of course even the barbarians have the right to "work through proper channels" and I have the right to oppose them. I just get tired of seeing the "Stop Murdering CHILDREN" signs along Woodward Avenue in Royal Oak, Michigan in front of the Shrine of the Little Flower.

If you read my post again, all I said is that "I see the value in arguing about, in concrete terms, about what it means to be a Christian, especially when certain "CHristians" try to impose their beliefs on everyone."

Pelty, please tell me what you find objectionable about the above statement. Is it the quotation marks around Christians? If that's what's bothering you, consider it removed. Now what's bugging you? I'm not saying they don't have the right to try to impose their beliefs. Surely you aren't saying I don't have the right to oppose them? What are you so excited about? I hope you don't descend to the level of K-Man!

24061. wonkers2 - 9/9/2004 3:35:24 PM

I would be curious to know your position on (1) stem cell research, (2) early abortion, (3) teaching evolution or creationism in public schools, (4) government support of religious schools, (5) comprehensive sex education in public schools (including both contraception and abstinence)and (6) capital punishment. These are the issues that interest me, not all this endless conversation about errancy. In my opinion, religions should be judged on their stands and performance on issues that matter to society in the here and now, such as the above and helping the poor, opposing war, etc.

24062. wonkers2 - 9/9/2004 3:37:47 PM

Addendum: In case you didn't know, the Shrine of the Little Flower was built in by Father Coughlin, the Roman Catholic Jew-baiting, Hitler-loving, Roosevelt-hating radio priest. His traditions apparently are still alive in the Shrine's congregation.

24063. wonkers2 - 9/9/2004 3:47:00 PM

And secular humanists generally don't try to impose their beliefs on others. I don't recall the pro choicers trying to tell anyone they should have an abortion. I guess we do plead guilty to trying to protect our constitutional rights such as separation of church and state, privacy in sexual relations, etc.

24064. wonkers2 - 9/9/2004 3:48:13 PM

Where are you Pelty? I hope you don't cut and run as you have in the past when I challenged you. How about some answers?

24065. pelty - 9/9/2004 3:50:25 PM

"Now what's bugging you?"

I just get bothered when Christians are portrayed as a nefarious group seeking to impose x,y, and z on a world that is, on many of the issues, pretty much evenly divided. Thus, it is not so much imposition as a legitimate cultural discussion between two (roughly) comparably-sized groups. Further, there seems to be no admission from the "other side" that they too are forcing a series of agendas on an unwilling segment of the population.

"I would be curious to know your position on (1) stem cell research, (2) early abortion, (3) teaching evolution or creationism in public schools, (4) government support of religious schools, (5) comprehensive sex education in public schools (including both contraception and abstinence)and (6) capital punishment."

1) OK w/ its present state; 2) against it; 3) teach them both; 4) against it; 5) for it; 6) for it.

"Addendum: In case you didn't know, the Shrine of the Little Flower was built in by Father Coughlin, the Roman Catholic Jew-baiting, Hitler-loving, Roosevelt-hating radio priest. His traditions apparently are still alive in the Shrine's congregation."

Well, Roosevelt was an (domestic) idiot, but the rest of the priest's positions are, clearly, objectionable.

24066. pelty - 9/9/2004 3:51:29 PM

"Where are you Pelty? I hope you don't cut and run as you have in the past when I challenged you. How about some answers?"

Some things are worth my time, some are not...

24067. wonkers2 - 9/9/2004 4:09:19 PM

Thanks for your response. BYW, Roosevelt is judged by most historians as one of the top five or so presidents, if not by fundamentalist theologians.

I question your contention that "the two groups are of equal size." That's not even true in the United States let alone in the modern industrialized world (Europe + US + Canada +Australia + NZ + Japan.) Unless I'm mistaken, a majority of Americans are pro-choice. And, I don't think it's accurate to say that the religious moderates (Quakers, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, et al) and secularists are trying to impose their views on the fundamentalists. It would be more accurate to say they are trying to protect their right to live their lives in accordance with their morals and allow the fundamentalists to do the same.

One more issue for you--how about hand-gun and assault weapons control? As a Detroiter where children and adults are shooting each other every day, it would seem to me that the religious folks would be campaining for gun control.

24068. wonkers2 - 9/9/2004 4:14:19 PM

Another question, how do you feel about anti-abortionists referring to abortion as "Child Murder?" That always strikes me as inaccurate and over the top. Seems to me the priests would tell them to stop saying that, if they disagreed.

24069. judithathome - 9/9/2004 4:24:51 PM

I've been to my share of funerals, and the ones for the Christians are definitely different in nature. The "hope" is palpable.

So is the fear. I've been to my share of funerals, too, and being a captive audience, had to sit through a lot of hell and brimstone and accusations of how sinful we are and how would should fear the end and make peace with God before we are caught up in death unexpectedly. You'd think people would talk about the departed and how their lives had reflected their belief but instead, you literally have the fear of God shoved down your throat before any mention of the loved one being happy in heaven.

24070. Bill Russell - 9/9/2004 4:50:45 PM

"Jesus was not a peace-loving Jew"

'Who said he was?' - Pelty

Christians call Jesus the "Prince of Peace".

24071. pelty - 9/9/2004 6:10:01 PM

"Christians call Jesus the "Prince of Peace"."

Peace w/ whom might be the proper question to ask.

Wonkers: I am against gun control. Fix the urban family-unit and we would probably have safer streets. So sayeth the Great and Powerful Coz.

24072. Bill Russell - 9/9/2004 6:16:35 PM

"Fix the urban family-unit and we would probably have safer streets."

LMBO

What do you propose? Forced religion?

24073. Bill Russell - 9/9/2004 6:18:39 PM

"Christians call Jesus the "Prince of Peace"."

'Peace w/ whom might be the proper question to ask.' - Pelty

I can't wait for the non answers from America's religious preachers.

24074. pelty - 9/9/2004 6:34:15 PM

"What do you propose? Forced religion?"

Huh? I said nothing about religion. I simply meant that the problem lies more with those who use the guns for negative purposes than with the guns themselves and, thus, the reall issue is fixing the environment that spawns these violent thugs. That said, I do not see a real need for anyone to own an assault rifle or what have you, but I do think that the freedom should exist for people to make this decision.

24075. Bill Russell - 9/9/2004 6:39:51 PM

"I do not see a real need for anyone to own an assault rifle or what have you"

Yup!!

And thanks for you considered opinion from the ghetto.

24076. pelty - 9/9/2004 6:51:19 PM

"And thanks for you considered opinion from the ghetto."

This coming from the guy living in HI. Please.

24077. angel-five - 9/9/2004 7:32:45 PM

I just get bothered when Christians are portrayed as a nefarious group seeking to impose x,y, and z on a world that is, on many of the issues, pretty much evenly divided.

I hate to break these two facts to you, but a) Wonkers was pretty clear that he was talking about 'certain Christians', so next time don't have a seizure about what he isn't doing, and b) what he said was absolutely correct, so I suggest you deal with the facts rather than get upset that someone's mentioning them.

When you seek to alter or add legislation in order to change peoples' behavior it is, by definition, imposition. If it was this peaceful chautauqua style chorus of neighborhood 'cultural discussion' where people were simply presenting their views to one another, there would be no need for activist Christians to try to force legislation upon the rest of us.

Are you simply naive about the size and nature of the Christian lobby, or are you expecting others to be?

24078. angel-five - 9/9/2004 7:34:40 PM

And perhaps it would further your position a bit, Pelty, if you'd provide some examples of how secular humanists are 'imposing their views' on Christians.

24079. PelleNilsson - 9/9/2004 8:42:09 PM

By not allowing creationism to be taught?

24080. judithathome - 9/9/2004 8:51:33 PM

That's one. More?

24081. clydefo - 9/9/2004 9:16:22 PM

Re: secular humanists 'imposing their views'
"By not allowing creationism to be taught?" 24079. PelleNilsson

Teaching religious concepts in public schools is unconstitutional, according to the SC. Secular Humanists are not imposing anything on anyone.

24082. PelleNilsson - 9/9/2004 9:39:30 PM

Sow how come that creationism is in fact being taught? If I were a creationist I would say that the SC is or was made up of secular humanists. We are into another round of circular arguments. Usually it is the Christians who are caught in them, but now ...?

24083. angel-five - 9/9/2004 9:44:36 PM

By not allowing creationism to be taught?

It's perfectly legal to teach creationism in America.

24084. angel-five - 9/9/2004 10:14:28 PM

The separation of church and state is one of the founding principles of the US government, and so is freedom of religion. These are not, at all, conflicting principles, unless you believe that 'freedom of religion' means that governmental institutions ought to be able to proselytize for Christianity.

What most of us understand about freedom of religion is that the government shall not discriminate against anyone on account of their religion, and that religious people are free to practice as they please insofar as their practice doesn't impinge upon the constitutional rights of other people. It is legal to teach creationism or, as it's often referred to now, 'intelligent design'. It's even legal to teach it in public school in America.

There are people who would prefer to see it made illegal, but it's important to understand that this would not prevent Christians from teaching it outside of governmental institutions or discriminate against anyone who happens to believe in intelligent design. The fact that there is no effort to restrict or balance the teaching of intelligent design in non-governmental venues frames this issue as a matter of the separation of church and state.

The basic nature of the secular humanist position is not one of imposition, but choice. Do you see these people demanding that evolution be given equal time, let alone full time, in churches and Bible study groups? No. You can construct an entire series of similar statements and have them be true. So I don't really find much merit in it when people say Christians are under a sort of imposition equivalent to that which some of them seek to impose on others.

24085. Bill Russell - 9/9/2004 11:06:21 PM

And prayers are not banned in schools or anywhere else. Students pray for knowledge and luck with every exam they take.

They could better use that time studying, however.

24086. Bill Russell - 9/10/2004 12:41:00 AM

A young man and a priest are playing together. At a short par-3 the priest asks, "What are you going to use on this hole, my son?"

The young man says, "An 8-iron, father. How about you?"

The priest says, "I'm going to hit a soft seven and pray."

The young man hits his 8-iron and puts the
ball on the green. The priest tops his 7-iron and dribbles the ball out a few yards. The young man says, "I don't know about you father, but in my church when we pray, we keep our head down."

24087. Bill Russell - 9/10/2004 11:57:53 AM

Why does the Air Force need expensive new bombers? Have the people we've been bombing over the years been complaining?

George Wallace

24088. Bill Russell - 9/10/2004 8:34:35 PM

Are you simply naive about the size and nature of the Christian and Jewish lobbies, or are you expecting others to be?

24089. anomie - 9/10/2004 9:10:35 PM

All the good stuff happens here while I'm away...

BTW, it's easy to teach creationism in public schools, like in a theology class or comparitive religion. The fundies want it taught as a science. That's the problem.

I don't ask them to clutter up their Sunday schools with evolution, but maybe they should

24090. judithathome - 9/10/2004 9:13:40 PM

(You've missed a lot in the Inferno, Ano...)

24091. anomie - 9/10/2004 9:22:30 PM

Kuligin, I'm not sure if you're busy or if you just ran out on the argument again. Do you accept the fact that the doctrine of inerrancy is:

- Extra-biblical
- Of little value to the safety of the soul

As you remember, this whole thing started with us a few years ago when I made the argument that trying to rationalize your beliefs collapses in on itself even if we limit the discussion to things inside your worldview. IOW, you can end up only asserting faith and belief, (and maybe personal experience), not logic or reason. Not even from within your closed-looped kind of thinking.

Now, do you want to discuss the Holy Spirit? You've run out on that one a few times too.

24092. anomie - 9/10/2004 9:24:28 PM

Judith,

I'm on my way...Ha!

24093. anomie - 9/10/2004 9:51:50 PM

Pelty..."I see no evidence in this exchange which demonstrates that KtH believes his interpretation to be inerrant. There are likely a number of issues that he would acknowledge that Christians can have disagreement on and still be considered "Christian" (that is, there are [at least] two hermeneutical approaches to a given issue). An example is the classic "freewill" vs. "predestination""

KtH Has never claimed his assertions are innerrant. But he makes them with absolute certainty, and he then tries to claim they are rational and logical, instead of purely faith-based. IOW, he seems to claim special knowledge. More than that, he goes on to ridicule alternate interpretations.

My challenge to him was to explain the VALUE of the doctrine of innerrancy since interpretations are not infallible. He fails to do so.

My other challenge to him, which he has also ignored, is to explain the function and value of the Holy Spirit.

24094. pelty - 9/10/2004 10:01:26 PM

"And perhaps it would further your position a bit, Pelty, if you'd provide some examples of how secular humanists are 'imposing their views' on Christians."

Gay "rights", abortion "rights", etc. I have no desire for "furthering my position" as I have no interest in such a discussion. It is tiresome and has been on a continuous loop in this thread for years. I would suggest, though, that you do a little reading and seek to understand what the so-called "separation of church and state" meant in its original iteration. No need to report back to me...

24095. pelty - 9/10/2004 10:03:31 PM

anomie:

"My challenge to him was to explain the VALUE of the doctrine of innerrancy since interpretations are not infallible. He fails to do so.

My other challenge to him, which he has also ignored, is to explain the function and value of the Holy Spirit."

OK, I will allow him the pleasure...

24096. clydefo - 9/10/2004 10:26:56 PM

"Gay "rights", abortion "rights", etc." 24094. pelty

How is the support for everyones' civil liberties, including yours, an imposition? Secular humanists haven't forced you to engage in homosexual acts or have an abortion, have they?

24097. pelty - 9/10/2004 11:13:19 PM

Perhaps you missed this part of my post:

"I have no desire for "furthering my position" as I have no interest in such a discussion. It is tiresome and has been on a continuous loop in this thread for years."

Find someone else to play this game. I answered the original question because it was asked, but it has been established that there is nothing to be gained by such discussions, so I will let it lie. If others wish to pursue this, have at it.

24098. anomie - 9/10/2004 11:24:23 PM

Pelty,

He, and other Christians, (Jenerator), who assert the power of such doctrines have consistently refused to engage in these elementary questions. As Wonks (I think, or Jay maybe) said, Christians avoid the simple questions a 9-year-old might ask.

If dealt with simply and directly, it's plain that Christians spout assertions and doctrines that have no meaning whatsoever. The slightest scrutiny will reveal the sham.

24099. pelty - 9/10/2004 11:27:41 PM

"He, and other Christians, (Jenerator), who assert the power of such doctrines have consistently refused to engage in these elementary questions. As Wonks (I think, or Jay maybe) said, Christians avoid the simple questions a 9-year-old might ask.

If dealt with simply and directly, it's plain that Christians spout assertions and doctrines that have no meaning whatsoever. The slightest scrutiny will reveal the sham."

Again, this sounds like a subject that is between you and KtH. I wish you both well!

24100. anomie - 9/10/2004 11:57:23 PM

Pelty,
You have been very reasonable. And now I see you are also very shrewed. You validate my opinion without actually admitting it.

24101. Bill Russell - 9/11/2004 1:23:47 AM

"the function and value of the Holy Spirit."

'IF' you ever find out, please let me know.

24102. pelty - 9/11/2004 2:20:48 AM

"You have been very reasonable. And now I see you are also very shrewed. You validate my opinion without actually admitting it."

Really? How so? I am simply not interested in fighting other people's battles. If KtH and you have points on which you differ, then it is not for me to hash it out on his behalf, nor have I any interest in doing so.

24103. anomie - 9/11/2004 2:25:22 AM

Pelty,

Fair enough. I was just trying to get you to pounce.

24104. jayackroyd - 9/11/2004 3:05:26 AM

It is my line actually.

Pelty, how do you answer the questions 9-year-olds ask?

"If Adam and Eve were the first people, where did Cain and Abel's wives come from?"

"What was here before God created the universe?"

"How did Noah fit all the animals in the world on the ark?"

Those kinds of questions.

24105. angel-five - 9/11/2004 3:09:19 AM

How interesting that you don't want to discuss how person X's abortion or person Y's gay sex constitutes an imposition upon you.

This isn't an impasse. This is where you're ending the discussion. And that's fine, but let's not pretend that there's nothing to be established beyond this point -- what it is, is that there are things you don't want established, and things you'd want established but can't.

24106. angel-five - 9/11/2004 3:19:09 AM

I would suggest, though, that you do a little reading and seek to understand what the so-called "separation of church and state" meant in its original iteration.

I would suggest that I probably know a lot more about it than you do, Pelty. How about you try to explain why the original concept of the separation of church and state stands at odds with the idea that Christian doctrine shouldn't be taught in a governmental institution? Or is that something else you have no interest in discussing?

24107. Bill Russell - 9/11/2004 3:47:00 AM

Why do we have military and other government chaplains, paid by the USA government, which = taxpayers? Seperation of church and state do not apply?

On our currency is "In god We Trust".

Seperation of church and state do not apply?

USSC and Congress opening with a prayer by paid chaplains each day.

Seperation of church and state do not apply?

24108. angel-five - 9/11/2004 5:59:46 AM

The separation of church and state is a Constitutional principle which is applied to specific situations, not an explicit law which delineates exactly what people are allowed to do and say in every case. The establishment clause is vague for the same reason that so many other Constitutional principles are vaguely worded -- the men who hammered out the Constitution didn't want the important spirit of it to be crucified by its letter. Rather than creating a Procrustean system which laid out in full what could and could not be done, they expressed the principle and provided for the establishment of a judicial system which would examine practices and laws with an eye for the spirit of that principle.

The principle itself is pretty easy to grasp, though. The founding fathers wished to keep the government from intermingling itself with religious organization. Primarily because the founding fathers were mostly Englishmen, or Englishmen once removed, and the last few hundred years of English history was replete with horrific examples of what can go wrong when the State gets involved with establishing religion.

If you want to understand what the Founding Fathers were mainly thinking about, it's simply very important to know what England had been like for the last few centuries as Puritans and Presbyterians and Catholics and Anglicans and the whole assorted slew took turns oppressing each other, outlawing each other, seizing each other's property, imprisoning each other, fighting outright wars with each other, deposing kings and beheading queens -- and that's just the Brits. The whole of Europe was worse.

It's almost impossible to study without becoming overwhelmed at some point by the horrible nature of what was happening, and the founding fathers had experience of it that was much more direct than study. The conductors of the American Experiment were determined to keep its governance from descending into that sort of miasma.

24109. angel-five - 9/11/2004 6:08:49 AM

However the founders were equally intent on the notion that the government they were founding would protect religion from oppression, even as it disassociated itself from religious establishment. Once again, a cursory study of (then) recent European history will quickly endow the student with several very good reasons why the founding fathers were adamant about making sure their government couldn't oppress any religious order, even if it wasn't allowed to champion one either.

The fact of the matter is that there are several areas in which religion and government might mingle which are gray in terms of the Establishment clause. One of them is prayer in Congress. While a decent case can be made against 'In God We Trust' and 'One Nation Under God', I'm afraid that not much of one can be made for chaplains in uniform.

Congress and the Constitution cannot simply bar religion from anything to do with politics, and it's obvious that was the founders' intent. It can't restrict the free expression of religion or religious principle. All it can, and should do, is to keep the government from promoting (no matter how subtly, no matter how sneakily) a particular religion or set of religions.

And personally that's just how I feel it should be. I'm not worried about whether Congress opens with a prayer or whether men going into combat have the solace of religious proctors to help them. I'm just worried about the religious right thin-edge-of-the-wedge trying to drive their agenda into places where the apparatus of the State can be corrupted to further their religion.

24110. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/11/2004 6:33:40 AM

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.--George Washington, Treaty of Tripoli, 1796

24111. clydefo - 9/11/2004 6:35:57 AM

Excellent piece a-5.

I say let the Catholics, Holy-rollers, etc, provide the chaplains at their own expense. No uniforms or commissions. "In God We Trust" is degrading to God when on filthy lucre and would be more accurately rendered as "In This Coin We Trust."

My favorite 9 years-old question is "did Adam and Eve have bellybuttons?"

24112. Bill Russell - 9/11/2004 11:35:14 AM

"The separation of church and state is a Constitutional principle which is applied to specific situations, not an explicit law which delineates exactly what people are allowed to do and say in every case."

I think separation of church is whatever the USSC decides it is. Their decisions can be specific or general.

24113. Bill Russell - 9/11/2004 11:44:02 AM

"The founding fathers wished to keep the government from intermingling itself with religious organization."

Chaplains paid by the USA government does that, imho.

The USA government's paying Chaplains from the USA treasury to perforn religious services constitutes government intermingling itself with religious organizations.

Money promotes.

24114. pelty - 9/11/2004 4:14:33 PM

"This isn't an impasse. This is where you're ending the discussion. And that's fine, but let's not pretend that there's nothing to be established beyond this point -- what it is, is that there are things you don't want established, and things you'd want established but can't."

I never meant to suggest that there is nothing to be established beyond this point, and I don't believe I have stated such a position. I simply have no interest in these types of discussions. They bore me to no end.

24115. pelty - 9/11/2004 4:17:32 PM

Good piece on church-state origins, A-5.

24116. Bill Russell - 9/11/2004 8:53:46 PM

In what way, pelty?

24118. judithathome - 9/12/2004 12:48:39 AM

Bill's link

I only linked this because I can't stand that fraud Paul Crouch and his drag queen wife.

24119. judithathome - 9/12/2004 12:50:10 AM

After Ford threatened to sue TBN in 1998, claiming that he had been unjustly fired, Crouch reached a $425,000 settlement with him. In return, Ford agreed, among other things, not to discuss his claim about a sexual encounter with the TV preacher.

That's a lot of money to pay off an "allegation".

24120. Bill Russell - 9/12/2004 12:52:54 AM

Yup!!

24121. Bill Russell - 9/12/2004 12:54:21 AM

Got something against Drag Queens, Judith"

LMBO

24122. Bill Russell - 9/12/2004 1:05:03 AM

Money promotes! Which is why the USA government has no business hiring chaplains to promote their own religion with our military.

Paying to promote any religion should be against OUR constitution, and the USSC should make that clear.

24123. Jenerator - 9/12/2004 7:16:33 PM

I find it interesting that the first head Supreme Court Justice John Jay referred to America as a 'Christian' Nation.

24124. Jenerator - 9/12/2004 7:18:15 PM

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." -- John Jay 1787

24125. Jenerator - 9/12/2004 7:21:04 PM

IS America a Christian Nation?

Excellent article!

24126. Jenerator - 9/12/2004 7:24:18 PM

From article:

"It is frequently asserted by those seeking to minimize Christianity's central role in our nation's founding and history, that the founders themselves were not practicing Christians, but rather were Deists or Agnostics.

In a 1962 speech to Congress, Senator Robert Byrd noted that of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 29 were Anglicans, 16-18 were Calvinists, and among the rest were 2 Methodists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 lapsed Quaker-sometimes Anglican, and only 1 open Deist — Benjamin Franklin who attended all Christian worships and called for public prayer.

24127. Jenerator - 9/12/2004 7:24:39 PM

Samuel Chase was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, a Justice of the US Supreme Court, and, as Chief Justice of the State of Maryland, wrote in 1799 ( Runkel v Winemiller): "By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion... ." (Maryland was one of nine States having established churches supported by taxpayers at the time of the adoption of the Constitution; these churches were gradually disestablished, the last in 1833. The Maryland constitution, typical of many of the States, restricted public office to Christians until, in 1851, it was changed to allow Jews who believed in a future state of rewards and punishments to also serve).

Christianity pervaded the laws and the legal system of the States and the federal government. For example, Judge Nathaniel Freeman in 1802 charged Massachusetts Grand Juries as follows: "The laws of the Christian system, as embraced by the Bible, must be respected as of high authority in all our courts... . [Our government] originating in the voluntary compact of a people who in that very instrument profess the Christian religion, it may be considered, not as republic Rome was, a Pagan, but a Christian republic." In 1811 ( People v Ruggles), New York Chief Justice James Kent held: "'...whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government... .' We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity... . Christianity in its enlarged sense, as a religion revealed and taught in the Bible, is part and parcel of the law of the land... ." In 1824, the Pennsylvania Supreme court held ( Updegraph v The Commonwealth):

24128. Jenerator - 9/12/2004 7:24:47 PM

Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law...not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; not Christianity with an established church, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men... ."

In 1854, The United States House of Congress passed a resolution: "The great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ."

During the Civil War, The Senate passed a resolution in 1863: "...devoutly recognizing the supreme authority and just government of Almighty God...encouraged ...to seek Him for succor according to His appointed way, through Jesus Christ, the Senate ...does hereby request the President ...to set aside a day for national prayer and humiliation." President Lincoln promptly issued a Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day, stating "...in compliance with the request and fully concurring in the view of the Senate... ."

24129. Jenerator - 9/12/2004 7:29:08 PM

Reagrding Wizard of Whimsey's quote from the Treaty of Tripoli -

The historical record from the foregoing quotes from past Presidents, leaders, Congressmen, Jurists and court decisions, seems firmly on the side of those claiming that America was born and maintained as a Christian nation whose laws, morals, and customs derive from Christian (and Jewish) scriptures. The opponents of this view, however, point to the first sentence of Article 11 of the obscure Tripoli Treaty of 1797 as seeming conclusive proof that America was never a Christian nation. Before discussing that critical sentence, the treaty itself should be read in context with all of the Barbary treaties.

The Barbary States on the coast of North Africa, comprising the Moslem States of Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, attacked ships in their coastal waters which would not pay tribute, and held captives for ransom. The European nations had treaties with those states, under which, in exchange for tribute, shipping was protected. After the Revolutionary War, our new nation followed the lead of those European nations and entered into similar treaties. Breach of those treaties by the Barbary nations led to the Barbary wars in 1801.

24130. Jenerator - 9/12/2004 7:29:25 PM

The first treaty was with Morocco in 1786, negotiated by Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin. It was written in Arabic with an English translation. The treaty language assumes that the world was divided between Christians and Moors (Moslems), e.g. "If we shall be at war with any Christian Power ... .", "... no Vessel whatever belonging either to Moorish or Christian Powers with whom the United States may be at War ... .", "...be their enemies Moors or Christians." These along with numerous references to God, e.g., "In the name of Almighty God,", "... trusting in God ...", "Grace to the only God", "...the servant of God ...", "... whom God preserve ...". are the only references to religion in this treaty of Peace and Friendship.

The next was the Treaty of Peace and Amity with Algiers in 1795,written in Turkish. The only reference to religion was in Article 17 which gave the Consul of the United States "... Liberty to Exercise his Religion in his own House [and] all Slaves of the Same Religion shall not be impeded in going to Said Consul's house at hours of prayer... ." The Consul's house was to function in lieu of a Christian church.

The Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation with Tunis in 1797 was in Turkish with a French translation. It begins "God is infinite.", and refers to the Ottoman Emperor "whose realm may God prosper", and to the President of the United States "... the most distinguished among those who profess the religion of the Messiah, ...." Other than a reference to "the Christian year", there is no further mention of religion.

24131. Jenerator - 9/12/2004 7:29:36 PM

The Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli was signed in 1796 in Arabic, and was later translated into English by Joel Barlow, United States Consul General at Algiers. Except for the typical phrases "Praise be to God" and "whom God Exalt", there is no reference to religion other than the aforesaid remarkable Article 11, which reads,

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, — and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan (sic) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The treaty, with this language, was submitted to the Senate by President Adams, and was ratified. Thus, opponents of the 'Christian nation' concept point to this seemingly official repudiation of the very idea. Yet the language is less a repudiation of the role of Christianity in the nation's heritage than a reminder that there was no national established church in the United States as there was in the European states with which Tripoli had previously dealt. This provided reassurance to the Moslem Bey and his religious establishment that religion, in of itself, would not be a basis of hostility between the two nations. None of the other similar treaties with the Barbary states, before or after this treaty, including the replacement treaties signed in 1804 after the Barbary Wars, have any language remotely similar.

24132. angel-five - 9/12/2004 7:46:34 PM

Deism and the Founding Fathers

This is a pretty good link that's worth reading, esp. if Jenerator's 'interest' in John Jay's commentary strikes you as a touch contrived.

Some excerpts:

... The primary leaders of the so-called founding fathers of our nation were not Bible-believing Christians; they were deists. Deism was a philosophical belief that was widely accepted by the colonial intelligentsia at the time of the American Revolution. Its major tenets included belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems and belief in a supreme deity who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws....A necessary consequence of these beliefs was a rejection of many doctrines central to the Christian religion. Deists did not believe in the virgin birth, divinity, or resurrection of Jesus, the efficacy of prayer, the miracles of the Bible, or even the divine inspiration of the Bible.

These beliefs were forcefully articulated by Thomas Paine in Age of Reason, a book that so outraged his contemporaries that he died rejected and despised by the nation that had once revered him as "the father of the American Revolution."... Other important founding fathers who espoused Deism were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe.

...The men mentioned above and others who were instrumental in the founding of our nation were in no sense Bible-believing Christians. Thomas Jefferson, in fact, was fiercely anti-cleric....

...Jefferson was just as suspicious of the traditional belief that the Bible is "the inspired word of God."

24133. angel-five - 9/12/2004 7:51:14 PM

He rewrote the story of Jesus as told in the New Testament and compiled his own gospel version known as The Jefferson Bible, which eliminated all miracles attributed to Jesus and ended with his burial...

In a letter to John Adams, he wrote, "To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, God, are immaterial is to say they are nothings, or that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise" (August 15, 1820)... Writing to Adams again, Jefferson said, "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" (April 11, 1823)...

...James Madison, Jefferson's close friend and political ally, was just as vigorously opposed to religious intrusions into civil affairs as Jefferson was. In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill "establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," Madison wrote his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" in which he presented fifteen reasons why government should not be come involved in the support of any religion. This paper, long considered a landmark document in political philosophy, was also cited in the majority opinion in Lee vs. Weisman...

24134. Jenerator - 9/12/2004 7:53:41 PM

My article is more compelling.

24135. angel-five - 9/12/2004 7:55:36 PM

...Dr. Wilson's sermon, which was published in the Albany Daily Advertiser the month it was delivered also made an interesting observation that flatly contradicts the frantic efforts of present-day fundamentalists to make the "founding fathers" orthodox Christians:

When the war was over and the victory over our enemies won, and the blessings and happiness of liberty and peace were secured, the Constitution was framed and God was neglected. He was not merely forgotten. He was absolutely voted out of the Constitution. The proceedings, as published by Thompson, the secretary, and the history of the day, show that the question was gravely debated whether God should be in the Constitution or not, and after a solemn debate he was deliberately voted out of it.... There is not only in the theory of our government no recognition of God's laws and sovereignty, but its practical operation, its administration, has been conformable to its theory. ... Washington was a man of valor and wisdom. He was esteemed by the whole world as a great and good man; but he was not a professing Christian....

...

Dr. Rush told me (he had it from Asa Green) that when the clergy addressed General Washington, on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice....

I know that Gouverneur Morris, who claimed to be in his secrets, and believed him self to be so, has often told me that General Washington believed no more in that system ....

24136. angel-five - 9/12/2004 8:03:17 PM

Sure thing, Jenerator, sure thing.

You haven't even read it.

Continuing...

The last and least skeptical of these rationalists [Washington] loaded his First Inaugural Address with appeals to the "Great Author," "Almighty Being," "invisible hand," and "benign parent of the human race," but apparently could not bring himself to speak the word "God" .

These terms by which Washington referred to "God" in his inaugural address are dead giveaways that he was Deistic in his views. The uninformed see the expression "nature's God" in documents like the Declaration of Independence and wrongly interpret it as evidence of Christian belief in those who wrote and signed it, but in reality it is a sure indication that the document was Deistic in origin. Deists preferred not to use the unqualified term "God" in their conversation and writings because of its Christian connotations. Accordingly, they substituted expressions like those that Washington used in his inaugural address...

...Anyone who would still insist that the intention of the founding fathers was to establish a Christian nation should review a document written during the administration of George Washington. Article 11 of the Treaty with Tripoli declared in part that "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion...". This treaty was negotiated by the American diplomat Joel Barlow during the administration of George Washington. Washington read it and approved it, although it was not ratified by the senate until John Adams had become president. When Adams signed it, he added this statement to his signature "Now, be it known, that I, John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said treaty, do, by and within the consent of the Senate, accept, ratify and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof."

24137. angel-five - 9/12/2004 8:04:45 PM

This document and the approval that it received from our nation's first and second presidents and the U. S. Senate as constituted in 1797 do very little to support the popular notion that the founding fathers established our country as a "Christian nation."...

Confronted with evidence like the foregoing, diehard fundamentalists will argue that even if the so-called founding fathers did not purposefully establish a Christian nation our country was founded by people looking for religious liberty, and our population has always been overwhelmingly Christian, but even these points are more dubious than most Christian-nation advocates dare suspect. Admittedly, some colonists did come to America in search of religious freedom, but the majority were driven by monetary motives. They simply wanted to improve their economic status. In New England, where the quest for religious freedom had been a strong motive for leaving the Old World, the colonists quickly established governments that were just as intolerant, if not more so, of religious dissent than what they had fled from in Europe. Quakers were exiled and then executed if they returned, and "witches," condemned on flimsy spectral evidence, were hanged. This is hardly a part of our past that modern fundamentalists can point to as a model to be emulated, although their rhetoric often gives cause to wonder if this isn't exactly what they want today.

24138. angel-five - 9/12/2004 8:05:07 PM

As for the religious beliefs of the general population in pre and post revolutionary times, it wasn't nearly as Christian as most people think. Lynn R. Buzzard, executive director of the Christian Legal Society (a national organization of Christian lawyers) has admitted that there is little proof to support the claim that the colonial population was overwhelmingly Christian. "Not only were a good many of the revolutionary leaders more deist than Christian," Buzzard wrote, "but the actual number of church members was rather small. Perhaps as few as five percent of the populace were church members in 1776" (Schools They Haven't Got a Prayer, Elgin, Illinois David C. Cook Publishing, 1982, p. 81). Historian Richard Hofstadter says that "perhaps as many as ninety percent of the Americans were unchurched in 1790" (Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, New York Alfred A. Knopf, 1974, p. 82) and goes on to say that "mid-eighteenth century America had a smaller proportion of church members than any other nation in Christendom," noting that "in 1800 [only] about one of every fifteen Americans was a church member" (p. 89). Historian James MacGregor Burns agrees with these figures, noting that "(t)here had been a `very wintry season' for religion every where in America after the Revolution" (The American Experiment Vineyard of Liberty, New York Vintage Books, 1983, p. 493). He adds that "ninety percent of the people lay outside the churches."...

24139. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 8:05:37 PM

Interesting. Sorry I haven't been around, but we had the death of a prominent member of our church here - a woman who several years ago won "Business Woman of the Year" in Namibia - and as you may know, death is an important event in Africa and the past week has been quite hectic. I'll try to look back a bit further to discussions I had earlier, but for now, I find it interesting that for once, something Angel-Five has to say I agree with, namely, the issue separation of church and state and its original intention.

Far too often, the phrase "separation of church and state" is filled with modern meaning and then read back into the Constitution, much to the detriment of our country. And normally the mindless drivel spouted here by people in that regard only accentuates their own ignorance about the original intention of the Amendment. A-5 actually got something right for once wrt this issue, so I applaud him for it.

24140. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 8:06:16 PM

For some odd reason Jenerator's article does not load for me. I don't know why.

24141. angel-five - 9/12/2004 8:09:50 PM

So, we have the father of our nation, the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth presidents (btw, that's just where I stop counting), the drafter of the Declaration of Independence, the primary and secondary drafter of the US constitution... not to mention Ben Franklin, all Deists, all very much against the establishment of Christianity in America, all properly secular. And of course I can't prove this last, but all would be screamingly appalled at the kind of slant Jenerator would like to put on things (not to mention, appalled at her).

You can read as many Baptist broadsides as you like, but they can't change fundamental fact.

24142. angel-five - 9/12/2004 8:13:45 PM

Far too often, the phrase "separation of church and state" is filled with modern meaning and then read back into the Constitution, much to the detriment of our country.

Well, I agree that the separation of Church and State has been modified by modern thinking, but it of course isn't to our detriment but benefit.

I simply see no reason, moreover, why matters of religion cannot be left to the churches, taught within them, researched and supported within them, while the secular bodies of our government are left to secular matters. Surely if Christian dogma is compelling and alluring, it does not need to pervade public schooling in order to reach new converts. Even your Jesus knew that what belonged to Caesar and what to God were separate things.

24143. jayackroyd - 9/12/2004 8:24:43 PM

But you have to admit that there is a problem when a nine-year-old is taught during the week that the planet is 6 billion years old, and taught on Sundays that this is not so. I agree that it would be worse if the kid were taught "some people think the earth is six billion years old, and others don't." But it is still a problem00when supernatural explanations are offered in oppostion to settled issues.

I guess if we're going to be fair about it all, if schools are forced to teach creationism, they should also be forced to give equal time to atheism. "The existence of God can't be proven, and many people don't believe in such a deity."

24144. PelleNilsson - 9/12/2004 8:25:31 PM

I'm not so sure that, in a historical context, the separation of church and state was such a good thing. The countries in north-western Europe are sometims classified as post-christian societies, yet their common denominator is that they have, or had until recently, state churches. That should tell us something.

24145. jayackroyd - 9/12/2004 8:25:35 PM

"taught"-->"taught in public schools"

24146. thoughtful - 9/12/2004 9:01:49 PM

But it is still a problem00when supernatural explanations are offered in oppostion to settled issues

Actually, evolution is far from settled. Rather than being offered just supernatural explanations as an alternative, it would be far more instructive to discuss the scientific challenges to evolution and why a theory is only a theory, useful only until it is replaced by a new theory that proves more useful.

24147. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 9:04:59 PM

I’ll attempt to address several earlier comments:

1) “A shorter way to say this is that, assuming the Bible is inerrant, when Kuligin reads the Bible and believes it to be inerrant and argues from the position of biblical inerrancy he is really arguing his own understanding of the Bible which, as I'm sure even Kuligin would agree, is errant, from a fallible person.” (from A-5)

As I have already noted, and as pelty also asserted, I have never said nor implied that my interpretation of Scripture is inerrant, and it is you, Angel-Five, who is consistently putting words into my mouth in this regard, and confusing the doctrine of biblical inerrancy with interpretation. I don’t know how many times I’ll have to say this, but I’ll say it again: I do not believe that my interpretation is inerrant.

However, the possibility of errant interpretation by no means negates biblical inerrancy. It is like saying that the improper use of a golf club (eg., as a murder weapon) negates its original intention and design as a golf club.

24148. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 9:05:32 PM

2) “Kuligin. I'm posting my opinions here just as you do. But unlike you and your sect, I am not vain enough, or ignorant enough, to claim that I am in the possession of the eternal truth” (pelle)

Do you believe that what you say is correct, pelle, or again, are you just wasting our time? I trust the teaching of Jesus Christ. What do you trust? You are just as “vain” as the rest of us.

24149. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 9:06:20 PM

3) “They just cannot argue that their interpretation is inerrant, unless they believe themselves to be infallible. The math of this is very very simple, Kuligin.” (A-5)

Here is Angel-Five’s red herring again. He has subtly shifted the debate to me supposedly saying that my interpretation is infallible, something I neither said nor implied.

However, for argument’s sake, a fallible person can indeed produce an infallible interpretation. Again, the potential for fallibility does not negate that in any given situation a human can produce something without error, as I have already argued. Human fallibility points to occasional fallibility, not fallibility 100% of the time.

For the fun of it, Angel-Five, do you believe you are correct in this debate? How can you really know you are correct?

24150. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 9:06:37 PM

4) “Kuligin, do you believe you are infallible?

If not, do you believe you can properly claim your reading of the bible to be inerrant? If so, how? If not, why are you bitching?” (A-5)

I am “bitching” because I never claimed this, but you have claimed it for me! But this has always been standard practice for all the years I have argued with Resonance/Angel-Five. He makes up positions for his opponent – straw men if you would – and then tears them down, all the while claiming victory over his ignorant opponent. But all you tear down, A-5, is figments of your own imagination. I am already several pages into this discussion and you have yet to actually address MY position.

I can only echo what pelty says. It is a supreme waste of time to debate anything with you.

24151. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 9:06:53 PM

5) “You aren't arguing that the Bible is inerrant a priori, but have a specific interpretation of it in mind as that which is inerrant (surprise, surprise, it's your interpretation).” (A-5)

Here it is once again. I never said nor implied this.

24152. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 9:07:25 PM

6) “Now we see you saying 'Look, I never said my own interpretation is inerrant'. Which was the whole point of all this. You have probably never used that phrase, Kuligin, but it is implicit, QED, in the act of arguing from an inerrant Bible.” (A-5)

Again, this is nonsensical. Arguing that God’s words are without error does not by definition mean that my interpretation of them must also be without error. Your logic is horrid Angel-Five.

7) “If I may briefly interject, it seems to me A-5 that you are indeed placing words in Vic's mouth. I see no evidence in this exchange which demonstrates that KtH believes his interpretation to be inerrant.” (pelty)

This is indeed correct, pelty. Fact is, I have changed my understanding of certain passages of Scripture over the years, and hence my theology, so any claim to infallibility on my part when it comes to my own interpretation of Scripture would just be lunacy. However, it doesn’t really matter how many times I say that, Angel-Five will not be content. He MUST believe, it seems, that I believe myself to hold an inerrant or infallible interpretation. Why is that? Because A-5 is a master at not arguing the actual point of discussion, but rather creating red herrings and straw men arguments.

24153. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 9:07:57 PM

8) “I also think his position is in contradiction to Luther's teachings. Luther translated NT into German for the express purpose to make it available to everybody. He thought that the word of God was accessible for the ordinary man without the need for intermediaries.

What Kuligin is doing here is to mount a defense for his own caste of professional bible interpreters. That is why he always resort to the argument "go study before you address those complicated issues". Very un-Lutheran.” (pelle)

This is utter BS coming from the dour Swede who should know better. My position is entirely in line with Luther’s. Luther was a firm believer in study, and his greater and smaller catechisms are proof of that, as was his career in general. That I encourage people to go study something further before spouting more nonsense is perfectly in line with Luther’s desire to see the laity educated.

In fact, all I do in this regard is what A-5 and others have done on other topics, like evolutionary theory, for example. When they say that a Motie should go and read up on it, I applaud them for such advice. When someone like anomie comes in and clearly has done no research or study of the Christian doctrine of inerrancy, for example, yet likes to pose as some expert, or thinks he has all the answers to easily refute the doctrine, all he does is display his own ignorance. Luther would have ripped someone like anomie a new one.

I want everyone to study more on these topics, just like Luther wanted his fellow countrymen to do.

24154. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 9:08:11 PM

9) “I see no evidence in this exchange which demonstrates that KtH believes his interpretation to be inerrant.” (pelty)

”A-5 is not making this claim.” (jay)

Then you don’t read too closely, jay.

10) “Kuligin with his hermeneutics is that which Luther railed against, and is every bit as philosophically feudal as the Catholic Church which he rails against.”

Yaaaaaaaaawn.

11) “If you belong to the Vic school and say that 'there's an inerrant reading out there somewhere and we will find it' then I suppose the root language doesn't matter.” (not sure who originally said this)

”I don't think that's fair. What he has said is that with sufficient study, including study of the scriptures in its original tongue, one can come to an understanding of the text.” (jay)

This one jay got right.

24155. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 9:08:47 PM

I think that should do it. Just to be clear, I think it is helpful in ANY debate that the parties involved have a good, working knowledge of the issues and material involved in the debate. Far too often, what we find in The Mote is people who spout nonsensical claims (such as concerning the Bible and what it purported says) but quickly are exposed as ignorant about the Bible. Who would want to debate evolutionary theory, for example, with someone who knows nothing about evolutionary theory? Or put better, who would want to debate with someone who is AGAINST evolutionary theory when that same person displays an entire lack of understanding as to what evolutionary theory purports?

For seven years I have debated with people in this forum and this particular thread. Many of the debates have been good ones, and I can recall people like elkindooo for example, who knew what he was talking about because he obviously had studied it. Even Angel-Five has his good days, although when it come to a knowledge of Scripture and Christian theology he is woefully inadequate, yet pretends to be an expert in the field. Someone like anomie already admits to not reading up on the topic, makes wild claims about things like the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy yet when pushed doesn’t back up those claims, and still he claims he knows what he is talking about. Gone are the days when I waste my time with people like that. Because after I spend hours on end proving my point, they just run away, only to come back later claiming the same nonsense.

24156. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 9:09:02 PM

I am for open knowledge for all. I wish that everyone in this forum would go and study Scripture, and then come back with their objections. On that basis, we could have meaningful discussions and debates. But what we normally have is people parroting anti-Christian lines like, “the Bible is filled with errors,” or “the Bible is propaganda created by old church leaders hell bent on keeping their offices of power” and so on, with no actual substance to back up their claims. So when I ask these types of people to “read up” on things, all I hear in reply is that they really don’t have to, and I’m arrogant for asking them to become more knowledgeable. Oh well. So be it.

But in my little convoluted world, it is the arrogant people who claim to know something about which they know nothing.

24157. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 9:10:53 PM

"I simply see no reason, moreover, why matters of religion cannot be left to the churches, taught within them, researched and supported within them, while the secular bodies of our government are left to secular matters."

This is naive. It is like spouting the "my private life and my public life are different" nonsense we often hear from politicians. The two go hand in hand, and one is necessarily informed by the other.

24158. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 9:15:43 PM

Also, where did I see Angel-Five say that it was perfectly legal to teach creationism in public schools in America? What country do you live in, A-5? Perhaps this is true in some pockets of the country, but it is not universally true therein.

24159. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 9:17:15 PM

"But it is still a problem00when supernatural explanations are offered in oppostion to settled issues."

jay, the age of the earth is far from a "settled issue," any more than the age of the universe is. For several years it was believed that the universe was around 17 billion years old, but more recent studies have posited an age closer to 12 billion. That's a big difference.

24160. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 9:18:27 PM

"I guess if we're going to be fair about it all, if schools are forced to teach creationism"

I am unaware of any schools that are forced to teach creationism without any competing theories, but I am thinking only of public schools here. Private institutions are free to teach what they want to.

24161. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 9:24:24 PM

Also, wasn't there some debate here on Christians supposedly forcing their views on people, but secularists supposedly do not? If so, that's utter BS. ALL laws by definition "force" a certain position on the people. I'm not allowed to sit in the privacy of my own home, by myself, and smoke pot or do coke. Isn't this an infringement on my person rights and privileges? Then why am I forced to not do it?

A woman is not allowed to sell her body for sex, except in Nevada I think. Why not? Isn't this an imposition on a concentual contractual agreement between herself and the man who wants to buy the sex?

Laws infringe on private rights all the time. The red herring that the secularist is not forcing others to have an abortion, or to marry a like gender, is just that, a red herring. The secularist is curbing the freedom (or attempting to do so) of the religionist all the time in America.

But that is what laws do. One position wins and the other loses. Both sides play the same game. Anybody who says it is only the Christians who are doing this, while those little innocent secularists just want to be left alone, is just full of it, up to his or her eyeballs.

24162. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 9:26:46 PM

Also, often laws protect a party or individual who cannot protect themselves. The civil rights movement was in many respects like this. Anti-abortion issues are the very same thing. The argument can never simply be, "Pro-life people want to force their beliefs on others, but we pro-abortion people aren't forcing them to have abortions." That misses the point entirely. Pro-life people simply want to protect the unborn, something they cannot do themselves. As a pro-lifer, it is not MY RIGHTS that I am attempting to impose on others, but rather, I am attempting to protect the rights of the unborn humans who are being slaughtered via this depraved practice.

24163. jayackroyd - 9/12/2004 9:44:18 PM

Actually, evolution is far from settled.

Evolution is settled. There are issues around the edges, some of them helpfully raised by creationsits, but there is no question that species evolve, that they are related to other species and that this evolution is driven by genetic alteration.

But I said the origin of the planet because I didn't want to rehash this issue. And, yes, whenever you teach kids about science you should focus on the process as much as on the facts. The trouble with doing this with evolution is that the remaining issues are mostly technical (Dawkins selfish gene vs Mayr's individual selection or punctuated equilibrium vs steady change vs catasrophic events) or just flat unsolved, like the origin of the first living thing. (although there was just a result showing the eukaryotes came last).

And it turns out the concept is hard. I've had AMNH docents get stuff wrong. There is an undeniably powerful human sentiment to insert a designer or a change agent in providing explanations.

24164. Jenerator - 9/12/2004 9:48:26 PM

Here is one site called Creation Moments

I have linked to the free articles sections (they also sell various scientific creationsists, etc.) Their articles are fairly simple, but interesting.

24165. jayackroyd - 9/12/2004 9:49:28 PM

Kuligan, I didn't mention the universe. Cosmology is way unsettled, and I think we can be sure the universe will keep getting bigger for the rest of our lives.

24166. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 9:53:10 PM

jay, I moved from your comment about the age of the earth to the age of the universe. Neither is settled or a done deal as you seem to make it (at least wrt to the age of the earth).

24167. jayackroyd - 9/12/2004 9:53:52 PM

Let's try a5's argument again.

He is saying that understanding even an inerrant text requires the agency of a necessarily errant human being, and so you cannot be sure that the inerrant meaning of the text is properly interpreted. What's hard about that? You seem to be agreeing.

Moreover, the claim to textual inerrancy has to be extratextual. You have to believe some other supernatural agency to certify the text as inerrant, because people can't do that. What's hard, or especially controversial about that?

What is your view on translations, and the fact that that the words of Jesus are the result of human memory, translated into a different tongue from the original words?

24168. jayackroyd - 9/12/2004 9:56:22 PM

, I moved from your comment about the age of the earth to the age of the universe.

Yes, a pretty dishonest trick, actually, refuting a claim I didn't make.

The age of the earth hasn't moved in some time. IAC, it is certainly settled that there is difference of about five orders of magnitude from the Genesis version.

24169. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 9:57:03 PM

I echo what thoughtful said earlier about evolutionary theory. I think much can be said about its inadequacies, however, often that appears to allow room for the other main option for origins, namely, "creationism," so many times the inadequacies of the present state of evolutionary theory are glossed over. It is the buddy mentality, defend your guy in your party even if he's wrong, because exposing his weaknesses may lead to the other party gaining the upper hand.

What I find ironic is that often the charge against the church is that it is a bloated system hell bent on protecting its own survival, regardless of the facts of the matter, but when it comes to evolutionary theory, I see the same thing happening in the scientific community as well. There is a vast system built up on the theory and its supposed validity that, if it were proven wrong, would come crashing down. So many therein protect it, even though secretly they harbor misgivings.

24170. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 9:58:15 PM

jay, one more time, if you believe the age of the earth to be a "settled" matter, you are naive or just stupid, or both I suppose. But at bare minimum, you are ignoring the very tenets of the science you seem to be so in favor of.

24171. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 10:00:12 PM

"He is saying that understanding even an inerrant text requires the agency of a necessarily errant human being, and so you cannot be sure that the inerrant meaning of the text is properly interpreted. What's hard about that? You seem to be agreeing."

I am agreeing. I never said different. But what you can see above, because I posted it SEVERAL times, is that A-5 is claiming that I believe MY INTERPRETATION of the text to be without error, which is nonsense. I never said nor implied that.

Now how hard is it for you to read that, jay, and understand it? And how hard, further, is it for you to read A-5's posts where he claims I believe that, when I don't?

24172. jayackroyd - 9/12/2004 10:01:00 PM

The DNA evidence is awfully compelling. For example, humans share a nucleotide sequence with fruit flies that govern sleep patterns in both species.

But I don't' want to get into this. It's a waste of time. so if you have anything to add, please do, but I won't respond.

Do me one favor though. Please refrain from looking into people's souls to support your positions. You have no way of knowing what secrets dwell in the hearts of men.

24173. jayackroyd - 9/12/2004 10:01:41 PM

I'm glad that we're all in agreement. It makes for a nice change of pace.

24174. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 10:03:41 PM

"What is your view on translations, and the fact that that the words of Jesus are the result of human memory, translated into a different tongue from the original words?"

I'll combine my answer to this with your question about supernatural intervention.

The doctrine of inerrancy only applies to the original manuscripts and not translations. However, textual criticism allows us to state that over 99% of the current text is true to the original, and in the less than 1% that we are not sure, we know where all those passages are.

The originals authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit. As Jesus tells them, once he departs God's Spirit will help them to recall what he spoke and taught and did. "The Spirit will lead you into all truth." So obviously the claim of biblical inerrancy is rooted in a supernatural intervention of God's Spirit.

Via this supernatural intervention, the author's were protected from error, so despite them being errant human beings, in their production of the Scriptures they did not err.

I hope that makes clear the evangelical position in this regard.

24175. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 10:04:56 PM

"The DNA evidence is awfully compelling."

One would expect species living on the same planet, sharing and depending on the same resources, etc., so share a certain commonality in their DNA. This isn't surprising, at least to me.

24176. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 10:06:29 PM

"Please refrain from looking into people's souls to support your positions. You have no way of knowing what secrets dwell in the hearts of men."

Sure I do, when they tell us! But people who jump the evolutionary ship because it is sinking are labeled much like Zell Miller has been labeled, a turn coat or Uncle Tom selling out to somebody else. Even though they tell us that the whole time they were selling out the evolutionary machine and finally made a decision based on conscience to no longer do so.

24177. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 10:10:41 PM

Moving from the matter of inerrancy to interpretation, let me make clear my position, before A-5 or others attempt to make my position for me.

We have an inerrant original and we have translations which we are fairly certain match the original, as I noted earlier. When we move into the realm of Hermeneutics, we move in that discipline knowing that their are good methods and bad ones. Just because humans are errant doesn't mean that they can't practice good methodology in attempting to discern the truth, and as that is the case in any discipline, so it is also in Hermeneutics.

The argument I saw being made or attempted was that because I am errant, I can never know for sure that my interpretation of Scriptures is correct. But as I noted, if that is true then it is true all the time with anything, in any discipline. Fact is, I can't even trust my own senses in that case.

But I don't think we should allow for such a radical distillation of this faulty logic. For starters, people here who are saying it aren't even be true themselves to it. Have you noticed that I have asked at least 3 times now if Angel-Five believes himself to be right, and he has yet to answer me? Why? Perhaps because he knows that he isn't being true to his own (faulty) logic.

24178. jayackroyd - 9/12/2004 10:10:51 PM

If they tell us, then it's not a secret.

24174 strikes me as perfectly coherent, although of course I believe it's nonsense. But it is an internally consistent story. I doubt a-5 will have a problem with it.

But we'll see, won't we?

24179. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 10:15:04 PM

There is good and bad Hermeneutics. For example, people who used the Bible to support their contention that white men are superior to black men (the curse on Cain, for example) are using a faulty Hermeneutic which can easily be exposed.

I think we can approach Scripture as we approach any other discipline, with a healthy understanding that what we believe has a very high probability of being correct. Can we be 100% certain of anything? I hear this type of skepticism being raised when it comes to the Bible, but do people live like this in any other area of their lives?

Someone here, perhaps it was anomie, once said I can't be certain if I am truly alive as I perceive myself to be alive, or if I am just a brain in a jar receiving electrical stimulation, or some holigram on a Star Trek Holideck. Sure, one can always claim imperfect knowledge, but how do you live? Do you live as if you are just a brain in a jar? Does the possibility exist? I suppose so.

Are humans infallible? Of course not. But do we live as if we can't know anything, do anything, or believe anything, because we can never be 100% sure of anything at all, period? No, we do not. We live on the basis of reasonable certainty, and the same applies when I approach Scripture as well.

24180. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 10:18:36 PM

Lastly, on a more personal note, I have changed my understanding of Scripture and Christian theology over the years. I hardly claim infallibility wrt my own position or take on things. However, I am reasonably certain that I am moving in the right direction.

A classic example for me is my movement from Arminianism to Calvinism. I must say that the former was the result of my upbringing and was based on little actual study of Scripture and theology. Only after I started to do this did I move away from Arminianism and find that more coherant biblical answers were addressed with Calvinism. As I have said to many, many people including my students, when I was an Arminian I had 50 verses in the Bible that didn't make sense to me. Now, as a Calvinist, I only have 5.

All this means is that Calvinism seems much more consistent to me in Scripture than does Arminianism, but do I believe I have all the answers? Hardly. I am still learning, still striving, and still correcting myself. That's all I generally ask of others as well.

24181. jayackroyd - 9/12/2004 10:30:57 PM

Can we be 100% certain of anything? I hear this type of skepticism being raised when it comes to the Bible, but do people live like this in any other area of their lives?

In other walks of lives, people don't claim that their information sources are 100% certain. That's why the issue arises here. It's an extraordinary claim that some kind of spectre made sure that the apostles got their stories exactly right when writing the Gospels.

24182. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 10:44:42 PM

Let me say one more thing about Hermeneutics. When I teach this course to our students, I do an historical survey of the different schools and methodologies of Hermeneutics seen through the Christian centuries (and actually we look at some Jewish BC Hermeneutics as well).

There are obviously competing schools and approaches. The vast majority of evangelicals support the "historical-grammatical method" of Hermeneutics. This is different than, say, the allegorical approach, or the Roman Catholic approach to it, and so on.

Obviously, all sides seek to support their own position, and one must analyze the pros and cons of the competing schools. Someone could take a wholly revelational approach to Hermeneutics, namely, "God told me this or that," and basically ignore what the actually passage says. Others take an allegorical approach and fill the passage with meaning that they want which wouldn't have made any sense to the original readers(phillipdavid was a classic example of this in our forum here).

Again, there are competing schools of thought and each must make its arguments for its own validity. However, as in any discipline, they are begin with certain assumptions and move from there, but these assumptions must also be tested. Personally, I think the historical-grammitical approach has the best validity and gives us the best possibility of knowing what the text means.

I think I'll end there.

24183. judithathome - 9/12/2004 10:52:46 PM

Via this supernatural intervention, the author's were protected from error, so despite them being errant human beings, in their production of the Scriptures they did not err.

But you can't know if the men who wrote down the words of Jesus were doing so while in the grip of the holy spirit or simply in the throes of some mania brought on by mold from old bread...

24184. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/2004 10:55:09 PM

However, what you can do is test the Scripture, judith. If it has errors, show them to me. Now, hopefully, people in this forum will allow YOU to do this, judith, and not rush to your aid, as if you can't do it yourself or are incapable of defending your pov.

So show me the errors. They should be easy to find since as you noted earlier humans aren't infallible and are prone to error. You could show me historical errors, or errors of consistency, or errors of science if you like. Just show me the errors and we will work from there.

24185. Marshame - 9/12/2004 11:00:41 PM

Way back on Friday, Judithathome posted about Christian funerals: "I've been to my share of funerals, too, and being a captive audience, had to sit through a lot of hell and brimstone and accusations of how sinful we are and how would should fear the end and make peace with God before we are caught up in death unexpectedly. You'd think people would talk about the departed and how their lives had reflected their belief but instead, you literally have the fear of God shoved down your throat before any mention of the loved one being happy in heaven."

That's bullshit. I sincerely doubt that you would know a Christian service even if the pastor himself sat next to you and explained everything that transpired. You are simply regurgitating the same old anti Christian blabbery that you've been upchucking for years. The tip-off is your "God shoved down your throat" reference. Also, any Christian knows he doesn't have to be "accused" of being a sinner. And "fear of God" doesn't make you a Christian.

Duh!!!

24186. judithathome - 9/12/2004 11:04:01 PM

No, I cannot. To do that, I'd have to study and take classes and maybe even go to some fancy school for years.

I don't think it is error free, nothing written by man is ever error free. But I'm not going to be able to point out errors in the bible. Because, you see, even if I did all that study and went to classes and really worked at it and found tons of them, you'd just call me stupid like you always do and say I missed the point.

So I'll save us both some time and let you call me willfully stupid right now.

Besides, I'm not looking for anyone to come to aid, as you seem to think people do around here. I must really be stupid because I've never noticed anyone doing that. Mostly my posts are just ignored and you seem to be the only one who reads and is irritated by them.

I can understand your position on the bible and why you are so fervently confident in it. I see you say you're going to vote for Bush. That explains a lot to me.

24187. Marshame - 9/12/2004 11:04:20 PM

Oh, and anomie was mystified at the function or purpose of the Holy Spirit. Duh again. In John 15:26 Jesus himself says "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, this is the Spriti of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me." He (Jesus) also says back in Ch. 14:25 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."

24188. judithathome - 9/12/2004 11:10:26 PM

Marsha, I can always tell when I've hit a nerve with people because I've said something about Christians that they know is true but it isn't what they would like to hear.

I suggest you take your preconceived ideas about what I've seen at Christian funerals and reassess them. I do know what I have heard at funerals. I do know what has been said there. Are you saying that I am lying? How could you possibly know what I've heard unless you were at the same funerals I attended? Is that it...we've been at the same funerals and interpreted them differently? Because what a Christian hears at a funeral may not strike them the same as what a non-Christian hears. Keep that in mind.

I hope you have a nice trip to India. Be careful, though. You might hear and see things you don't like.

24189. Marshame - 9/12/2004 11:15:58 PM

Judith - most of what I see in India I don't like, and it stems from the Hindu world view. Since the Indians embrace a caste system, and one's position in life is pre-determined by the karma from prior lives, those in the upper castes feel no responsibility at all for the suffering of their fellow citizens. After all, if you are born a rag picker it is only what you deserve.

Ugh.

24190. judithathome - 9/12/2004 11:27:11 PM

There's definately no upward mobility there.

I would advise you not to drink anything that you don't see being boiled. I got amoebic dysentary in the Philippines for assuming tea had been boiled when it hadn't.

24191. Marshame - 9/12/2004 11:31:01 PM

I got sick last time in India, and the doctor attending me (who just visited us last May!) advised me to stick with black tea, white rice, bananas where I remove the peel, and heavily cooked veggies. That will all be easy enough. Also, have to check the seals on the bottled water. Many places (like hotels) have their own water "purification" systems, but they are not good enough for a western constitution like mine. I especially don't want to be sick because I'm spending a week in Paris on the way back!

24192. judithathome - 9/12/2004 11:38:44 PM

Have a great time...and I told Jen about a really cool restaurant in Paris called La Coupole on Montparnasse...it's art deco and really good food. Very old place, been there forever. We went for lunch; it was divine.

24193. clydefo - 9/13/2004 12:03:54 AM

"So show me the errors" 24184. KuligintheHooligan

On the death of Judas:

(Matthew 27:5) And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

(Acts 1:18) Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

24194. Marshame - 9/13/2004 12:19:14 AM

So he hanged himself, and then his body fell and all his bowels gushed out. What's the problem?

24195. judithathome - 9/13/2004 12:21:31 AM

Seems like it is saying he died two different ways on two different occasions. Just my reading of what was posted; I'm not claiming to know what the book says or when.

24196. clydefo - 9/13/2004 12:31:43 AM

I've never witnessed a hanging, but I've seen plenty of photos, newsreels, etc and I've never seen anyone burst asunder.

How about the different genealogies in Matthew and Luke?

24197. clydefo - 9/13/2004 12:47:38 AM

Also, on Judas; if he "purchased a field with the reward of iniquity" does that mean that he went back to the temple and picked up the pieces of silver that he had cast down?

24198. judithathome - 9/13/2004 1:01:11 AM

Maybe he was independently wealthy.

24199. clydefo - 9/13/2004 2:28:20 AM

"purchased... with the reward"

24200. arkymalarky - 9/13/2004 4:00:38 AM

That's bullshit.

No it isn't. I was raised in the same denomination and services like that were not at all unusual. My family on both sides is very firmly a part of that church and many people I work with are. They're the salt of the earth, but very exclusive, and have in the past been very much focused on hellfire and brimstone.

24201. wonkers2 - 9/13/2004 4:18:21 AM

Many churches appear to me to use the "afterlife" [or the alternative] at funerals as a recruiting tool.

24202. arkymalarky - 9/13/2004 4:32:13 AM

The captive audience is irresistable to some preachers, unfortunately.

I have also been to some excellent services in the same denomination, including my grandmother's a couple of years ago.

24203. clydefo - 9/13/2004 6:01:39 AM

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

And so Adam did "eatest therof". Was that his last day? Not quite!

Genesis 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

24204. rebelwithacause - 9/13/2004 6:19:34 AM

Did Adam and Eve ever marry, or did they live in 'sin'?

24205. angel-five - 9/13/2004 7:03:31 AM

The argument I saw being made or attempted was that because I am errant, I can never know for sure that my interpretation of Scriptures is correct. But as I noted, if that is true then it is true all the time with anything, in any discipline. Fact is, I can't even trust my own senses in that case.

Correct, Kuligin. Your problem is you look at that and say 'No, I don't want to do that' and there it ends for you.

But I don't think we should allow for such a radical distillation of this faulty logic. For starters, people here who are saying it aren't even be true themselves to it. Have you noticed that I have asked at least 3 times now if Angel-Five believes himself to be right, and he has yet to answer me? Why? Perhaps because he knows that he isn't being true to his own (faulty) logic.

Perhaps because he was working? Your job must be nice.

How about we skip another ten post tear from you and discuss this directly?

Yes, I think I'm right. No, not infallibly so. Then again, I'm not arguing from the position of being anything, anywhere, to be inerrant, so it's not ever an issue for me.

I have repeatedly stated that I do not think you think of yourself as possessing the inerrant interpretation of Scripture, Kuligin. So, you see, it's really your own red herring, not mine. But I'm willing to charitably assume you just aren't understanding what I've said, which is pretty common.

24206. angel-five - 9/13/2004 7:04:03 AM

Kuligin, people who study literature today take it for a given that literature of any sort is an act of communication -- meaning that there is a messenger, a message, and the person who receives the message. In the Bible you never encounter the messenger (please don't get all holy on me now, you know what I mean) and the message is something that you, yourself, generate the meaning of. So when you speak of an inerrant Bible you ought properly to be speaking of the messenger you never encounter, but instead you think of the message you generate. Perhaps you think of an idealized form of the message you generate, if you were a perfect reader, but the whole point of this is that you are not. None of us are. There is an inevitable slip of meaning when we discuss an inerrant text that we can argue about, and that is precisely what you do in this place when you cite the Bible.

If pressed, even lightly, you'll be among the first to admit that you're fallible. But you still pretend you can discuss a text as being inerrant, when all you know of it was generated within your own mind. That's the fundamental disconnect here, Kuligin. The concept can't apply to anything you can discuss. I know you don't like that at all, but that's how it is.

Now, do you get the nuance of what I was saying? Or are you going to blather some more about how I'm insisting that you believe yourself to be inerrant?

24207. clydefo - 9/13/2004 7:43:24 AM

Why does the Bible lead off with such glaring errors as the discrepancies and contradictions between the Genesis 1 and 2 myths? Sloppy editing? Which came first, Heaven or Earth, humans or the animals, one day of creation or a full week?

24208. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/2004 8:52:29 AM

judith, there's your problem in a nutshell. You just assume certain things about the Bible, about the Christian faith and Christians, about religion in general, all the while admitting your ignorance of these very same things. You say the Bible has errors, I ask you for errors, but you don't produce any because you admit to not having studied the Bible. Go figure.

I'd expect more from someone of your years.

As for your interaction with marshame, I must admit that when I read your comments about Christian funerals, I felt the same way she did about them. You seem to live in a very harsh world, where mean, evil Christians are all around you, constantly bothering you at your work, constantly knocking on your door at home, intruding on your personal space and trying to shove their religion down your throat.

I wouldn't call you a liar, I'd just say you major in hyperbole.

24209. clydefo - 9/13/2004 9:00:02 AM

Who fathered Joseph, Mary's husband?
Matthew 1:16: And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Luke 3:23: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli

24210. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/2004 9:25:40 AM

"Yes, I think I'm right."

So do I, but here's the difference. You say I can't possibly be certain that I am right, because I am a fallible human being. Now then, aren't you fallible too? So your argument cuts both ways.

"How about we skip another ten post tear from you"

Leave your little sarcasm at home, A-5. Like I said, I hadn't been here for about a week. Would you prefer I just ignore your questions from here on out, or go back and try to catch up on them?

"I'm not arguing from the position of being anything, anywhere, to be inerrant"

As I've already said umpteen times, neither am I arguing that I am inerrant, or anywhere near it.

"I have repeatedly stated that I do not think you think of yourself as possessing the inerrant interpretation of Scripture, Kuligin."

Funny, because in my string of "ten posts" I found you saying precisely this about half a dozen times. Don't you ever recall what YOU post, A-5, even after it has been reposted for you?! And here's a perfect example for you, from your last post:

24211. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/2004 9:26:20 AM

"So when you speak of an inerrant Bible you ought properly to be speaking of the messenger you never encounter, but instead you think of the message you generate."

No I do not. I do not believe that I generate an inerrant message, which is just another way of you saying that I believe my interpretation to be inerrant. Are you really this dense, A-5??! You just said you never said I claim inerrancy in my interpretation, but now you do it AGAIN!!

The text as given by God through his Spirit to his "messengers" is inerrant. This is simple, A-5. It is the evangelical doctrine of biblical inerrancy, which overlaps with the evangelical doctrine of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

I have explained myself numerous times now, but you continue to prefer to create a position for me, instead of taking my own position. Again, the text is inerrant in its original autographs. My interpretation is not inerrant, hasn't ever been, won't ever be. Period. Got it? Good.

24212. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/2004 9:26:52 AM

"If pressed, even lightly, you'll be among the first to admit that you're fallible."

If pressed? You were the one that dodged the question of personal fallibility at least three times. I've been the one claiming fallibility the entire time. I've even provided some detail as to how that fallibility has worked in the development of my own theology. Geesh.

"But you still pretend you can discuss a text as being inerrant, when all you know of it was generated within your own mind."

The text stands outside of me, A-5. If I don't exist tomorrow, the text still does. It was generated 2000+ years before I walked the planet. And I may very well speak of it as being inerrant.

Again, you seem to imply that fallible human beings cannot speak of ANYTHING as perfect, or inerrant, because fallible human beings just can't do that. But that isn't reasonable at all. You may think you sound logical, but humans can even PRODUCE perfect things, like a hole-in-one or a 100 on a test, so the ability to simply TALK ABOUT something that is perfect must also exist.

"Or are you going to blather some more about how I'm insisting that you believe yourself to be inerrant?"

But you continue to do it, so why shouldn't I continue to blather about it?

Also, let me backtrack a moment and say that it is a fundamental assumption that whatever God does is perfect, as God is perfect. All worldviews begin with certain assumptions, A-5, and your pov is no different in this regard than my own. In my worldview, God exists. Does he exist in your worldview, A-5? If not, that is because our fundamental assumptions are just different.

Let's try it this way. Is there anything perfect in your world or worldview, A-5?

24213. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/2004 9:31:39 AM

clyde

1) the first chapter of Genesis gives a more general accounting of creation, the second chapter a more specific accounting of the creation of man

2) the Greek for "hanged" can also mean "impaled"

3) one genealogy follows the line of Joseph, the other the line of Mary

4) look how the word "day" is used in Genesis concerning Adam's death

All it takes is a little study, clyde. That's all.

24214. clydefo - 9/13/2004 9:46:26 AM

Whoa Kuligin! Who fathered Joseph? An answer please.

24215. rebelwithacause - 9/13/2004 9:53:39 AM

Do not form views in the world through either knowledge, virtuous conduct, or religious observances; likewise, avoid thinking of oneself as being either superior, inferior, or equal to others.

For those who have no wishes for either extremes of becoming or non-becoming, here or in another existence, there is no settling into the views held by others.

24216. clydefo - 9/13/2004 10:03:35 AM

Who came first, Man or animals? Don't obfuscate.

24217. rebelwithacause - 9/13/2004 10:07:03 AM

"Don't obfuscate."

The bible will do that for us.

24218. clydefo - 9/13/2004 10:33:07 AM

Who humped the cross?

John 19:17: And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:

Matthew 27:31-32: And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him.
32: And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross.

24219. rebelwithacause - 9/13/2004 11:02:20 AM

clydefo, I think you are trying to say something.

24220. clydefo - 9/13/2004 11:02:21 AM

Is the impending destruction of New Orleans by hurricane Ivan an act of retribution by God for the excesses of Bourbon Street or simply a set of coordinates in the Gulf Coast Attractor produced by the chaos of "Hurricane Season"?

24221. clydefo - 9/13/2004 11:15:03 AM

...I think you are trying to say something.24219. rebelwithacause

At last! Someone who understands. I am trying. Bless you.

24222. rebelwithacause - 9/13/2004 11:19:41 AM

Yes, not everyone here is a dolt.

24223. alistairconnor - 9/13/2004 11:25:37 AM

Pelle: The countries in north-western Europe are sometims classified as post-christian societies, yet their common denominator is that they have, or had until recently, state churches. That should tell us something.

France is at least as post-Christian as any "NW European" nation (it doesn't even have a Christian Democrat party), and it disestablished the church over two centuries ago.

24224. alistairconnor - 9/13/2004 12:40:24 PM

Inerrancy. Interesting concept :

It requires several distinct divine interventions, as far as I can see :
* There is the original writer of the text
* There is the body of people who determined which, among various competing and /or complementary texts, were divinely inspired and which were apocryphal.

Without this second phase, the alleged inerrancy of the original writers is worthless, because how can we be sure they didn't choose the wrong texts to constitute the canonical version?

24225. alistairconnor - 9/13/2004 12:43:12 PM

And, even leaving aside the question of translations, inerrancy implies that the texts are unaltered over time; which I don't think anyone actually alleges.

So, are the various editors, glossers and interpolators divinely inspired too? Or some of them?

Lacking an infallible method for establishing the original, inerrant texts, what use is the inerrancy doctrine?

24226. jayackroyd - 9/13/2004 1:58:23 PM

And, even leaving aside the question of translations, inerrancy implies that the texts are unaltered over time; which I don't think anyone actually alleges.

The Koran is unaltered over time. Deep concern for preserving the text of the word of God began with the Jews. The Christian canon went through some changes in the first and second centuries, but stabilized by the end of the second, once it somehow became clear to a collection of human beings which documents were good and which were not.

24227. jayackroyd - 9/13/2004 2:02:05 PM

All it takes is a little study, clyde. That's all

Or a lot of rationalization, denying the words say what they mean.

24228. jayackroyd - 9/13/2004 4:04:35 PM

clyde--

You should also note that Kuligan's view is not the most widely held among biblical scholars. The reason for the two versions of the creation myth is said to be attributable to different source material. One writer refers to God as Yahwah, the other as Elohim.

Here are a couple of links: Yahwist creation myth

JEPD

These stories were woven together by some priest, who also interpolated some material. Here's the story of the flood, with attributed text color coded. Some other guy wrote Deuteronomy.

24229. rebelwithacause - 9/13/2004 4:47:59 PM

Was the bible corrupted?

GOD said: "`How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

The Revised Standard Version makes it even clearer: "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

24230. judithathome - 9/13/2004 5:24:56 PM

As for your interaction with marshame, I must admit that when I read your comments about Christian funerals, I felt the same way she did about them. You seem to live in a very harsh world, where mean, evil Christians are all around you, constantly bothering you at your work, constantly knocking on your door at home, intruding on your personal space and trying to shove their religion down your throat.

I wouldn't call you a liar, I'd just say you major in hyperbole.

Kuligin, I don't work...stop putting words in my mouth! ;-)

And I'm sorry if you think I am exaggerating but truly, those things happen to me. The fact you find it hard to believe is not my problem. Others here have said the same things have happened to them so I don't see why you are acting as though I am the only one.

I'm not asking you about errors in the bible. I said anything written by man can contain errors but I'm not the one demanding you refute any errors.

And I don't live in a harsh world nor do I think I'm beset by mean and evil people...that is your reading of my remarks. You and Marshame are taking things I say and coloring them to suit your needs. Fine with me. But you can't claim that I don't hear sermonizing at funerals or that people don't come to my door proselytizing. Those thing happen. If you don't like hearing that those things happen, don't blame me...I'm just the messenger.

24231. clydefo - 9/13/2004 7:13:34 PM

Re: 24213. KuligintheHooligan

"the first chapter of Genesis gives a more general accounting of creation, the second chapter a more specific accounting of the creation of man"

Do you adopt this lame explanation as a coping mechanism to deal with anxiety over obvious contradictions? Don't you ever wonder which version is "true" and which is in error? Is it the animals first, then humans of Genesis 1? Or the humans first sequence of Genesis 2?

"the Greek for "hanged" can also mean "impaled"

I don't speak Greek and I'm using the KJV so I won't dispute this even though I find it hard to believe the Greeks used the same word for both forms of death.
But that aside, what did Judas do with his reward; purchase a field or cast it down in the temple?

"one genealogy follows the line of Joseph, the other the line of Mary"
Since I'm new to Bible studies, I'll have to give you this. But the thing I really want to know is - who is Joseph's daddy? My research has reached a dead end on this. Looks like it's either Jacob (Matt 1:16) or Heli (Luke 3:23). Do you know?

" look how the word "day" is used in Genesis concerning Adam's death"

"...all the days that Adam lived..." I might describe a persons lifetime differently but it is self evident how "day" is being used here. What is your point? It is also obvious what "day" means in Gen 2:17; ...eat the fruit and you are dead by sundown. Was God just kidding around with Adam?

Again, who humped the cross?

24232. clydefo - 9/13/2004 7:38:20 PM

Thanks for the links, jayackroyd. I found this analysis interesting:
"When comparing the two accounts one might notice that there are seeming inconsistencies, as when the creation of animals precedes the creation of humans in the first account, but follows the creation of the male in the second. Still, such tensions do not get in the way, and the Yahwist story effectively communicates the humanity of the earliest people: their desires, needs, aspirations, and transgressions."

One man's "tension" is another man's "contradiction" I suppose. Of what do they not "get in the way"? Rationality and common-sense?

24233. Jenerator - 9/13/2004 7:41:11 PM

What does "humped the cross mean"? Because if it means something sexual, your question is rude and disgusting.

24234. judithathome - 9/13/2004 7:58:32 PM

I thought he meant carried...it's odd you'd put a sexual connotation on it, Jen. For one thing, (I don't know for sure) but I really don't think there is anything in the bible about sex with wodden objects.

24235. Jenerator - 9/13/2004 8:02:45 PM

I have never heard anyone refer to carrying as humping.

"Hey Steve, did you hump your gym bag last night?"

24236. judithathome - 9/13/2004 8:06:41 PM

Well, I have. "They humped the bags up the stairs."

Of course, many words have had their meanings changed over the years. I guess it just didn't occur to me because of the context; haven't seen Clyde be gratuitously vulgar before and wouldn't expect it.

24237. Jenerator - 9/13/2004 8:07:35 PM

Humping means something else in the vernacular, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

24238. clydefo - 9/13/2004 8:08:13 PM

Sorry, a flashback to my GI days. "Hump my pack" Carry a load on one's back like a mule. It can indeed get disgusting after a while. Maybe it has to do with a camel's hump, pack animal, and all that. Sex? I think that some sergeant's believe the exercise can be used as a substitute for sex for horny young men.

24239. pelty - 9/13/2004 8:08:58 PM

"Humping" is most often used (at least in my experience) in a military context. It does indeed mean "to carry."

24240. judithathome - 9/13/2004 8:09:14 PM

Jen, I knw what humping means today. That's precisely why I didn''t think Clyde meant it that way.

24241. pelty - 9/13/2004 8:09:34 PM

x-post w/ Clydefo

24242. Jenerator - 9/13/2004 8:11:11 PM

Whew!

24243. Jenerator - 9/13/2004 8:12:01 PM

Clyde and Pelty,

If I were to say that something appears to "get you off", what would you take that to mean?

(Serious question)

24244. judithathome - 9/13/2004 8:14:23 PM

But why would you automatically think he meant it that way? Considering the discussion was about errata in the bible, wouldn't it seem odd to have someone mention sex with crosses? Something so totally off the wall as to seem ludicrous?

24245. Jenerator - 9/13/2004 8:15:39 PM

One thing I have learned about online dicussions is that nothing is off limits with certain people. Jexster is living proof of that.

24246. Jenerator - 9/13/2004 8:16:03 PM

discussions

24247. judithathome - 9/13/2004 8:16:47 PM

But Clyde isn't.

24248. wonkers2 - 9/13/2004 8:17:22 PM

Jen has a typical fundie preoccupation with "humping."

24249. Jenerator - 9/13/2004 8:18:05 PM

I don't know Clyde, though.

Wonkers is illustrating my point exactly.

24250. Jenerator - 9/13/2004 8:21:21 PM

Perhaps I am jaded because I am surrounded by people at work speaking in the vernacular and the vernacular slang. Perhaps I am somewhat jaded because I have seen people say anything online, no matter how defamatory or rude or off topic it may be.

24251. judithathome - 9/13/2004 8:29:40 PM

I think you are lying.

There, that's what Kuli says to me when I talk in a jaded fashion about what goes on around me.

Doesn't feel good, does it?

And of course, I know you aren't lying. I was trying to point out that in discussions, it doesn't feel good when the worst is thought of someone automatically. Not when I do it, not when Kuli does it, not when you do it. Sure, it happens but that is no reason fgor us to do it ourselves.

24252. judithathome - 9/13/2004 8:30:49 PM

...or add "g" in the middle of for.

24253. pelty - 9/13/2004 9:13:09 PM

"If I were to say that something appears to "get you off", what would you take that to mean?"

Context would mean everything, I imagine. I would probably take your example to mean that something appears to get a person excited, but not necessarily in a sexual way. But again, context is key.

24254. judithathome - 9/13/2004 9:39:35 PM

If one was speaking of defense attorneys, one who could "get you off" would come in very handy, I would think.

24255. wonkers2 - 9/13/2004 9:50:41 PM

Jen, do you disagree that religious fundamentalists, whether Christian, Muslim or Taliban tend to attach greater significance to issues of sexual morality, or, if you prefer, decorum, than non-religious fundamentalists or heathens?

24256. alistairConnor - 9/13/2004 10:40:09 PM

"Hey Steve, did you hump your gym bag last night?"

Jen! You've got a ... a ... a beautiful mind.

24257. Marshame - 9/13/2004 10:55:08 PM

Well I, for one, am definitely looking forward to Hump Day tomorrow. (and you can take that any way you want!)

24258. Jenerator - 9/13/2004 10:55:42 PM

Judith,

Point taken.

Alistair,

Why thank you.;-)

24259. alistairConnor - 9/13/2004 10:56:53 PM

Well, I suppose it would be inappropriate now to make remarks about humping your daughter upstairs.

24260. alistairConnor - 9/13/2004 10:57:15 PM

Or up the back stairs?

24261. Marshame - 9/13/2004 10:57:49 PM

Do you take that with one hump or two?

24262. alistairConnor - 9/13/2004 10:59:24 PM

I'm easygoing. I don't get the hump so easily.
(paradox?)

24263. Jenerator - 9/13/2004 10:59:32 PM

Marshame - Ha!

Wonkers,

First I would need to know what your working definition of fundamentalist is.

24264. wonkers2 - 9/13/2004 11:03:04 PM

Just look in a mirror! Kuligin fits also.

24265. Ms. No - 9/13/2004 11:34:13 PM

A5,

Thought this might be a helpful link for the non-Greek scholars among us.

Woodehouse English-Greek Dictionary

24266. clydefo - 9/14/2004 12:29:18 AM

"If I were to say that something appears to "get you off", what would you take that to mean? (Serious question)"

Yes, context is everything. In a neutral setting, I would take it to mean the literal opposite, i.e., "turn you on".(whatever that means)
I might take it to mean sexual satisfaction.
Good dope?
How about "off the hook"? As on the luckiest day of Robert Dole's life when early in his combat tour he got his million-dollar wound?

BTW, I do consider "hump my pack" to be mildly vulgar. I don't use it among genteel folk. But not for any sexual connotation. Rather, I've noticed that they seem to squirm uncomfortably when manual labor comes to mind. The sweating..., the grunting..., grime..., animalistic..., sounds like rutting beasts... Whoa, maybe it does all come back to sex.
Back later.

24267. clydefo - 9/14/2004 1:42:39 AM

How did Simon Peter come to know that Jesus was the Christ?

Heavenly revelation? (Matthew 16:15-17)

15: He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16: And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17: And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

His brother Andrew told him?(John 1:40-42)

40: One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
41: He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
42: And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

24268. rebelwithacause - 9/14/2004 2:16:15 AM

Why be born again when you can just grow up?

-Bumper Sticker-

24269. angel-five - 9/14/2004 2:39:20 AM

Now then, aren't you fallible too? So your argument cuts both ways.

Once again.

How many times is it necessary for someone to acknowledge this before you'll grasp that they already understand it?

Leave your little sarcasm at home, A-5.

I'll just take this moment to note that you consistently fail to practice what you preach and constantly badger others, saying that they're doing something, when it is in fact what you are doing. Leave my little sarcasm at home? Read your own posts, asshat! Check your eye for motes first before you come peer in mine.

As I've already said umpteen times, neither am I arguing that I am inerrant, or anywhere near it.

Unfortunately for you, you are arguing that the Bible is inerrant. And when you conceptualize the inerrant Bible, you are generating a concept not only through an errant process, but one that you cannot judge for inerrance even if you want to pretend that there's some probability worth even acknowledging that you could have escaped error in formulating the concept.

Try to get this, because it's the last time I'll bother trying to get you to understand it -- any concept that you can have, any interpretation that you can generate of the text, cannot be spoken of as inerrant, including the concept that the Bible is inerrant. Epistemologically speaking you can't help but let your thoughts be influenced by the concept of inerrance, which is an error, and an errant process. Whether or not you think of yourself as being inerrant is irrelevant to this process. It's simple psychology.

Funny, because in my string of "ten posts" I found you saying precisely this about half a dozen times.

You did not find it once. Certainly not precisely. What you've done is wilfully misunderstand my words for the sake of a better argument from your corner.

24270. angel-five - 9/14/2004 2:39:56 AM

(me:)"So when you speak of an inerrant Bible you ought properly to be speaking of the messenger you never encounter, but instead you think of the message you generate."

No I do not. I do not believe that I generate an inerrant message, which is just another way of you saying that I believe my interpretation to be inerrant. Are you really this dense, A-5??!

The only one of us who is being 'this dense' is named Kuligin. Your riposte does not address the phenomenon of your understanding. Once again, yes, as I've repeatedly said, you don't think you are doing it. You're arguing about it on the level of your exegesis, however, when you say such things. I am talking about the level of basic conceptualization and human perception, which you seem to be sorely lacking in today.

If pressed? You were the one that dodged the question of personal fallibility at least three times. I've been the one claiming fallibility the entire time. I've even provided some detail as to how that fallibility has worked in the development of my own theology. Geesh.

Oh, christ. Vic, when you post a long bigass series of posts, and ask me several times within them the same question, you don't get to pretend that I was 'dodging' them. It's nonsensical. When I saw your question I answered it. Why on earth wouldn't I? It's a no-brainer.

The text stands outside of me, A-5. If I don't exist tomorrow, the text still does. It was generated 2000+ years before I walked the planet. And I may very well speak of it as being inerrant.

It is epistemologically useless for you to imagine that the text is inerrant, let alone speak of it so. It's a mere novelty.

24271. angel-five - 9/14/2004 2:40:20 AM

I think you could benefit from some basic classes in philosophy and psychology in this regard, because you keep saying 'Yes, I know I'm errant' and then you turn around and say that you can speak of inerrance. You don't understand the slip between the cup (the concept) and the lip (the ratiocination based on the concept). This understanding is not the same thing as realizing you are errant, Kulo.

And the book of which you speak is very old, true. But your concept of it (which is the only thing you ever encounter) is not. In fact, as you say, it evolves. And it's errant. And that's the ball-game.

Again, you seem to imply that fallible human beings cannot speak of ANYTHING as perfect, or inerrant, because fallible human beings just can't do that. But that isn't reasonable at all.

Why isn't it reasonable? It is basic evidence.

Let's clarify this. You can speak of the concept of perfection in the neo-Platonic sense but cannot elucidate anything from it or based on it in practice. It is like trying to assemble a perfect transistor with a meathook. You say you get this, but you don't get it on the level I'm speaking of -- the concept, which is an interpretation.

Let's try it this way. Is there anything perfect in your world or worldview, A-5?

It depends on what you mean by perfect. I believe in holes-in-one and 100% scores on tests, but that's not perfection in the sense I understand the word.

24272. jexster - 9/14/2004 2:44:29 AM

Most posters here no doubt will howl at the manifest absurdity of this question.

The scary thing is...a few won't and beyond them lie millions who don't think that this is absurd in the least...and scarier still, neither does Bush..

Heaven Sent
Does God Endorse Bush?

To them, this is every bit as much a religious as a political question...

24273. clydefo - 9/14/2004 2:48:40 AM

According to Matthew 2:12-23, Mary's joyful virginal postpartum glow in Jerusalem was rudely interrupted by a regurgitation of the old Pagan myth of the evil king slaughtering the innocent. The family flees to Egypt until Herod dies and eventually make their way back to Nazareth. What a horrendous ordeal!

So how is it that in Luke 2:20-40 They go about their religious and civic duties in a warm, loving environment; showing the baby off and getting him blessed. "And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth" No chase scene. What gives?

24274. angel-five - 9/14/2004 3:20:19 AM

Jesus humping the cross would be more of an Eristic metaphor.

24275. rebelwithacause - 9/14/2004 5:27:05 AM

"it's the last time I'll bother trying to get you to understand it"

Is that a promise?

24276. clydefo - 9/14/2004 7:53:53 AM

Multiple errors detected. What was the exact inscription on the cross?
Matthew 27:37 And set up over his head his accusation written,
THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Mark 15:26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over,
THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Luke 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew,
THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS

John 19:19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was,
JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

clydefo 1:1 All being mythological,
NONE OF THE ABOVE.

24277. PelleNilsson - 9/14/2004 8:26:22 AM

24278. rebelwithacause - 9/14/2004 8:43:45 AM

Is that GW on the cross?

24279. rebelwithacause - 9/14/2004 8:44:24 AM

King of the news...

24280. neato - 9/14/2004 1:49:23 PM

Well, who's this Inri bloke, that's what I've always wondered.

24281. Magoseph - 9/14/2004 2:01:41 PM

Well, who's this Inri bloke, that's what I've always wondered.

Here's your bloke, neato--[Latin] Iesvs Nazarenvs Rex Ivdaeorum.

24282. neato - 9/14/2004 2:05:36 PM

Ahhhh... Merci bien!

24283. rebelwithacause - 9/14/2004 2:16:47 PM

Nazarenvs = Nazi = Nazarene

24284. wonkers2 - 9/14/2004 3:17:15 PM

CATHOLIC VOTERS IN ABORTION FIRESTORM Here

24285. wonkers2 - 9/14/2004 3:19:38 PM

Question for Jenerator, Kuligin, Pelty and anyone else--

Would you vote for a pro choice candidate under any circumstances?

24286. rebelwithacause - 9/14/2004 3:56:32 PM

Would you vote for an Adams Family Character with no balls candidate under any circumstances?

24287. rebelwithacause - 9/14/2004 3:57:45 PM

Kerry = Asleep standing up with eyes open.

24288. wonkers2 - 9/14/2004 3:59:15 PM

Rebel is a Bushie disguised as a Nadirite wrecker.

24289. rebelwithacause - 9/14/2004 4:03:03 PM

LOL

24290. judithathome - 9/14/2004 4:34:14 PM

Don't you mean LMBO?

24291. rebelwithacause - 9/14/2004 4:42:37 PM

Nupe! I said what I mean.

24292. rebelwithacause - 9/14/2004 4:43:36 PM

YOUR butt is the target of Dems and Reps...

24293. Jenerator - 9/14/2004 5:04:54 PM

Gee, I wonder if rebelwithoutaclue is Bill Russell.

24294. alistairconnor - 9/14/2004 5:11:58 PM

No, it's a Tom Petty song.

24295. pelty - 9/14/2004 5:48:44 PM

"Would you vote for a pro choice candidate under any circumstances?"

I doubt it. If we disagree on this issue, the likelihood is that there is a host of issues on which we differ, so I doubt such a candidate would be particularly attractive.

24296. jayackroyd - 9/14/2004 5:53:46 PM

You wouldn't vote for Pataki or Giuliani for president?

24297. pelty - 9/14/2004 6:07:17 PM

I doubt it. They are pretty liberal from a social perspective. Not to mention, Giuliani is a dirtbag, morally speaking. No one can take away from his performance on 9/11 and I have no desire to do so, but he does not impress me in many other areas that I consider to be important. Pataki is a lesser-known entity for me, so I reserve judgment.

24298. wonkers2 - 9/14/2004 7:15:48 PM

Here's a question for Pelty, Jen and K-man--Should adultery be illegal? Maybe in Mississippi, but not in Turkey

24299. pelty - 9/14/2004 7:18:37 PM

"Here's a question for Pelty, Jen and K-man--Should adultery be illegal?"

No.

24300. wonkers2 - 9/14/2004 7:19:55 PM

Try link again.

24301. wonkers2 - 9/14/2004 7:24:12 PM

We can agree on that one. I'm glad you don't believe in stoning adulterous women! :-)

24302. clydefo - 9/14/2004 8:17:57 PM

Divinely inspired? Maybe God was dictating this stuff too fast and the inspirees just couldn't keep up, so they garbled it. They should have compared notes and gotten their story straight. Check this out. Jesus is baptized and "immediately" driven to the wilderness for forty days...

Mark 1:9-13
9: And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
10: And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
11: And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
12: And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
13: And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

But then I read in John chapters 1 and 2 that the day after the baptism Jesus runs into John, his babtiser, picks up a couple of disciples and hangs out with them at his digs.

I thought he was in the wilderness. 40 day sentence. Maybe this discrepancy is one of the apologists' "tensions [that] do not get in the way...". Anyway back at the house...

Day two after the baptism Jesus and his buddies make their way to Galilee and add to the entourage.

Day three after the baptism Jesus and his in-crowd are partying at a wedding and providing the booze with one of his neat tricks. If this is the wilderness scene, then sign me up for the full 40 days.

24303. Jenerator - 9/14/2004 8:45:20 PM

Pelty, Vic,

I'm nervous about a colleague. He is in charge of the FCA group at school, but his teachings are waaaaaaay off. For starters, he thinks that everyone is going through heaven because all are saved by Christ (Ie John 3:16). Furthermore, he sees Jesus as distinctly different that God, subordinate, if you will. Lastly, he thinks that we miss out on true meaninngs in scriptures because we don't speak Hebrew. He brought up Christ saying we have been purified from our sins rather than fogiven and that forgiven is somehow different and better than forgiven because of the Hebrew translation into English (Uh, didn't realize that the NT was written in Hebrew!;-)).

We have been discussion different issues, but I am afraid for all of the students who buy what he says.

24304. Jenerator - 9/14/2004 8:46:54 PM

Argh!

I am on a differentr keyboard that sticks!

I meant to say:

He brought up Christ saying we have been purified from our sins rather than forgiven and that purified is somehow different and better than forgiven because of the Hebrew translation into English

24305. Jenerator - 9/14/2004 8:47:26 PM

My goodness there are a lot of typos in that last post! Sorry!

24306. PelleNilsson - 9/14/2004 8:50:30 PM

clydefo

This line of inquiry will lead you nowhere. The church has had almost 2000 yesrs to polish its answers. A much more intersting question is why these discrepancies were allowed to remain rather than be redacted out when the canon was put together.

24307. jayackroyd - 9/14/2004 9:01:37 PM

They may have been working on them for 2000 years, but they still aren't very good answers.

The trouble with redacting is that once you admit error anywhere, then you lose the divine inspiration thing entirely. And as the discussion between A-5 and Kuligan has shown, you have to have an extra-textual certifier of the inerrancy of the work. A divine voice that makes even one mistake loses its ability to certify the inerrancy of the work.

Of course, it seems to me that booting out the Gospel of Thomas while keeping Revelations is of at least the same order as redacting or making accounts consistent.

24308. pelty - 9/14/2004 9:04:53 PM

This may have been mentioned already somewhere, but PBS is running a show tonight on the Question of God, using Freud and Lewis as representatives of the poles of atheism and Christian belief. It may be of interest to some. Here is the link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/

24309. jexster - 9/14/2004 9:04:53 PM

George Bush is going to win in a walk. ... the Lord's just blessing him. Pat Robertson

24310. pelty - 9/14/2004 9:06:05 PM

"George Bush is going to win in a walk. ... the Lord's just blessing him. Pat Robertson"

I hate it when idiots like Robertson say this type of thing. I wish he would clam up...

24311. pelty - 9/14/2004 9:07:07 PM

So how do you counter his arguments, Jen?

24312. jayackroyd - 9/14/2004 9:14:45 PM

Freud? No thanks.

24313. clydefo - 9/14/2004 9:17:22 PM

PelleNilsson,
I'm eagerly awaiting one of those polished answers.
I can only guess that the original editors threw together their mishmash of holy writings as a convenient reference work with no idea that future fanatics would foolishly claim that there are no discrepancies among the various writings. Error free. I'm sure that they would have been the first to laugh with derision at such nonsensical claims.

24314. pelty - 9/14/2004 9:18:46 PM

"Freud? No thanks."

Agreed.

24315. PelleNilsson - 9/14/2004 9:30:27 PM

My first point is that if clydefo thinks that he is going to trap Kuligin or pelty, he is sadly mistaken.

My second point is that when the church fathers put together the canon they had four option as far as the synoptics are concerend. They could have chosen to

redactate out the discrepancies;
select one text as the most authoritative and consign the others the the apocryphicals;
amalgamate the three texts into one;
leave them as they were,

They apparently selected the 4th option. Why they did so is in my opinion an interesting question.

24316. pelty - 9/14/2004 9:35:39 PM

"Why they did so is in my opinion an interesting question."

Why do you think they did?

24317. clydefo - 9/14/2004 9:35:48 PM

What has provoked God to full wrath? Notice that these hurricanes are all hitting states that went for Bush in 2000. Two on Florida alone. He obviously gets pretty pissed off at political chicanery!

24318. jayackroyd - 9/14/2004 9:54:17 PM

Pelle--

They couldn't redact because there were too many copies.

The amalgamation would have destroyed the claim of divine inspiration.

Assigning, say, Mark and Luke to the apocrypha would have cost them some good stories in Luke. Mark could have been labeled incomplete apocrypha I suppose....

JND Kelly says that the establishment of the canon was a very gradual process with different groups of Christians with different lists. Marcio of Synope is given credit for the first such collection in 144. He, unfortunately, was a heretic, because he believed the God of the NT couldn't be the same Guy as OT, so he believed in two Gods, a "lower demiurge who created the universe" and "the supreme God made known for the first time by Christ."

Iraeneus spoke of naturalness of the fourfold gospel a generation later. Justin referred to the four gospels in 150.

24319. wonkers2 - 9/14/2004 9:58:03 PM

Yeah, God doesn't like either Castro or Jeb Bush!

24320. jayackroyd - 9/14/2004 10:06:58 PM

He goes on to remark on three features of the process:

1) Unless a book could be shown to have been authored by an apostle, it was rejected.

2) He repeats his first point, offering up works that were on the fringe, but rejected for their non-apostolic authorship.

3)Some books didn't make their way into the canon everywhere until the fourth or fifth century.

So it seems these decisions were made by consensus. From the section I just read, it doesn't seem like there were pedestrian concerns about strict consistency between the gospels. He cites Timothy: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, reproof, correction" and 2nd Peter: "No prophecy ever came by the will of man, but man spoke from God, being moved by the holy spirit." (This is interesting, post-modern-wise, because it has the text certifying itself.) The scripture was seen as not merely free from error, but contained nothing superfluous.

Interestingly, this divine inspiration was said to be moderated by a human being completely in control of his faculties. No ghost writing or ecstasy allowed.

The quote free paragraphs above lift phrases directly from the text.( Early Christian Doctrines)

This doesn't seem particularly incoherent to me. They simply believe, and seek to find enlightenment even in apparent contradiction. It's not so much that they have answers to clyde's questions. It's more that the questions are simply not well formed, like asking "How does purple taste?" or "how does green sound?".

24321. clydefo - 9/14/2004 10:23:23 PM

"...if clydefo thinks that he is going to trap Kuligin or pelty, he is sadly mistaken." 24315. PelleNilsson

I don't yet know enough about the material to have reached the "trapping belt" level. I know that inMessage # 24184Kiligan was inviting Judith to "... show me the errors. They should be easy to find...". And, given his interest in the subject, I figured he'd be interested in any that others might find. He's correct, they are very easy to find. Of the errors I've pointed out so far in my readings in the KJV, he has graciously deigned to respond in Message # 24213 and explain away some of them and dismiss me to my newly found Bible study. I expect he's off scratching his head trying to reconcile some of the errors I've pointed out to him for his next response. Some of them are tough, like "who was Joseph's Daddy"?
I'm still on the hunt...

24322. wonkers2 - 9/14/2004 10:41:35 PM

Pre-DNA testing, daddies are hard to pin down.

24323. PelleNilsson - 9/14/2004 10:47:01 PM

You are picking up this stuff from some site on the net, not from your "readings in the KJV". You can pick up the church's answers on the net, too. Don't waste our time with your childishness.

24324. clydefo - 9/14/2004 11:10:35 PM

PelleNilsson,
Wow, you're sharp!
I confess I've used the net. I was desperately hoping that nobody would figure it out, but I found that curling up with the hardcopy KJV alone was just too dreary.

Only you can waste your time.

24325. Ms. No - 9/14/2004 11:29:50 PM

Speaking of daddies, it's always puzzled me why boy babies are killed in the purges rather than females. In the interests of genocide a single male can impregnate any number of women, but a single woman can only bear so many children.

Although I suppose the Biblical slaughters of children had only to do with preventing the coming of certain key figures prophesied -- e.g. Moses, Jesus -- rather than actual genocide.

24326. clydefo - 9/15/2004 12:22:06 AM

"Dangerous-child stories were told of Buddha, Zoroaster, Hercules, Oedipus, Romulus and Remus, and many others too numerous to mention"

Slaughter of the
Dangerous Children

Joseph Francis Alward

The myth of the dangerous child was virtually universal in pre-biblical times: A child is born about whom certain prophecies have been made, and who represents a threat to a king or tyrant. The child is removed from danger and later returns in triumph.

The story of one of the better-known dangerous children was told in the epic poem "Mahabarata", written two centuries before Jesus' birth. In it, we are told of the Hindu faith's virgin-born Crishna who was prophesied to be the destroyer of the tyrant Kansa, who heard of it and ordered all the male children born at that time to be killed. Crishna survived because a heavenly voice warned his foster father flee with the child.
Dangerous-child stories were told of Buddha, Zoroaster, Hercules, Oedipus, Romulus and Remus, and many others too numerous to mention; all of these legends pre-date that of Jesus by several centuries. The most recent dangerous-child story--that of Jesus, as told in the Bible by Matthew, deserves special attention...

...Rebutting the Skeptical Argument
The skeptical argument above rests on the assumption that so many children were killed that the event could not have escaped the attention of the historians. However, if the population of Bethlehem and its environs was one-hundredth of that estimated above, only two or three children would have been killed, and these murders might have gone unnoticed by the historians. Until skeptics can provide reliable population figures, they will have to concede that the story about the slaughter of the innocent children may be true.

24327. alistairConnor - 9/15/2004 12:47:28 AM

Here's a question for Pelty, Jen and K-man--Should adultery be illegal? Maybe in Mississippi, but not in Turkey

Unless they change that law, Mississippi has absolutely no chance of gaining admittance to the European Union.

24328. wonkers2 - 9/15/2004 1:03:50 AM

Ha! In many ways Turkey is more civilized than Mississippi, land the poll tax, white sheets, Trent Lott and his fellow bananna Republicans. If Mississippi were a country it would rank somewhere between Bangladesh and Sudan.

24329. Ms. No - 9/15/2004 1:30:50 AM

clydefo,

Thanks for the link.

24330. Ulgine Barrows - 9/15/2004 8:57:26 AM

When I'm queen, I'll move 23833, too.

I wouldn't refer to Jenerator as 'Jen' or 'he/she/it'.

Couched behind the PMS days can't be that far away, he knows exactly who he's talking to.

Tell ya what, that particular post set me off. Some lame-ass sales mgr was on my case today. I was fanning myself cause the HVAC is all screwed in the afternoons at my office, and he implied I had the hot flashes.

Yeah, go ahead, make your assumptions and judgments. I'm not pregnant either, I'm fat.

Asshole.

When I'm queen, I'll move 23833, too.

24331. Jenerator - 9/15/2004 7:13:09 PM

Thanks, Ulgine.

I appreciate that!;-)

24332. Jenerator - 9/15/2004 7:14:10 PM

Pelty,

Re: colleague

I am going to post some of the e-mail discussion (if that's okay?).

24333. Jenerator - 9/15/2004 7:41:31 PM

Let me start by saying that I am deeply grieved over this exchange. This person and I have always gotten along. Lately, I have been more active in the FCA, and he, along with another female teacher, are in charge of it.

Here is some of the exchange. I will call the other person JoeX.

Joe X(emphasis mine):

"An example we were discussing yesterday:

Jesus said I am the way, the truth, and the light. No one goes to the Father but through me.

Many people use this to condemn every other religion on the planet, but this is not a policy that is consistent with God or Jesus. By looking at the Hebrew we can find additional truth here. Jesus used the word "Abba," which is a specific parent-child loving relationship. Christians ARE the only religion that claims that relationship with God. Christ is the only way to attain that relationship. Does that mean everyone else goes to hell? Literalists will imply that, but it is not Biblical at all.

But the English is easy to misinterpret."

24334. Jenerator - 9/15/2004 7:41:53 PM

My response:

"Well, I definitely agree with you that Hebrew is a rich language that differs from English in many ways, but the New Testament was written in Greek, and Jesus spoke mostly Aramaic and Greek. So I am not sure which part you are specifically addressing in Hebrew.

Here is what I have seen, heard and read after much study in the Bible and through discussions with various theologians. No one is saved except through Christ, alone. Now, everyone is given some form of revelation (nature illustrates God's majesty, etc.), but not everyone responds, and ignorance of Christ is never a free pass. Thankfully, eternal reward or eternal damnation for people(s) is not within our authority as far as making judgments!

I happen to believe that apart from Christ and His mercy, no one is saved. (Acts 4:12 "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.")

This position is entirely Biblical. One cannot be a devout Muslim and be saved. One cannot be an atheist and be saved, etc. I don't go around pointing fingers at people, but rather I try to build relationships that encourage discussion."

24335. pelty - 9/15/2004 8:44:01 PM

Jen,

I would have to agree that his use of Hebrew as the language of "truth" is strange. I am not even sure what his argument is, to be honest. At first blush, your response seems reasonable.

24336. pelty - 9/15/2004 8:47:43 PM

There are some who would argue Paul is stating that Jews are still beholden to the Mosaic Law and that Jesus was the savior of the non-Jew, but I have not yet found a work that has been very convincing on this point.

24337. Jenerator - 9/15/2004 11:08:25 PM

Pelty,

It gets worse. I just got his response to what I stated above. Basically, he sees Jesus as some sort of inferior being to God and that worshipping Jesus is an insult to God. This is an entirely new line of thinking that I have not heard before. Also, he thinks that Jesus is A way, not THEE way to God.

He thinks that John's Gospel is mystical and unreliable because it differs from the synoptic gospels. So, Jesus cannot be considered I AM.

What upsets me the most is that he is the main spokesperson for this Christian organization! Think of what he could be saying to all of these kids and teaching them.

~~~~~~~~~
By the way, I am taking a Systematic Theology class at Dallas Theological Seminary! One of the texts we're using was written by a DTS alum who now teaches at Talbot - is that where you are?

24338. Jenerator - 9/15/2004 11:10:49 PM

Victor,

If you could, would you explain to me a variant meaning of 'world' in John 3:16? I have heard that the Greek meaning for world does not necessarily mean the entire world.

I would sincerely appreciate any thoughts.

24339. jayackroyd - 9/15/2004 11:10:56 PM

Denying the trinity is heresy, pure and simple. Refer him to the Nicean creed.

24340. Jenerator - 9/15/2004 11:20:37 PM

I completely agree!

24341. Jenerator - 9/15/2004 11:27:34 PM

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

24342. Jenerator - 9/15/2004 11:39:21 PM

Here is part of another exchange:

JoeX will be italicized:

"Contradictions between religions? Heck, we have enough contradictions within Chrirstianity to last a lifetime without even starting to look at anything else."

I have heard other people say this, but I have never been troubled by this. I have studied so much on the canonization of scripture that the "discrepancies" (as the athiests like to tell me) are insignificant. Now, there are definitely some aspects of God that I have a hard time wrapping my head around - namely omniscience, etc. -but I haven't really hit upon any "contradictions".

"At the very least Christ was the most powerful prophet who ever lived."

An insane and powerful prophet? As you and I both know, to be called a prophet of God means that ALL of your prophecies are true and are fulfilled. Jesus was not simply a prophet, He was divine. If He was merely a prophet, everything He said and did should be ridiculed because He claimed to be the Son of God, the Great I Am. No other biblical prophet claimed to be God - He would have been struck dead by lightening!

"He was also the Son of God - as we are all children of God."

No, Christ is the only begotten Son. We are adopted heirs to Christ because of his sacrifice, however, we are not on equal footing with Him.

" For me, the more we try to supernaturalize Jesus the more we stray from the point, which was that God came to Earth as a normal, average man."

This is what I have the hardest problem with. What you are saying is that we should not focus on the divinity of Christ, but rather his humanity?? How is that possible? He was NOT just a mere human, he was fully divine and fully human. And his coming to earth was not normal or average. He was conceived miraculously and lived a sinless life! Talk about incredible!

24343. Jenerator - 9/15/2004 11:39:32 PM

" Nothing exceptional about him except his message."

I'm sorry JoeX, but this is pure blasphemy. To deny Christ's divinity is to deny Christ. His message was interwoven with his nature and character.

" If we start putting him on a pedestal we start losing the ability to relate to Christ - and defeat the whole purpose."

I don't even understand this. We worship Jesus in spirit and in truth because He is worthy, He died for us. If anyone deserves a pedestal, it's Him! Our problem is that we out ourselves on the pedestal instead of God. There are two kinds of wisdom in this world: earthly and heavenly. I put my faith in Christ and He alone deserves worship.

END

24344. clydefo - 9/16/2004 12:34:07 AM

http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/affirmations.html

The Affirmations of Humanism:
A Statement of Principles

We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.

We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.

We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.

We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.

We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.

We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.

We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.

We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.

24345. clydefo - 9/16/2004 12:34:40 AM

We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.

We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.

We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.

We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.

We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.

We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.

24346. pelty - 9/16/2004 12:43:16 AM

"If you could, would you explain to me a variant meaning of 'world' in John 3:16? I have heard that the Greek meaning for world does not necessarily mean the entire world."

Vic can feel free to amend or contradict this, but "kosmos" is the Greek word here and, according to Bauer (I do not have a Liddell-Scott handy), the word means pretty much what you would expect. It means the earth, mankind, or, in a negative sense, the human way of doing things versus the divine (i.e. the type of thinking found in the Pauline materials). So I am not sure how your friend is defining it, but I think that he might have a difficult time making his case.

I am not at Talbot, but they certainly have a fine faculty, so any book you might be using is probably pretty good.

FWIW, Joe's grasp of traditional theology, Christology, etc. is pretty tenuous, so you are right to call him on the carpet, esp. if he is in a positin of leadership.

24347. clydefo - 9/16/2004 1:13:51 AM

http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-03/religion.html

Why Is Religion Natural?

Is religious belief a mere leap into irrationality as many skeptics assume? Psychology suggests that there may be more to belief than the suspension of reason.

Pascal Boyer

Religious beliefs and practices are found in all human groups and go back to the very beginnings of human culture. What makes religion so 'natural'? A common temptation is to search for the origin of religion in general human urges, for instance in people's wish to escape misfortune or mortality or their desire to understand the universe. However, these accounts are often based on incorrect views about religion (see table 1) and the psychological urges are often merely postulated. Recent findings in psychology, anthropology, and neuroscience offer a more empirical approach, focused on the mental machinery activated in acquiring and representing religious concepts....

24348. clydefo - 9/16/2004 1:14:18 AM

...There is a long and respectable tradition of explaining religion as the consequence of a flaw in mental functioning. Because people do not think much or not very well, the argument goes, they let all sorts of unwarranted beliefs clutter their mental furniture. In other words, there is religion around because people fail to take prophylactic measures against beliefs, for one of the following reasons:

People are superstitious, they will believe anything. People are naturally prepared to believe...

Religious concepts are irrefutable. Most incorrect or incoherent claims are easily refuted by experience or logic but religious concepts are different...

Refutation is more difficult than belief. It takes greater effort to challenge and rethink established notions than just accept them. Besides, in most domains of culture we just absorb other people's notions. Religion is no exception...

I find all these arguments unsatisfactory. Not that they are false: religious claims are indeed beyond verification. People do like sensational supernatural tales better than banal stories and they generally spend little time rethinking every bit of cultural information they acquire. But this cannot be a sufficient explanation for why people have the concepts they have...

About the Author
Pascal Boyer is the Henry Luce Professor at Washington University, St. Louis, and author of Religion Explained (Basic Books). He does experimental and anthropological research on the transmission of cultural knowledge.

24349. alistairconnor - 9/16/2004 11:49:26 AM

Message # 24344 Amen to that, brother.

24350. wonkers2 - 9/16/2004 2:52:49 PM

Ditto!

24351. wonkers2 - 9/16/2004 3:43:28 PM

ADULTERY AS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE MAY STILL HAVE A LIFE IN TURKEY

Conservative lawmakers rebelled Thursday and insisted on reviving a proposal to criminalize adultery even as the Parliament neared completion of a reform package to bring Turkey's laws in line with EU human rights standards.

The attempt was said to have the support of Prime Minister Erdogan. A pious Muslim whose party came to power on a platform of conservative values and democratization, Mr. Erdogan had spoken out in favor of punishing adultery as a way of protecting the family.

More here.

24352. wonkers2 - 9/16/2004 4:03:55 PM

CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN GROUPS URGE BOYCOTT OF PROCTER AND GAMBLE OVER GAY RIGHTS

Two influential conservative Christian groups are calling for a boycott of two best-selling products of P & G to protest a statement on the company's internal website that opposes a local statute to exempt gays and lesbians from special civil rights protection.

A fundie is a fundie is a fundie the world over.

24353. anomie - 9/18/2004 6:46:06 PM

"Oh, and anomie was mystified at the function or purpose of the Holy Spirit. Duh again. In John 15:26 Jesus himself says "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, this is the Spriti of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me." He (Jesus) also says back in Ch. 14:25 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."

Marshame: Please don't think I'm stupid. I'm not mystified about the HS. This is an old discussion between KtH and me, as was the what-is-the-value-of-inerrancy discussiom, during which we found to be extremely limited in the argument as further developed by a-5.

24354. anomie - 9/18/2004 6:52:15 PM

Marshame: As for you, I never argued with you about your personal religious experience unless you tried to tell others they were wrong about theirs. But now you're just parroting something you read about the HS. My question goes to the value of the HS as a means of ensuring salvation from the wrath of the biblical God. Salvation is the name of the game, afterall. Care to give your own opinion on the subject?

We've seen that there's no safe haven in "inerrancy". How bout the HS? Are you claiming it actually does what you quoted from the bible? Is that your point? Do you have any examples or evidence?

24355. anomie - 9/18/2004 6:55:25 PM

"He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."

Marshame: Who is the "you" here? You? Have you been taught all things? Do you remember everything God said to you? Did God ever say anything to you?

24356. SnowOwl - 9/19/2004 3:41:31 AM

"Contradictions between religions? Heck, we have enough contradictions within Chrirstianity to last a lifetime without even starting to look at anything else."

I have heard other people say this, but I have never been troubled by this. I have studied so much on the canonization of scripture that the "discrepancies" (as the athiests like to tell me) are insignificant.

Do you mean, for example, that it's insignificant that some Christians believe in election and others don't? That doesn't seem insignificant to me. It appears to indicate a great difference in understanding of the nature of god.

24357. jexster - 9/20/2004 11:29:17 PM

Prominent Evangelical Threatens to Kill Gay Men

john 8:44

44You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Matthew 23:27-28

27 ‘Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which on the outside look beautiful, but inside they are full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of filth. 28So you also on the outside look righteous to others, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

24358. Jenerator - 9/21/2004 8:01:52 AM

SnowOwl,

That's a fair question, but I don't believe that is what he meant. He and I both know that there is room for discussion when it comes to the non-essentials of the Christian faith.

Usually "contraditions" within the Bible are trivial ones (such as the difference in number within Numbers 25:9 and 1 Cor. 10:8) that skeptics use to trump the exclusivist claims of the Bible or as an argument against inerrancy.

~~~~~~

We have discussed more since then, and I am starting to wonder if he is a hybrid Mormon.

24359. jayackroyd - 9/21/2004 8:10:57 AM

Aw, hell, Jen, why don't you just go for the gold and say the errors are all trivial--that errors aren't errors, that contradictions aren't contradictions, that the text doesn't mean what it says in all cases, but is nonetheless entirely correct and divinely inspired.

It's funny, you know. Those questions nine-year-olds ask still go unanswered.

24360. Ms. No - 9/21/2004 10:11:24 AM

Clydefo,

Why is Religion Natural?

Because we're lonely creatures. We're reluctant to believe that we are the summit of consciousness. We want a some authority figure at the end of the day to comfort us and affirm us. That need is so great that we gladly welcome chastisement as well --- any being with the power to scold and judge us also has the power to lift us up and tell us we've done a good job.

24361. alistairconnor - 9/21/2004 10:11:32 AM

Would you buy a used cathedral from these people?
Catholic Diocese of Tucson Files for Bankruptcy

24362. clydefo - 9/21/2004 11:41:50 AM

MsNo, a careful reading of your recent post suggests to me that your needs could be met without divine intervention. Look for a tough coach down at the gym. Hook up with a firm but fair mate.

Don't be "reluctant to believe that we are the summit of consciousness". We are, part and parcel, the very fabric of the Universe. We are the Universe come aware if itself.

As for religion, if one truly believes there is a God that will grant us the reward of continued consciousness after we die, then why not relax and enjoy the human experience and let the reward be a delicious surprise? Why waste time shaking the package to learn the details when God has wrapped it so cleverly? Why waste time on the Holy-rollers and those with pointy hats spouting their Voodoo gibberish and shaking you down for your money? Who needs that? A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

24363. Ms. No - 9/21/2004 2:23:58 PM

Clydefo,

A more careful reading might reveal that it was the all encompassing "We" as in "humans" not "We" as in "believers" to whom I was referring. I'm a member of the former group, not the latter.

In the excerpt you provided Boyer asks why regligion is a natural product of the human mind. He puts forth the prevailing theories and discards them as incomplete but the original question is not answered.

I maintain that there is that in the human psyche which longs for a higher authority. To dispell loneliness, to ease the burden of responsibility, to bolster confidence and reinforce one's own sense of power and to combat fear of the unknown.

The modern world certainly has other alternatives for meeting many of our spiritual/psychical needs, but your personal trainer cannot cure your mother's breast cancer. Nor can one rely on meeting a life-partner who can absolve one of personal guilt --- and if it were a certainty, is it really wise to deify one's spouse? How is that fair to a lover?

Most people are followers, not leaders. They aren't comfortable being the final authority. They don't want the responsibility. They don't feel strong enough and they will always fear being alone. It's not a rational v irrational thing. It is what it is. Some people get past it, but most people don't wether they subscribe to Catholicism or Wicca or turning over the last smoke in a pack as the "lucky".

24364. clydefo - 9/21/2004 3:30:39 PM

Ms.No, Boyer's answer is in his article. Here is his summary at the end. Your view of the needs of the human psyche doesn't seem inconsistent with his argument that supernatural solutions fit right in with ordinary human cognitive problem-solving for most people. Their world works for them.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-03/religion.html

"...Taking all this into account, it would seem that the "sleep of reason" interpretation of religion is less than compelling. It is quite clear that explicit religious belief requires a suspension of the sound rules according to which most scientists evaluate evidence. But so does most ordinary thinking, of the kind that sustains our commonsense intuitions about the surrounding environment. More surprising, religious notions are not at all a separate realm of cognitive activity. They are firmly rooted in the deepest principles of cognitive functioning. First, religious concepts would not be salient if they did not violate some of our most entrenched intuitions (e.g., that agents have a position in space, that live beings grow old and die, etc.). Second, religious concepts would not subsist if they did not confirm many intuitive principles. Third, most religious norms and emotions are parasitic upon systems that create very similar norms (e.g., moral intuitions) and emotions (e.g., a fear of invisible contaminants) in non-religious contexts.

24365. clydefo - 9/21/2004 3:31:21 PM

"In this sense, religion is vastly more "natural" than the "sleep of reason" argument would suggest. People do not adhere to concepts of invisible ghosts or ancestors or spirits because they suspend ordinary cognitive resources, but rather because they use these cognitive resources in a context for which they were not designed in the first place. However, the "tweaking" of ordinary cognition that is required to sustain religious thought is so small that one should not be surprised if religious concepts are so widespread and so resistant to argument. To some extent, the situation is similar to domains where science has clearly demonstrated the limits or falsity of our common intuitions. We now know that solid objects are largely made up of empty space, that our minds are only billions of neurons firing in ordered ways, that some physical processes can go backwards in time, that species do not have an eternal essence, that gravitation is a curvature of space-time. Yet even scientists go through their daily lives with an intuitive commitment to solid objects being full of matter, to people having non-physical minds, to time being irreversible, to cats being essentially different from dogs, and to objects falling down because they are heavy.
In a sense, the cognitive study of religion ends up justifying a common intuition, best expressed by Jonathan Swift's dictum that "you do not reason a man out of something he was not reasoned into." The point of studying this scientifically is to show to what extent we can expect religious notions to be stable and salient in human cultures, not just now but for a long time to come. "

24366. Jenerator - 9/21/2004 3:54:42 PM

Jay,

For me, the most difficult question is the question of evil.

The best, most thorough answer I have read and heard is from Professor William Lane Craig. I would love this books of his: God?: A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist (Point/Counterpoint Series (Oxford, England).)

24367. Jenerator - 9/21/2004 3:58:11 PM

Check out his list of publications!

24368. Ms. No - 9/21/2004 4:10:18 PM

Clydefo,

Sorry, didn't see the link originally. I'll check it out and get back to you.

24369. Ms. No - 9/21/2004 4:12:26 PM

Jen,

How so?

I don't find the question of evil all that disturbing within a religious context. I think what catches up most people is that they define "good" as "what makes me happy". These folks are doomed because they will not always be happy and they will then question why a good and loving God has allowed so much suffering never considering that their definition of good is fundamentally flawed..

Good is not what man wants but what God desires regardless of whether it makes man happy or not.

24370. judithathome - 9/21/2004 4:12:29 PM

Yes, for you the most difficult question is evil but those 9 year olds have what would appear to be very simple questions to answer. But none of you true believers has even attempted to answer one of them.

Maybe the "evil" questions are more difficult but the simple ones seem to elude you. Each time Jay asks them, the discussion is moved to some other area of expertise and the questions are ignored. Wonder why?

24371. clydefo - 9/21/2004 5:19:54 PM

When all humans die in some upcoming, routine cosmic catastrophe, will Evil continue to exist?

24372. Ms. No - 9/21/2004 5:49:16 PM

Obviously not since evil is a human concept.

24373. Ulgine Barrows - 9/21/2004 11:17:18 PM

If a locust flies into a barbeque grill and makes a loud popping sound, did it die an evil death?

24374. clydefo - 9/21/2004 11:32:40 PM

The barbecue thing sounds like bad luck. What if the locust has it's wings and legs pulled off by a young human, curious what the reaction will be. Is that Evil? What about a fully grown human?

24375. clydefo - 9/21/2004 11:46:45 PM

Tarpon fishing. Evil? The fish is not eaten. The point seems to be pleasure, sport, an enjoyment of the animal's desperate struggle against death. Decadent? Can mere words describe such depravity?

24376. Ulgine Barrows - 9/22/2004 12:18:32 AM

Huh, bad luck for the locust, yet no depravity for the human who set the fire in the grill, merely for the pleasure of the taste of the meal, when it could have been cooked inside?

Yet if it was cooked inside, what else gave forth to provide that pleasure?

Pulling the wings off a locust out of curiosity, why would it matter whether it was a child or adult?

Yes, evil may just be a human concept.

24377. SnowOwl - 9/22/2004 1:06:15 AM

Good is not what man wants but what God desires regardless of whether it makes man happy or not.

Which just goes to show that words, as commonly used, have no real meaning when applied to god. If god said murder was good (and of course the Christian god did at times command his followers to engage in some wholesale slaughter), does that mean murder is good?

24378. Ms. No - 9/22/2004 11:21:58 AM

Snow,

Yes, it does --- within the religious framework. Whatever God wants is good. If you disagree, it doesn't matter what arguments you bring to bear, you will always be wrong because God cannot be.

24379. jayackroyd - 9/22/2004 11:54:13 AM

Which is, of course, why religion is at heart the source of most of the evil in the world--because it gives you a pass to commit horrific acts in the name of "God."

24380. KuligintheHooligan - 9/22/2004 12:10:54 PM

It is assinine comments like that, jay, which make me wonder if you have a brain or not. The 20th century atrocities by two atheistic regimes hell bent on removing any and all religion from their societies accounted for the greatest amount of human slaughter ever seen. All the inquisitions of Christianity, all the Crusades, all the witch burnings, all added up together don't come anywhere close to the numbers. Then add on top of that abortion in the past decades worldwide, and jay's comment above is proven to be nonsensical.

"religion is at heart the source of most of the evil in the world"

This is such a mind-bogglingly stupid comment.

24381. Jenerator - 9/22/2004 2:58:52 PM

Judith,

I have read countless explanations and have been involved in many over the years, as far as those "9 year old" questions go. In fact, my first post in Slate was to anomie explaining to him what a parable is and how it is used within the NT.

Speaking for myself, I hate it when people just cut and paste from skeptic websites and do not engage anyone in the content. Then, when someone carefully explains the question or concern, the person doing the questioning ignores the facts and the explanations and then goes on to ask 50 more questions.

I could do that of the atheists.

24382. Jenerator - 9/22/2004 2:59:55 PM

Ms.No,

I wish the problem of evil were that simple!

24383. anomie - 9/22/2004 3:55:17 PM

Jenerator,

You have mischaracterized our very first Fray exchange several times overf the years, and I wish you'd stop it.

Yes you did go on and on about parables, but it had nothing to do with my topic and I had no need of it and I told you so at the time. So quit the arrogant....I-taught-anomie-about-parables crap.

You are invited once again to discuss the Holy Spirit with me. This is a topic that you, Marshame, and KTH have run away from for years.
I think a review of the record would show that you are the one who refuses to stay with, or on a topic. Several topics.

24384. anomie - 9/22/2004 4:00:08 PM

Jen,

For the record, our first exchange consisted of you denying the core concepts of your Christian beliefs - Sacrifice, blood rituals, cannibalism...and then you avoided answering any point-blank questions...time and time again.

You did teach me that Christians can sometimes warp and distort language until it loses any reference to meaningful concepts.

24385. anomie - 9/22/2004 4:05:30 PM

To paraphrase:

anomie: "Many questions about how Christians reconcile certain aspects of their faith with their sense of what's good"

Jenerator: "anomie, do you know what a parable is?...yada...you ever read the Bible?...yada...you don't know what you're talking about...yada....you should read up on....yada"

anomie: "What does any of that have to do with my questions?"

Jen: "yada"

24386. anomie - 9/22/2004 4:09:11 PM

Jen: Funny you accuse people of cutting and pasting from web sites. I don't think you're talking about me, but just think about what you're accusing people of for a second.

Cutting and pasting from another source...hmmm, let's see, who might do that a lot? Duh! Maybe we should look at Marshame's last comment about the HS.

24387. anomie - 9/22/2004 4:26:55 PM

Jen,
I also learned that Christians really don't understand their beliefs. Use KTH as the latest example. Apparently he's only just learned that his belief in Biblical innerancy is extra-biblical. After all these years.

Example two: He didn't realize it was extra-Biblical to believe Adam should have trusted God over the serpent.

Example three: I guess as good as any would be your attempt to deny the actual sacrifice and suffering of Christ by equating it to a parable, if that was what you tried to do.

24388. anomie - 9/22/2004 4:28:56 PM

...Example 366: God doesn't create disabled people according tgo KTH, (apparently there's another creator out there somewhere).

24389. anomie - 9/22/2004 4:29:22 PM

according TO

24390. Ms. No - 9/22/2004 4:46:09 PM

Jen,

I wish the problem of evil were that simple!

How is it not?

24391. Ms. No - 9/22/2004 5:47:16 PM

--- that's not a sarcastic question, btw. I'm truly curious.

24392. judithathome - 9/22/2004 5:59:06 PM

Then add on top of that abortion in the past decades worldwide, and jay's comment above is proven to be nonsensical

You seem so concerned about all the "people" who die due to abortion...tell me, when is it that you and George Bush decide to start being concerned about the children sent off to fight in a war that is based on lies? When do those are children start to count and warrant your tears? Because those children are already born, have parents, have lives, and are sometimes even themselves the parents of children. And they are dying every day for a war that Bush was moved to start because your God hand-picked him for the job.

24393. judithathome - 9/22/2004 6:00:33 PM

When do those ~~are~~ children start to count and warrant your tears? Because

24394. KuligintheHooligan - 9/22/2004 6:22:32 PM

judith, "every day" roughly 2 Americans have been killed in Iraq since the war was started March of last year.

"every day" roughly 3560 Americans are killed via abortion in this country.

Further, those American "children" dying in Iraq, you know, those soldiers who voluntarily entered the armed forces, joined in knowing they may have to put their lives on the line.

Those aborted American lives had no such options, but were slaughtered the majority of the time simply because some woman was too selfish to think about her child's life and decided instead to just throw it away.

Lastly, more Americans are aborted EACH AND EVERY YEAR than have died in ALL the military confrontations America has ever engaged in, in total.

"Bush was moved to start because your God hand-picked him for the job"

judith, I didn't think you believed in God. Do you now?!

24395. KuligintheHooligan - 9/22/2004 6:23:40 PM

"Example two: He didn't realize it was extra-Biblical to believe Adam should have trusted God over the serpent."

anomie, you're an idiot. It is for this very reason that I will no longer engage you, and probably why Jenerator doesn't want to either.

24396. KuligintheHooligan - 9/22/2004 6:25:53 PM

And just for the record, anomie, it isn't because you ask such tough, difficult, mind boggling questions that we just haven't the ability to answer. You may pat yourself on the back and think that all you want to. Rather, it's because you are just dumb. You consistently make stupid, nonsensical comments, all the while thinking you are some hero against the Christian faith.

"...Example 366: God doesn't create disabled people according tgo KTH, (apparently there's another creator out there somewhere)."

Where you get this crap is beyond me. But you just go on thinking I don't engage you because you're just too smart for me. Yeah, riiiiiight.

24397. anomie - 9/22/2004 7:12:12 PM

Well, I've finally been called an "idiot" here. Thanks, KTH.

You're so predictable and transparent. This is how you always leave an argument. You can't possibly admit you're wrong so you just run out spouting insults. But the implication is plain. You hold positions you can't defend, (although you can certainly sound defensive).

And for the record, the only reason I brought any of this up in such a provactive (to you) manner is because of your accusation a week or so ago that I cut and run. You are the one who has given up (or run short on time).

Tell me again, now. Why should Adam have believed God over the serpent? Show how idiotic my question is.

24398. anomie - 9/22/2004 7:13:15 PM

KTH: I thought it was you who told me once that God doesn't create parapalegics. If not, I apologize for that one.

24399. judithathome - 9/22/2004 7:42:41 PM

judith, I didn't think you believed in God. Do you now?!

Not after today I certainly won't.

24400. Jenerator - 9/22/2004 8:00:42 PM

Actually, I don't engage Anomie in the "discussion" regarding the Holy Spirit because I am terrified to! Terrified, I say. I keep running and running hoping that I will not face my fears!! Yikes, Christianity is all about blood! I am so scared! All of these tough questions have shaked my foundation.

24401. Jenerator - 9/22/2004 8:04:35 PM

MsNo,

Good is not what man wants but what God desires regardless of whether it makes man happy or not.

If God is supremely good, then how can evil coexist with a God who is not evil? When did evil come into being? Granted the purpose or the final outcome of evil may be ultimately "good", but I still find it confusing and at times, troubling.

24402. Jenerator - 9/22/2004 8:07:35 PM

Anomie,

I do recall you saying that Christianity is identical to Satanism, and when called on the sheer ridiculousness of that comparison, you retreated to your usual - transubstantion is the Devil argument.

I also then explained to you the proper function of parables within the NT context. Of course you rejected what I said because, well, for no good reason, just because you wanted to rapid-fire more questions at me.

24403. Jenerator - 9/22/2004 8:19:28 PM

{{{{Judith}}}}

I read that your aunt died today. I feel so bad for you. It's very hard to lose a loved ones. My sympathies to you and her family.

24404. SnowOwl - 9/22/2004 8:29:12 PM

If God is supremely good, then how can evil coexist with a God who is not evil? When did evil come into being? Granted the purpose or the final outcome of evil may be ultimately "good", but I still find it confusing and at times, troubling.

As I said, it makes no sense to apply human terms to God. God is patently not "good" in the way we understand good. Good beings do not order the slaughter of children. Good beings do not condemn anyone for the actions of another.

All that you get left with is, as Ms No said, the idea that anything God does is good - even when we would describe such actions as evil.

That's why so many Christians argue that God's goodness, justice, mercy etc are beyond our human understanding. They can't explain why a good God would allow evil things to happen or act in ways that we would not describe as just or merciful or good if humans acted in those ways, so they resort to "we don't understand God's...".

24405. alistairconnor - 9/23/2004 4:07:23 AM

Well-put...

Good is not what man wants but what God desires regardless of whether it makes man happy or not.

I note that none of the God-ites have addressed this definition...

I'd call it an eleven year old's question.

God's ways are impenetrable; that which may appear evil to us may be sent to try us, or bring about some greater good; trust God, he knows best.

OK, fair enough... one can take it or leave it.

But then, [addressed to God-ites everywhere] please don't tell me how to live my life, since you don't know how to distinguish good from evil.

24406. anomie - 9/23/2004 4:32:29 AM

Jen,

You're more confused than I thought. I said Satan is a Christian concept, existing only within a Christian world view. I said that a belief in Satan implies a belief in God and Christ. I said Satanism is a form of participation in the Christian theology. And finally I said that most Christians believe in the existance of Satan.

Now, sarcasm aside, what's the real reason you won't talk about the Holy Spirit?

24407. anomie - 9/23/2004 4:45:21 AM

I have very little time here during the week, but let me throw this out to Jen and KTH.

I've no problem with you or anyone else who asserts a certain faithg or belief. I'd never argue them out of it. But you do more than that. You continually try to shove your beliefs on to others as some form of intellectualized, rationale truth. You've even ridiculed the faith and beliefs of other religions and denominations, and you do it with such a condescending attitude that you should expect to be called on it sometimes.

As to why you won't discuss a few simple concepts? I think KTH is smart enough to know where susc a discussion will lead, and so he gives up immediately.

Not sure about you, Jen. But I think you've mis-stated my positions so many times, you may not really undertstand them.

24408. alistairconnor - 9/23/2004 4:55:20 AM

I said that a belief in Satan implies a belief in God and Christ.

Historically speaking, that ignores the probability that what the Church has called "Satanism" (identified with the practice of witchcraft etc) was actually a pagan cult, independent of and probably pre-dating Christianity -- i.e. that the church simply labelled it Satan-worship in order to anathemise it, rather than dignifying it as a rival religion.

(Just muddying the waters here...)

24409. alistairconnor - 9/23/2004 5:06:54 AM

The 20th century atrocities by two atheistic regimes hell bent on removing any and all religion from their societies accounted for the greatest amount of human slaughter ever seen

I'm not sure this should be allowed to stand unchallenged :

* Was the Nazi regime in fact atheist? Was Hitler in fact "hell bent on removing any and all religion from their societies"?
* The largest single element of slaughter was that of the Jews. Although not explicitly done in the name of Christianity, this was clearly aimed at wiping out a religious minority which had been designated for centuries by both Catholics and Protestants as the Christ-killers. And it was carried out by Christians.

24410. PelleNilsson - 9/23/2004 5:20:39 AM

I think Satan in the sense we use the concept now first appeared in Zoroastrianism.

24411. jayackroyd - 9/23/2004 5:29:44 AM

I could do that of the atheists.

Bring it on Jen.

24412. jayackroyd - 9/23/2004 5:33:12 AM

24392

That's the wrong response Judith. The right response is to ask why he is not advocating the banning of fertility drugs and in vitro fertilzation.

24413. jayackroyd - 9/23/2004 5:49:18 AM

Good beings do not condemn anyone for the actions of
another.

Ah, South Park's two parter on eternal damnation ("Do the handicapped go to hell?" and "Probably") comes to mind.

There's a scene near the end of the second part where the recently arrived in Hell protest to the arrival coordinator that they don't belong there. "I was a good church-going episcopalian!!" "I was a baptist, born again!! This is a terrible mistake."

The coordinator responds "I'm sorry. You should have pick Mormon. Mormon was the correct answer."

The serious, dumb-ass nine-year-old's question is "You mean that a ten year old in China killed in an earthquake is condemned to eternal damnation? He is consigned to burn forever? How could a good God do that to an innocent child?"

Come to think of it, since none of those blastocysts Kuligan calls babies have a chance to accept Christ as their personal savior, they're also burning in hell forever. I guess Hell as a set of flasks with blastocysts in them with a little bunsen burner underneath each one. This belief structure, if examined in the least bit logically, is completely incoherent and incredibly cruel.

Upthread KtH upbraids anomie for asking dumb questions. That, of course, is the point. They don't have good answers to even the dumb questions. ("Where did Cain and Abel's wives come from?" " How did they fit two of all the species in the world on the ark?" "How did they catch them all in the first place; there are hundreds of thousands of beetle species alone?") All they can do is get very cranky and call names.

24414. jayackroyd - 9/23/2004 5:53:04 AM

BTW, the reason for the title of those episodes is that kids have a doctrinal crisis. The local priest tells the congregation that if they don't confess their sins and take communion they'll burn forever, making the usual horrific description of eternal torment. One of their friends is handicapped, and can't say anything other than his own name, so he's doomed to hell, as confirmed by the priest.

BTW2, it ticks KtH off when I refer to South Park when discussion social or religious issues. But that is, of course, part of the point. The level of discourse on these nine-year-old's questions can be conducted in the space of a 22 minute crudely animated cartoon featuring nine-year-olds as the main characters.

24415. jayackroyd - 9/23/2004 6:02:50 AM

24409

I let that stand because I've seen that movie before. His post was ambiguous, and I didn't want to waste my time discovering whether he was talking about the USSR and China or about the USSR and Germany. The Nazis were of promulgators of "Kirche" as part of their creed. But, of course, you'd also want to discuss the genocide in North America in the name of Christ. The subjugation and brutality in Latin America in the name of Christ. Pretty much any pogrom has a religious basis, as you've noted wrt the Nazis. Genocide, which Jared Diamond has noted is a tool of statecraft that people seldom want to acknowledge, requires the dehumanization of those killed--religion generally plays a key role in declaring the victims less than human.

But he does have a point wrt the USSR and China. One could argue that Marxism was itself a creed, a godless creed but a creed nonetheless, based in faith in "historical necessity" and other contentless or contrafactual ideas (like the labor theory of value).

24416. Jenerator - 9/23/2004 7:49:24 AM

jay,

Tell me how we came to be and why we're here.

24417. jayackroyd - 9/23/2004 7:55:06 AM

Evolution.

24418. jayackroyd - 9/23/2004 8:18:37 AM

There is no reason why we're here.

24419. Jenerator - 9/23/2004 8:59:51 AM

Jay,

Prove evolution and then prove that there's no reason for your existence.

24420. Macnas - 9/23/2004 9:05:21 AM

Jen

Evolution is a fact, it doesn't really require proving.
Reason to exist? That would be hypothetical wouldn't it? I mean essentially it is an issue of faith, you chose to believe or you do not.

I'm happy we exist in the first place, never mind looking for an excuse to carry on.

24421. judithathome - 9/23/2004 9:26:48 AM

I heard a Jewish rabbi on NPR say that in Exodus, there is a passage that states embryos or blastocysts or whatever are not beings or "people"...anyone know where? I'm sure it doesn't use the word embryo or blastocyst but the gist of it was that life doesn't begin at conception. He was speaking in reference to those who have religion being pro or anti choice.

24422. jayackroyd - 9/23/2004 9:50:44 AM

Evolution is unquestionably true. The genetic evidence from DNA sequencing is conclusive. But even before then the evidence is overwhelming, ranging from the fossil record through the morphological similarity of related species and the hybridization of closely related species. It's not in doubt, and hasn't been in doubt for decades.

The burden of proof for a reason for my existence, or my dog's existence or the existence of a cockroach is on you. I said there is no reason. That's a null hypothesis, just as in a statistical study of a drug the null hypothesis is that there is no effect from the drug. An assertion that there is a reason is the assertion that requires proof.

24423. jayackroyd - 9/23/2004 10:02:05 AM

judith

US common law through the beginning of the 19th century set the beginning of human life was "quickening", that is, when the fetus started moving around sometime in the middle of the second trimester. Lawrence Tribe argues that this was an issue of practicality; you couldn't prove the woman was pregnant until then. There are people who claim scriptural support for that position, although I've not read a persuasive argument for it.

24424. Jenerator - 9/23/2004 11:25:05 AM

jay,

Evolution is unquestionably true.

No it's not.

The genetic evidence from DNA sequencing is conclusive.

No it's not.

But even before then the evidence is overwhelming, ranging from the fossil record through the morphological similarity of related species and the hybridization of closely related species.

There are gaps in the fossil record and there is no missing link. Similarity of species is not proof of evolution.

It's not in doubt, and hasn't been in doubt for decades.

Then you haven't stepped outside of your house lately. Evolution is not fool-proof and there is conflict even within Darwin Societies.

The burden of proof for a reason for my existence, or my dog's existence or the existence of a cockroach is on you.

No, it's not. You said you would answer my question, and you haven't. You're just lobbing it back at me. Everything has a reason for being. Explain to me when and where and why life began.

I said there is no reason.

There's always a reason or a cause,

That's a null hypothesis, just as in a statistical study of a drug the null hypothesis is that there is no effect from the drug. An assertion that there is a reason is the assertion that requires proof.

You're just changing the subject again, what is it you're afraid of?

24425. Jenerator - 9/23/2004 11:27:24 AM

Judith,

I would be interested to know as well. All of the verses I am familiar with point to life as sacred within the womb. It even says in the Psalms that we are carefully and wonderfully made in our mother's womb.

24426. jayackroyd - 9/23/2004 11:34:40 AM

There are gaps in the fossil record and there is no missing link. Similarity of species is not proof of evolution.

That's nonsense and refuted by genetic evidence in any case.

The previous two statements are contentless.

Then you haven't stepped outside of your house lately. Evolution is not fool-proof and there is conflict even within Darwin Societies.

That's nonsense. I don't know what a Darwin society is. There certainly are different opinions about, for example, the appropriate entity to view as the vehicle for natural selection--the gene (Dawkins) or the individual (Mayr), but these are minor issues. Natural selection is as firmly grounded as the existence of the atom. There's no dispute whatsoever. See Mayr's What Evolution is for a very nice summary of views that are held by every working scientist in the field.

Everything has a reason for being.

No, that's a ridiculous idea, in my view unsupportable. Nothing has a reason for being.

There's always a reason or a cause,

For existence? Nonsense.

On changing the subject, I am not. You're asking me to prove a statement that does not require proof. Your stronger statement--that there is a reason for existence--requires proof. Don't they teach logic in these seminaries?

24427. jayackroyd - 9/23/2004 12:12:42 PM

Let me try to be clearer. I say there's a tooth fairy. You say there is no tooth fairy. I say prove it. You're toast. You can't prove that.

In the current state of this discussion, you say there is a reason for the existence of, I guess, people. I say that's a nonsensical statement, that there is no such reason. You say prove it.

In both cases the burden of proof is on the person making the claim that there is something ("a tooth fairy" "a reason") rather than nothing. My responding, "Of course there's a tooth fairy." doesn't advance the argument. You could correctly respond: "No there isn't a tooth fairy. What a silly idea. Can you prove there is?"

24428. clydefo - 9/23/2004 1:19:19 PM

Why are we here? Reason for being? These questions imply that there may be a purpose or point to the whole thing. I've heard many explanations of "God's plan", but none seem to have any point to them. Which is more pointless, eternal consciousness or momentary consciousness?

24429. jayackroyd - 9/23/2004 1:51:52 PM

Well, it's actually a gimmick to reintroduce God by identifying him as the first cause. Saying everything has to have a reason for existence implies the existence of someone who thought up that reason. There's only one candidate for that primal reasoner. So the false and unnecessary premise is introduced as a stalking horse for the original assumption--that there is a creator.

BTW, when I use the word "imply" in this thread I mean it in the logical, propositional calculus way represented by the symbol => which means "follow directly from".

24430. KuligintheHooligan - 9/23/2004 3:33:59 PM

I was indeed referring to the Soviet Union and China. Stalin and Mao made what Hitler did look like child's play. Conservative estimates are that the two atheistic regimes slaughtered 120 million people.

You can add up all day all the supposed atrocities of Christianity from the past 2000 years and the figures won't come anywhere close to what the atheists did in several decades.

24431. Ms. No - 9/23/2004 3:35:42 PM

Jen,

Re: Message # 24401

If God is supremely good, then how can evil coexist with a God who is not evil?

You're still trying to define good by human standards -- assuming that God is subject to our perceptions rather than being outside them and totally unaffected by them.

Let's establish a framework first. I'm assuming that we're talking about a God who is:

All powerful
All knowing
Eternal
The creator of all things known and unknown

In such a context that being cannot by definition be anything but good. No being thinks itself, it's very existence to be evil. There would have to be something outside of God, more powerful than God, of higher authority than God to make a judgement of evil or badness against God. The Supreme Being sets the rules. Since God is that being, then whatever God does is good and right. He cannot do wrong.

This does not mean that He cannot make us unhappy or do things that we consider unfair, mean, wrong or downright evil, but those are human definitions. We cannot judge God. We don't have the authority.

When did evil come into being?

When man first attempted to disobey the will of God. When man first decided that man himself should be the determiner of what is good or bad.

If God is the arbiter of good then one cannot disagree with him and be anything but wrong/evil.

Granted the purpose or the final outcome of evil may be ultimately "good", but I still find it confusing and at times, troubling.

Understandable. It's hard to subscribe to a Faith where one is ultimately that powerless, but nobody ever said it was an easy or comfortable thing to believe in God --- or if they did they were gravely mistaken. All a Christian can do is follow what he believes to be God's will to the best of his ability.

24432. KuligintheHooligan - 9/23/2004 3:36:46 PM

Jenerator,

Don't let them play word games with you. It is called evolutionary THEORY for a reason. Also, note the difference between micro and macro evolution. The former you can't debate, because any change in the allele frequency of a species constitutes "evolution" in the micro sense. It is in the macro sense that these guys really don't have a leg to stand on, and they know it.

Also, evolutionary theory does not address you origin question of where the stuff originally came from from whence the speciation of the material then supposed occurred. So don't be fooled by them and their bold claims of "fact." Evolutionary (macro) theory rests as much on faith as any religion I've ever seen.

24433. KuligintheHooligan - 9/23/2004 3:38:52 PM

Also, there are huge debates within evolutionary camps about the matter in any event, so these schmucks who attempt to make it appear that all is settled and finished are just lying to you.

As for the fossil record, Jenerator, Darwin admitted that this was the biggest problem with his theory, but he'd assumed that in the decades to follow it would be alleviated. So ask jay about all the great fossil matters which have been resolved since Darwin, and he'll probably be fairly silent.

All the gaps are filled by their rabid faith, Jenerator, and nothing more.

24434. KuligintheHooligan - 9/23/2004 3:39:29 PM

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

24435. SnowOwl - 9/23/2004 3:47:25 PM

It is called evolutionary THEORY for a reason.

In exactly the same way that it is called gravitational theory. Science deals in theories. The facts of evolution are explained by the theory of evolution, in the same way that the facts of gravity are explained by the theory of gravity.

Also, evolutionary theory does not address you origin question of where the stuff originally came from from whence the speciation of the material then supposed occurred.

Evolutionists are concerned with evolution. Abiogeneticists are concerned with the origins of life.

24436. SnowOwl - 9/23/2004 3:49:02 PM

Kuligin's comment on evolutionary theory is a good demonstration of his ignorance of science and the scientific method.

24437. Jenerator - 9/23/2004 4:01:40 PM

[Jay, I was being deliberately stubborn so that you would get my point that thatis the kind of discussion that I hate!

Personally, when it comes to science, I am not really equipped to discuss the finer details. I took a few courses in college, and I have read a couple of books, but I am not a scientist by any means. I do know that there are holes in evolutionary theory and just as Vic has said, science cannot explain the first cause, and that there is an element of faith at work within the field.

Life is ultimately about purpose, and science for me demonstrates the purpose and illustrates an order that is not accidental.]

24438. Jenerator - 9/23/2004 4:03:11 PM

SnowOwl,

Kuligin is very equipped in science, he has two degrees in it if I recall correctly. Perhaps instead of just saying he's ignorant, why don't you demonstrate through careful rebuttal what he's said incorrectly.

24439. Jenerator - 9/23/2004 4:17:57 PM

Ms. No,

If God is supremely good, then how can evil coexist with a God who is not evil?

You're still trying to define good by human standards --assuming that God is subject to our perceptions rather than being outside them and totally unaffected by them.

No, I am using God's own explanation of his character through His own revelation with man. I agree with you that it is essential that when defining God, we use terms that apply. Those terms include ones which we cannot fully understand, but they also include terms which we can.

Let's establish a framework first. I'm assuming that we're talking about a God who is:

All powerful
All knowing
Eternal
The creator of all things known and unknown

In such a context that being cannot by definition be anything but good.

On what basis are you qualifying it all as good?

24440. Jenerator - 9/23/2004 4:18:24 PM

No being thinks itself, it's very existence to be evil. There would have to be something outside of God, more powerful than God, of higher authority than God to make a judgement of evil or badness against God.

God cannot create evil? You're limiting His power if you're saying He cannot create evil.

The Supreme Being sets the rules. Since God is that being, then whatever God does is good and right. He cannot do wrong.

True.

This does not mean that He cannot make us unhappy or do things that we consider unfair, mean, wrong or downright evil, but those are human definitions.

But human ability to judge bewteen right and wrong comes from revelation of right and wrong. This revelation is from God. He also delineates between good and evil, so at what point does evil come to exist?

We cannot judge God. We don't have the authority.

I agree.

When did evil come into being?

When man first attempted to disobey the will of God.

What about Lucifer, who predated man?

When man first decided that man himself should be the determiner of what is good or bad.

So evil came into being when God made man (knowing what he would do) but God did not create evil?

If God is the arbiter of good then one cannot disagree with him and be anything but wrong/evil.

I agree.

24441. Jenerator - 9/23/2004 4:18:38 PM

Granted the purpose or the final outcome of evil may be ultimately "good", but I still find it confusing and at times, troubling.

Understandable. It's hard to subscribe to a Faith where one is ultimately that powerless, but nobody ever said it was an easy or comfortable thing to believe in God --- or if they did they were gravely mistaken. All a Christian can do is follow what he believes to be God's will to the best of his ability.

Well, to be more specific, I cannot explain why God allows for certain events to take place that are anathema to Himself. Why create Lucifer to begin with?

[End]

24442. Ms. No - 9/23/2004 5:06:42 PM

Jen,

God cannot create evil? You're limiting His power if you're saying He cannot create evil.

I didn't say God cannot create evil only that God cannot BE evil. He is capable of and necessarily does create that which men are led to believe is evil. It is evil for man but not for God.

But human ability to judge bewteen right and wrong comes from revelation of right and wrong. This revelation is from God. He also delineates between good and evil, so at what point does evil come to exist?

Not all revelations are true. Not all men of faith act according to what they believe God wants of them. I suspect the root of this question is "Why did God give us the ability to disobey and fall out of his presence?" That you'll have to ask God.

What about Lucifer, who predated man?

If your version of faith dictates an actual being, Lucifer, then that would be the beginning of evil. The beginning of evil is the first time any consciousness opposed itself to God.

So evil came into being when God made man (knowing what he would do) but God did not create evil?

If God is without beginning or end then evil has always existed at least as a concept within His mind but could not come to fruition until another consiousness (man or Lucifer or what-have-you) was able to fathom it and execute it.

Well, to be more specific, I cannot explain why God allows for certain events to take place that are anathema to Himself. Why create Lucifer to begin with?

That delves into the realm of pure fancy. Who knows? The mind of God is not for man to understand.

From a human standpoint I can see the merit of allowing a child in my care to make mistakes --- even bad ones --- in order that the child develop sufficient skills to be a productive and self-sufficient adult. Is that why God might give man free will? I've no idea. It's plausible but impossible to know.

24443. Ms. No - 9/23/2004 5:07:51 PM

Ooops, sorry, I see I missed your first post on this. The bolding confused me. I'll go back and read that one and respond momentarily.

24444. jayackroyd - 9/23/2004 5:31:35 PM

24445. jayackroyd - 9/23/2004 5:33:30 PM

Kuligan,

You've given Jen advice. She's folded. Do you want to take up this discussion? Her points are (please correct me if I am inaccurate, Jen) 1) Evolution isn't true. 2) People exist for a reason.

24446. wonkers2 - 9/23/2004 5:53:44 PM

Only in kindergarten-level religion is there a conflict between the theory of evolution and and religious beliefs about the origin of the universe and life. The best scientists and the foremost modern theologians don't waste time arguing with each other over the validity of evolution and origins. At any rate that's what I was taught as a young person.

24447. Ms. No - 9/23/2004 6:03:21 PM

Jen,

No, I am using God's own explanation of his character through His own revelation with man.

Does God say "I am good because..." or does He simply say "I Am"?

I don't know how to explain it any better than that.

On what basis are you qualifying it all as good?

On the basis of God. Would God determine His own desires to be evil? If not then they are not. Does God do things that He does not wish to do? Does He oppose Himself?

How is evil defined? As something opposed to God's will. Essentially there cannot be any such thing since nothing exists or happens that an omniscient and omnipotent being does not allow, but when man enters the picture rules are given to him to follow. If he breaks those rules then his actions are evil --- because they are in opposition to God's stated desires for man. God could certainly ensure that man never breaks those rules, but He didn't. The why of that is something only God knows, but the why isn't important. That's the way it is. Man chooses to accept that and follow God's rules or he chooses to reject it and oppose himself to God.

24448. jayackroyd - 9/23/2004 6:09:23 PM

wonk,

I agree that's what is taught to non-evangelical protestants (like me, low church UCC). I don't think it can be supported wrt to both scripture and science.

24449. jayackroyd - 9/23/2004 6:23:04 PM

Jen,

I think I was being unfair in my last post to you. I apologize for that. I guess the right question is "Will you concede that atheist views are not easily internally contradicted?" The criticisms of Christian thought we've seen here have focused on internal contradictions of the scripture. You've said, I think, that atheists cannot stand up to similar scrutiny. I think they can, and am happy to serve as a foil. Are you saying that you no longer want to subject me, as an atheist representative, to discuss the argument that atheism is internally inconsistent?

24450. Ulgine Barrows - 9/23/2004 11:33:01 PM

God's a very dangerous, scary subject to think about.

Many people disagree; but god, the creator of everything, is also the creator of evil.
There can be no duality.

If god is omniscient, and even if you accept god as the creator, you accept satan.

24451. SnowOwl - 9/23/2004 11:34:38 PM

Kuligin is very equipped in science, he has two degrees in it if I recall correctly. Perhaps instead of just saying he's ignorant, why don't you demonstrate through careful rebuttal what he's said incorrectly.

Am I supposed to be impressed? If he has two degrees in science he should know what a scientific theory is. Since he's dismissing evolution as merely a theory, as if it's just something dreamed up and untested, he hasn't demonstrated that he has any understanding of scientific theory at all.

24452. Ulgine Barrows - 9/24/2004 12:24:58 AM

Tell me, who art Thou, oh awful form?
Homage be to Thee: Best of Gods, be merciful!
-Bhagavad Gita

It's not just a Catholic thing.

24453. Ulgine Barrows - 9/24/2004 12:37:06 AM

This is of hell the threefold
Gate, and ruins the soul:
Desire, wrath, and greed;
Hence one should abandon those three

24454. Ulgine Barrows - 9/24/2004 12:39:40 AM

that was from -Bhagavad Gita, as well

24455. alistairconnor - 9/24/2004 5:45:36 AM

Kuli : Stalin and Mao made what Hitler did look like child's play. Conservative estimates are that the two atheistic regimes slaughtered 120 million people.

Whammo! Wow, you certainly suckered me there. Sure I can only agree : the Christian Hitler, with only 20 or 30 million victims, was a bad boy, but I bet Jesus forgave him in the end.

Can we agree on this : based on the number of victims, Communism is the most evil system that has ever existed.

And Christianity comes second.

24456. Jenerator - 9/24/2004 11:23:49 AM

Hitler wasn't a Christian.

24457. Jenerator - 9/24/2004 11:27:25 AM

Jay,

I think I was being unfair in my last post to you. I apologize for that.

That is very sweet of you to apologize.;-) Thank you.

I guess the right question is "Will you concede that atheist views are not easily internally contradicted?"

No, I don't think that that's true.

The criticisms of Christian thought we've seen here have focused on internal contradictions of the scripture. You've said, I think, that atheists cannot stand up to similar scrutiny. I think they can, and am happy to serve as a foil.

I think that you and Vic would be excellent debaters in such an argument.

Are you saying that you no longer want to subject me, as an atheist representative, to discuss the argument that atheism is internally inconsistent?

I like discussing things with you, but when it comes to science, I am not equipped to.

24458. Wombat - 9/24/2004 11:35:05 AM

Jen:

Such a discussion also requires having an open and analytical mind, which for all your undoubted kindness, intelligence, and good nature, you do not have.

24459. Jenerator - 9/24/2004 11:37:15 AM

Do you always slap people before you kiss them, Wombat?

24460. Wombat - 9/24/2004 11:41:46 AM

If you enter a debate with your belief in one side already inerrant, all you are trying to accomplish is to ask people to prove something exists that you already know you don't accept. This is a futile exercise, and its national application has done great harm to the teaching of science in certain parts of the country.

24461. jayackroyd - 9/24/2004 12:33:06 PM

"Will you concede that atheist views are not easily internally contradicted?"

No, I don't think that that's true.

So you're saying you're not able to do something you say is easy to do?

24462. alistairConnor - 9/24/2004 12:33:10 PM

Hitler wasn't a Christian

Ohhh that's right...

He was half jewish.

Tainted.

24463. alistairConnor - 9/24/2004 12:35:10 PM

In any case, that isn't the question.

The Nazi regime, author of (for the sake of argument) the third greatest slaughter of all time, was an explicitly Christian regime.

24464. PelleNilsson - 9/24/2004 12:51:48 PM

The Nazi regime cannot be Christian because it did things that a Christian regime should not do. It is so easy to define away a problem. "Yes this person says he is a Christian but he cannot be a real Christian because he does not hold the same views as my group".

Anyway the Nazis realized a Christian concept, getting the Jews out of Germany, although not all Christians may have agreed on the means they used.

24465. Jenerator - 9/24/2004 12:55:36 PM

Hitler respected and utilized the hierarchy found within formal religion. He also appreciated aspects of the Church - its control, its structure, its influence, its power.

That didn't make his regime a Christian regime, though.

24466. judithathome - 9/24/2004 1:07:46 PM

I guess they thought they were Christians and they believed in God and based some of their actions on their beliefs but they weren't Christians. Maybe they were just not good Christians. Like the ones that murder abortion doctors to save lives.

24467. PelleNilsson - 9/24/2004 1:13:02 PM

What constitutes a Christian regime? Are there any Christian regimes today (the Vatican doesn't count)? If not, please provide examples of such from the past.

24468. jayackroyd - 9/24/2004 1:18:31 PM

There aren't any, of course. There are only a few religious regimes--Iran, Israel--come to mind, but I can't think of any Christian regimes. That's beside the point, of course. Russia was filled with anti-semitic people under the Czars (is that a Christian regime--one headed by a divinely appointed king?), filled with anti-semitic people as the USSR and still has plenty of anti-semitism to go around.

The point is that religious belief is a constant source of (or perhaps excuse for) conflict.

24469. jayackroyd - 9/24/2004 1:54:12 PM

I left out Saudi Arabia.

24470. Ms. No - 9/24/2004 2:19:07 PM

Does Israel really qualify as a religious regime? I know there are very influential religious factions that participate in government, but I was under the impression that it's a secular nation with a cultural identity that also often includes a religious doctrine.

24471. jayackroyd - 9/24/2004 2:38:03 PM

I would say that the citizenship rules are designed to create a state that is expressly Jewish.

24472. PelleNilsson - 9/24/2004 2:47:18 PM

Israel was founded as a secular state. The Palestinians in Israel (20% of the population) are citizens with representation in the Knesset. But new immigrants have to be Jews to qualify as citizens, although the Jewishness of many Russian immigrants is said to be doubtful.

24473. jayackroyd - 9/24/2004 2:51:52 PM

The site I looked the citizenship rules puts the Palestinian number lower. I don't know of other states that tie citizenship to religious belief. (Saudi Arabia?) That said, arabic is an official language of Israel. People of non-Jewish descent are not required to serve in the armed forces, which cuts both ways. Palestinians are relieved of the possibility of being told to shoot other Palestinians. But they are also not full participants in society.

24474. marjoribanks - 9/24/2004 3:02:14 PM

Pelle is using confusing terms, and perhaps muddling the issue.

In fact, the largest non-Jewish section of voters within Israel are called Israeli Arabs. They do exercise a free franchise, and elect a half-dozen or more members of the Knesset each year.

The Palestinians are those Arabs who live in the millions in the West Bank and Gaza. These people are completely disenfranchised under Israeli occupation. Arafat is their elected leader, but as we know he controls quite little of the non-state that is the PA.

24475. marjoribanks - 9/24/2004 3:04:21 PM

And of course it is not a bad thread to mention that the total number of non-Jews in what is now status quo Israeli territory is going to outnumber that of the Jewish current majority in the next generation -or roughly 20 years.

24476. jayackroyd - 9/24/2004 3:06:45 PM

This is the site I referred to. I don't know its provenance, but it seemed authoritative and not anti-Israel.

Population distribution: “The New Statistical Abstract” (in Hebrew). According to it, Israel's population is estimated at 6.592 million people.
Out of that number, 77.2% are Jews, 15.4% are Muslim, 2.1% are Christian and 2.1% are Druze. The rest are "unknown".

I'd argue the law of return guarantees a permanent Jewish state, unless people in the occupied territories are granted citizenship (which is, in an elliptical way part of my point).

24477. alistairConnor - 9/24/2004 4:34:35 PM

This notion that Arabs in Israel (or Muslims in Western Europe) are multiplying like rabbits and will soon outnumber the others :

It seems to me to be based on the probably fallacious premise that they remain poor and ill-educated : these being the common factors in galloping demography.

24478. marjoribanks - 9/24/2004 4:41:33 PM

Connor,

Coupla facts.

1) There isn't that severe a population differential right now if you add up all the Arabs on one side. It's nothing at all like Muslims in Europe.

2) The Gaza and WB has had one of the world's highest pop. growth rates for the last 20 years and it is not coming down a whit. The last time I looked, Gaza's population was extremly reliably scheduled to double in 15 years.

24479. anomie - 9/24/2004 6:47:07 PM

And so what about this Holy Spirit thing? God and Jesus seem to be totally out of the loop - replaced with the inerrant scripture. That leaves the Holy Spirit to do... what exactly?

What's the function of the only active part of the trinity?

24480. anomie - 9/24/2004 6:49:58 PM

More on topic, I'll mention that the British Queen is still the head of the English church. So Great Britain and the Commonwealth might be considered officially Christian.

I would not press that argument, however,

24481. anomie - 9/24/2004 6:51:38 PM

It might distress SnowOwl and Neato that their Head of State is the chief church person. Ha!

But I'm sure they've come to terms...

24482. anomie - 9/24/2004 7:20:24 PM

Jen, KTH,

You do yourself an injustice. Not to worry, Unlike Christianity, the scientific method can be explained in 25 words or less, and no one has to kill off his only begotten son, and you're not required to drink blood and eat flesh at communion service each month.

You can ask Jay more about it. I'm sure he has some pamphlets or something.

I hope you enjoy learning about this exciting new lifestyle.

24483. clydefo - 9/24/2004 8:57:22 PM

"Christian regimes"? How about Christian parasites? E.g., the Catholic Church on Poland. Draining the public treasury. Imposing its medieval moralistic horror as law.

24484. PelleNilsson - 9/25/2004 2:09:41 AM

A final post on Israel. jay notes that "people of non-Jewish descent are not required to serve in the armed forces". True, but on the other hand many or most state benefits, such as preferential housing loans, are tied to having served. Thus, the exemption from service is also the basis for social discimination.

24485. jayackroyd - 9/25/2004 9:46:34 AM

I dunno Clyde. The Church was very important in the fall of communism in Poland. Solidarnoscz had deep roots in the Church.

Thanks Pelle.

24486. clydefo - 9/25/2004 10:45:40 AM

Having traded one tyranny for another, it looks like the natives are again restless in their quest for freedom.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1987335.stm

Changing times for Poland's Catholic Church

By Nick Walton
BBC correspondent in Warsaw
Wednesday, 15 May, 2002

The Catholic Church survived communism in Poland, and even helped to bring about its downfall - but the question now being asked is whether it can survive democracy, too...

...Although more than 80% of Poles still say they are Catholic, among the young and in the cities, attendances at mass are falling...
...Krzysztof Dzieciolowski, a student in Warsaw, is one of those who stays away...
..."They're building churches like castles and the country is very poor. People are freezing on the streets. And they're getting all their money from these poor people."
"Once the Catholic Church was a symbol of opportunity," explains Arthur Koraczynski, another student. "But now people of my age see it as trying to become a political power, rather than a religious institution."

...Jan Turnau, the head of the religion unit at the newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza, points to ultra-conservative radio stations and newspapers - such as the very popular Radio Maryja and the paper Nasz Dziennik - as evidence that some parts of the church are still pushing a very reactionary form of Catholicism.
"They understand the problems of some Polish people - especially the old, the poor and the uneducated. But it's old-fashioned populism, feeding off people's problems...

24487. PelleNilsson - 9/25/2004 11:33:59 AM

Having traded one tyranny for another

What a a ridiculous statement.

24488. clydefo - 9/25/2004 12:53:02 PM

Ridiculous? Consider the similarity between the two organizations in their goals and tactics. Both wish to control and exploit society. The same mind-control techniques. Confession to the organization of weaknesses, sins, etc. Denigration of the individual as unworthy and in need of redemption. Both bring out the worst in people, set them against each other, play on their fears and drain the treasury.

24489. clydefo - 9/25/2004 4:29:15 PM

Another fraud exposed!
Mother Teresa The Final Verdict
By
Aroup Chatterjee

http://womenshistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.meteorbooks.com/index.html

From the introduction: "...I had no interest whatsoever in Mother Teresa before I came to England. Difficult it may seem to a Westerner to comprehend, but she was not a significant entity in Calcutta in her lifetime; paradoxically posthumously her image has risen significantly there - primarily because of the Indian need to emulate the West in many unimportant matters.
I had had some interest in the destitutes of Calcutta during my college days, when I dabbled in leftist politics for a while. I also took a keen interest in human rights issues. Never in the course of my (modest) interaction with the very poor of Calcutta, did I cross paths with Mother Teresa's organisation - indeed, I cannot ever recall her name being uttered.
After living for some time in the West, I (slowly) realised what Mother Teresa and Calcutta meant to the world. It shocked and saddened me...
...The Calcutta stereotype in the West did not irk me as much as did the firmly held notion that Mother Teresa had chosen to live there as its saviour. I was astonished that she had become a figure of speech, and that her name was invoked to qualify the extreme superlative of a positive kind; you can criticise God, but you cannot criticise Mother Teresa - in common parlance, doing the unthinkable is qualified as 'like criticising Mother Teresa'. The number of times I have heard expressions such as 'So and so would try the patience of Mother Teresa', I have lost count. Such expressions would cause amazement and curiosity in Calcutta, even amongst Mother Teresa's most ardent admirers..."

24490. clydefo - 9/25/2004 4:48:49 PM

Christopher Hitchens On Mother Theresa
(Interview)
by Matt Cherry

The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 16, Number 4.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html

Excerpt:

"...FI: You point out that, although she is very open about promoting Catholicism, Mother Teresa has this reputation of holiness amongst many non-Catholics and even secular people. And her reputation is based upon her charitable work for the sick and dying in Calcutta. What does she actually do there? What are her care facilities like?

HITCHENS: The care facilities are grotesquely simple: rudimentary, unscientific, miles behind any modern conception of what medical science is supposed to do. There have been a number of articles - I've collected some more since my book came out - about the failure and primitivism of her treatment of lepers and the dying, of her attitude towards medication and prophylaxis. Very rightly is it said that she tends to the dying, because if you were doing anything but dying she hasn't really got much to offer.
This is interesting because, first, she only proclaims to be providing people with a Catholic death, and, second, because of the enormous amounts of money mainly donated to rather than raised by her Order. We've been unable to audit this - no one has ever demanded an accounting of how much money has flowed in her direction. With that money she could have built at least one absolutely spanking new, modern teaching hospital in Calcutta without noticing the cost.
The facilities she runs are as primitive now as when she first became a celebrity. So that's obviously not where the money goes.

24491. clydefo - 9/25/2004 4:49:23 PM

FI: How much money do you reckon she receives?
HITCHENS: Well, I have the testimony of a former very active member of her Order who worked for her for many years and ended up in the office Mother Teresa maintains in New York City. She was in charge of taking the money to the bank. She estimates that there must be $50 million in that bank account alone. She said that one of the things that began to raise doubts in her mind was that the Sisters always had to go around pretending that they were very poor and they couldn't use the money for anything in the neighborhood that required alleviation. Under the cloak of avowed poverty they were still soliciting donations, labor, food, and so on from local merchants. This she found as a matter of conscience to be offensive..."

24492. KuligintheHooligan - 9/27/2004 9:21:15 AM

Snowowl,

The reason why I brought up scientific theory is because Jenerator asked questions about evolutionary, and all she received were answers like, "It's fact and that is that" and so on. One person even said that because it is fact it didn't need any proof, which is about as stupid an answer as one could get I suppose.

That is why I brought up theory. As in all scientific theory, anything is up for scrutiny, can be called into question, new data can work to even undermine previously held theories, and so on. And normally, as in the case of evolutionary theory, there are competing theories both inside and outside the camp vying for position of prominence. So to conclude that a scientific theory is fact and that is that basically displays a lack of awareness of what constitutes scientific theory.

Put another way, the responses she received basically were meant to shut her up and shout her down, not to actually engage the topic scientifically.

24493. jayackroyd - 9/27/2004 9:26:58 AM

I already asked if you wanted to take up this discussion. Do you?

24494. PsychProf - 9/27/2004 12:18:20 PM

STILL A BISHOP

click on photo

24495. judithathome - 9/27/2004 6:44:42 PM

One person even said that because it is fact it didn't need any proof, which is about as stupid an answer as one could get I suppose.

Really? Then why is that different than you saying "It's in the Bible"?

24496. jayackroyd - 9/27/2004 7:10:03 PM

Actually, judith, I think Kuligan would be hard-pressed to provide a reference to a post that said that.

24497. wonkers2 - 9/27/2004 7:24:03 PM

The Catholic church has done too little too late about the pedophiles like Bishop Dupre in its clergy.

24498. judithathome - 9/27/2004 8:53:32 PM

Jay, I know that. But sometimes he answers questions with cites from the Bible that he acts as though answer whatever questions we have. That is the same thing as saying "it's (the answer)" thus and so "from the Bible" as though it were fact. He has done this before but maybe not used those exact words.

Ask a question and you receive chapter and verse for an answer.

Look, I can appreciate that he uses the Bible as a reference for the way he lives his life; more power to him. But I don't happen to believe the answers to everything can be found in that book. I think life is a little more complicated than that.

24499. wonkers2 - 9/27/2004 9:50:49 PM

The Bible has many right answers as well as some wrong ones. The trick is to discard the wrong ones and pay attention to the right ones. Some, like K-man, ignore some of the right ones and get excited about the wrong ones.
Perhaps we would do well to rely on good novels, plays and movies for our moral lessons and leave scripture out of it. Then the playing field would be level. without any claims of certitude based on divine revelation.

24500. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2004 1:57:09 AM

From jay: "Actually, judith, I think Kuligan would be hard-pressed to provide a reference to a post that said that."

"Jen

Evolution is a fact, it doesn't really require proving."

See post #24420

So, once again, you are wrong jay.

24501. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2004 1:58:42 AM

Interestingly, jay, here is what you said just two posts after that one:

"Evolution is unquestionably true."

Seems you have short-term memory problems or just don't read too closely. Take your pick.

24502. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2004 2:08:40 AM

However, since you state that evolution is unquestionably true, and in light of Jenerator's request for you to prove it, jay, please do so. Now is your opportunity to provide all the facts and reasons and data for why you believe evolutionary theory to be correct. We're listening.

24503. jayackroyd - 9/28/2004 3:28:01 AM

1) We observe it routinely; bacteria resistant to penicillin developed in response to the use of penicillian. The mutation of one fruit fly gene makes a new species, unable to interbreed with others.

2) The fossil record shows changes in morphology that show changes over time. The more recent fossils are more like contemporatry species than the older fossils. In some cases, such as the horse, the fossil record shows a very complete development from one type to another. The recently developed whale species show clear morphological relationships to ungulates.

3) Speciation due to severe geographic isolation. The famous Darwin finches of the Galagos show that when a species is introduced into an environment where there are unexploited niches in the ecology, the parent species will evolve into descedent species with different morphologies and behavior.

4) Morphological similarity in general. Species that are related to each other, sucn as the ungulates, share recent common ancestors. In some cases, as with the donkey and the horse, the separation of the species is incomplete; interbreeding is possible although not sustainable. Likewise with the canids; dogs and wolves and dogs and coyotes can interbreed. (Jen's reference to "missing links" [why are you people trapped in the fifties?] is refuted by this. The links are often alive.)

24504. jayackroyd - 9/28/2004 3:39:11 AM

5) Embryology. In their development, for example, embryonic mammals develop gills. The evolution of a species is dependent on the state of the species most current ancestor. Those gills become neck structures in birds and mammals. The way in which biological structures came to be is often reflected in embryonic development.

6) Vestigal structures. The existence of organs with no purpose indicates that the species is still in the process of adapting the raw material of its ancestor's phenotype into its current configuration. In general, the poor design of things like the human spine indicates the limits created by the source material available for the operation of natural selection.

7) Biogeography. Australia is a perfectly happy place for ungulates to live, yet it is populated by marsupials. Before people came to south sea islands there were few, if any mammals. The existence of species like the large non-flying birds of New Zealand, mostly since eradicated by people, there and nowhere else indicates that evolution operates locally, and only with the available genetic raw material.

8) The sheer number of species. Those 800,000 beetle species I referred to are frequently finely tuned to survive in their particular environment. Only adaptation can explain this, because, of course, when the environment changes some species go extinct and others evolve to fill the niche left open. For that matter, the fact of extinction indicates that something else came along and took the species' place. When the dinosaurs were wiped out by the asteroid, a burgeoning collection of mammals and birds filled in gaps in the biota. There is no other available mechanism to explain how great die offs get followed by the rapid development of new species.

24505. jayackroyd - 9/28/2004 3:47:51 AM

9) Finally, the killer. The molecular evidence is undeniable. In general, the more closely related two species are taxonomically, the more similar are their genetic molecules, and their phenotypic expression. Even though chimps and the humans shared a common ancestor about 6 million years ago, their hemoglobin molecules (a very complex structure) are identical. Nucleotide sequences in fruit flies are present in humans, and influence the same behaviors.

(W)hatever aspect of biology is studied, it provides irrefutable evidence in support of evolution.

-- Ernst Mayr What Evolution Is

which is the source for the organization of these points. Evolution is not an open question. And thanks for correcting me on Judith's citationn.

24506. jayackroyd - 9/28/2004 5:57:45 AM

While this is entertaining, it is beside the point. Jen made this assertion, frustrated by her inability to resolve internal contradictions in the scriptures:

Speaking for myself, I hate it when people just cut and paste from skeptic websites and do not engage anyone in the content. Then, when someone carefully explains the question or concern, the person doing the questioning ignores the facts and the explanations and then goes on to ask 50 more questions.

I could do that of the atheists.

I am quite confident that she, or anyone, will not be able to tie me as a reprsentative atheist up in knots of internal contraction. Atheism, if it has no other virtue is at least coherent and consistent. Her bald command "prove it" is not something anyone has asked her to do; on the contrary, the discussion had centered on internal contradictions in her source material, and on it's inconsistency with the world as we know it. You'll butter no parsnips trying to trap me in such a maze of contradiction and inconsistency.

24507. jayackroyd - 9/28/2004 5:59:59 AM

I should also note that this also a side issue because, while I suspect all atheists accept natural selection, the converse isn't true. In fact, the vast majority of people who accept natural selection are not atheists.

The evidence is nonetheless overwhelming, and there is no competing mechanism on offer.

24508. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2004 6:26:40 AM

Now take natural selection and "survival of the fittest," if you would, and tell us why Hitler, for example, was wrong in looking at creating a master race. Or further, why in an atheistic, evolutionary world, hate is better or worse than love, and so on.

24509. jayackroyd - 9/28/2004 6:34:00 AM

What are you talking about?

24510. PsychProf - 9/28/2004 6:42:21 AM

Jay...I think that was his response to your thoughtful posts.

24511. jayackroyd - 9/28/2004 6:49:38 AM

Yeah, I know that, but do you know what he is getting at?

24512. alistairconnor - 9/28/2004 6:53:38 AM

Message # 24508 Ku :
I see that you have abandoned any attempt to look for internal contradictions in an atheistic worldview, and are moving onto new ground. Fine.

So : Let's see if I've understood your question :

Does evolution tell us anything about good and evil? Does it, in some mysterious way, embody a moral guide which will help us to distinguish good from evil?

The answer, I think, is no.

24513. jayackroyd - 9/28/2004 6:55:17 AM

Is that the question? If so, yes, the answer is no.

24514. judithathome - 9/28/2004 7:55:08 AM

Seems to me Kuligin just proved one of Jenerator's assertions:

Then, when someone carefully explains the question or concern, the person doing the questioning ignores the facts and the explanations and then goes on to ask 50 more questions.

24515. thoughtful - 9/28/2004 10:52:19 AM

24510, watch it pp, there's only one thoughtful™ in these thar threads!

24516. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2004 12:29:13 PM

judith, perhaps you aren't as slow as I thought you were.

24517. clydefo - 9/28/2004 12:32:00 PM

"Now take natural selection and "survival of the fittest," if you would, and tell us why Hitler, for example, was wrong in looking at creating a master race."
Right and wrong is not a scientific question. Hitler was "wrong" because the rest of us inferior types say so. We don't want to be dominated, denied rights or enslaved.
To the extent that Hitler might have used eugenics, etc, to alter the characteristics of the species over time, it seems to me that this would constitute proof of the laws and science involved in applied evolutionary theory.

"Or further, why in an atheistic, evolutionary world, hate is better or worse than love, and so on."
IMO, love is a far more powerful evolutionary factor in any world than hate. It's easy to understand why species that experience Motherly love, pair-bonding love, altruism and cooperation would survive more readily than those with opposite tendencies.
Hate can be a strong survival tool, as with fear; as in "don't mess with things you don't understand".

24518. judithathome - 9/28/2004 12:38:28 PM

perhaps you aren't as slow as I thought you were.

And aren't you sweet to admit it.

Don't worry...I'm sure I'll fall back into the little cubbyhole where your perception keeps me.

24519. jayackroyd - 9/28/2004 12:44:02 PM

There's been a lot of inconclusive work done wrt the sources of altruism among human beings, and the role of revenge in enforcing social norms. It's undeniably true that people are social animals, and that we play dominance games and engage in other social animal behaviors. But we haven't been very successful in understanding what goes on. I doubt if Slackjaw is lurking, but if he is, he can provide some illumination on the progress in this regard.

Discussion of eugenics is abhorrent, and almost certainly a bad idea in any case. Traits are intererelated in development and in the genome. You mess with that at your deep peril. For exmaple, Temple Grandin, an autistic woman who has had a very succssful career design abattoirs argues that while the expression of autism stemming from her genome may seem unpleasant and to be avoided, it may be that the sequences responsible for her conditions, expressed less severely, may be behind successful people like Einstein.

Messing with the genome is like messing with the ecology. You almost certainly will experience unintended and not welcome consequences.

24520. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2004 2:38:34 PM

jay, you are already displaying the "internal inconsistencies" of your atheistic, naturalistic, evolutionary worldview by both saying that human life is completely a random, purposeless state which is the result of a blind, by chance system, and at the same time attempting to built an ethic. You simply cannot do so. Hate and love are both the products of this blind, purposeless system. What Hitler did isn't any different than what a lion does, and given an atheistic, evolutionary model, it makes perfectly good sense for some people to look to dominate at the peril of others. Fact is, it doesn't make sense really if they do not at least attempt to do so.

Now then, look at the two biggest atheistic regimes of the 20th century, and all the human slaughter that came as a result. We shouldn't decry that really, we should applaud it as the natural outworking of the atheistic, evolutionary worldview.

24521. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2004 2:40:45 PM

"Messing with the genome is like messing with the ecology. You almost certainly will experience unintended and not welcome consequences."

Nah, we all know that a world without Jews would be a much better place. Genecide is really no big deal in an evolutionary model, at least as long as you are consistent with it jay.

Let me put it this way, if it could be shown to you that wiping out a certain people group would help humanity along, you'd have to support it given the survival of the fittest, natural selection sorta guy that you are, right?

If you do not, then you aren't being consistent in your own worldview, and voila, you have just don't what you said atheists do not do.

24522. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2004 2:41:10 PM

don't = done

24523. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2004 2:43:22 PM

"the poor design of things like the human spine indicates the limits created by the source material available for the operation of natural selection"

There is no "design" in a random, chance mutational model, jay. The spine just happened and that is that according to your worldview. No "design" there, because there is no "designer."

However, I think your basic assumption that the human spine is poorly "designed" is up for debate in any event, but let's not get off on tangents if we can prohibit such.

24524. alistairConnor - 9/28/2004 2:55:59 PM

jay, you are already displaying the "internal inconsistencies" of your atheistic, naturalistic, evolutionary worldview by both saying that human life is completely a random, purposeless state which is the result of a blind, by chance system, and at the same time attempting to built an ethic. You simply cannot do so.

well, if you say so. Sir.

Ku, you simply demonstrate the severe limitations in your worldview, here. You look at this coherent world view and you say, wait, this can't work. Where's the manual?

Yes indeed, a world without trainer wheels is a dangerous place, particularly when you lack a moral compass of your own.

One has to make one's own way. Or rather: we're all in this together.

24525. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2004 3:17:43 PM

"One has to make one's own way. Or rather: we're all in this together."

Excellent. So we see clearly your worldview is a confused one and you are inconsistent in it. You cannot claim a purposeless, random system and then cry foul when someone lives in that system, screws the guy next to him in order to get ahead of the system, and in so doing perfectly acts out the survival of the fittest mentality of the evolutionary, atheistic system.

Put another way, "we'll all in this together" is a load of bull. If I can get ahead in my brief time on this planet, and that involves pissing on my neighbor, so be it. Now just take that on a grand scale and genocide makes perfectly good sense. Philanthropy or hatred, take your pick, but let's at least be consistent and conclude that in either case, all we are talking about is chemicals in the brain which were the result of random mutations, chance, and time.

In such a system, you cannot make any moral statements which confer superiority to one statement over another. As soon as you do that, you are being inconsistent in the system, and again, what jay said couldn't possibly happen just did.

24526. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2004 3:18:43 PM

"You look at this coherent world view and you say, wait, this can't work. Where's the manual?"

You miss the point, alistair. The system itself can be entirely conherent, but how you and jay are using it is inconsistent.

24527. Ms. No - 9/28/2004 3:39:27 PM

Stalin is no more representative of the Atheistic world view than David Koresh is representative or the Christian world view.

Not believing in a Deity does not necessitate that one wishes to harm all other creatures on the planet. The very idea is patently ridiculous. Violence and fear are not only not the best ways to get what one wants, but, in the end, nearly guaranteed to bring reprisals down on one's head.

24528. alistairConnor - 9/28/2004 3:49:13 PM

You cannot claim a purposeless, random system and then cry foul when someone lives in that system, screws the guy next to him in order to get ahead of the system

I see where your misunderstanding arises, Ku. You think evolution is an ideology.

It isn't. The fact that the earth revolves around the sun isn't an ideology either.

The fact that the world is round doesn't affect my moral compass one way or the other, either.

24529. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2004 4:11:15 PM

"Not believing in a Deity does not necessitate that one wishes to harm all other creatures on the planet. The very idea is patently ridiculous."

You've created a straw man argument, Ms. No, and then very nicely tore it down. However, I did not state nor imply the above. However, what I *DID* state and/or imply is that if an atheist so decides to harm all other creatures, doing so would be perfectly in line with the evolutionary model of existence. And further, to deny this is to display an inconsistent approach to the model of survival of the fittest and natural selection. I hope you see the difference.

24530. KuligintheHooligan - 9/28/2004 4:15:39 PM

"The fact that the earth revolves around the sun isn't an ideology either."

Alistair, this is not an apples to apples comparison. For starters, the revolution of the earth is immaterial to my existence and how I got here. But that is not the case when it comes to evolutionary theory. It IS a statement concerning my existence, why I am here, and if there is any purpose therein.

The shape of the earth is further an apples to oranges comparison.

Put another way, if you are positing a model of our existence which boils it all down to random mutations and chance occurrences, with no design or purpose in our existence, than all things are fair game. The species who eats the other species survives.

And in this system, if genocide can be reasonably thought to help along the species, it is fully allowable. However, if you protest any and all genocide, you are simply not being true to the evolutionary model you so much love. In other words, you are inconsistently applying it.

24531. judithathome - 9/28/2004 4:33:39 PM

. For starters, the revolution of the earth is immaterial to my existence and how I got here.

Ha! I'd like to see you exist if the earth crashed into the sun. Or even got closer to the sun.

24532. SnowOwl - 9/28/2004 4:48:00 PM

And in this system, if genocide can be reasonably thought to help along the species, it is fully allowable.

In your Christian system, if God orders genocide it is fully allowable.

24533. Ms. No - 9/28/2004 5:07:07 PM

Kuligin,

However, what I *DID* state and/or imply is that if an atheist so decides to harm all other creatures, doing so would be perfectly in line with the evolutionary model of existence.

Then you are simply wrong. It is not perfectly in line with the evolutionary model because rampant destruction is not a sound evolutionary tactic. Species that do nothing but destroy don't survive. They either decimate their food source or they are wiped out by other species that find them a threat.

And further, to deny this is to display an inconsistent approach to the model of survival of the fittest and natural selection. I hope you see the difference.

I haven't been in the least inconsistent. Your understanding of evolutionary theory is flawed. "Fittest" is not equivalent to "meanest" or "most violent". "Fittest" means most able to adapt to existing conditions. Some situations call for violence, but most situations call for compromise and symbiosis.

24534. Bill Russell - 9/28/2004 5:21:10 PM

"A hearty fool is he that believeth every word of the bible."

-Jacob Elleker- 1638 (English Philospher and Physician)

24535. Bill Russell - 9/28/2004 5:22:31 PM

"The greatest of lies is found in the New Testament. Whether they are the product of misinterpretation or outright ignorance is a moot point.

It takes but the most elementary of logic to assert that this literary work of rubbish has given us societal grief beyond anything the authors of the bible could have envisioned."

-Gerhard Eichenaur- 1872

24536. jayackroyd - 9/28/2004 6:23:20 PM

you are already displaying the "internal inconsistencies" of your atheistic, naturalistic, evolutionary worldview by both saying that human life is completely a random, purposeless state which is the result of a blind, by chance system, and at the same time attempting to built an ethic.

I see no contradiction here. Can you present one?

24537. jayackroyd - 9/28/2004 7:30:16 PM

I'm busy at the moment. I'll deal with these "objections" later.

24538. Bill Russell - 9/28/2004 7:39:30 PM

What I believe as a reformed Baptist:

Christians show little or no respect for the beliefs of others and remain insistent on trying to convert others to the point of being rude.

24539. wonkers2 - 9/28/2004 9:18:33 PM

There are a lot of issues for which it is a waste of time discussing with fundamentalists because, practical or moral arguments notwithstanding, their answer is "just because." That is, just because their position is consistent with their interpretation of the Bible. Citing the scientific and medical benefits of stem cell research or the arguments for freedom of choice or against capital punishment, or in favor of gay rights til you are blue in the face without even getting the attention of a true believer. For them, advances in physical and social sciences in the centuries since the days of the old and new testaments are all for naught.

24540. alistairconnor - 9/29/2004 4:23:03 AM

For starters, the revolution of the earth is immaterial to my existence and how I got here. But that is not the case when it comes to evolutionary theory.

Well, I'm relieved that you seem to be (tacitly) accepting that the earth does indeed revolve around the sun. At one time, it was impossible to accept this and be a good Christian.

But more importantly, Ku, you are demonstrating the unscientific and inconsistent nature of your argument here.

If the planets had not formed, if the earth did not rotate around the sun, if the right blend of chemical soup had not existed, in the right temperature range, life could not have evolved on earth. All of these elements, and a lot more besides, are vital in explaining how it is that we come to be here. None of them are ideologically based, none of them tell us how we should behave.

However, what I *DID* state and/or imply is that if an atheist so decides to harm all other creatures, doing so would be perfectly in line with the evolutionary model of existence.

But this has precisely no bearing whatever on the question of what is right and wrong, good and evil.

You are still attacking this strawman : the idea that evolution is an ideology, that the simple fact that the strongest tend to survive, and the weakest to die, justifies any sort of behaviour.

You are baldly asserting (as is your wont), that "evolution" equals nihilism. Your saying so don't make it so.

24541. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2004 5:14:30 AM

"Then you are simply wrong. It is not perfectly in line with the evolutionary model because rampant destruction is not a sound evolutionary tactic. Species that do nothing but destroy don't survive. They either decimate their food source or they are wiped out by other species that find them a threat."

Again, Ms. No, you build a straw man argument and then tear it down. In the future, it would be helpful if you actually stuck to my words and my position. I am not saying that the destruction of all human life is right in line with atheism and/or evolutionary theory. But what I have said is SELECTIVE destruction of human life is par for the courses and runs right in line with survival of the fittest and natural selection. In the future, please read my posts more closely so I don't have to waste time repeating myself. Thank you.

24542. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2004 5:17:39 AM

Just to be clear, Ms. No, natural selection and survival of the fittest recognizes that not all individuals of any given species are of equal importance. Some are "selected out" which works to strengthen the species.

Now just take that to human life. Selecting out the unwanteds - the fetuses we don't want to care about, the old people who have become a drag on our economy and society, the handicapped, etc. etc. - is a natural outworking of the natural selection inherent in evolutionary theory. Keep in mind, we are all here by the accidents of nature, random mutations, and so on.

In other words, not all individuals of a particular species are as important as the others. Keep in mind, humans are just "advanced" animals. Soooooo, if you treat humans differently you are displaying a basic inconsistency in your use of the theory.

24543. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2004 5:29:46 AM

"Fittest" means most able to adapt to existing conditions. Some situations call for violence, but most situations call for compromise and symbiosis."

Well, there you go Ms. No. "Some situations call for violence" is all I am saying. And "fittest" does in fact mean best adaptable, and in the human kingdom, we should eliminate the ones which only hamper the human species. That is, given evolutionary theory, what has happened with ALL OTHER species up to this point in time.

"For them, advances in physical and social sciences in the centuries since the days of the old and new testaments are all for naught."

Most social and physical science advances have come as a result of the Christian faith, at least in the West, and not despite it. That you choose to label as "advances" the permission, for example, of abortion - which is nothing more than the wanton destruction or human life - is really to your shame, not your benefit, wonkers.

24544. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2004 5:30:14 AM

"At one time, it was impossible to accept this and be a good Christian."

Hogwash. Generalistic statements like this only display ignorance and don't help the discussion along any. A better statement might have been this, alistair:

"At one time, it was impossible to accept this and be acceptable to the Roman Catholic Church." That is much more precise and meaningful.

Also, discussions in the Mote and Fray have already laid to waste any nonsense that the Bible itself does not teach a heliocentric system. Pseudoerasmus rightly made mince meat of those who said otherwise.

24545. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2004 5:30:31 AM

"But more importantly, Ku, you are demonstrating the unscientific and inconsistent nature of your argument here.

If the planets had not formed, if the earth did not rotate around the sun, if the right blend of chemical soup had not existed, in the right temperature range, life could not have evolved on earth. All of these elements, and a lot more besides, are vital in explaining how it is that we come to be here."

Sorry, alistair, but you are displaying your own ignorance here.

Correct me if I am wrong, jay, but we are talking about evolutionary theory as it relates to the speciation of life on earth, correct? How the earth actually got here in the first place has not yet been placed on the table, correct?

So you see, alistair, stick to the topic at hand, and don't create red herrings.

"You are baldly asserting (as is your wont), that "evolution" equals nihilism. Your saying so don't make it so."

I'll say this one more time, and then I'll ignore further all stupid people who cannot read closely and properly.

Evolutionary theory works nicely with the reasoned destruction of human life, when that destruction is seen as a net positive to the human species. However, this does not mean that all atheists think we must wipe out all mankind (Ms. No's nonsense) or that all people who believe in evolutionary theory are monsters hell bent on nihilism (alistair's current nonsense).

Again, it is most helpful if you allow me to say what I believe, and not just to nonsensical conclusions about it yourselves.

24546. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2004 5:33:19 AM

jay, just to be clear, I don't mind that you don't have time currently. I really cannot waste too much time on these things either. However, I do have your original list or "proofs" of evolution on my PC and I intend to address them as best as I can.

Actually, I prefer at this point to ignore the rabble who only want to make us disgress, and entirely concentrate on your comments. Is that suitable to you?

Also, just to be clear, I'll take a few days off here and there because I simply will not waste more than a half hour each day on the Mote. I have made that promise to myself. So you'll just have to patient on this matter.

Lastly, let's stick to speciation on planet earth and at least leave for now how earth got here, how the original stuff from the prebiotic soup came to be, and so on. Personally, I think those will be weaknesses in your position in any event, but I'm willing to stick to how the material on earth got in its present form. Is that acceptable to you at this point?

24547. alistairconnor - 9/29/2004 8:05:15 AM

For starters, the revolution of the earth is immaterial to my existence and how I got here.

This is simply false, as I have demonstrated. So you shift to :

Correct me if I am wrong, jay, but we are talking about evolutionary theory as it relates to the speciation of life on earth, correct? How the earth actually got here in the first place has not yet been placed on the table, correct?

But realising that this flip-flop just makes you look silly, you evacuate the problem with

Actually, I prefer at this point to ignore the rabble who only want to make us disgress, and entirely concentrate on your comments. Is that suitable to you?

The rabble says : have a nice day.

24548. jayackroyd - 9/29/2004 8:07:51 AM

Kuligan--

Rereading your posts a couple of times, I can't seem to find a thread of argument that makes any sense whatsoever. You seem to concede that the world is what it is, and then berate me for pointing it out.

The only thing that recurs is your being upset about the fact that randomness plays a large role in what species develop. Leave aside, if you like, the randomness that accompanies mutation, which I infer is what bothers you. (BTW, expressing outrage about these facts don't constitute counter-arguments.)

There's no question that the randomness involved with major changes in the climate--like when an asteroid hits the earth--plays a critical role in species development.

I know that's inconsistent with your belief in God, but it is what happened. I know it's inconsistent with the obviously false to fact stories told in Genesis, but that's the way it is.

You can, of course, reject all this, and believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago. You can believe that Noah gathered up all 800,000 beetle species and put them on the ark next to the pair of lions and the couple dozen pairs of antelope, and all was copacetic for 40 days and 40 nights.

But you do so in the face of evidence that does not support those views. You certainly have that right. But whenever you engage in rational discussion, you're gonna be reduced to this incoherent sputtering that characterize your most recent posts.

Have your faith. You're welcome to it. But don't pretend there is any rational basis to it.

24549. jayackroyd - 9/29/2004 8:18:03 AM

However, what I *DID* state and/or imply is that if an atheist so decides to harm all other creatures, doing so would be perfectly in line with the evolutionary model of existence.

There is this recurrent argument--that if man is atheist then he is evil. It's worth noting that all the other earth's species are atheists, with the possible exception of dogs who may regard their owners as gods.

The only evidence in support of this notion is that two states (Red China and the USSR) that were organized to suppress religious freedom were evil. I'd note that the source of that evil was not the religious beliefs of the leadership, but the state's suppression of religion as a possible competing power base. It was not about God at all. It was about power. The states that preceded each of those states used religious belief as a means of oppression and control.

There's nothing evil in believing in the truth.

WRT the explicit argument quoted--yes, there is nothing that prevents a creature that arises through evolution from killing another creature, even, from our view, wantonly. Our cats did it all the time. When referring to people, or any other species with a complex social structure, you'll find that wanton disregard for social structure tends to be selected against. There are exceptions among humans, but they are rare and usually spectacular (Genghis Khan, for instance).

And, again, those are the facts. You may not like them, KtH, but there you are.

24550. jayackroyd - 9/29/2004 8:22:04 AM

I'm gonna add one more thing.

One of the things that makes people unique among species is that they have in fact launched an offensive against other species that are not directly prey species. People kill wolves, mountain lions, and other species that may prey on domesticated animals. This is, as Kuligan says, perfectly permitted by natural selection. It may not be wise, but it is permitted. People have been doing this for something on the order of 6000 years. That's not enough time to evaluate whether this is an evolutionarily successful strategy, or whether this tendency for rampant destruction is in fact a trait that is not associated with long term survival.

In any case, after people are gone, there will be nobody left who believes in God.

24551. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2004 10:07:26 AM

WARNING: A very long series of posts to follow.

jay,

Let me address your nine original “proofs” for evolution (found in #24503-04), and then perhaps the discussion can be fine tuned from there.

First off, I do not dispute ‘microevolution.’ Just to be clear, I am not of the old school which believed that God created each and every single species in one fell swoop in the Garden. Rather, I think one of the discoveries and clarifications from Darwin which was good is that within species there is change, descent with modification if you would.

My objection is that this microevolutionary mechanism can be used to explain the existence and speciation of all life, starting from a micro-organism all the way up to man. In other words, it is more than reasonable to swallow the notion that finches can adapt and change into other types of finches, but quite another thing to believe the notion that through these types of smallish changes we moved from single celled organisms all the way up to the complex mammals and such.

Put another way, I can accept change within limits (microevolution) but not unlimited change (macroevolution). The former has ample evidence to back it up, the latter is pretty much a leap of faith by evolutionists as great as any made by a theist. It is here that the lack of evidence for such a theory is really quite staggering.

24552. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2004 10:08:30 AM

Also, for further clarification, Darwin believed in a Creator who first got the ball rolling, but the naturalists took his theory and have attempted to make even God superfluous. Here again, though, they have done so without addressing the questions of origination, but that is on a cosmological level that I have said we should avoid, at least for the moment.

I see design in life on earth, you see nothing but the accidental products of random mutations over a long amount of time. That the material can, once created, adapt and change within limits I am not contesting. But that we don’t need a Creator at all I am contesting. So even though cosmological concerns can be put aside for the moment, they cannot be put aside permanently, because you are positing that an unintelligent system of natural selection created all life as we know it, and one argument against that is to point to the obvious design within the system. In fact, you even referred to “design” earlier.

To remove entirely the need for a Creator, you must believe that all the big differences are the result of the addition of countless, little differences. Such probabilities are staggering, but your argument basically boils down to, “Well, here we are, so it must be so,” all the while ignoring the fact that really the mathematical probabilities are so enormous and ridiculous that you need a huge leap of faith to believe in what you believe. In other words, there is an irrational faith reliance on chance when it comes to the faith of the evolutionists.

Lastly, evolutionary theory is not a done deal as you boldly state. There are still huge issues that are debated, not by creationists, but by other evolutionists. At times, the facts themselves (like the fossil record, for example) here contradict one theory, there support the other. So you can keep the comments to yourself that this is all so self-evident and reasonable, because even the experts disagree.

24553. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2004 10:09:02 AM

Now to your specific points.

In light of my comments above concerning microevolution, your examples of bacteria, fruit flies, finches, and so on, are immaterial to my objections (and we could include the famous peppered moths and other examples as well). If you want to debate these as proof of “evolution” you will get no objection from me, because the moths stayed moths, the fruit flies stayed fruit flies, and so on. This would mean that your points #1 and 3 are immaterial. I do not object to the notion that a species, such as Darwin’s finches, can adapt and change based on environment. Your sheer number of species argument (#8) also fades away.

Your #4 also disappears. Morphological similarities in breeds of canines is immaterial based on the same arguments above. The dog is still a dog.

24554. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2004 10:09:59 AM

DNA and/molecular arguments aren’t helpful either. We’d expect species which live on the same planet, need the same resources for survival such as air, water, and so on, to share some similarities in their molecular structures. This does not mean that one must have come from the other, though, any more than two computers which looked much the same came from one, master or ancestral computer. From the point of a Creator model, we’d also expect some similarities in the creatures.

Just to be clear, DNA similarities do not by necessity yield organic relationship. I think perhaps the most ridiculous of the evolutionary arguments is that bats and whales came from the same organism. Why must evolutionists posit such nonsense? Because the sheer probability that two separate organism by chance and random mutation formed sonar systems separately is astronomical. In other words, the probabilities that we had two, separate species accidentally forming sonar systems is just too mind boggling to have happened, so we must posit one common species from which the bat and whale eventually evolved.

Personally, I think only one accidentally forming such a system is mind boggling enough. Clearly there is design here, but in the face of all the evidence for design, evolutionists opt for random, directionless mutations which just so happened to produce this or that trait.
You call the molecular evidence the “killer” evidence, and you say this:

24555. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2004 10:10:20 AM

“In general, the more closely related two species are taxonomically, the more similar are their genetic molecules, and their phenotypic expression.”

What you fail to realize, though, is that the taxonomy builds in the similarities. In other words, we create the taxonomy system based on the similarities of the creatures in question. All you’ve done is create a tautology in your statement above.

Also, as I said above, we’d expect species that live in the water to have molecular similarities, and species that live in the trees to have the same relationships. But this is hardly proof that one came from the other.
Lastly, taxonomy can be arbitrary as well, and in some instances, the taxonomical classification of a species is redefined. All taxonomy is is a basis upon which we can logically discuss the various species, not a law unto itself. It simply recognizes natural similarities of creatures and then classifies them based on these similarities.

Put another way, you cannot claim that the similarities in taxonomy proves evolution, because the taxonomy is based on the similarities. Again, yours is just a tautological statement, nothing more.

24556. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2004 10:10:40 AM

Embryology (your #5) is similarly discounted. Does a human fetus become a fish? No, it is always a human fetus which later becomes a human. Again, just because the fetus needs “gills” to survive in the amniotic fluid doesn’t mean that it must have, at one time, been an organism that was related to fish! Rather, all it tells us is that the human fetus needs “gills” to survive in the mother’s womb. What evolutionists have done here is make wild jumps of faith and logic. They’ve created an entire fabrication when one isn’t necessary. Occam’s Razor if you would, jay.

And again, similarity in traits does not necessarily equate to organic relationship. In other words, just because a chicken has lips, this doesn’t mean that other lip-bearing creatures must have come from a chicken. I know you get my point regardless of my tongue-in-cheek.

24557. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2004 10:11:00 AM

Vestigial Organs (your #6): Arguments from vestigial organs is perhaps the most arrogant of the evolutionist claims, simply because it is assumed that we already know absolutely everything about every organism. In other words, you can only claim exhaustive knowledge before you an speak of vestigial organs. The classic example is the human appendix. For decades we assumed it did nothing, and evolutionists proudly proclaimed it “vestigial.” But now we know better.

The vestigial organ argument also contradicts the very tenets of science. To proclaim right here and now that this or that organ no longer has any function, nor can it ever, is contrary to scientific theorem. Rather it is better to say that we think at this moment in time that this or that organ is vestigial, but then once you do that, you undermine the evolutionary argument in this area.
Just as a side note, this type of arrogance is displayed by you in your comment about the “poor design” of the human spine. I think you’d find a hoard of people who find the design of the spine fascinating and incredible.

24558. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2004 10:11:22 AM

Your biogeography argument (your #7) I don’t get honestly. If all you are saying is that species evolve based on their geography, I have no objection to this one and your #7 can be lumped into the other ones of similar microevolution arguments.

But help me out here if you would jay, why do you think that the paucity of mammals in Australia means anything in this debate?

24559. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2004 10:12:07 AM

THE FOSSIL RECORD

The fossil record (your #2) argument is a joke, right? Darwin recognized this as the single biggest problem with his theory, and 150 years later it is still the single biggest problem.

To the fundamental issues, Darwin’s theory posited small, gradual changes over a large period of time. He believed that in this way, we could account for all speciation of life on the planet, starting with a small organism and through a virtually infinite amount of mutations, yield the most complex of life forms. What he also knew, though, was that the fossil record was his single biggest problem. Darwin called it “the most obvious and gravest objection which can be used against my theory.” However, he hoped that in time the fossil record would support his theory.

This has simply not been the case. In fact, discoveries after Darwin have thrown his theory into even greater confusion, accept for the faithful who rabidly follow the mantras. Again, according to Darwin’s theory, the fossil record should show us gradual changes over time, this layer showing one time period, another layer yet another. The fundamental issue, though, is that higher layers should display increasing complexity from the lower layers.

24560. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2004 10:12:56 AM

You said this concerning fossils:

“2) The fossil record shows changes in morphology that show changes over time. The more recent fossils are more like contemporatry species than the older fossils.”

This is patently false, because you make it appear that the fossil records ALWAYS look this way, but that is simply not true. The Burgess Shale in Canada is just such an example, and has provided an incredible amount of material for the “punctuated equilibrium” proponents such as Gould. You obviously are aware of Gould and his theories, but they fly flat in the face of Darwin’s uniformity and gradual change over time theory.

Ironically, during Darwin’s time the prominent view came from the French scientist Cuvier, the father of paleontology. Cuvier believed in the prevailing catastrophism of his day, which basically said there were periods of mass extinction followed by periods of new life, with no traces of transitions in between. Darwin’s theory made virtually everybody discard Cuvier’s notions, but lo and behold, we are back to Cuvier again. Here’s what Gould has to say about the Burgess Shale, where we find not a gradation of fossils in the record, but rather an explosion of new life, all at once: “in a geological moment near the beginning of the Cambrian [about 570 million years ago], nearly all modern phyla made their first appearance.” In Gould’s words, it occurs “with a bang” in a “geological flash” as a “gigantic burp of creativity.”

24561. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2004 10:13:28 AM

Why is this such a problem? Recall, in order to rid the world of a Creator, we need these smallish changes to occur over long periods of time. Darwin’s principle was that “nature does not make a leap” whereas “reason does make leaps.” The sudden appearance of nearly all modern biological phyla completely contradicts the expectations of Darwin’s theory. In other words, the facts disprove his theory.

“The taxonomic hierarchy in biology, from greatest difference to least, is kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. As Darwin well understood, the greater the difference, the greater the number of transitional species required, and the greater amount of time natural selection will need, working through slight variations, to produce the far greater differences characteristic of phyla. For Darwin, phyla simply cannot appear abruptly but must be the result of a long, arduous, winding path of slight variations among a discrete population leading, by natural selection, to new varieties, which in turn, lead to new species, which in turn…and so on, until one reaches the level of divergence indicative of phyla. If Darwin were right, the fossil evidence would support him.

The sudden appearance of all known phyla in the Cambrian, therefore, represents a first-order theoretical crisis for Darwinism.” Benjamin Wilker

24562. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2004 10:14:19 AM

Richard Dawkins notes of the Cambrian, “It as though they were planted there, without any evolutionary history.”

Such finds should cause objective people to pause for a moment, but not the rabid faithful evolutionists. Instead of recognizing the obvious fallacies of Darwin’s theory, Gould and others simply state now that gradual change isn’t necessarily. Now we can have – poof! – new species appear out of thin air. [this reminds me of something in Christian scholarship which I’ll mention later]

Back to the fossil record specifically, there are clearly gaps, huge gaping holes, and anybody who claims otherwise is lying, or entirely ignorant. So what happens with those gaping holes? Someone who is really a “scientist” and who would look objectively at the gaps should question how it is that the evolutionists claim to be able to fill those gaps with material which supports their theory!

Further, it is a natural corollary that with the emergence of species which are better adapted, the older ones would perish. In other words, we should find mass extinctions in the fossil record, over and over and over again. Better adapted species should be supplanted the less adapted ancestors, yielding actually more evidence of extinction in the fossil record than new forms of life. However, this is clearly not the case in the fossil record. Again, the vast evidence points entirely contrary to the theory.

24563. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2004 10:14:56 AM

The Bighorn Basin in Wyoming is another example of the fossil record turned on its head. There the organisms we’d assume were prior to the more complex ones often appear after them. In short, to boldly claim that the fossil record supports evolutionary theory is only allowable if the evolutionist is permitted to fill all the gaps with his imagination and “material” which already supports his theory.

Here is what the fossil records show: a pattern of sudden appearance followed by stasis, not a gradual movement from one layer to the next of transitional organisms. The fossil record was an embarrassment to Darwin 150 years ago, and it still it to evolutionists today, except for those who blindly follow the mantras.

Here is where I think macroevolutionary theory has erred: it has taken microevolution and made large leaps of logic. What the fossil record shows is variation around a basic set of designs, not accumulating improvements which allow us to move from a single celled organism to complex hominids.

24564. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2004 10:15:12 AM

Lastly, as a side comment, I am simply amazed at the amount of imagination that goes into much of evolutionary theory. For example, you can go to the Natural History Museum in Chicago and see one of the supposed early descendents of man. There is the entire man in all his wonder, from head to toe, and the child’s imagination runs wild with the image. But when you read the fine print, you see that they have constructed this elaborate statue from three bones fragments, and none came from outside the head. I’ve posted the picture on The Mote before, where you can see the pieces they actually found, and all the rest that was “reconstructed” right out from the ass of some evolutionist. It is fairy-tale land to be sure, but no one is told that. We are meant to buy all of it hook, line, and sinker.

24565. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2004 10:15:49 AM

Here’s my thought from Christian scholarship, and how it relates to this topic.

Darwin existed at a time when the predominant view of life on earth was Curvier’s, catastrophic extinction followed by mass new life, with no supporting evidence of evolutionary transitions in between. Darwin disputed that theory and his uniformitarian view won the day. However, as Darwin noted honestly, the fossil record was a sore spot, a blemish in his theory that he hoped would one day be wiped clean.

Now we have punctuated equilibrium types, who basically have gone back to Curvier’s notions, but still want to cling to Darwin. But you simply cannot have it both way.
Put another way, Darwin knew that the fossil record proved his theory wrong, but he explained it away while hoping new discoveries would support his theory. Well guess what, new discoveries have supported Curvier’s position of catastrophism, not Darwin’s position. So what do people like Gould do with the new information? They attempt to create a new evolutionary model, but the new model entirely contradicts Darwin’s model.

Now comes my recollection of liberal Christian scholarly, which worked on the assumption that the “Jesus myth” needed many decades to form. Therefore, liberal scholars posited that the New Testament writings were produced mid-to-late second century, which was plenty of time for a wholly natural Jesus circa 30 AD to be transformed into a supernatural God-man. Then the conservative scholars went to work, and the dates for the writings of the NT consistently came down, and down, and down, to where today most liberal dates are only about 10 years later than most conservative dates.

24566. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2004 10:16:03 AM

In other words, the NT writings occurred mid-to-late FIRST century, or at very latest, in the first decade of the second century. In some instances, the liberal dates have been reduced by a CENTURY.
But they haven’t backed away from their original hypothesis! They still claim the “Jesus myth” but now they don’t have the time necessary for it to develop. Yet, they still hold onto the original basis of all their arguments.

The same can be said about many evolutionists today, a la Gould and others. And those who oppose Gould and his theories are just the old school, still clinging to the outdated and disproved ideas of Darwin.

24567. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2004 10:17:41 AM

alistair, as you hopefully can see now, I am not addressing the cosmological issues, but the speciation of the material already on planet earth. If you, the representative of the rabble, cannot see that by now, I feel sorry for you.

jay, I'll check back in a couple of days for your comments on my posts, which have addressed your original nine supports for evolutionary theory. Have fun!

24568. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2004 10:22:56 AM

"You can, of course, reject all this, and believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago. You can believe that Noah gathered up all 800,000 beetle species and put them on the ark next to the pair of lions and the couple dozen pairs of antelope, and all was copacetic for 40 days and 40 nights."

jay, you have a tendency to create false views for your opponent and then attack those false views. Of course, up until my most recent posts, you certainly could have surmised that I believe all existing SPECIES of creature had to be in the ark, for example, because you could ASSUME I didn't believe in ANY evolving of species.

But that would be a wrong ASSUMPTION, and in the future, please wait until I tell you my position, before creating one for me. You know, you did that over and over again when it came to IVF, and I just allowed you to play the fool on that one. But until I actually tell you what I believe, it is really pointless to create a position for me.

24569. Ms. No - 9/29/2004 10:54:20 AM

Kuligin,

I am not saying that the destruction of all human life is right in line with atheism and/or evolutionary theory.

You insisted that the best possible tactic for humans to follow is to kill other humans in order to get what they want. If that's not what you meant then you should have been more clear. It's not my straw-man, it's yours.

what I have said is SELECTIVE destruction of human life is par for the courses and runs right in line with survival of the fittest and natural selection.

You've never before had a problem with the destruction of human life, only an argument about who gets to do the choosing and what criteria are used to make those decisions. Most Christian sects also support the idea that some lives are more important than others and that it is not only right but necessary to kill some people not just because it's good for society but because God would want it so.

24570. alistairconnor - 9/29/2004 10:58:41 AM

Put another way, I can accept change within limits (microevolution) but not unlimited change (macroevolution).

OK, so you've acknowledged an intellectual shortcoming.

Humility. I like it.

Darwin believed in a Creator who first got the ball rolling

A perfectly coherent and respectable view; and one which, like the existence of God, it is not possible to refute. The precursors of life, and the first single-cell organisms, did not leave fossils.

But until I actually tell you what I believe, it is really pointless to create a position for me.

That's true enough. Now that Jay knows what darn-fool position you really hold on evolution, he will make short work of it.

But I'm intrigued about the Noah's Ark thing now : A few thousand years ago, there was only one species of antelope, of elephant, perhaps only a few thousand species of beetle... something like that?

It seems that you are such a fervent believer in evolution that you think it can happen in the twinkling of an eye.

But this is mere idle surmise from the cheap seats.

24571. Ms. No - 9/29/2004 11:31:36 AM

Kuligin,

Just to be clear, Ms. No, natural selection and survival of the fittest recognizes that not all individuals of any given species are of equal importance. Some are "selected out" which works to strengthen the species.

Again, you have never had a problem in the past supporting a belief in the inequality of certain people. The only thing you quibble about is the criteria for deciding who's better than who.

Selecting out the unwanteds - the fetuses we don't want to care about, the old people who have become a drag on our economy and society, the handicapped, etc. etc. - is a natural outworking of the natural selection inherent in evolutionary theory.

Again you're not arguing that death and prejudice are wrong only that your criteria should be used to make those decisions rather than someone else's.

Also we are clearly not slaughtering the aged and infirm in the streets but, rather, spending billions of dollars every year in an effort to improve their quality of life and increase human longevity.

Keep in mind, humans are just "advanced" animals. Soooooo, if you treat humans differently you are displaying a basic inconsistency in your use of the theory.

It's not inconsistent to regard a human differently than an amoeba. The more complex the animal the more complex its needs and capabilities. The wildebeast doesn't value a crippled member because it has no use for it other than as a sop to the appetite of whatever predator is currently hunting it. Wildebeasts don't have much to offer one another because they're only so complex. That's not the case with humans. Stephen Hawking has been quite valuable to the human race despite or perhaps even because of his physical infirmaties.

24572. Ms. No - 9/29/2004 11:44:18 AM

Kuligin,

"Some situations call for violence" is all I am saying.

And how is that any different from the Christian world view which also believes that some situations call for violence in addition to believing that some members of the herd should be "culled"? You're still just arguing about "authority".

we should eliminate the ones which only hamper the human species.

It's statements like this that show how little you understand about evolutionary theory. There is no evolutionary imperative for Wildebeasts to kill their own vulnerable members -- just the opposite, in fact. Those members will be preyed upon and culled from the herd by process of natural selection. It's that "natural selection" bit that hangs you up, isn't it? It's not a firing squad that rushes out to kill those who don't perform. It's the often very lengthy process of certain behaviors failing to be reproduced because they aren't effective.

24573. PelleNilsson - 9/29/2004 1:15:48 PM

Kuligin declares that he won't spend more than half an hour on the Mote. Soon after he fires off thirteen long posts in seven minutes. What does this suggest? It suggests that Kuligin is no more tnhn a parrot, a cut-and-paste artist, inundating us with the thoughts of others, whose identity he chooses not to reveal.

24574. jayackroyd - 9/29/2004 1:19:52 PM

That was pretty obviously true in this instance.

24575. KuligintheHooligan - 9/29/2004 2:28:25 PM

You are both morons if you think that. I have studied evolutionary theory for over 20 years, and teach courses covering it. What I have done is take material already prepared and put it here in condensed format. The formulations are indeed my own, written in my own words. Of course, I have gleaned material from reading dozens of books, and where they are verbatim the thoughts of others, I quoted them.

And I still expect you, jay, to address them, as they are legitimate objection to evolutionary theory. Please don't be an asshole like pelle. I expect more from you, believe it or not, and took you at your word that you would debate these issues.

24576. clydefo - 9/29/2004 3:06:04 PM

24542 KuligintheHooligan
"...natural selection and survival of the fittest recognizes that not all individuals of any given species are of equal importance. Some are "selected out" which works to strengthen the species.

No individual is "important" in evolution except to the extent that it can survive in its environment. "Selecting out" or reducing diversity, usually reduces the chances of survival. When the master race is wiped out by a virus, who's left? Evolution is not moving towards "improvement" or "betterment" of the species. It only demands that an organism adapt or die. It may be that Earth has not been visited by LGM because evolution leads most intelligent technological societies to wind up poisoning their environment for themselves.

24556
...just because the fetus needs “gills” to survive in the amniotic fluid doesn’t mean that it must have, at one time, been an organism that was related to fish!

I thought the fetus (thanks for not saying "unborn child") survived via the umbilical cord.

24566
"...They still claim the “Jesus myth” but now they don’t have the time necessary for it to develop...

The Myth of the Savior Godman (Mithra, et al) already existed, only a new name needed to be plugged in.

24577. PelleNilsson - 9/29/2004 3:10:36 PM

Give us a source Kuligin. It is not enough to claim that
The formulations are indeed my own, written in my own words.

And consider the syntax of

You are both morons if you think that I have studied evolutionary theory for over 20 years, and teach courses covering it.

24578. clydefo - 9/29/2004 9:24:17 PM

Design Yes, Intelligent No

A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory and Neocreationism

The claims by Behe, Dembski, and other "intelligent design" creationists that science should be opened to supernatural explanations and that these should be allowed in academic as well as public school curricula are unfounded and based on a misunderstanding of both design in nature and of what the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is all about.

Massimo Pigliucci

http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-09/design.html

"A new brand of creationism has appeared on the scene in the last few years. The so-called neocreationists largely do not believe in a young Earth or in a too literal interpretation of the Bible. While still mostly propelled by a religious agenda and financed by mainly Christian sources such as the Templeton Foundation and the Discovery Institute, the intellectual challenge posed by neocreationism is sophisticated enough to require detailed consideration (see Edis 2001; Roche 2001).
Among the chief exponents of Intelligent Design (ID) theory, as this new brand of creationism is called, is William Dembski, a mathematical philosopher and author of The Design Inference (1998a). In that book he attempts to show that there must be an intelligent designer behind natural phenomena such as evolution and the very origin of the universe (see Pigliucci 2000 for a detailed critique). Dembki's (1998b) argument is that modern science ever since Francis Bacon has illicitly dropped two of Aristotle's famous four types of causes from consideration altogether, thereby unnecessarily restricting its own explanatory power. Science is thus incomplete, and intelligent design theory will rectify this sorry state of affairs, if only close-minded evolutionists would allow Dembski and company to do the job....

24579. clydefo - 9/29/2004 9:27:24 PM

...Dembski maintains that Bacon and his followers did away with both formal and final causes (the so-called teleonomic causes, because they answer the question of why something is) in order to free science from philosophical speculation and ground it firmly into empirically verifiable statements. That may be so, but things certainly changed with the work of Charles Darwin (1859). Darwin was addressing a complex scientific question in an unprecedented fashion: he recognized that living organisms are clearly designed in order to survive and reproduce in the world they inhabit; yet, as a scientist, he worked within the framework of naturalistic explanations of such design. Darwin found the answer in his well-known theory of natural selection. Natural selection, combined with the basic process of mutation, makes design possible in nature without recourse to a supernatural explanation because selection is definitely nonrandom, and therefore has "creative" (albeit nonconscious) power. Creationists usually do not understand this point and think that selection can only eliminate the less fit; but Darwin's powerful insight was that selection is also a cumulative process-analogous to a ratchet-which can build things over time, as long as the intermediate steps are also advantageous.
Darwin made it possible to put all four Aristotelian causes back into science...

24580. clydefo - 9/29/2004 9:27:56 PM

Aristotle's Four Causes in Science

Aristotle identified material causes, what something is made of; formal causes, the structure of the thing or phenomenon; efficient causes, the immediate activity producing a phenomenon or object; and final causes, the purpose of whatever object we are investigating...

Irreducible Complexity

There are two additional arguments proposed by ID theorists to demonstrate intelligent design in the universe: the con-cept of "irreducible complexity" and the "complexity-specification" criterion...

The Complexity-Specification Criterion

William Dembski uses an approach similar to Behe to back up creationist claims, in that he also wants to demonstrate that intelligent design is necessary to explain the complexity of nature...

The Four Fundamental Types of Design and How to Recognize Them

Given these considerations, I would like to propose a system that includes both Behe's and Dembski's suggestions, while at the same time showing why they are both wrong in concluding that we have evidence for intelligent design in the universe. Figure 1 summarizes my proposal...

24581. clydefo - 9/29/2004 9:29:25 PM

Conclusions

In summary, it seems to me that the major arguments of Intelligent Design theorists are neither new nor compelling:

1. It is simply not true that science does not address all Aristotelian causes, whenever design needs to be explained;

2. While irreducible complexity is indeed a valid criterion to distinguish between intelligent and non-intelligent design, these are not the only two possibilities, and living organisms are not irreducibly complex (e.g., see Shanks and Joplin 1999);

3. The complexity-specification criterion is actually met by natural selection, and cannot therefore provide a way to distinguish intelligent from non-intelligent design;

4. If supernatural design exists at all (but where is the evidence or compelling logic?), this is certainly not of the kind that most religionists would likely subscribe to, and it is indistinguishable from the technology of a very advanced civilization.

Therefore, Behe's, Dembski's, and other creationists' (e.g., Johnson 1997) claims that science should be opened to supernatural explanations and that these should be allowed in academic as well as public school curricula are unfounded and based on a misunderstanding of both design in nature and of what the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution (Mayr and Provine 1980) is all about."

24582. pelty - 9/29/2004 10:22:15 PM

Hmm, I see no one is interested in actually refuting KtH's claims thus far. For someone like Jay who knows evolution is a FACT, I would imagine this will happen any second now. Or is it simply easier to make unfounded claims about cutting and pasting from other internet sites. That's showing him!

"The Myth of the Savior Godman (Mithra, et al) already existed, only a new name needed to be plugged in."

This is hardly worth my time as it is recycled tripe from the history of religions school of 100 years ago, but if you are going to make a citation, at least make sure it is correct. Where is Mithras ever viewed as a "theos aner"? A deity, yes, but both the Hindu and Persian versions of the god are indeed *gods* and not god-men.

24583. SnowOwl - 9/29/2004 10:26:26 PM

Vestigial Organs (your #6): Arguments from vestigial organs is perhaps the most arrogant of the evolutionist claims, simply because it is assumed that we already know absolutely everything about every organism. In other words, you can only claim exhaustive knowledge before you an speak of vestigial organs. The classic example is the human appendix. For decades we assumed it did nothing, and evolutionists proudly proclaimed it “vestigial.” But now we know better.

This really proves that Kuligin doesn't know what he's talking about because he doesn't understand what vestigial means in a biological sense.

Clue: It doesn't necessarily mean that an organ has no function, although it's true that some vestigial organs have no apparent function.

The fact that the human appendix may play a small part in the immune system does not alter the fact that it is vestigial in terms of its function as part of the digestive system.

24584. clydefo - 9/29/2004 11:23:32 PM

Where is Mithras ever viewed as a "theos aner"?24582. pelty
This is only one place. There are many others...
http://www.vetssweatshop.net/dogma.htm

"...According to Persian traditions, the god Mithras was actually incarnated into the human form of the Saviour expected by Zarathustra. Mithras was born of Anahita, an immaculate virgin mother once worshipped as a fertility goddess before the hierarchical reformation. Anahita was said to have conceived the Saviour from the seed of Zarathustra preserved in the waters of Lake Hamun in the Persian province of Sistan. Mithra's ascension to heaven was said to have occurred in 208 B.C.E., 64 years after his birth.

How about Krishna, how is he different from "Christos"?

24585. clydefo - 9/30/2004 12:51:42 AM

In the "blink-of-an-eye" cosmological existence that mankind now enjoys, we have dodged a bullet. When will our luck run out? Earth seems to get hit with the "Doomsday rock" every few 100 million years or so. Given a couple of billion years of a stable Sun and liquid water, the laws of statistics dictates that the Earth will be "destroyed" time and time again. Does God replenish the planet after each disaster as does FEMA after a hurricane?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/09/28/asteriod.fly/index.html

SPACE.com -- The largest asteroid ever known to pass near Earth is making a close celestial brush with the planet this week in an event that professional and backyard astronomers are watching closely.
The space rock, named Toutatis, will not hit Earth, despite rumors of possible doom that have circulated the Internet for months. Humanity is very fortunate there won't be an impact, as the asteroid is large enough to cause global devastation. Toutatis is about 2.9 miles long and 1.5 miles wide...

"...Because of the nature of the orbit, we cannot predict thousands of years into the future for this object," -Alan Harris

24586. alistairconnor - 9/30/2004 4:01:04 AM

Pelty : Hmm, I see no one is interested in actually refuting KtH's claims thus far.

Jay has said he will reply as time permits.
Bearing in mind that I'm only a heckler (having been recused from the debate), here are a couple of elements of background reading for those who are interested in following the scientific debate.

Ku's principal authority seems to be Stephen Jay Gould, a well-known popularizer, who has imagined a bunch of stuff based on his interpretation of Cambrian fossils.

It seems that, as has generally been the case over the centuries when people posit divine intervention in natural phenomena, he based his conclusions on inadequate and misinterpreted data. Here is a short paper,
The Precambrian to Cambrian Fossil Record and Transitional Forms that deals with this issue, probably in more detail than most of us will want. In particular, this points out that Gould's interpretations have been superseded by new research. This should surprise nobody who has any interest in palaeontology : there is an enormous amount of work being done all the time, and the field of human knowledge is fast expanding.

[continues]

24587. alistairconnor - 9/30/2004 4:08:29 AM

Here is a more readable discussion of the Cambrian "Explosion", from PBS.

Then, between about 570 and 530 million years ago, another burst of diversification occurred, with the eventual appearance of the lineages of almost all animals living today. This stunning and unique evolutionary flowering is termed the "Cambrian explosion," taking the name of the geological age in whose early part it occurred. But it was not as rapid as an explosion: the changes seems to have happened in a range of about 30 million years, and some stages took 5 to 10 million years.

It's certainly an exciting field of research. There is much that is still "unexplained", meaning that different theories may compete to explain various details, but none has yet been validated by sufficient evidence and/or peer review. But those who understand scientific method generally have a high degree of confidence that a coherent concensus will emerge eventually.

Personally, my intuition is that the key trigger for the Cambrian "explosion" of fauna is the existence of free oxygen in the air, due to the "explosion" of photosynthesis in the preceding hundred million years or so.

The moral of the story is that theologians should avoid making their last-ditch defense on shifting ground. Go find a bastion that is less assailable.

24588. alistairconnor - 9/30/2004 4:12:14 AM

Of course, it may just be that thirty million years is the same as two or three days of metaphorical Old Testament time.

24589. Macnas - 9/30/2004 4:29:23 AM

That was the way I remember the conflict between evolution and the Bible being explained to me in school.

Even in deepest darkest catholic Ireland, some amount of sense prevailed.

24590. alistairconnor - 9/30/2004 6:02:57 AM

Because most people don't follow links, I'll just post a few paragraphs of Gould, plus a couple from the article I linked in Message # 24586 which refutes him pretty nicely, I think :

24591. alistairconnor - 9/30/2004 6:03:12 AM

Gould posits a mystery :
Although interesting and portentous events have occurred since, from the flowering of dinosaurs to the origin of human consciousness, we do not exaggerate greatly in stating that the subsequent history of animal life amounts to little more than variations on anatomical themes established during the Cambrian explosion within five million years. Three billion years of unicellularity, followed by five million years of intense creativity and then capped by more than 500 million years of variation on set anatomical themes can scarcely be read as a predictable, inexorable or continuous trend toward progress or increasing complexity.

We do not know why the Cambrian explosion could establish all major anatomical designs so quickly.
[...]
In any case, this initial period of both internal and external flexibility yielded a range of invertebrate anatomies that may have exceeded (in just a few million years of production) the full scope of animal form in all the earth's environments today (after more than 500 million years of additional time for further expansion). Scientists are divided on this question. Some claim that the anatomical range of this initial explosion exceeded that of modern life, as many early experiments died out and no new phyla have ever arisen. But scientists most strongly opposed to this view allow that Cambrian diversity at least equaled the modern range - so even the most cautious opinion holds that 500 million subsequent years of opportunity have not expanded the Cambrian range, achieved in just five million years. The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.

24592. alistairconnor - 9/30/2004 6:04:03 AM

But there is none :

Even when the metazoan fossil record for the entire Cambrian is considered, the morphological disparity cannot be equated with that of living organisms, unless the subsequent appearance of all vertebrate and insect life be ignored. In addition, many living phyla, including most worm phyla, are unknown from the fossil record until well into the Phanerozoic.34 Thus, to claim the near simultaneous appearance of virtually all living phlya in the Cambrian is not an objective statement of the fossil evidence but a highly speculative, and I believe unsupported, interpretation of it.

Finally, there is a question of whether the rapid diversification of metazoans in the Late Precambrian and Early Cambrian reflects an equally rapid increase in complexity. An interesting study by Valentine and others uses the number of cell types as a useful measure of morphological complexity. They plot the estimated times of origin of major body plans against their cell type numbers. The resulting plot shows that the upper bound of complexity has increased steadily and nearly linearly from the origin of the metazoa to the present. Furthermore, they conclude that "...the metazoan `explosion' near the Precambrian/Cambrian transition was not associated with any important increase in complexity of body plans... This suggests that the appearance of new higher taxa in the Cambrian did not involve the sudden appearance of major new levels of complexity.

24593. KuligintheHooligan - 9/30/2004 7:23:26 AM

pelty, you make a good observation but one which will unfortunately be lost on most people here. Did you notice how pelle took a period out of one of my sentences then combined two sentences together? Interesting the games the people will play here.

Jenerator, as you can see, there is a vast difference between microevolution and macro. The former really cannot be contested, but the latter clearly can be. In fact, when "creationists" normally discuss "evolution" they are thinking clearly of the macro variety.

I teach two courses where this material comes into play. One is Apologetics, where obviously we discuss the existence of God and the arguments against his existence. The other is a doctrine course on Christian Anthropology, where evolutionary theory comes into play on the origin of man. There we discuss five competing views. Interestingly, only one is discarded as a valid Christian response, atheistic evolution, but the other four are not. Of the other four, theistic evolution looks to combine both the existence of God and his use of evolution in bringing out the created order.

24594. alistairconnor - 9/30/2004 8:09:51 AM

You see, Pelty?

24595. pelty - 9/30/2004 8:29:37 AM

Clyde,

From what I can gather, the source of much of this is from Franz Cumont whose work on Mithras was influential, but has been contested of late. To wit, "Cumont's large scholarly corpus and his opinions dominated mithraic studies for decades. A series of conferences on Mithraism beginning in 1970 and an enormous quantity of scholarship by numerous individuals in the last quarter century has demonstrated that many of Cumont's theories were incorrect (see especially Hinnells 1975 and Beck 1984). At the same time this recent work has greatly increased modern understanding of Mithraism, and it has opened up new areas of inquiry. Many questions, particularly those concerning the origins of the Roman cult of Mithras, are still unresolved and may always remain so."

24596. pelty - 9/30/2004 8:29:46 AM

Included in this may be some of the god-man mythology that Cumont so desperately wanted to find. The following is from the Oxford Classical Dictionary (3rd ed.) and exhibits much more care in its description of Mithras: "Mithras, an ancient Indo-Iranian god adopted in the Roman empire as the principal deity of a mystery cult which flourished in the 2nd and 3rd cents. AD. Iranian Mithra was a god of compact (the literal meaning of his name), cattle-herding, and the dawn light, aspects of which survive (or were re-created) in his western manifestation, since Roman Mithras was a sun-god (‘deus sol invictus Mithras’, ‘invincible sun god Mithras’), a ‘bull-killer’, and ‘cattle-thief’, and the saviour of the sworn brothers of his cult."

As you can see, there is no mention of him as a "theos aner"; he is simply a minor god below Ahura Mazda. Further information may be forthcoming and there may well have been a segment of the populace that held Mithras to be a "theose aner", but I have not seen much in *recent* scholarship that takes this position. I do not claim to be an expert in Mithraic studies, so I could be convinced otherwise, but it needs to be something other than a Cumont re-tread as, to the best of my recollection, he does not offer anything in the way of data to support this contention.

24597. KuligintheHooligan - 9/30/2004 8:59:32 AM

pelty, there was some discussion in this thread about a year ago on the supposed stealing by the early Christians from paganism. However, as I noted then, much of this "stealing" is nothing more than scholars reading back into paganism the Christian understanding or concepts, then exclaiming, "Look! Look! See, the Christians stole this idea from the pagans."

For example, the idea that Christians stole the resurrection idea is an old one, but the Christians understanding of the resurrection of Jesus is loads different than any pagan idea that came before it. What it boils down to is these critics taking "resurrection" and then filling it with meaning foreign to the pagan understand, i.e., filling it with the Christian understanding, and then claiming they have found some evidence of stealing.

There is perhaps nothing more lame than someone planting something somewhere, and then later claiming to have found it!

24598. alistairconnor - 9/30/2004 9:27:45 AM

I can think of something more lame than that, Ku :

having your arse handed to you, and refusing to recognise it.

24599. RickNelson - 9/30/2004 10:21:23 AM

Debate this.

1)Jesus is the Savior and has nothing to do with evolution.

2)Evolution was a design of God who used the miracle of his genetic engineering to evolve species.

These two are based upon a belief premise: That the interpretation of the Bible is fallible and I am one who reconciles rather than foam at the mouth.

24600. clydefo - 9/30/2004 11:36:54 AM

This group, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, seems to be objective in examining Pagan myths. From their site:
Parallels between Christianity and ancient Pagan religions

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm

Reasons for the Pagan-Christian similarities:
There are many possible explanations of the similarities between earlier Pagan and later Christian beliefs, practices, and the lives of their god-men:
Christians copied Pagans: This is perhaps the most obvious theory. Celsus was a Platonist and polemical writer against Christianity who lived in the late 2nd century CE According to Freke & Gandy, he "complained that this recent religion [of Christianity} was only a pale reflection" of Pagan belief. 3 According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Celsus pointed out that Christianity copied the concepts of others. Christian "...ideas concerning the origin of the universe, etc., are common to all peoples and to the wise men of antiquity."4 Many modern-day writers and theologians have accepted this theory. 3,5,6,7

Satan did it to deceive: Various early church writers, such as Irenaeus (Bishop of Lyons; circa 120 CE to ?) Justin Martyr (Christian apologist; 100 to 165), Tertullian (Christian theologian; circa 160 to 220 +) concluded that the Pagan/Christian similarities were a Satanic attempt at "diabolical mimicry." Satan was said to have use "plagiarism by anticipation." That is, the Devil made a pre-emptive strike against the gospel stories centuries before Jesus was born. The reason was to confuse the public into thinking that Jesus was merely a copy of previous god-men. The goal was to demolish the credibility of Christianity in the people's eyes.

24601. clydefo - 9/30/2004 11:37:29 AM

It was a type of prophecy: Other Christian writers have concluded that the Mysteries were a type of pre-echo of Jesus' life -- "somewhat like premonitions or prophecies." 3
Christianity accepted Pagan mythology as literal truth of real events: Authors Freke & Gandy have concluded that the original, main Christian movement was Gnostic Christianity. They kept their inner mysteries secret, revealing them only to those who have been initiated into their branch of the Christian faith. 3 Some early non-Gnostic, "literalist" Christians were unaware of the inner mysteries of Gnosticism. They came to accept the Gnostic outer, public, mysteries and their myth of a godman savior as an actual description of the historical Jesus. The literalist Christians, being ignorant of the inner mysteries, did not realize that the god-man story was only a legend about a mythical being. Decades later, literalist Christianity became the dominant movement. They oppressed and exterminated the Gnostics, their rituals and their knowledge.

Coincidences: These points of similarity could have been coincidental. There are many cases in comparative religion where similar beliefs or practices are seen in two unrelated religions. The pyramid structures in Egypt are like those in Mexico. Yet most archeologists believe that there is no link between the countries; the shapes were chosen independently. In ancient times, the only way to create a really large structure was to pile stones on top of each other in the form of a pyramid. Similarly, almost all religions share an Ethic of Reciprocity , like the Golden Rule. Still, the almost 200 precise matches between the events in the lives of Jesus and Horus, and the 346 "striking analogies between Christ and Chrishna" 6 would seem to make this theory unlikely.

24602. clydefo - 9/30/2004 11:38:15 AM

Reverse copying: A strong case can be made that wholesale copying of beliefs and rituals by various religions has occurred in the past. However, as noted above, some Christian beliefs and practices may have stolen by the followers of Mithra from their Christian rivals rather than vice versa. This theory might have some validity with respect to Mithraism. However, it cannot explain the stories of the life of Horus which proceeded Jesus' ministry in the first century CE by a few thousand years.[emphasis added]
[Compare Horus and Jesus here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm]

Forgeries: Some have suggested that ancient evidence of Pagan god-men living similar lives to Jesus prior to the first century CE is a gigantic hoax. Anti-Christian religious historians and archeologists have simply created fictional sets of religious beliefs, promoted them as accurate representations of ancient religions, and have perpetrated a massive hoax. This also is unlikely. The original source material is still available for academics to check. Someone by now would have written a book exposing the hoax; it would have become a best-seller.

24603. PelleNilsson - 9/30/2004 1:46:01 PM

To create something new by advancing new interpretations of existing mental images and traditions is a common practice, not only in religion but in philosophy and politics as well. To track it down does not, in my view, take anything away from Christianity. It may be useful for tracing the origin and development of Christianity's own traditions but it is without merit when it comes to understanding its essence.

24604. clydefo - 9/30/2004 2:13:52 PM

In "creating something new", if the "origin and development of Christianity's own traditions" can be "tracked down" to "existing mental images and traditions", then the only thing "taken away from Christianity" is Christ. That doesn't leave much. "Essence of Christianity?"

24605. Bill Russell - 10/1/2004 1:16:24 AM

“I even take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged,”

U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia

24606. Ulgine Barrows - 10/1/2004 1:59:46 AM

That space got compressed

It's not a religion
It's just way of of making you speak

24607. KuligintheHooligan - 10/1/2004 10:47:51 AM

I watched a TV program from South Africa last night. It seems that Sweden has become the first democratic country to convict a pastor for preaching against sexual immorality, specifically homosexuality. Pastor Ake Green was convicted a couple of months ago for preaching one sermon against sexual immorality, and was sentenced to one month in prison. Of course, his defense attorney has appealed the conviction, but incredibly, so has the prosecutor, on the grounds that the sentence was too light. The prosecutor wanted at least a six month sentence.

Pastor Green was interviewed and spoke of the numerous threats he has received from gays and gay activists, threats to his own person, threats to his family, threats to his church. It is really incredible how people who want to see “hate speech” stopped can be so quick to threaten others.

A century ago, Sweden sent more Christian missionaries per capita out into the world than any other country. They have fallen fast from those heady days. Twenty years ago they sanctioned gay marriages in their country, and gays have virtually the same adoption privileges as heterosexual couples today. The “hate speech” legislation, interestingly, was tacked onto an existing post War World Two law which prohibited hate speech against Jews.

I wonder when “hate speech” legislation will be created to protect the Christians in that country?

24608. KuligintheHooligan - 10/1/2004 10:48:13 AM

Back on the shores of North America, Canada does indeed have similar legislation to Sweden’s, and in California, a bill as been tabled in that state’s legislature which would make similar moves against any and all speech which says homosexuality if wrong. It seems that the gays are so insecure in their own position that they must move to silence absolutely every stitch of objection to their chosen way of life.

Incredibly, in the proposed California law, prison sentences can be as high as 5 years and fines as high as $25,000, but the fine is not paid to the State, no siree, the fine will be paid to the gay or lesbian person or persons who originally brought the accusation against the person ultimately convicted of the “hate speech.” In other words, a witch hunt of sorts will be encouraged so that all greedy homosexuals have to do is seek and stalk pastors and ministers in the hopes that they will say something, anything, which could smack of “hate speech.”

Perhaps what I find most incredible is how absolutely restrictive such legislations intends to be. Some white supremacist could call a black man a filthy, lowlife, pervert and get away with it, but if similar things are said about homosexuals, you can be sure that they will be on a witch hunt and be monetarily rewarded for it. Is there no end to the insanity?

24609. KuligintheHooligan - 10/1/2004 10:50:50 AM

Oh, one last point of interest. When the original "hate speech" legislation was being proposed in Sweden, the Minister of Justice assured those parliamentarians opposed to it that it would never get to the point of infringing upon the free speech of ministers and pastors in the churches.

Of course, people are saying the same things here now in the States concerning the proposed Cali bill.

Slippery slope, slippery slope.

Several months ago, perhaps even late last year I am not entirely sure, I spoke exactly about this infringement on religious liberties in America, and all said how silly I was to speak about it. But activist gays will not stop until this is precisely what they get, the silencing even of religious voices on this matter.

24610. KuligintheHooligan - 10/1/2004 10:51:04 AM

TRIVIA: What country today sends out more Christian missionaries per capita than any country in the world?

24611. alistairConnor - 10/1/2004 4:04:28 PM

Liechtenstein?

San Marino?

24612. alistairConnor - 10/1/2004 4:05:52 PM

You will be delighted to know, Ku, that Spain today passed legislation enabling same-sex marriage and adoption.

And thank you for your gracious concession in the Great Evolution Debate.

24613. Bill Russell - 10/1/2004 11:50:36 PM

"Did you notice how pelle took a period out of one of my sentences then combined two sentences together? Interesting the games the people will play here."

Yep!

24614. KuligintheHooligan - 10/2/2004 6:33:56 AM

"And thank you for your gracious concession in the Great Evolution Debate."

Whatever. I'm still waiting for my posts to be answered. So far, all I saw was childish games with removing punctuation marks, and people calling into question my integrity. But as of yet, no real addressing of the issues. Of course, jay already noted he would be away, so I do expect him to address them in his time.

alistair, you seem all too willing to just take potshots while not really addressing the issues. Since jay seems to be away now, why not take my posts yourself and, point-by-point, refute them? It should be child's play for you, since all I posted was nonsense in your view.

Answer to Trivia: South Korea

24615. KuligintheHooligan - 10/2/2004 6:54:46 AM

But don't worry, alistair, you can always remain seated in the cheap seats, take the occasional potshot, and never really address the issues, and you'd find yourself in good company. I believe pelle sits there, judith occasional parks her rump there too. And, along with Bill Russell, all you need is one more for a game of Bridge.

Or, you can get off your lazy ass and actually address the issues I presented. But don't worry, we don't expect that much from you really.

Go on casting stones and declaring victory, alistair, while skirting the actually substance of the debate. It suits you best.

24616. alistairConnor - 10/2/2004 8:12:05 AM

Ku : I'm really sorry to embarass you, but it seems you genuinely overlooked my posts Message # 24586 to Message # 24592, which address the Cambrian hiatus which seems to be the principal "scientific" objection you have raised to "macro-evolution".

24617. KuligintheHooligan - 10/2/2004 10:48:37 AM

alistair, what your above posts amounted to was something akin to "go and read up on it more." That is hardly a rebuttal. You hotlink a longish article and make some scant comments about it, and that's it!

Who was it in The Mote who used to just hotlink the books at Amazon and consider his task complete, and the opponent vanquished? Seems like a familiar tactic.

And in terms of the evolutionary time table, 5-10 millions years is a spit in the bucket and rightly labeled an "explosion." But let's face it, you aren't really willing to debate this issues in your own words and with your own thoughts. Hotlinks and stone throwing from the cheap seats are more to your liking, no?

I'll tell you what you can do, alistair. Go back to the first article you hotlinked (you hotlinked two of them), read through it, and take the points you think are worth debating out of it, ones which specifically contradict my statements in those hoards of posts I put here a few days ago. Then we can work from there, because at this point, I don't know what you really agree with from the article.

Then, you can move to my OTHER points. Yes, alistair, I had many. Pretending I only spoke about the Cambrian is silly of you.

Or, just continue to sit in the nose bleed bleachers and cast your empty beer cans on the field.

24618. KuligintheHooligan - 10/2/2004 11:01:53 AM

Here's one interesting comment from your first hotlink, alistair, which really shows how ridiculous jay's (and others') comments were wrt evolutionary theory and how open and shut matters are:

"There is considerable ferment now within the field of taxonomy because of conflicting philosophies of classification, and different perceptions of which patterns in the history of life should be reflected in the taxonomic hierarchy."

If there is incredible debate as to exactly how to classify the organisms, there is obviously incredible debate as to how they supposedly evolved, one from the other.

Of course, the above assumes that the hotlinked article alistair provided for us is actually worthwhile. I can't find a date on the article, but the footnote supporting the above quotation comes from two books, one dated 1980 and the other 1986.

24619. clydefo - 10/2/2004 1:01:55 PM

a new technique for cataloging the planet's species
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/science/28fly.html?oref=login

"In one of the first uses of DNA bar coding, a new technique for cataloging the planet's species, researchers have uncovered an unexpected richness in the complexity of nature. A long-known butterfly has turned out to be not a single species but 10 different species that live in overlapping territories without interbreeding..."

..."This study has altered our view of a 'species' that has been known to science for more than two centuries," revealing "a new layer of biological complexity that needs exploration," the researchers write.
The study is also positive news for DNA bar coding, an ambitious proposal for identifying the world's species genetically instead of by traditional taxonomy. Taxonomists identify species by features in the whole animal. But there are not enough taxomonists to go around, and their highly specialist knowledge is not easily accessible to others..."

"...Initial field tests of DNA bar coding, like Dr. Janzen's, are showing the value of the technique. "The bar coding is a tremendous additional tool," Dr. Janzen said. "I can predict that this thing is going to go explosive..."

24620. alistairConnor - 10/2/2004 5:50:08 PM

Kuligin's constant disparaging comments are tedious and ungentlemanly. Never mind.

Here we have it. Kuligin claims he is going to point out internal contradictions in evolution. But as soon as the serious science starts, he wimps out.

In my posts starting at Message # 24586, I was commenting on Ku's post Message # 24560 to 24562, in which he misrepresents Gould, who himself misrepresents the Cambrian fossil record.

As a doctrinaire ideologue, Kuligin believes that "Darwin equals evolution", and that if he can disprove something that Darwin believed, he has disproved evolution.

This approach may work in theology (for all I know), but it cuts no ice with science.

I linked an article which debunked the idea that there is something mysterious or magical about the Cambrian "explosion", and Ku is declining to discuss it in detail, so it looks like he's conceding that point.

In particular, the article mentions research which plots increasing complexity of living organisms, from the first multicellular entities to the present, and finds that it's a pretty linear, steady march, onwards and upwards; the Cambrian did not represent a particular surge, and there are no long periods of stagnation.

Rather confirms Darwin's intuition, actually.

Ku rightly points out that I did not give a source or publication date for the article. It appeared in
Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, in 1997.

A good general resource on Christian perspectives on evolution is this page, which led me to the Miller article.

24621. Bill Russell - 10/3/2004 1:42:15 AM

"It may be useful for tracing the origin and development of Christianity's own traditions"

Yep !!

24622. KuligintheHooligan - 10/3/2004 6:34:43 AM

"Here we have it. Kuligin claims he is going to point out internal contradictions in evolution. But as soon as the serious science starts, he wimps out."

Yes, yes, and all those posts I placed here in which I went point-by-point through jay's original comments was "wimping out." Whatever.

"As a doctrinaire ideologue, Kuligin believes that "Darwin equals evolution", and that if he can disprove something that Darwin believed, he has disproved evolution."

Not at all. Actually, as I pointed out, much of what Darwin contributed was good when it comes to observations concerning microevolution. Further, as I also noted, Darwin himself recognized the huge gaping holes in his theory when it came time for proof from the fossil record, and those holes still remain 150 years later.

You can think all the wrong things about my position that you want to, alistair, but don't then pretend that you perfectly refuted my position.

And I'm still waiting for you to go POINT-BY-POINT through my posts. You can basically follow the lead of jay, who laid down the original ground work.

All you basically did, alistair, was link an article or two from the web. In fact, two of your posts were just cut-and-paste comments from the article, with no actual opinions from YOU. Again, I can refer you to Amazon.com if you like for several books to read, and then declare victory in the debate, but then I'd just be mimicing you.

24623. KuligintheHooligan - 10/3/2004 6:37:40 AM

I'll check back for your indepth analysis and comments concerning my original posts and the nine or so points that jay made in defense of evolutionary theory, alistair. And try this time to actually engage the specifics and not just hotlink the thoughts of others. I want to know precisely what YOU think, alistair.

I'm off later today through the Kalahari Desert over to Johannesburg for a conference.

24624. Bill Russell - 10/3/2004 7:22:55 AM

We should realize with our logical mind that religions were originally created to help mankind deal with the great fear of death and dying.

Once we understand this premise it is easier to move beyond irrational response to spirituality through fear and to move on.

24625. PelleNilsson - 10/3/2004 11:29:32 AM

And try this time to actually engage the specifics and not just hotlink the thoughts of others. I want to know precisely what YOU think, alistair.

That's rich coming from someone who so obviously echoes the thoughts of others on AIDS, homosexuality, evolution and politics in general, the difference being that he doesn't "hotlink" but keeps his sources under wraps.

24626. Bill Russell - 10/3/2004 12:52:15 PM

Huh?

24627. judithathome - 10/3/2004 1:53:22 PM

Pelle was commenting on Kuligin's debating style, Bill.

24628. Bill Russell - 10/3/2004 2:01:31 PM

Pelle should stop staying home and get out and smell the roses.

;^)

24629. jexster - 10/3/2004 2:40:49 PM

Moonies Keep Up Faith
Unification Church, looking to go from 'cult' to 'religion,' gets some of Bush's funding

24630. Bill Russell - 10/3/2004 2:59:36 PM

The main problem with the books of the New Testament:

They are a very unreliable source of information. Like all ancient texts they have, of course, been subject to a relentless process of editing, selection, translation and interpretation.

24631. Bill Russell - 10/3/2004 3:00:59 PM

By humankind, I might add.

Go figure!

24632. judithathome - 10/3/2004 3:02:29 PM

Oh, I thought you meant by aliens from another planet!

24633. alistairConnor - 10/3/2004 4:39:04 PM

Message # 24622 I have commented substantially in a number of posts about the "Cambrian explosion", and linked and quoted several supporting articles. Rather than engage discussion, Kuligin wastes considerable screen space in asserting, incorrectly, that I am not providing any material of my own.

In layman's terms, that's called "wimping out".

24634. alistairConnor - 10/3/2004 4:39:20 PM

Message # 24618 Ku,

"There is considerable ferment now within the field of taxonomy because of conflicting philosophies of classification, and different perceptions of which patterns in the history of life should be reflected in the taxonomic hierarchy."
If there is incredible debate as to exactly how to classify the organisms, there is obviously incredible debate as to how they supposedly evolved, one from the other.

If you had actually understood the article, Ku, rather than skimming it for keywords, you would have realised that it includes an excellent discussion of the question of taxonomy, and of why it becomes controversial in palaeontology, particularly in the Cambrian; and of how this does not undermine the principle of macro-evolution, but on the contrary, is an inevitable consequence of it.

Taxonomy of living organisms has been established over the last few centuries with reference to extant species. Examining and classifying the fossil record brings a whole range of challenges : frequently a fossil will exhibit a mix of characteristics of several extant organisms of different taxa, posing the problem of how to classify the fossil, which may well be a common ancestor.

In the Cambrian, this difficulty is particularly acute, because this was the period where various phyla diverged from common ancestors.

But it's a mere technical problem of classification, which in itself tells us nothing about evolution. If you have a continuum of colour from red to blue including all sorts of purples and mauves, and you are obliged to establish a dividing line between "red" and "blue", you are just introducing an arbitrary, though perhaps useful, distinction; you haven't made any statement about colour.

24635. pelty - 10/3/2004 4:56:04 PM

"They are a very unreliable source of information. Like all ancient texts they have, of course, been subject to a relentless process of editing, selection, translation and interpretation."

Please, Bill, tell us all about this. I am sure we will be bowled over by your depth of knowledge. Make your case.

24636. Bill Russell - 10/3/2004 10:19:02 PM

Like all ancient texts

24637. Bill Russell - 10/4/2004 1:42:09 AM

Go figure! Everyone else has.

hahahahahahaha

24638. Bill Russell - 10/4/2004 1:44:55 AM

Roman Catholic Church, looking to go from 'cult' to 'religion,' gets some of Bush's funding.

The JC of LDS Church (Mormon), looking to go from 'cult' to 'religion,' gets some of Bush's funding.

Uh huh,

Go figure!

24639. alistairconnor - 10/4/2004 6:09:43 AM

I'll just summarise the way in which I have refuted Kuligin's posts Message # 24559 to 24563 (The Fossil Record). I will not address Kuligin's other remarks relating to Jay's posts.

You obviously are aware of Gould and his theories, but they fly flat in the face of Darwin’s uniformity and gradual change over time theory.

Here we see the dangers of a populariser with a bee in his bonnet. Stephen Jay Gould is probably the only palaeontologist whose name is known to the general public; this fact doesn't make him authoritative with respect to his subject. His mystic thesis with respect to the Cambrian was contested at the time he formulated it, and is simply not sustainable with the weight of evidence accumulated since then.

When Kuligin writes :
Recall, in order to rid the world of a Creator, we need these smallish changes to occur over long periods of time. Darwin’s principle was that “nature does not make a leap” whereas “reason does make leaps.” The sudden appearance of nearly all modern biological phyla completely contradicts the expectations of Darwin’s theory. In other words, the facts disprove his theory.
...
Here is where I think macroevolutionary theory has erred: it has taken microevolution and made large leaps of logic. What the fossil record shows is variation around a basic set of designs, not accumulating improvements which allow us to move from a single celled organism to complex hominids.

he has been misled by Gould's misrepresentations :
[continues]

24640. alistairconnor - 10/4/2004 6:10:00 AM

Gould has selected, manipulated and misrepresented his facts
* decreeing unilaterally that a certain 5 million year period is when all the important stuff happened, but in practice attributing all the progress of 40 million years to this shorter period
* stating that in this period, the modern phyla suddenly appeared whereas only single-cell forms existed before then; this simply ignores the extensive and growing evidence of the Late Pre-Cambrian, which is in continuity with the Cambrian
* stating that all the major body forms emerged in this period. Well, no doubt various types of worms, jellyfish and molluscs existed at the end of the Cambrian which would be recognisable to us as such; but nothing that we would call an "animal" in common speech existed. No vertebrates (and no insects!). If the vertebrate body form, common to all the higher animals (including ourselves) is not a "major" body form, then we can say Gould is right.

Therefore, if Kuligin accepts that the Cambrian represents the period of divine intervention, and the rest is all micro-evolution, then that's a pretty major admission...

Back to the fossil record specifically, there are clearly gaps, huge gaping holes

The Cambrian being the principal one, it seems... but that "hole" is full of holes.

Another example : the "Missing Link"! Yes, it was held for decades that man could not have a common ancestor with the apes, because of the huge gaping holes in the fossil record. Nobody claims that any more. (Nobody who is informed and rational.)

By induction, we can have a reasonable expectation that any remaining "gaping holes" will find their explanations. And we are still waiting for traces of divine intervention in the fossil record.

Kuligin's fundamental problem is that he is defending a sandcastle, and the tide is coming in.

24641. pelty - 10/4/2004 8:52:12 AM

"Like all ancient texts"

This is the entirety of your argument? What is it, precisely, that you add to this forum other than an incessant commentary that utilizes the thinking of all other save yourself? I cannot be alone in finding it tiresome and without either a point or substance of any kind.

24642. RickNelson - 10/4/2004 10:12:24 AM

Look, I'll tell ya all again. God exists for me, because:

I have faith, which involves Jesus as Savior. That's as fundamental as I will get about it. Though I do pray.

The Bible has fallibility because it was edited by humans.

However, humans also forward evolution as the only possible answer to our existance.

That's mostly true with my exception. My exception is that God is the cause and creation of evolution and all the millenia that it has taken to evolve anything. It's built into the plan of a creator, which is also consistant with the concept of giving the organisms free will.

That is all.

Because my concept is faith based, it is irrefutable. Though I know how learned individuals without concern for what faith is for me, others or themselves will find this illogic without a base of fact.

Well, faith isn't about fact as much as heart combined with knowledge. That is very difficult to pass along to others in my opinion.

24643. Bill Russell - 10/4/2004 10:52:08 AM

Yep

24644. clydefo - 10/4/2004 7:41:18 PM

Congratulations RickNelson. It sounds as though your rational, educated mind is trying to make sense of your preoccupation with your own salvation. You've apparently come to realize that the Bible is worthless in seeking the truth about the God Hypothesis. You no doubt know that there is no reason to believe that any man who has ever lived can describe and define any but his God. If your God is going to grant you an afterlife, you'll know about very soon. Don't worry about it. By that I mean, recognize that Faith is a coping mechanism for anxiety. As back-up, give your life a purpose beyond the basics of survival and reproduction (though that's a lot), just in case God sees no point in granting immortality to any creature. Who knows, His time may also be limited.

24645. Jenerator - 10/4/2004 9:07:51 PM

Bill,

According to Dr. Kenyon (the Director and Head Librarian of the ancient manuscripts of the British Museum), the NT was more reliable than any other ancient work.

24646. Jenerator - 10/4/2004 9:12:29 PM

Bill,

Here's just one book of his that you may want to look at:

The Story of the Bible by Sir Frederic Kenyon.

24647. Jenerator - 10/4/2004 9:14:58 PM

Rick,

I just finished an excellent book that deals extensively with infallibility and inerrancy. I can send it to you, if you'd like. (It's really good!)

24648. Jenerator - 10/4/2004 9:17:40 PM

I highly recommend this one for anyone seriously intrestested in learning more about the scriptures and their importance.

24649. Bill Russell - 10/4/2004 10:26:17 PM

"According to Dr. Kenyon (the Director and Head Librarian of the ancient manuscripts of the British Museum), the NT was more reliable than any other ancient work."

Why is that impressive, Jen?

24650. SnowOwl - 10/5/2004 1:40:11 AM

It's actually a meaningless statement and I find it hard to believe that any scholar would make it.

Reliable in what way?

24651. Bill Russell - 10/5/2004 2:19:27 AM

" a meaningless statement "

Yep !! Consider the source.

24652. Bill Russell - 10/5/2004 2:20:43 AM

The source, meaning Jen.

24653. Jenerator - 10/5/2004 9:39:02 AM

SnowOwl,

Given that Kenyon's professional life centered around the rigorous study of ancient texts, I'd say that his claim that the NT (in its entirety) being more reliable in its claims and authenticity than any other ancient work, is pretty damned impressive. Kenyon's expertise (in addition to the NT) was Aristotle. Kenyon could and did boldly claim that the canon we have today is reliable in its content and authorship whereas any and all ancient texts were not so, especially Aristotle.

He was convinced that the NT stood alone when it came to its veracity, authorship and historical claims.

That's a bold statement to make, and because he was and is the leading expert of the 20th century on the ancient manuscripts, it's an important show of support.

24654. Jenerator - 10/5/2004 9:39:30 AM

Bill,

You're an idiot.

24655. Bill Russell - 10/5/2004 4:00:30 PM

Jen,

Here's just one book that you may want to look at:

The Story of the Bible by the authors of the various books of the Old and New Testaments.

Some even say it is:

"THE Word Of God".

24656. Bill Russell - 10/5/2004 4:02:57 PM

Jen,

I highly recommend THIS one for anyone seriously interested in learning more about the scriptures and their importance:

"The Holy Bible", even though it has been reinterpreted many, many times.

24657. Bill Russell - 10/5/2004 6:43:28 PM

Look, I'll tell y'all again. God does not exist for me, because:

I have reasoned that all gods are created in the image of man.

Man's fears cause him to want to believe in gods, so as to believe the death is not final.

"Someone to look after me."

24658. Bill Russell - 10/5/2004 6:57:42 PM

Godchecking

Godchecking is a fascinating task. There's no end to its cycles and circles.

When examining ancient myths, we often have to rely on hearsay, word of mouth and Chinese whispers...

In the beginning was The Word. Since then we've had words without end. They're wonderful things - but words can also be the most misplaced, misguided mish-mash of miscalculation known to mankind.

http://www.godchecker.com/gotw/012_holy_snail.php

24659. Bill Russell - 10/5/2004 6:59:37 PM

" Bill,

You're an idiot. "

From Jenerator, the 'CHRISTian'. It illustrates that Jen knows nothing about her chosen 'faith'.

24660. Bill Russell - 10/5/2004 7:30:26 PM

Johnny Panic And The Bible Of Dreams Lyrics

I dream of heaven
I dream of heaven
I dream of heaven, yeah

High time we made a stand and shook up the views of the common man

And the lovetrain rides from coast to coast
D.J.'s the man we love the most

Could you be, could you be squeaky clean
And smash any hope of democracry ?

As the headline says you're free to choose
There's egg on your face and mud on your shoes
One of these days they're gonna call it the blues

Johnny Panic

Johnny Panic And The Bible Of Dreams

I get excited by the news of today
What seems unstable may be able to stay

Johnny Panic

Johnny Panic and The Bible Of Dreams

I dream of heaven, yeah

I spy tears in their eyes
They look to the skies for some kind of divine intervention
Food goes to waste !

So nice to eat, so nice to taste
Politician Grannie with your high ideals
Have you no idea how the Majority feels ?

So without love and a promise land
We're fools to the rules of a Goverment plan

Kick out the style ! Bring back the jam !
Bring back the jam !

My flame is heart, My baby do as she please
What good is living, when you live in disease

Johnny Panic

Johnny Panic and The Bible Of Dreams

I dream of heaven, it's a heavenly place
Why fall in love? when you can fall from grace

With Johnny Panic

Johnny Panic and The Bible Of Dreams

I dream of heaven
I dream of heaven
I dream of heaven, yeah

24661. sakonige - 10/6/2004 11:36:31 PM

Given that Kenyon's professional life centered around the rigorous study of ancient texts, I'd say that his claim that the NT (in its entirety) being more reliable in its claims and authenticity than any other ancient work, is pretty damned impressive.

Agree. If the New Testament is as authentic as ancient texts get, I am both impressed and appalled.

One of the things I've argued with other American Indians about is the value of written language. A lot of American Indians scorn Cherokees for our reliance on writing because, they say, writing is a crutch that will tend to degrade the quality of the story. They say putting important history into writing risks distortion and contamination through allowing the physical media to fall into the wrong hands. The belief is that if you can't be trusted to memorize it and pass it on accurately, you don't deserve to know it. Many tribes are absolutely adamant about not allowing their most important myths and sacred formulas to be put in writing.

24662. sakonige - 10/6/2004 11:36:52 PM

Cherokees are an exception, since we have a writing system. We have a collection of several dozen sacred texts hand written in notebooks and leather bound volumes held by certain individuals in the tribe, as well as a collection of very old wampum belts made before European contact that are used to recall stories and rituals.

But our oral histories memorized and handed down within families from one person to another are often amazing in their depth. The images and metaphors get polished and refined as they pass through the minds of each story teller, but the essential elements are retained in uncanny detail. It is incredible how far back the memories go in some of the stories. There is a basic creation myth that recounts the adoption of corn agriculture thousands of years ago. Another story recalls the invention of stone weapons and the results of overhunting during the Pleistocene Epoch, and another describes the ancestors' journey by canoe to the western hemisphere.

24663. sakonige - 10/6/2004 11:37:08 PM

I suppose it really comes down to a matter of how much value a society places on telling the truth. Sophisticated, literate, modern societies don't place much value on that at all.

24664. Bill Russell - 10/7/2004 1:52:00 AM

"it really comes down to a matter of how much value a society places on telling the truth. Sophisticated, literate, modern societies don't place much value on that at all."

I agree completely..

24665. Bill Russell - 10/7/2004 1:54:12 AM

Our governments (of the people, by the people and for the people ???) lie constantly and Americans don't care. They keep putting the same liars back in office year after year.

24666. clydefo - 10/7/2004 10:54:00 AM

Interesting stuff, sakonige. I think it's worth pointing out that the American Indian stories can be verified by the plethora of artifacts. Corn grinding stones, tools, weapons, burial grounds, all reveal the truth.

Compare that to the Bible stories. Masses of Jews expelled from Egypt, the Jesus tale, his family, his disciples. Not a single piece of evidence for any of it. In spite of his world-wide notoriety, not a single pottery shard with his name on it. Not a single public record referring to any of them. Not a single shrine. Not mentioned by contemporaries. No existence except in the official fairy tale book.

24667. sakonige - 10/7/2004 11:32:09 AM

clydefo, You think the Jesus guy didn't even exist? I had always thought the stories were based on a real person, but that rumors about him were extremely embellished as a result of political manipulation over time.

24668. sakonige - 10/7/2004 11:38:00 AM

The details of our ancient stories seem to have been condensed rather than embellished. Entire tribes are condensed down to a single person. Hundreds or thousands of years of history becomes one man's lifetime. That's the way it is with the story of the adoption of corn agriculture. Two ancient tribes combine, a "woman" from the south that knows how to grow corn, and a "man" from the north that knows how to hunt game. They have a "child", and adopt another "child".

24669. clydefo - 10/7/2004 12:05:37 PM

saconige, real persons, especially celebrities like Jesus leave evidence of their existence. Someone would have written a song or a poem about him. Some local booster group would have erected a historical marker. Some family would have it's own passed-down story about an ancient ancestor who was a Jesus groupie, or who witnessed one of the miracles. Yes, zero hard evidence coupled with the fact that his story is a repetition of ancient myths leads me to conclude that the guy didn't exist.

Frankly, I'm puzzled at how any informed person can think otherwise.

24670. sakonige - 10/7/2004 12:10:32 PM

Well, I'm not informed on the issue. I rejected the Christian God concept, so I didn't bother to look very far into the details of the Jesus myths. I just guessed that to gather so much momentum, they must have been based on some real historical personage.

24671. clydefo - 10/7/2004 12:24:19 PM

The Christian momentum was generated on the rack and at sword point.

24672. pelty - 10/7/2004 12:34:11 PM

clydeof:

"saconige, real persons, especially celebrities like Jesus leave evidence of their existence. Someone would have written a song or a poem about him. Some local booster group would have erected a historical marker. Some family would have it's own passed-down story about an ancient ancestor who was a Jesus groupie, or who witnessed one of the miracles. Yes, zero hard evidence coupled with the fact that his story is a repetition of ancient myths leads me to conclude that the guy didn't exist."

Ummm, what do the gospels constitute other than the very type of record you suggest is laking? Take or leave their historicity, but this exactly the type of evidence you are looking for. Not to mention mentions of Jesus by Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius, etc. No serious scholar doubts the fact that Jesus existed.

"The Christian momentum was generated on the rack and at sword point."

I get the feeling that you mean the momentum was gained by Christians visiting violence on others. This may be true at some points in history, but this is certainly not the case in the early moments of the Christian movement.

24673. clydefo - 10/7/2004 1:00:39 PM

Make that "No serious [apologist] scholar doubts the fact that Jesus existed" and I'll agree.

24674. Bill Russell - 10/7/2004 1:25:35 PM

The only sources there are about Jesus have been edited, re-edited, translated, interpreted, forged and cheated by people of the church.

Much of what is written has been edited to fit the author's purposes.

It is said that history is written by the winner. For centuries the Christian religion was in power and, thus, the story told by the church is not trustworthy.

24675. Jenerator - 10/7/2004 1:33:02 PM

Clydefo,

Masses of Jews expelled from Egypt, the Jesus tale, his family, his disciples. Not a single piece of evidence for any of it. In spite of his world-wide notoriety, not a single pottery shard with his name on it. Not a single public record referring to any of them. Not a single shrine. Not mentioned by contemporaries. No existence except in the official fairy tale book.

Here are just a couple of websites I found in about two seconds.

1.) Historical Proofs of the Bible

"For example, until 1993 there was no proof of the existence of King David or even of Israel as a nation prior to Solomon. Then in 1993 archeologists found proof of King David's existence outside the Bible. At an ancient mound called Tel Dan, in the north of Israel, words carved into a chunk of basalt were translated as "House of David" and "King of Israel" proving that he was more than just a legend.
In 1990 Frank Yurco, an Egyptologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, used hieroglyphic clues from a monolith known as the Merneptah Stele to identify figures in a Luxor wall relief as ancient Israelites. The stele itself, dated to 1207 B.C. celebrates a military victory by the Pharaoh Merneptah. “Israel is laid waste” it reads. This lets us know the Israelites were a separate people more than 3,000 years ago.
So far no proof of the Exodus or wandering has been found. Some historians insist the Canaanites were a dying culture when the Israelites gradually moved in and took over their lands. None of this absence of proof serves as proof of absence as one new archeological find could change that in an instant.
Now let’s look at the era from Solomon to around 400 BC where the Old Testament ends. The Smithsonian Department of Anthropology has this to say about the Bible.

(Cont.)

24676. Jenerator - 10/7/2004 1:33:38 PM

“Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say that names of all peoples and places mentioned can be identified today, or that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated.”"

2.)Paran, Kaabah, Mt. Sinai

3.)Written evidence Outside of the Bible. I'll just quote from those Pelty mentioned.

a-)The Roman historian Tacitus
Tacitus was a Roman historian. His 'Annals', written about 115 AD, mention the emperor Nero's persecution of the followers of Christ in Rome in AD 64. This was the year of the great fire of Rome. There were suspicions that the emperor himself had started the fire. This is what Tacitus says (Annals 15:44):

(Cont.)

24677. Jenerator - 10/7/2004 1:34:07 PM

To dispel the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits, and treated with the most extreme punishments, some people, popularly known as Christians, whose disgraceful activities were notorious. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed when Tiberius was emperor, by order of the procurator Pontius Pilatus. But the deadly cult, though checked for a time, was now breaking out again not only in Judea, the birthplace of this evil, but even throughout Rome, where all the nasty and disgusting ideas from all over the world pour in and find a ready following.
Notice the following points from Tacitus:

Christ was executed while Tiberius was emperor (14-37 AD)
He was executed by order of Pontius Pilate (procurator from 26-36 AD)
His movement had its origins in Judea
There were enough followers of Christ in Rome by AD 64 to be made scapegoats by the emperor Nero

b-)The Roman governor Pliny the Younger
Pliny was the governor of the Roman province of Bithynia, in present-day Turkey. In about 112 AD, he wrote (in Epistles X.96) to the emperor Trajan, asking for advice on how to deal with the followers of Christ in his province, because he was executing so many of them. Pliny wrote:

They were in the habit of meeting before dawn on a fixed day. They would recite in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and would bind themselves by a solemn oath, not to do any criminal act, but rather that they would not commit any fraud, theft or adultery, nor betray any trust nor refuse to restore a deposit on demand. This done, they would disperse, and then they would meet again later to eat together (but the food was quite ordinary and harmless.)

(cont.)

24678. Jenerator - 10/7/2004 1:34:13 PM

Notice from what Pliny says that:

By the beginning of the second century, there was already a Christian community in Bithynia large enough to come to the attention of the Roman governor.
They worshipped Christ as a god.

c-)The Roman historian Suetonius
Suetonius was a Roman historian and an official under the emperor Hadrian. In his 'Life of Claudius', he says (25:4):

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [= Christ?], he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome.
This expulsion took place in AD 49, and is identified with the event described by Luke in Acts chapter 18 verse 2.

Then, in his 'Lives of the Caesars', Suetonius says (26:2) of the fire of Rome in AD 64, that:

Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.
Although Suetonius does not provide direct historical evidence for Christ, he does provide evidence for the existence of a significant Christian community in the capital of the empire by the 60s AD (i.e. just after the end of the book of Acts). He also provides possible evidence for the existence of a Christian community there as early as AD 49."

End.

24679. Bill Russell - 10/7/2004 1:35:45 PM

History is written by the winner.

For centuries the Christian religion was in power and, thus, the story told by the church is not trustworthy.

24680. Jenerator - 10/7/2004 1:38:24 PM

Bill,

You're an idiot.

24681. pelty - 10/7/2004 1:59:16 PM

Make that "No serious [apologist] scholar doubts the fact that Jesus existed" and I'll agree.

You'll also be wrong. The original statement is correct.

24682. clydefo - 10/7/2004 2:20:00 PM

"Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius..."
None of these was a contemporary of Jesus. To the extent that their few references to Jesus or Christianity are not outright forgeries, which they probably are, they are only at best a reference to the beliefs of Christians living many decades after the "fact".

The Gospels may well be seen as some sort of oral tradition that got written down but they only reinforce the Pagan mythology, not the clumsy adaptation to Christianity.

The Bible certainly contains historical details, but so does a novel. Richard Freidman claims that the Old Testament is in fact the first novel, or history, depending on POV.
The Hidden Book In The Bible

24683. Jenerator - 10/7/2004 3:22:44 PM

clydefo,

I don't understand your extreme cynicism. Would you like to discuss in great detail the canonization process?

24684. clydefo - 10/7/2004 3:41:02 PM

Jenerator, it's skepticism, not cynicism. I save that for politics. I don't know much about canonization. What's it take now, two miracles? My impression is that they use canonization either to exploit their true heroes or to cover up for their rogues, like Hitler's Pope, Pius XII, or their frauds, like Mother Teresa. Is there more to it than that?

24685. Jenerator - 10/7/2004 3:42:25 PM

Yes, there's more to it than that.

24686. clydefo - 10/7/2004 3:45:15 PM

Do tell.

24687. Jenerator - 10/7/2004 3:47:47 PM

Sakonige,

One of the things I've argued with other American Indians about is the value of written language. A lot of American Indians scorn Cherokees for our reliance on writing because, they say, writing is a crutch that will tend to degrade the quality of the story. They say putting important history into writing risks distortion and contamination through allowing the physical media to fall into the wrong hands. The belief is that if you can't be trusted to memorize it and pass it on accurately, you don't deserve to know it. Many tribes are absolutely adamant about not allowing their most important myths and sacred formulas to be put in writing.

That is very interesting. What is your opinion about recording oral tradition?

24688. Jenerator - 10/7/2004 3:51:27 PM

I suppose it really comes down to a matter of how much value a society places on telling the truth. Sophisticated, literate, modern societies don't place much value on that at all.

I don't think it's that they don't value truth, I just think that they are incapable of accepting and/or knowing truth. Most people are still in the mindset (of the Enlightenment) that places human reasoning above anything else. Bluntly speaking, we have established ourselves as the divine and the arbiter of truth despite every evidence that we're incapable of being and doing so.

24689. Jenerator - 10/7/2004 3:53:35 PM

Clyde,

Where would you like to start? Is there a specific that you want to discuss - do you want to discuss how the NT came to be, the OT?

24690. SnowOwl - 10/7/2004 4:33:32 PM

Clydefo,

know much about canonization. What's it take now, two miracles? My impression is that they use canonization either to exploit their true heroes or to cover up for their rogues, like Hitler's Pope, Pius XII, or their frauds, like Mother Teresa. Is there more to it than that?

Jenerator was talking about the bringing together of the material which forms the Bible, not the canonisation of saints.

24691. clydefo - 10/7/2004 4:38:59 PM

It looks like it's already started. What is the purpose of canonization, as you see it?

24692. sakonige - 10/7/2004 4:53:57 PM

What is your opinion about recording oral tradition?

At one time, I would have said it is essential to the preservation of the culture. But I have come to understand why some others disagree. Now I feel that the most important rituals of the Cherokee people should be recorded in the Cherokee language only and carefully guarded, so that only culturally integrated Cherokees have access to them. The information is too important to the tribe to risk its being distorted by falling into the wrong hands. (We've already been through that process with 19th century ethnographer James Mooney misrepresenting a bunch of stuff, exposing us to hoards of charlatans and leaving generations of Cherokees out of touch with their true heritage.)

24693. sakonige - 10/7/2004 4:58:13 PM

The Lakotas are having the same kind of problem with their Sun Dance rituals. They never wrote their rituals down, but they taught them to non-Lakotas who did, and now they seriously regret it. They are swamped with frauds.

24694. clydefo - 10/7/2004 5:16:07 PM

Oh, canonization. No thanks, that all seems to be just another dreary example of human fraud and self-serving disingenuous in repackaging the Pagan myths.

24695. Bill Russell - 10/7/2004 11:02:03 PM

For centuries the Christian religion was in power and, thus, the story told by the church is not trustworthy.

24696. Bill Russell - 10/7/2004 11:54:57 PM

Jenerator - 10/7/2004 7:38:24 PM

"Bill,

You're an idiot."

Christian = Uncivilized

24697. Jenerator - 10/8/2004 11:57:34 AM

that all seems to be just another dreary example of human fraud and self-serving disingenuous in repackaging the Pagan myths

And you base this on what, exactly? Your own personal experiences perhaps? Why not dive into some rigorous study on the matter that will illuminate you on the subject.

Maybe we should discuss the role of the OT scribe, or maybe we should begin with the NT Manuscripts?

24698. angel-five - 10/8/2004 12:10:05 PM

Maybe we should discuss the role of the OT scribe, or maybe we should begin with the NT Manuscripts?

By all means. This ought to be good.

24699. clydefo - 10/8/2004 1:53:34 PM

"Why not dive into some rigorous study on the matter..."

As Johnny Carson would have put it, "that would be my second-favorite thing, right after diving naked into active volcanoes."

24700. pelty - 10/8/2004 3:41:03 PM

"As Johnny Carson would have put it, 'that would be my second-favorite thing, right after diving naked into active volcanoes.'"

Then why listen to anything you have to say on the matter? You freely admit you essentially know nothing about the topic other than what you can cut and paste, so why should I spend my time sifting through your posts? Seems like a waste of time, any way you look at it...

24701. PelleNilsson - 10/8/2004 3:52:06 PM

I would agree to that, pelty. clyde starts out by disqualifying himself from any serious discussion.

24702. Jenerator - 10/8/2004 4:04:54 PM

Are clydefo and Bill Russell the same person? Both have remarkable similarities.

24703. angel-five - 10/8/2004 4:08:28 PM

If rigorous study were the only way to derive useful knowledge from a religion, Pelty, by definition that religion would be wholly useless to the laity.

Is it your position that Christianity is one of those religions?

24704. Jenerator - 10/8/2004 4:11:51 PM

The more rigorous one studies, the more knowledge one obtains.

24705. Jenerator - 10/8/2004 4:12:05 PM

rigorously

24706. thoughtful - 10/8/2004 4:27:59 PM

I don't understand people who believe that god won't hand you more than you can handle. I mean if god is the embodiment of all things, including love, truth and beauty, doesn't that also include cruelty, hatred, pettiness, sadistic behavior, even murder? Further, considering the suicide rate, many have clearly been handed more than they can handle.

Nope, don't understand it.

24707. angel-five - 10/8/2004 4:28:23 PM

It was more apropos without the correction.

24708. clydefo - 10/8/2004 4:37:18 PM

pelty, you should certainly spend your time any way you wish. I've never suggested you do otherwise. As you point out, I don't claim to be Biblical scholar. My simplistic comments, questions and linked articles are offered on a take it or leave it basis. But I am struck at how often the Biblically well-versed either avoid my points or offer sophistry or apologist mumbo-jumbo as a response. My notions should be easy to shoot down if your arguments are as strong as you seem to think they are. For example, on the question of a historical Jesus, you offer disputed quotes from Tacitus and other non-contemporaries as evidence. Honestly now, as an informed person on the subject, haven't you ever wondered why it is that such an acclaimed miracle-worker who came to such a spectacular end, witnessed by multitudes, is not mentioned a single time by any contemporary poet, commentator, historian or witness? No public records. Ditto for his parents and his disciples. I think that's odd as hell for such a prestigious entourage.

24709. clydefo - 10/8/2004 4:41:24 PM

"Are clydefo and Bill Russell the same person? Both have remarkable similarities."

Nope!

24710. sakonige - 10/8/2004 4:50:51 PM

Christianity is boring. It's a ridiculous belief system, and it's way overexposed, to the point of tedium. There has got to be more to religion and philosophy than Christianity.

24711. angel-five - 10/8/2004 4:56:25 PM

Well, you could ask Jenerator, who has rigorous studied them. According to her that's what we'd be discussing at this time anyway, as she boldly prophesied that within a month or so of her leaving as thread host, this place would be a nest of Christ hate and new agery.

But people here will talk about what they want to talk about, and folks like talking about the religion that dominates America a fair bit. It's a marketplace of ideas. You, of course, are welcome to raise other topics.

24712. Jenerator - 10/8/2004 4:58:56 PM

A5,

My prophesy was and is true. If you look back in this thread, you'll see that it has been dominated by spam and meaningless criticisms of God or of Christianity.

This thread is as deep as your personality.

24713. Bill Russell - 10/8/2004 5:47:40 PM

"meaningless criticisms of God or of Christianity."

Howzat?

24714. Bill Russell - 10/8/2004 5:49:08 PM

This thread is as shallow as Jenerator's version of Christianity is shallow.

24715. Bill Russell - 10/8/2004 5:50:20 PM

We need to remember:

There are thousands of versions of Christianity. Which is correct, if any?

24716. Bill Russell - 10/8/2004 5:51:38 PM

"The more rigorous one studies, the more knowledge one obtains." - Jenerator

Duh

24717. Bill Russell - 10/8/2004 5:53:27 PM

"My prophesy was and is true." - Jenerator

Jen may be a prophet, but he/she is no Christian.

24718. pelty - 10/8/2004 6:01:35 PM

"Honestly now, as an informed person on the subject, haven't you ever wondered why it is that such an acclaimed miracle-worker who came to such a spectacular end, witnessed by multitudes, is not mentioned a single time by any contemporary poet, commentator, historian or witness?"

Again, what do you call the gospels? You may certainly claim that they were manipulated, mythologized, etc., but there are few who would not buy into some basic facts about Jesus (of which I list only a few and that are gathered primarily [but not completely] from the gospels): 1) he was a wandering (apocalyptic) preacher who gathered disciples to him; 2) he was considered by many to have the ability to heal (be it by miracle, magic, or some psychological means); 3) he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; 4)his followers believed that he returned from the dead. At least one of the gospels claims to have gathered info from sources, some of which were eyewitnesses. If this is true, then you have contemporary reports. In any event, the gospels are almost certainly based in part on oral tradition surrounding the figure of Jesus of Nazareth, so that takes you very close to a contemporary account about Jesus. Again, this says nothing about the truth of the account, etc., but it is difficult to claim that we do not have witnesses that are nearly contemporary/contemporary to Jesus.

24719. pelty - 10/8/2004 6:01:43 PM

Also, perhaps you would do well to define what you mean as contemporary. Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum is likely some 60 years after the events reported; this is pretty dang rapid for this period. In fact, I challenge you to find a contemporary accounting of events for any significant figure or event of this period; I guess Caesar's Gallic Wars and Josephus' Jewish War may fit the bill, but contemporary accounts of historic personnages are tougher to find. There may be a few, but none leap into my mind at this moment. A the Great? Nope. Apollonius of Tyana? Nope. Augustus? Well, we have the Res Gestae, but that is more a list of deeds than a description of the man. Still, I s'pose that is something. Anyhow, let me know how it goes...

24720. clydefo - 10/8/2004 6:58:12 PM

"...contemporary accounts of historic personnages are tougher to find."

Isn't this true because the early Christians destroyed all the ancient writings they could locate since their silence about Jesus would expose the fraud?

Caesar, Alexander et al, are known through much more than just contemporary accounts. There are statues, coins, pottery, frescoes, shrines,etc. But nothing like that for the Jesus Bunch.

24721. angel-five - 10/8/2004 7:58:15 PM

My prophesy was and is true. If you look back in this thread,

If I look back, Jenerator, I see that your prophesy was that there would be no 'Christians' posting here because they would have been driven out. Tell me about how that one's true, despite your efforts.

In addition I hope you prophesied with your head covered. If you didn't, you're Hell bound.

24722. pelty - 10/9/2004 9:47:24 AM

"Isn't this true because the early Christians destroyed all the ancient writings they could locate since their silence about Jesus would expose the fraud?"

Where on earth are you getting your information? Were some specifically religious documents deemed "heretical" destroyed? Yes, but these are documents that, from what I can tell, you would not call "contemporary." But did they seek to destroy all writings of that period? Not at all. In fact, they often attempted to demonstrate how certain philosophers were pointing towards the advent of Jesus, etc. And why would they want to destroy historical accounts of a benign nature? What's to gain? Your problem is that you have a warped view of the popularity/size of the Jesus movement (a movement in one of the backwaters of Rome). It had little impact on the greater world. Further, wonder-workers, while maybe not a dime-a-dozen, were also not something out of the ordinary, so to think that all eyes should have been focused on tiny Galilee and the extraordinary events occurring there shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the ancient world.

24723. clydefo - 10/9/2004 2:37:05 PM

I assume that heretical documents included anything that referred to the ancient God-man myths. My impression is that there was wholesale pillage in eradicating anything Pagan.

My "warped view of the popularity/size of the Jesus movement" comes from the Bible. It claims that he was acclaimed and celebrated by multitudes as he made his triumphal entrances, performed his miracles and was executed in full spectacle. Even if he was just a big fish in a small pond, multitudes draw the souvenir and trinket hawkers, they litter. They leave artifacts.

"Further, wonder-workers, while maybe not a dime-a-dozen, were also not something out of the ordinary, so to think that all eyes should have been focused on tiny Galilee and the extraordinary events occurring there shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the ancient world."

If the world was, as you suggest, aware of the "extraordinary events" in Galilee but indifferent to another "wonder-worker", doesn't that suggest that they had been hearing the same old Hours Myth for thousands of years? I notice that you did not put quotes around "wonder-workers". Are you saying that they actually existed and, along with Jesus, were performing supernatural acts that were seen as routine?

24724. SnowOwl - 10/10/2004 1:32:46 AM

There's been an interesting find in the Congo. A new giant ape's been discovered.

Giant ape

The animals, with characteristics of both gorillas and chimpanzees, have been sighted in the north of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

They stand up to two metres tall, the size of gorillas, but unlike gorillas, they nest on the ground, not in trees.

If they are a new species of primate, it could be one of the most important wildlife discoveries in decades.

I'm posting it here, because if it is a new species it fits in nicely with the discussion on evolution.

24725. Bill Russell - 10/10/2004 2:25:39 AM

"Maybe we should discuss the role of the OT scribe, or maybe we should begin with the NT Manuscripts?" .... Jen

Let your games begin, Jenerator.

hahahahahahahaha

24726. Bill Russell - 10/10/2004 2:27:16 AM

"Maybe we should discuss the role of the OT scribe, or maybe we should begin with the NT Manuscripts?" .... Jen

Let your games begin, Jenerator.

hahahahahahahaha

24727. Bill Russell - 10/10/2004 2:27:48 AM

"Maybe we should discuss the role of the OT scribe, or maybe we should begin with the NT Manuscripts?" .... Jen

Let your games begin, Jenerator.

hahahahahahahaha

24728. Bill Russell - 10/10/2004 4:38:59 AM

A great war leaves the country with three armies - an army of cripples, an army of mourners, and an army of thieves.

- German proverb

24729. clydefo - 10/10/2004 2:16:09 PM

In his book, The Whole Shebang, Timothy Ferris tells the story of "...a theologian who is asked by an old friend, "do you believe in God?"
The theologian replies, "I can answer you, but I promise that you won't understand my answer. Do you want me to go ahead?"
"Sure."
"OK, the answer is 'yes,' "

24730. Bill Russell - 10/10/2004 4:03:06 PM

"I promise that you won't understand my answer."

Yup

24731. pelty - 10/10/2004 4:07:07 PM

"If the world was, as you suggest, aware of the "extraordinary events" in Galilee but indifferent to another "wonder-worker", doesn't that suggest that they had been hearing the same old Hours Myth for thousands of years?

Not at all. Please, describe for us all the "Hours [sic myth" as you understand it...in detail.

I notice that you did not put quotes around "wonder-workers". Are you saying that they actually existed and, along with Jesus, were performing supernatural acts that were seen as routine?"

It doesn't matter what I think; the question is, what did people of that period have to say about it? I will anxiously await your response...

24732. clydefo - 10/10/2004 5:41:40 PM

Horus. Ancient Egyptian God-man. Virgin birth on Winter Solstice. Come to save Mankind. Performed miracles, 12 disciples, executed by crucifixion and resurrected after 3 days. The many similarities are charted at this site.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

Your premise is that the alleged extrodinary events in Gallilee would get no special attention because similar stories about other "wonder-workers" were prevalent enough that they were "not something out of the ordinary".

If you are correct, it seems to me that there are only two explanations for their indifference:
1. They dismissed the stories as variations on mythical "urban legends" which they had heard many times before.
2. They accepted the Gallilean events as true supernatural occurances because they were familiar with the miracles of their own local boys. If this were true, would not the locals have been elevated to God status and worshipped? Since you point out that they were "maybe not a dime-a-dozen", it doesn't sound like they were much revered.

"...the question is, what did people of that period have to say about it?"

Indeed. Apparently not much. I haven't found anything so far; have you? I maintain that they said nothing because there was nothing.

24733. wabbit - 10/10/2004 5:48:42 PM

RIP Jacques Derrida ... NYT ... Washington Post ... LAT ... Reuters ... BBC ... Le Monde ... Telegraph

24734. pelty - 10/10/2004 7:49:43 PM

""...the question is, what did people of that period have to say about it?"

Indeed. Apparently not much. I haven't found anything so far; have you? I maintain that they said nothing because there was nothing."

Because you are, frankly, unlearned on the subject and appear to have no interest in studying further. There are, of course, numerous accounts of wonder workers in materials from antiquity and are thought of as such by our predecessors.

Still awaiting a description of the Horus cult. The laughable, unsubstantiated website with no references from primary documents is worthless tripe. Looking forward to something substantive...

24735. angel-five - 10/10/2004 8:06:54 PM

The laughable, unsubstantiated website with no references from primary documents is worthless tripe. Looking forward to something substantive...

Not to step between you two, but the religioustolerance.org site is used by a great many people and isn't exactly some sort of wingnut place that ought to be dismissed out of hand. If you don't like some specific article on it, that's fine, but own up to it instead of just airily suggesting it sucks.

24736. angel-five - 10/10/2004 8:11:08 PM

On the other side of the coin, yes, accounts of people with supernatural powers aren't exactly rare from that point in time.

One of the most interesting ones, not to mention germane to the topic, is the account of the teacher of righteousness in the Qumran scrolls. Clydefo doesn't seem interested in arguing specific bits but if he/she were so inclined, that would be a nice place to start, and a strong argument to make.

24737. pelty - 10/10/2004 8:24:55 PM

"Not to step between you two, but the religioustolerance.org site is used by a great many people and isn't exactly some sort of wingnut place that ought to be dismissed out of hand. If you don't like some specific article on it, that's fine, but own up to it instead of just airily suggesting it sucks."

When it makes tons of claims without backing them up via any primary source, then I will dismiss it as being rather useless to our discussion, just as someone on the other side of the equation might dismiss something from a site apologetically inclined.

Further, I would ask clyde where the evidence is in the ancient sources (3rd BCE-4th CE for a range) that discuss this so-called Horus myth. Plutarch may be a nice place to start given his discussion of Isis and Osiris, but the reality is that this myth found in this work looks nothing like the Jesus story as recorded in the gospels, canonical or otherwise.

24738. pelty - 10/10/2004 8:25:04 PM

"One of the most interesting ones, not to mention germane to the topic, is the account of the teacher of righteousness in the Qumran scrolls."

I would be interested in seeing which works you think demonstrate the ToR as a wonder worker. I would love to see that, to be honest, but I must admit that it is not a view I have come across. That is surprising given how if he was a wonder-worker, it would have been siezed upon by scholarship to demonstrate a possible link btwn Jesus and Qumran (a link that is made by some, but this evidence would help that claim). Would you mind pointing out some fragments, A-5? This is not to say that we do not find exorcistic hymns, some astrological fragments, etc. amongst the scrolls, but the ToR as wonder-worker is one I have not seen bandied about too much.

"Clydefo doesn't seem interested in arguing specific bits but if he/she were so inclined, that would be a nice place to start, and a strong argument to make."

An argument for what? There is no question that wonder-workers were a staple of the ancient world. He will be arguing w/ himself...

24739. angel-five - 10/10/2004 9:14:52 PM

Further, I would ask clyde where the evidence is in the ancient sources (3rd BCE-4th CE for a range) that discuss this so-called Horus myth. Plutarch may be a nice place to start given his discussion of Isis and Osiris, but the reality is that this myth found in this work looks nothing like the Jesus story as recorded in the gospels, canonical or otherwise.

It's a bit cheap to stand on a desire for hard copy on two thousand year old lost cults, and suggests you're less interested in discussion and more interested in shutting down an argument. I'm sure you'll pretend otherwise.

I would be interested in seeing which works you think demonstrate the ToR as a wonder worker. I would love to see that, to be honest, but I must admit that it is not a view I have come across. That is surprising given how if he was a wonder-worker, it would have been siezed upon by scholarship to demonstrate a possible link btwn Jesus and Qumran (a link that is made by some, but this evidence would help that claim).

Well, if you are surprised by the notion, perhaps you could revisit your knowledge of those who link the Christian notion of Jesus to the teacher of righteousness and Qumran. That might be a good place to start, and wouldn't involve any effort on my part.

24740. angel-five - 10/10/2004 9:32:12 PM

When it makes tons of claims without backing them up via any primary source, then I will dismiss it as being rather useless to our discussion,

FWIW that's not what you did, either. The post is right there if you need your memory jogged.

24741. angel-five - 10/10/2004 9:47:09 PM

Anyway, I'm not sure where this all is intended to lead. If Jesus were simply one of many wonder-workers, as we both understand, then it calls several things into question -- like, what made Jesus special, then? If other people could work miracles of an equal magnitude at that time, well, Jesus's miraculous workings are the main thing which are used to lend credence to the belief that he wasn't just a man.

And if Jesus's miracle working, on the other hand, was of a greater magnitude than the efforts of other contemporaries, then the original question still stands as to why more people didn't pay attention to it.

Of course, these questions are neither idle nor do they exist in a vacuum. They are part of the suspicion that the miraculous, cosmic and divine parts of the Jesus mythology were added ex post facto as the Jesus movements gave way to more complex envisionings. A common variant of this suspicion, one that you're acquainted with no doubt, is that Jesus was a Jewish Cynic and an itinerant teacher of wisdom, who was transformed well after his death into a cosmic lord of creation -- the Word made flesh, as it were, who was sacrificed for our sins in the name of a new covenant or what have you.

Such suspicions aren't very well refuted by your insistence on primary sources, for as you mention the Church went out of its way to destroy heretical documents and this point of view would certainly be one of those. Of course, as you'd also be quick to point out no doubt, the fact that the Church burned such works isn't proof that they existed! But it does severely damage the validity of any claims which insist that valuable points of view on alternative envisionings of Christ must come complete with a papyrus pedigree.

24742. sakonige - 10/10/2004 10:26:08 PM

what made Jesus special?

Same thing that makes most historical figures special. Pure chance.

24743. sakonige - 10/10/2004 10:28:31 PM

I always think of that fucking Columbus, especially this time of year. If he had died, if the natives had just killed him and his whole crew instead of helping them....if it had taken another 50 years for the next attempt to invade. We would have been ready.

24744. pelty - 10/10/2004 10:36:31 PM

"It's a bit cheap to stand on a desire for hard copy on two thousand year old lost cults, and suggests you're less interested in discussion and more interested in shutting down an argument. I'm sure you'll pretend otherwise."

But it isn't lost, acc. to clyde. This thing was all ubiquitous, so it should be easy to find. kinda funny that Celsus didn't make use of such an obvious argument.

24745. pelty - 10/10/2004 10:40:29 PM

"Well, if you are surprised by the notion, perhaps you could revisit your knowledge of those who link the Christian notion of Jesus to the teacher of righteousness and Qumran. That might be a good place to start, and wouldn't involve any effort on my part."

Actually, no it would not. Usually, connections are made because of ritual similarities and certain affinities for eschatological scenarios. Per usual, you want to make this into an argument whereas I am sincerely interested in seeing what type of info you have on the topic. It might well be useful to me, but no, let us by all means bicker about it. Such a great use of time. I will ask this outright. Do you have info on the ToR as a wonder-worker from a reputable source? If so, I would really like to see something on that. You have my gratitude.

24746. pelty - 10/10/2004 10:48:22 PM

"Such suspicions aren't very well refuted by your insistence on primary sources, for as you mention the Church went out of its way to destroy heretical documents and this point of view would certainly be one of those. Of course, as you'd also be quick to point out no doubt, the fact that the Church burned such works isn't proof that they existed! But it does severely damage the validity of any claims which insist that valuable points of view on alternative envisionings of Christ must come complete with a papyrus pedigree."

Yes, but I was not asking for something general, but rather something specific. Clyde links to a site that makes all types of claims about the supposed similarities btwn Horus and Jesus. I do not think it is too much to ask that I see some of the source material for these comparisons. Maybe the author of the secondary material cites the primary sources, but I have no way of knowing that.

24747. pelty - 10/10/2004 10:52:01 PM

Another take on Harpur's book by a reviewer at Amazon who has done some homework of his own...

Tom Harpur began his career as an (evangelical) Anglican priest and professor of New Testament at Wycliffe College, Toronto. Just over 30 years ago, he moved from academia into journalism. Today, he is perhaps the leading religion writer in Canada.

"The Pagan Christ" is the story of his discovery of the writings of one Alvin Boyd Kuhn (1880-1963) and two earlier writers (Godfrey Higgins [1771-1834] and Gerald Massey [1828-1907]), who argued that all of the essential ideas of both Judaism and Christianity came primarily from Egyptian religion.
Toward the end of the third Christian century, the leaders of the church began to misinterpret the Bible. Prior to this, no one ever understood the Bible to be literally true. Earlier, in keeping with all other religions, the narrative material of the Hebrew and Greek Bible was interpreted as myth or symbol, read as allegory and metaphor rather than as history.

24748. pelty - 10/10/2004 10:52:35 PM

According to Harpur, there is no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth ever lived. He claims that virtually all of the details of the life and teachings of Jesus have their counterpart in Egyptian religious ideas. He does not quote any contemporary Egyptologist or recognized academic authority on world religions nor appeal to any of the standard reference books in Egyptology or to any primary sources. Rather, he is entirely dependent on the work of Kuhn (and Higgins & Massey).

Who is Alvin Boyd Kuhn? He is given the title `Egyptologist' and is regarded by Harpur as "one of the single greatest geniuses of the twentieth century" [who] "towers above all others of recent memory in intellect and his understanding of the world's religious."

As it turns out, Kuhn was a high school language teacher who was an enthusiastic proponent of Theosophy, a prodigious author and lecturer, who self-published most of his books.

24749. pelty - 10/10/2004 10:52:53 PM

Not being myself an expert in Egyptian religion, I consulted those who are about their views of contribution that Kuhn, Higgins and Massey have made to Egyptology and whether they thought some of the key ideas of "The Pagan Christ" well grounded. So I sent an email to twenty of the leading Egyptologists - in Canada, USA, UK, Australia, Germany, and Austria.

I noted as a sample the following claims put forth by Kuhn (and hence Harpur):

That the name of Jesus was derived from the Egyptian "Iusa," which means "the coming divine Son who heals or saves".

That the god Horus is "an Egyptian Christos, or Christ.... He and his mother, Isis, were the forerunners of the Christian Madonna and Child, and together they constituted a leading image in Egyptian religion for millennia prior to the Gospels."

24750. pelty - 10/10/2004 10:53:09 PM

That Horus also "had a virgin birth, and that in one of his roles, he was 'a fisher of men with twelve followers.'"

That "the letters KRST appear on Egyptian mummy coffins many centuries BCE, and ... this word, when the vowels are filled in., is really Karast or Krist, signifying Christ."

That the doctrine of the incarnation "is in fact the oldest, most universal mythos known to religion. It was current in the Osirian religion in Egypt at least four thousand years BCE"

Only one of the ten experts who responded to my questions had ever heard of Kuhn, Higgins or Massey!

Professor Kenneth A. Kitchen of the University of Liverpool pointed out that not one of these men is mentioned in M. L. Bierbrier's "Who Was Who in Egyptology" (3rd ed, 1995), nor is any of their works listed in Ida B. Pratt's very extensive bibliography on Ancient Egypt (1925/1942).

Another distinguished Egyptologist wrote: "Egyptology has the unenviable distinction of being one of those disciplines that almost anyone can lay claim to, and the unfortunate distinction of being probably the one most beleaguered by false prophets. He goes on to refer to Kuhn's "fringe nonsense."

24751. pelty - 10/10/2004 10:53:24 PM

The responding scholars were unanimous in dismissing the suggested etymologies for Jesus and Christ.

Ron Leprohan, Professor of Egyptology at the University of Toronto, pointed out that while "sa" means "son" in ancient Egyptian and "iu" means `to come," but Kuhn/Harpur have the syntax all wrong. In any event, the name `Iusa' simply does not exist in Egyptian.

The name `Jesus' is Greek from a universally recognized west Semitic name ("Jeshu'a"), born not merely by the central figure in the New Testament but also by many other people in the first century.

While all recognize that the image of the baby Horus and Isis has influenced the Christian iconography of Madonna and Child, this is where the similarity stops. There is no evidence for the idea that Horus was virgin born.

There is no evidence for the idea that Horus was `a fisher of men' or that his followers (the King's officials were called `Followers of Horus") were ever twelve in number.

KRST is the word for "burial" ("coffin" is written "KRSW"), but there is no evidence whatsoever to link this with the Greek title "Christos" or Hebrew "Mashiah".

There is no mention of Osiris in Egyptian texts until about 2350 BC, so Harpur's reference to the origins of Osirian religion is off by more than a millennium and a half. (Elsewhere Harpur refers to "Jesus in Egyptian lore as early as 18,000 BCE" and he quotes Kuhn as claiming that "the Jesus who stands as the founder of Christianity was at least 10,000 years of age." In fact, the earliest extant writing that we have dates from about 3200 BCE.)

24752. pelty - 10/10/2004 10:53:32 PM

Kuhn/Harper's redefinition of "incarnation" and rooting this in Egyptian religion is regarded as bogus by all of the Egyptologists with whom I have consulted. According to one: "Only the pharaoh was believed to have a divine aspect, the divine power of kingship, incarnated in the human being currently serving as the king. No other Egyptians ever believed they possessed even `a little bit of the divine'."

Virtually none of the alleged evidence for the views put forward in "The Pagan Christ" is documented by reference to original sources. The notes refer mainly to Kuhn, Higgins, Massey, or some other long-out-of-date work.

Furthermore, Harpur's notes abound with errors and omissions. If you look for supporting evidence for a particular point made by the author, it is not there. Many quotations are taken out of context and interpreted in a very different sense from what their author originally meant (especially the early church fathers).

In short, "The Pagan Christ" tells us more about Tom Harpur's spiritual pilgrimage than about the origins of Christianity.

24753. pelty - 10/10/2004 10:57:28 PM

Granted, one man's opinion, but it shows that there are two sides to the story surrounding this book and that, until we all give it a read, it should not be used as show-stopping evidence for the "Horus" myth.

24754. clydefo - 10/10/2004 11:08:29 PM

"There are, of course, numerous accounts of wonder workers in materials from antiquity and are thought of as such by our predecessors." 24734. pelty

Might you name a few of these "wonder workers"? What is a "wonder worker" anyway?

Justim Martyr knew about the ancient myths. In his Dialogue With Thypho the Jew at Chapter LXIX explains that Satan had planted the ancient myths in the past so as to create mischief. To wit:

"Be well assured, then, Trypho," I continued, "that I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah's days. For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by[Jupiter's] intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine(3) into his mysteries, do I not perceive that[the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? And when they tell that Hercules was strong, and travelled over all the world, and was begotten by Jove of Alcmene, and ascended to heaven when he died, do I not perceive that the Scripture which speaks of Christ, 'strong as a giant to run his race,'(4) has been in like manner imitated? And when he[the devil] brings forward Æsculapius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ?...

http://www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-01/just/justintrypho.html#Section69

24755. clydefo - 10/10/2004 11:29:36 PM

Clyde links to a site that makes all types of claims about the supposed similarities btwn Horus and Jesus. I do not think it is too much to ask that I see some of the source material for these comparisons. Maybe the author of the secondary material cites the primary sources, but I have no way of knowing that. 24746. pelty

Tab down to the bottom of the page.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

24756. pelty - 10/10/2004 11:32:15 PM

"And when he[the devil] brings forward Æsculapius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ?..."

This type of thing does not prove your point nor disprove mine. It simply says that there were other cults that had portions of their myth that have similarities with the Jesus tradition. You then make a wild leap and state that because such myths existed, the followers of Jesus grabbed ahold of those elements of the extant myths that they liked the best and made up a story about Jesus. Possible? Sure. Is there evidence for this? Nope. You may be right, but you also have to grant the possibility that Justin is correct.

Further, have you ever looked at the Asklepios, Bacchic, or Mithraic myths? They are quite different from that of Jesus. There are some points of contact, but more differences than similarities...

24757. pelty - 10/10/2004 11:33:40 PM

"Tab down to the bottom of the page."

I have. I find many references to Harpur's book. I have no reason to believe anything Harpur says.

24758. clydefo - 10/11/2004 12:32:50 AM

You may be right, but you also have to grant the possibility that Justin is correct.
I don't think it is knowable whether Satan exists or not. The onus is on you and Justin to prove your extraordinary claim.

Further, have you ever looked at the Asklepios, Bacchic, or Mithraic myths? They are quite different from that of Jesus. There are some points of contact, but more differences than similarities...

Why are there any similarities at all to myths? What are they?

24759. clydefo - 10/11/2004 1:59:03 AM

Might we work through this?

"Further, wonder-workers, while maybe not a dime-a-dozen, were also not something out of the ordinary, so to think that all eyes should have been focused on tiny Galilee and the extraordinary events occurring there shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the ancient world."

It seems to me that if the extraordinary events in Galilee were actually occurring or were thought to be occurring, there would be a stampede to Galilee, just as there is today when a miracle Jesus-shaped potato is unearthed. The Jews were certainly awaiting a Messiah and others just like to gawk. Drag recently departed uncle Enoch over there for resurrection like Lazarus and get some free wine to boot. Who could resist such things if they were really believed to be happening, especially being predisposed to believe?
You claim or imply logically that people knew or might have known the events were actually occurring but were too mundane to be of interest. What could account for such a mindset? Was this a period when miracles were happening all over and a traipse over to Galilee would have been unnecessary "miracle overload"? Take Enoch to the local guy to bring him back!

Isn't it far more likely that if people heard that another God-man was working the Galilee market, and did not pay it any mind, they were just exercising everyday skepticism about extraordinary claims not to be believed or they were shrugging it off because they had heard the story before. Nothing to write home about. Of course, if the events never occurred, their silence makes perfect sense.

24760. pelty - 10/11/2004 8:02:07 AM

"You claim or imply logically that people knew or might have known the events were actually occurring but were too mundane to be of interest. What could account for such a mindset?"

Didn't mean to imply this. If such events were occurring, I would expect that very few would know about it. It is not like they had CNN or anything and the reality is that people claiming divine power and connections were found in all major urban areas, so why should one in the backwater province of Judea be any better or different than one in Ephesus or Alexandria?

Oh, and BTW, the Jewish expectations of what a messiah looked like were varied. The Qumran community actually believed there would be two messiahs; it was by no means a given that the messiah would be a wonder-worker.

24761. clydefo - 10/11/2004 10:57:34 AM

"If such events were occurring, I would expect that very few would know about it

Wasn't that whole Mediterranean region comprised of hustle-bustle, sophisticated societies, engaged in vigorous commerce (traveling salesmen), international politics and diplomacy, idle gossip? Word of for-real miracles witnessed by multitudes would have spread as quickly as it would have in Colonial America. A few days or weeks at donkey speed.

24762. pelty - 10/11/2004 11:47:29 AM

"Wasn't that whole Mediterranean region comprised of hustle-bustle, sophisticated societies, engaged in vigorous commerce (traveling salesmen), international politics and diplomacy, idle gossip? Word of for-real miracles witnessed by multitudes would have spread as quickly as it would have in Colonial America. A few days or weeks at donkey speed."

Yes and no. Subsistence was of more import than making an expensive trip to the hinterlands to get a glimpse of (yet another) wonder-worker. For all we know, though, it is possible that some tradesman got a load of Jesus (assuming, for the time being, that he was able to perform feats of power) and did comment on it to his pals back home. But these likely would have been lower-class individuals, and their story is rarely told in the history books.

I am not 100% sure on the speed of travel in this period, but, for the most part, I think that "weeks" is an optimistic estimation.

24763. PelleNilsson - 10/11/2004 12:04:07 PM

Is this leading anywhere? I don't think so. For the non-believer the nature and existence of Jesus is immaterial to the larger and more intersting question why and how Christianity became a world religion. How could a sect that emerged among a colonized people conquer the mind of the colonizer?

24764. clydefo - 10/11/2004 12:20:59 PM

"...why and how Christianity became a world religion. How could a sect that emerged among a colonized people conquer the mind of the colonizer?

The Big Lie works on the superstitious and easily-manipulated masses. How does a George W. Bush become the "most powerful man in the world?"

24765. Bill Russell - 10/11/2004 12:54:04 PM

"How does a George W. Bush become the "most powerful man in the world?""

By lying about his religion.

24766. Bill Russell - 10/11/2004 12:56:14 PM

GWBush is not a CHRISTian.

24767. clydefo - 10/11/2004 1:06:16 PM

"For the non-believer the nature and existence of Jesus is immaterial to the larger and more intersting question why and how Christianity became a world religion."

"Immaterial?" Definitively establishing "the nature and existence of Jesus" would make the answer to your larger question much easier, regardless of belief.

24768. angel-five - 10/11/2004 1:26:19 PM

That's a pons asinorum, though. The definite nature and history of Jesus can't be established, and the people who believe in his divinity aren't going to meet a non-believer halfway anyway so it's not like you'll get consensus.

The fact is that while there's logical reason to doubt the veracity of the Christian versions of events and logical reason to doubt that the Christian version of Jesus existed, and that excellent logical cases can be made in either instance, believers depend on faith, which cannot be extinguished without real proof, and there's no real proof to be found.

24769. Bill Russell - 10/11/2004 1:37:20 PM

"the larger and more intersting question why and how Christianity became a world religion."

A mystery wrapped in an enigma.

24770. angel-five - 10/11/2004 1:38:09 PM

And FWIW the comparisons are most commonly drawn not between Jesus and Horus, but between Jesus and Horus's father, Osiris.

As any honest student of the time will tell you, the Jesus corpus shares a lot of motifs with other belief systems. People were, as they always are, reenvisioning their beliefs in more modern ways and their understanding of, and belief in, their divinities was constantly evolving. The sharing of motifs can be understood as the incorporation of memes and people re-evaluating their old myths and restructuring their allegories to reflect newly discovered facets of the wisdom within. Surely some of it was outright and brazen memetic theft, but to assume that it was all that, or even mostly that, is to be as tendentious as to pretend that the fact that the Jesus mythology shares elements with all sorts of other contemporary systems is meaningless. Let alone pulling a Justin Martyr and foolishly spinning it to imply that all those unfortunate instances where the Jesus corpus shared motifs with other myths was just that mean old Satan at work.

24771. Bill Russell - 10/11/2004 1:41:36 PM

"As any honest student of the time will tell you"

So you know all those students?

hahahahahahaha

24772. Bill Russell - 10/11/2004 1:42:48 PM

"just that mean old Satan at work."

24773. angel-five - 10/11/2004 1:43:46 PM

At least Irenaeus wasn't quoted.

24774. angel-five - 10/11/2004 1:45:54 PM

Russell, if you're going to just sit there and try to get on my nerves because I blasted you in another forum, we can cut to the chase if you like. Be productive, be interesting, be silent, or be silenced.

24775. Bill Russell - 10/11/2004 1:48:59 PM

"we can cut to the chase if you like."

If you can't stand the heat .... stay out of the kitchen.

- Harry Truman

24776. PelleNilsson - 10/11/2004 2:12:43 PM

clyde

The Big Lie works on the superstitious and easily-manipulated masses. How does a George W. Bush become the "most powerful man in the world?"

But there were, in your parlance, several other Big Lies circulating at the time. Why was Christianity successful? Have you ever asked yourself that question or are you limited to that puerile line of inquiry you exhibit so eloquently?

24777. angel-five - 10/11/2004 2:13:34 PM

It isn't your kitchen.

You've had enough warnings and abused the privilege long enough. Further off topic posts will be deleted or moved.

24778. PelleNilsson - 10/11/2004 2:22:31 PM

Good call. I'll help out if you don't mind. The time zones fit.

24779. clydefo - 10/11/2004 3:11:57 PM

"Why was Christianity successful?"
Persian, Egyptian and Asian Savior-God myths and religions were and are longer-lasting than Christianity. I don't know how "success" is measured. By counting the "take" maybe? I suppose religions rise and fall for all sorts of reasons. War, pestilence, competing ideologies?

I maintain that Christianity spread primarily as the result of fraud, forgery and deceit by the Catholic Church (look up "Pious Fraud"). They deliberately plunged mankind into the horror of the Dark Ages. Enforced ignorance. Half a millennium of intimidation, terror and plunder. Jesus at the point of a sword. The reaction to that tyranny was not a rejection of the underlying myth, but, unfortunately, the formation of rival organizations spewing the same nonsense. By then, people were dependent on their fairy-tales. Integrated with politics, Christianity is still a useful tool for manipulating and exploiting the masses.

Why do you think it successful?

24780. clydefo - 10/11/2004 3:29:26 PM

"...puerile line of inquiry"

I take it this is those "9-years-old" type questions that are so hard for the priests to answer?

24781. alistairConnor - 10/11/2004 3:36:34 PM

Why do you think it successful?
Not that you were asking me but :

Several reasons I can think of :

* The initial mystery-cult format was fashionable at the time
* a fairly coherent and appealing set of ideas, combined with practical guidance for living in the environment of the Roman empire.
* there may have been other cosmopolitan, new-ageish cults available, but this one had a backbone/veneer of rigorous Jewish theological rhetoric
* Monotheism with a universal cast : other one-god religions were confined to a single ethnic group or nation (e.g. the Jews); the Christian innovation was to declare that their god applied to everyone, whether they liked it or not.
* All of this would not have got them far, of course, had it not been adopted as the official Roman religion.

24782. PelleNilsson - 10/11/2004 3:51:47 PM

East Roman, you mean.

24783. Jenerator - 10/11/2004 3:59:18 PM

How could a sect that emerged among a colonized people conquer the mind of the colonizer?

Good question. My answer is that Christianity has lasted because it was and is true and because it changes the lives of people.

24784. sakonige - 10/11/2004 4:06:20 PM

Most people are suckers for any hope of immortality.

24785. Jenerator - 10/11/2004 4:10:37 PM

Immortality is almost secondary to me. By that I mean it's not what I think about on a day to day basis. I don't focus on heaven, I focus on now, today.

24786. sakonige - 10/11/2004 4:28:16 PM

Immortality is almost secondary to me.

Everlasting life is the whole purpose of Christianity. What do you think "saved" means, if not exempted from mortality?

24787. Jenerator - 10/11/2004 4:34:10 PM

Of course everlasting life is part and parcel of Christianity; however, it's about living day to day with Christ as God.

I don't know when I am going to die, but until I do, I have to live here and struggle with the same things other people struggle with. The difference is, I worship a God who hears me, loves me, and shows me how to live abundantly.

24788. angel-five - 10/11/2004 4:40:34 PM

Pelle, you can help out all you like. I'm getting a MySQL error logging into the maintenance page from this computer atm anyway, so you may be doing it all for a short while until Alistair Connor of the Clan MacConnor sprinkles some foo foo dust on my login and cures it.

How could a sect that emerged among a colonized people conquer the mind of the colonizer?

Well, it's not as though this sort of vehicle for culture is unknown in our world. But I think AC nailed it pretty well. Early Christianity was an inclusive religion that was engineered to accept anyone who would have it, and arose at a point in time where the disparate citizens of a multi-cultural hegemony were looking for precisely such a thing. Of course that only explains how it got to the point that an emperor could be converted, and not how it got to the point it's at today.

The idea that it's true and that's why it's stuck around is silly. There are lots and lots of true ideas that have never been popular with the public and likely never will be. An idea must be believable, useful, well managed, and well packaged in order for it to spread.

24789. sakonige - 10/11/2004 4:41:53 PM

I don't know when I am going to die

I thought Christians were supposed to live forever. You know, "Whosoever believeth in me... blah blah blah."

24790. Bill Russell - 10/11/2004 4:46:39 PM

" Christianity has lasted because it was and is true and because it changes the lives of people. "

Besides, CHRISTians threaten people who don't believe. It is fear that holds Christianity together.

24791. angel-five - 10/11/2004 4:47:38 PM

It's also worth bearing in mind that the focus of Roman Christianity was a bit tailored to their interests and prejudices. The Biblical Jesus was a Jew that was crucified by the Romans, but the Romans, who were constantly having to go to war against the Jews and didn't much like the idea that they'd gaffed the Man, heard a pitch where the Jews were the bad guys.

This specific alteration of the tone and thrust of Christianity in order to appeal to a target audience isn't an aberration, either. It is a religion with nuances that have often been reworked in the name of appeal.

24792. Bill Russell - 10/11/2004 4:49:59 PM

If you can't stand the heat .... stay out of the kitchen.

Which is why I left CHRISTianity. The fear of the heat of the Christian Hell was overwhelming.

24793. sakonige - 10/11/2004 4:54:33 PM

Early Christianity was an inclusive religion that was engineered to accept anyone who would have it, and arose at a point in time where the disparate citizens of a multi-cultural hegemony were looking for precisely such a thing.

The first thing prostelytizing Christians want to talk about is Christianity's promise of everlasting life. They ask, "What have you got to lose by believing?" Morality has nothing to do with the purpose of Christianity. It doesn't matter how good or bad a person you are. As long as you believe, you are promised escape from death.

24794. sakonige - 10/11/2004 4:55:38 PM

That's why people buy into Christianity. Remember Pascal's Wager?

24795. Bill Russell - 10/11/2004 4:56:17 PM

" Russell, if you're going to just sit there and try to get on my nerves because I blasted you in another forum "

I don't recall your blast on any forum. Could you repeat it for the CHRISTian audience here? I assume it was the Christian way to speak to a fellow human, or you wouldn't have said it.

8^)

24796. Bill Russell - 10/11/2004 4:58:09 PM

" It doesn't matter how good or bad a person you are. As long as you believe, you are promised escape from death. "

Now, you got it !!

24797. angel-five - 10/11/2004 5:01:07 PM

Your last two posts will be deleted. In the meantime I'll just ask whatever on earth makes you think I would post in a Christian way?

24798. Bill Russell - 10/11/2004 5:01:37 PM

" Integrated with politics, Christianity is still a useful tool for manipulating and exploiting the masses. "

Yup!!

Herr Bush, Herr Cheney and Herr Rumsfeld are good examples.

24799. angel-five - 10/11/2004 5:01:38 PM

Sorry, that was a crosspost.

24809. Bill Russell - 10/12/2004 12:45:43 AM

BIBLE QUOTATIONS

Given below are the different Bible versions used in Bible quotations:

KJV King James Version

RSV Revised Standard Version of the Bible, 1952 [2nd edition, 1971] by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America.

NRSV New Revised Standard Version Bible, 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America.

NIV The Holy Bible, New International Version 1984, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America.

GNB The Good News Bible (Old and New Testament)1976, American Bible Society.

Which one is accurate, if any?

24811. alistairconnor - 10/12/2004 4:15:02 AM

Angel :

I have tried incense and holy water to fix your login. If that doesn't work, I'm not sure whether to try a rosary or a prayer wheel.

24812. Bill Russell - 10/12/2004 4:17:52 AM

" I'm not sure whether to try a rosary or a prayer wheel. "

Try modern technology.

24813. Bill Russell - 10/12/2004 4:18:38 AM

IF all else fails....

24814. alistairconnor - 10/12/2004 4:45:32 AM

This article discusses research on the efficacy of prayer in healing. The major problem seems to be that the people who are interested in conducting such research are all believers; and that, generally in all good faith(!), they skew or manipulate their results.

The sort of research I would like to see would involve lots of sub-groups to control for placebo effects. (It is well known that happiness and hope are objective factors that promote healing, and that this, in itself, is independent of religion.)

Thus, we might have : the studied population divided into two groups. The individuals in the first group are prayed for, nominatively, by the good volunteers. The second are not prayed for.

Half of each group are told that they are being prayed for; the other half are told that they are not being prayed for. Thus, you have four sub-groups of equal number.

If there is a statistically significant difference in (pre-determined) healing criteria, then that would be interesting.

The two obvious possibilities are :
* those who are in fact prayed for do better (the God hypothesis);
* those who believe they are prayed for do better (the hope hypothesis).

There are all sorts of variations which can be imagined. For example, sub-groups of believers and non-believers :
* does an atheist heal better if he thinks he's being prayed for? or if he really is being prayed for?
This might shed light on whether infidels can go to heaven.
* If it transpires that prayer is an objective factor in healing, then it would become possible to compare the efficacy of different religions or denominations.

24815. clydefo - 10/12/2004 9:07:47 AM

Is there any control of those doing the praying? Are they all reading from the same script or winging it? Does it matter if they work in a request or two for themselves? Is God more or less inclined to grant an intercessory prayer depending on the devoutness of the prayor? How about his own mood. Can you catch God on a bad day? But here is the biggest problem: "...the federal government... has contributed $2.3 million in financing over the last four years for prayer research."

24816. wonkers2 - 10/12/2004 9:32:56 AM

GROUP OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS USING INFLUENCE TO OPPOSE KERRY

Archbishop Chaput is part of a group of bishops intent on throwing the weight of the church into the elections...these bishops and like-minded Catholic groups are blanketing churches with guides identifying abortion, gay marriage and the stem cell debate as among a handful of "non-negotiable issues."

Traditional church concerns about the death penalty and war are not mentioned.

Never before have so many bishops warned Catholics so close to an election that to vote a certain way was to commit a sin.

The guide says it is a sin to vote for a candidate who supports any one of five "non-negotiable issues," abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning and homosexual marriage.

NYT 10-12

24817. alistairconnor - 10/12/2004 9:59:57 AM

Well of course Kerry is a flip-flopper on religion too. I understand he's been successively Jewish, Protestant and Catholic.

I hate to slip this idea to anyone but... maybe he'll be Muslim next?

24818. wonkers2 - 10/12/2004 10:00:10 AM

Save frozen embryos! Kill Iraqi women and children!

24819. clydefo - 10/12/2004 10:01:31 AM

The silver lining for society is that the Bishops' actions will further erode their authority.
Off your knees! Arise and deprogram yourself!

24820. clydefo - 10/12/2004 10:03:51 AM

One more thing...vote after your deprogramming.

24821. wonkers2 - 10/12/2004 11:16:53 AM

I don't believe Kerry has ever been Jewish. He only recently discovered that one of his grandfathers was Jewish. I wasn't aware he ever considered himself Protestant. Perhaps his first wife was Protestant???

24822. Jenerator - 10/12/2004 1:13:18 PM

The idea that it's true and that's why it's stuck around is silly. There are lots and lots of true ideas that have never been popular with the public and likely never will be. An idea must be believable, useful, well managed, and well packaged in order for it to spread.

A5,

This is unbelievable coming from you. Truth is silly?

I get it, Christianity can be believable, useful, well managed and well packages, just not true??

Why on earth would you rule out truth??!!! I suspect it is because you have never considered it when it comes to Christianity. For if it were true, that would make you wrong and you certainly don't want that.

24823. angel-five - 10/12/2004 1:22:38 PM

24824. pelty - 10/12/2004 1:46:23 PM

A-5,

When you find a moment, would you mind digging out the ToR/wonder-worker references? No hurry, but I am interested to see what you have found. Thanks.

24825. Bill Russell - 10/12/2004 1:53:01 PM

" Kerry is a flip-flopper on religion too. I understand he's been successively Jewish, Protestant and Catholic. "

What evidence is there? In any case, intelligent and educated people often explore other religions to help understand why they believe as they do and to reach an understanding of which religion they can believe, if any.

24826. angel-five - 10/12/2004 2:54:47 PM

When you find a moment, would you mind digging out the ToR/wonder-worker references? No hurry, but I am interested to see what you have found. Thanks.

Sorry, Pelty, but I haven't been looking for them. I'm pretty sure that I don't even have the books here with me.

in other news, it looks like Alistair's dry wit has been mistaken for serious posting yet again.

24827. angel-five - 10/12/2004 3:04:20 PM

The one book I have here that mentions the ToR (The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception by Baigent and Leigh) doesn't attribute miraculous powers per se to the teacher of righteousness, although it does speak of his extreme asceticism and holiness allowing him to endure things others cannot. It uses arguments about the dating of the Habbakuk commentary to suggest that the ToR was not Jesus but James the Just.

I think Woden has a book on Qumran here somewhere. It has been a while since I did the reading, but it might have been the Eisenman text I was thinking of.

24828. pelty - 10/12/2004 3:12:29 PM

OK, A-5. I appreciate it. If you do come across anything further, please let me know!

24829. Jenerator - 10/12/2004 3:50:35 PM

I'm not too worried that you don't understand what I meant, Jenerator. I'm sure other people did. Whether something is true isn't something that is initially apparent, or even ever apparent in the case of unprovable abstracts like 'is there a God?' People, otoh, believe lies all the time. They believe them because they're, well, believable, and because they coincide nicely with one's disposition and prejudices.

Don't worry A-5, I understood you. I just can't believe that you said it. It is apparent that truth itself is irrelevent to you as a possible explanation for Christianity lasting because as a priori in your world, truth isn't possible.

24830. clydefo - 10/12/2004 3:57:32 PM

I get it, Christianity can be believable, useful, well managed and well packages, just not true??

If you get it - why the question marks?

24831. judithathome - 10/12/2004 4:03:42 PM

Jen, people believe things that aren't true all the time. For instance, people believe Bush is a competent leader.

24832. clydefo - 10/12/2004 4:13:53 PM

"truth isn't possible"
v
"[Truth is not] apparent in the case of unprovable abstracts"

The difference is easily understood.

24833. alistairConnor - 10/12/2004 4:44:09 PM

It is apparent that truth itself is irrelevent to you as a possible explanation for Christianity lasting because as a priori in your world, truth isn't possible.

Jen, that's a non sequitur. In the first half of the sentence, you have it right : the truth or otherwise of Christianity (which is not, and never has been in itself, objectively demonstrable) is clearly irrelevant to the success or otherwise of Christianity as a sociological phenomenon.

This fact in no way prejudges the question of its truth, or precludes faith.

By the same token, what does the success of Islam tell us about its fundamental truth?

24834. clydefo - 10/12/2004 4:48:45 PM

What about the success of Voodoo?

24835. alistairConnor - 10/12/2004 4:57:58 PM

no Clyde, that's because Voodoo actually works.

24836. clydefo - 10/12/2004 5:02:42 PM

You're right! Maybe Bush does have a chance...

24837. Jenerator - 10/12/2004 5:06:37 PM

Clyde,

Here's the thing. For years now, I have watched as A-5 and various others have attempted to cast doubt on the veracity of scripture. Occasionally they'll talk about how science and the miraculous do not merge, how miracles are not possible, that logical people cannot be believers, and so on. There have also been times that the same people attempt to cast doubt on the veracity of scripture because of archeological questions or doubts they have regarding the canonization of scripture.

What has never been discussed on their part is the possibility that the scriptures are accurate in what they have recorded. Not once has any skeptic even considered that the Bible is truthful.

The fact of the matter is that when it comes to archeology and history, the Bible is accurate. When it comes to the canonization process, it's reliable. Most people, even non-believers are willing to believe that Jesus was an actual person.

What it all comes down to is whether or not what is written about Jesus was true. In the hearts and minds of millions, it has been true -beginning from the records of eye witnesses. This message has been meticulously conserved and believed because it contained the truth about Christ.

But to you and A-5 and other skeptics, none of it can be true because truth in this case doesn't exist. Admit it, you begin your dismissal of the Bible by first thinking in your hearts that its claims are not true. You never even consider that it might possibly be true.

According to you, that would be 'silly' to consider.

That is what is so incredibly revealing about your method of thinking when it comes to Christ and Christians.

24838. Jenerator - 10/12/2004 5:10:26 PM

Alistair,

Good point. I'd say that the same scrutiny given to the Bible needs to be given to the Koran. The Koran hasn't held up to the same level of reliablity that the Bible has.

24839. angel-five - 10/12/2004 5:21:35 PM

Don't worry A-5, I understood you. I just can't believe that you said it. It is apparent that truth itself is irrelevent to you as a possible explanation for Christianity lasting because as a priori in your world, truth isn't possible.

No, Jenerator, you didn't understand me and as I already said, I don't worry about such things. You seem to have a very hard time processing unfamiliar arguments, especially ones which yield results that you don't like or disregard the idea that your beliefs are self-evidently true, and so you just make up garbled versions of them which you can process (and attack). This is a case in point. You simply aren't prepared to understand an argument in which the appeal of your religion over time doesn't depend on it being the one true faith, and indeed dispenses with such notions altogether, so you cough up some ridiculous bit about how my stance derives from my desire to distance myself from the idea that you are right, and that I don't think your religion can be true because I don't believe in truth! I'd tell you to think about that for a bit and draw some appropriate conclusions, but you can't.

I disregard your idea that Christianity has staying power 'because it's true' because it is, indeed, a meaningless one. Not because things can't be true, but because it's a tautology. Of course you think it's true. People don't tend to practice religions which they believe to be false. That doesn't explain why these religions have caught on and stayed with us over time, which is the question at hand. It just means that the religions have caught on.

Believing something is true means you've been convinced by it. It's the state in which the argument has worked on you.

24840. angel-five - 10/12/2004 5:22:01 PM

But people aren't born believing in any one creed. Children must be educated and directed in various religions in order to accept and embrace them. And a new generation of children is born about every twenty or so years. There have been many many generations since the inception of Christianity. What gives a religion staying power in this system is its ability to get new people to the point where they believe it is true, as the old ones keep dying off.

However, people are convinced of false things all the time, and in fact sometimes the falseness is what attracts them to their belief in it in the first place because the truth which they have encountered is unsavory to them. You, for example, are convinced that Muslims and Jews and Catholics and Buddhists and so on are all wrong about the nature of the divine and how humans should embrace it and what we are commanded to do and how we are commanded to act. Yet clearly there are Muslims and Jews and Catholics and Buddhists and so on who all believe in the truth of their respective religions even though you think them false.

So, then, how do you account for these people believing something you think is false? Obviously, because they have been convinced otherwise. How were they convinced? Because they were presented with evidence, arguments, appeals which they found useful and compelling. How have their religions stood the test of time? Because their religions were able to proffer such evidence, arguments, and appeals over a long period of time, and through different epochs of thinking and culture, to successive generations born and then exposed to their programme.

24841. Jenerator - 10/12/2004 5:30:55 PM

You simply aren't prepared to understand an argument in which the appeal of your religion over time doesn't depend on it being the one true faith,

This is so completely ridiculous I can't stand it! Are you being serious?

The entire premise of Christianity is that the books which we base our belief system on are TRUE about the one TRUE faith! Truth is such a fundamental component of Christianity that even the concept of truth itself is rooted in the character of Jesus himself. In other words, He is truth and we know truth because of Him!

Christianity didn't last because it was cool and well-packaged. It lasted because it was based on TRUTH.

Tell me how a persecuted minority could preserve its sacred texts to the point that it took over the world and influenced every aspect of culture in the Western hemisphere for the last 1700 years because it was believable - but not true, well-managed - but not true, and so on.

To discount "truth" as a factor or thee factor in its preservation is pure bias on your part. Lazy bias at that.

24842. Jenerator - 10/12/2004 5:32:47 PM

A-5,

What I see as the fundamental difference between our outlooks and approaches in this is that you believe that Christianity need only be convincing of truth, whereas I believe it to be truth.

24843. sakonige - 10/12/2004 5:32:55 PM

excuse me, what is ToR, again?

24844. angel-five - 10/12/2004 5:36:30 PM

What has never been discussed on their part is the possibility that the scriptures are accurate in what they have recorded. Not once has any skeptic even considered that the Bible is truthful.

The fact of the matter is that when it comes to archeology and history, the Bible is accurate. When it comes to the canonization process, it's reliable. Most people, even non-believers are willing to believe that Jesus was an actual person.

Oh. The account of the flood, of Noah putting two of every animal on his ark, of the entire world being inundated, of all humans coming from one genetic source (Adam), of the sun stopping in its course, of Rome compelling its citizens to return to their place of birth for a census, etc, etc, bleeding et cetera, that's all true and reliable? We can verify these things happened?

No, and neither can you. But that, too, is irrelevant to whether or not people believe it. It's just relevant to whether or not we can know if your Bible is true or not. And this is actually a basic tenet of your faith, Jenerator -- the idea that one must have faith in these things, rather than worldly-wise and thus skeptical.

Your argument here is just a basic reiteration of your faith in the Bible -- you believe in it because it's true, and it's true because, it's true.

FWIW I have considered, many, many times, whether or not events could have indeed happened the way the Bible records them. Unlike you, I ended up deciding each time that it isn't. You can't grasp that, your mind can't encompass it, because in your world no one who honestly considers your religion with an open heart and mind and a willingness to be moved can fail to be converted by what you regard as its self evident truths, which you fancy to be bound inseparably into the fabric of creation and merely awaits someone to consider them in order to be convinced. So we must all be actively shutting your Christ out, you think.

24845. SnowOwl - 10/12/2004 5:38:22 PM

But that's a silly argument, because you can apply the same argument to Islam. Why has Islam endured for over 1400 years? Could it be because it is true?

24846. SnowOwl - 10/12/2004 5:39:10 PM

Oops - that was a response to Jen's 24841

24847. angel-five - 10/12/2004 5:41:19 PM

This is so completely ridiculous I can't stand it!

Then my advice is not to bother trying. You'll just burst a blood vessel or something.

24848. Jenerator - 10/12/2004 5:45:26 PM

No, don't try and presume to know how I think about you and other nonbelievers.

in your world no one who honestly considers your religion with an open heart and mind and a willingness to be moved can fail to be converted by...

You're right to a point. I have never really thought of you as one to have an open heart or a willingness to be moved by faith. If you have sincerely prayed in your heart for faith and have sought Him out for a period of time, and have had no response, I cannot explain that. Only you know how earnestly you have sought God.

>>>>>

What I have seen many people do is say that they don't believe in God because they asked for a miracle and didn't get it. Ie Her husband was dying and in a moment of desperation said that if God supernaturally healed him, she'd believe then.

He died and she became more resolute in her disbelief.

24849. Jenerator - 10/12/2004 5:47:59 PM

SnowOwl,

The Koran has not stood up to the same level of scrutiny that the Bible has.

24850. angel-five - 10/12/2004 6:17:27 PM

No, don't try and presume to know how I think about you and other nonbelievers.

You have so presumed, on several occasions, to attribute thoughts and motivations to people with whom you have conversed and disagreed. More importantly, you have said how you think about unbelievers, so, your huffiness on this topic isn't very interesting.

The history of this thread very clearly records many people here as having severe and grave doubts as to the validity and veracity of your Bible, Jenerator. Not to mention the existence of entire catalogues of texts which question the Bible and find it wanting. The fact that you might be prepared to insist that every word of the Bible is a) true and b) historically accurate doesn't much move them, so don't expect anyone to be impressed when you say the Koran is a flawed document and therefore one can't compare Christianity to Islam in this specific context. They can, and do. You don't like it but that's par for the course, and the question still remains, how is it that a Muslim's insistence that his religion is true is any less valid an argument than your similar insistence on Christianity?

24851. SnowOwl - 10/12/2004 6:35:04 PM

The Koran has not stood up to the same level of scrutiny that the Bible has.

That's your opinion, Jen. Believers in Islam would argue the opposite.

That's the point really. You believe the Bible is true, therefore you ignore or rationalise away any arguments that show that biblical claims are incorrect. Muslims do the same with the Koran.

One of the big problems is that people interpret the Bible in various ways. Because some of them are diametrically opposed to others, they simply can't all be right. So what is "true"?

For example, there are plenty of Christians who regard the Genesis account of the formation of the earth as allegorical, and they're quite happy to accept evolution as an explanation of the development of man. On the other hand there are those who take a literalist stance and insist that man was created in exactly the way it is described in the Bible.

What's true? How do you know what's true?

24852. judithathome - 10/12/2004 7:06:01 PM

Admit it, you begin your dismissal of the Bible by first thinking in your hearts that its claims are not true. You never even consider that it might possibly be true.

Well, A5 has explained what I was going to say already and much better than I but look at your sentence this way, with a few changes and as though I am saying it:

Admit it, you begin your dismissal of "my argument" by first thinking in your heart that "my" claims are not true. You never even consider that "they" might possibly be true.

The Koran has not stood up to the same level of scrutiny that the Bible has

You cannot possibly know if this is true or not. There are millions of believers who study the Koran and unless you have studied their writings as extensively as you have studied the Bible and its critics and scholars, you cannot make a statement like that.

24853. clydefo - 10/12/2004 7:14:30 PM

Jenerator, at 24837 you say

I have watched as A-5 and various others have attempted to cast doubt on the veracity of scripture

and in the next paragraph you contradict yourself with

Not once has any skeptic even considered that the Bible is truthful.

Excuse me, but isn't "cast[ing] doubt on the veracity of scripture" the equivalent of " consider[ing] that the Bible is truthful"?

The fact of the matter is that when it comes to archeology and history, the Bible is accurate. When it comes to the canonization process, it's reliable.

You state this as though it's an argument in your favor when "the fact of the matter is that" it is a common subject of debate, yet to be settled.

Most people, even non-believers are willing to believe that Jesus was an actual person.

As often as not, this is done for the sake of argument about his supernatural nature, when historicity is not an issue.

Admit it, you begin your dismissal of the Bible by first thinking in your hearts that its claims are not true.

Substitute "mind" for "heart" and I'll agree. When I hear fantastical supernatural claims that are repetitions of ancient myths I do assume they are not true. But I'm willing to hear the proof offered by those making the claims.

You confuse "Truth" with "truth". Alas, you may be beyond "saving" if Jonathan Swift was correct when he said, "you do not reason a man out of something he was not reasoned into."

24854. clydefo - 10/12/2004 7:32:55 PM

Tell me how a persecuted minority could preserve its sacred texts to the point that it took over the world and influenced every aspect of culture in the Western hemisphere for the last 1700 years because it was believable - but not true...

Tell me how every little kid arrives at Little League Baseball believing that one is called out for sliding into First Base.

24855. angel-five - 10/12/2004 7:52:39 PM

She won't. She is frustrated and confused and doesn't understand how any of us can pretend not to agree with her when what she's saying is just obviously, self-evidently true. She can't explain why it is so, it is just one of those things that in her mind right-thinking people simply understand right off the bat. At this point she probably thinks everyone is just fucking with her and would rather be mean than concede what is, to her, a simple point. It isn't yet crossing her mind that she's failing to grasp most of the argument.

She'll bristle at this too but more than anything she hates to be predictable, so, who knows what she'll do.

24856. sakonige - 10/12/2004 8:38:52 PM

Tell me how a persecuted minority could preserve its sacred texts to the point that it took over the world and influenced every aspect of culture in the Western hemisphere for the last 1700 years

They lied, cheated, stole, and murdered their way into positions of power.

24857. clydefo - 10/12/2004 9:19:25 PM

She'll bristle at this too but more than anything she hates to be predictable, so, who knows what she'll do.

Hummm...knowing that, and on the off chance that she practices Voodoo on the side, I think I'd prefer not to set her off!

24858. pelty - 10/12/2004 10:13:31 PM

"Tell me how a persecuted minority could preserve its sacred texts to the point that it took over the world and influenced every aspect of culture in the Western hemisphere for the last 1700 years

They lied, cheated, stole, and murdered their way into positions of power."

Here is my take on this affair, and the above quote plays a role. First, I think that some legitimate questions have been raised to Jen WRT her position, the most difficult of which is that you have a number of religions that exist today that pre-exist Xianity and make some sort of truth claims. What are we to make of these and how does she cope w/them in her worldview?

OTOH, I can completely understand her frustration because of quotes like that provided by sakonige that reflect a lack of any sort of nuance and are thus difficult to contend against. Monolithic statements of this type (from both sides of the argument) are nearly useless as there is so much going on "on the ground" that one cannot simply chalk the rise and success of Xianity to theft, avarice, and murder. History is much more complex than that. Yet Jen is forced to argue these points (by her own choice, of course; "forced" is the wrong word to use here) because people without training in these matters like the easily digestable stereotypes. There are a couple people here who have dug below the surface of the issues, but as a whole, I can understand Jen's frustration as it is really impossible for her to penetrate through the "soundbites." I do realize, of course, that there are people on the other side of the fence who believe that Jen, KtH, myself, etc. may also speak in these soundbites, so perhaps you can sympathize a bit with Jen's frustration as well?

That said, I would like to see her current line of argumentation fleshed out a bit further.

24859. angel-five - 10/12/2004 11:20:58 PM

History is much more complex than that. Yet Jen is forced to argue these points (by her own choice, of course; "forced" is the wrong word to use here) because people without training in these matters like the easily digestable stereotypes.

People with training in these matters like easily digestable stereotypes as well. Your friend there used a few today, you know. It is my experience that education in the specifics of a religion doesn't generally have much effect on how fair or truthful people are about that religion, Pelty, or how fair or truthful people are about things in general for that matter. One's capacity for such things exists independently of one's knowledge, no matter how rigorously they studied.

24860. sakonige - 10/12/2004 11:40:22 PM

pelty -

It is very simple. To see how important theft was to the success of Christianity, imagine what would have happened to Europe if the western hemisphere did not exist.

24861. Bill Russell - 10/13/2004 12:33:36 AM

I have never really thought of you, Jen, as one to have an open heart or a willingness to be moved by faith.

(to use your own words)

24862. alistairconnor - 10/13/2004 4:39:13 AM

Jen, I think you and I can agree that Islam is a false religion. If Christianity's fundamental truth is the key to its survival and flourishing, then how do you account for the remarkable success of Islam?

The Koran has not stood up to the same level of scrutiny that the Bible has.

That's an interesting assertion. With respect to historical accuracy, it's undoubtedly true, for a very simple reason : as far as I know, nobody contests the existence of the self-styled prophet Mahomet as a historical figure, nor do they contest that his teachings as recorded in the Koran are an accurate account of what he said. So scrutiny is, to a large extent, superfluous.

In that respect (concerning the acts and words of its central figure), the Koran is undoubtedly "true", whereas the Bible is legitimately subject to doubt.

This is an unfair comparison, in a way, because Mahomet was a major political and military actor in his lifetime, whereas Jesus was not; also because he lived about eight centuries later; and, perhaps most importantly, because there is an (almost) unbroken line of political regimes which derive directly from his doctrine (whereas with respect to Jesus, there was a gap of several centuries).

Obviously, where the Koran takes up and embroiders on older traditions (notably Jewish and Christian), it can't be any "truer" than the originals.

24863. alistairconnor - 10/13/2004 5:35:06 AM

Somewhere way upthread I made a slightly ironic remark that French priests weren't buggering any altar boys. I happened to see a documentary last night, and I would like to nuance this.

It seems that the shakeout started in 2000, when the French Catholic church stopped closing its eyes to paedophilia (and effectively covering paedophile priests). There are currently eighty paedophile priests in French prisons.

24864. KuligintheHooligan - 10/13/2004 7:33:27 AM

I had to rub my eyes to see if the following was indeed posted by judith to Jenerator:

"You cannot possibly know if this is true or not. There are millions of believers who study the Koran and unless you have studied their writings as extensively as you have studied the Bible and its critics and scholars, you cannot make a statement like that."

It seems that judith is telling Jenerator that before she has studied up on the Koran, she cannot possibly begin to make sweeping statements about it.

I find that a most shocking statement coming from judith.

Not because it isn't true, but rather, because judith consistently has done two things in this thread for as long as I have known her:

1) denigrate the Bible
2) admit she has studied next to nothing of it and/or doesn't know it well at all

And each time I implore her to study up on it more, before making wacky sweeping statement of error, she tells me how arrogant I am to expect her to actually study it!

Incredibly ironic, I'd say.

24865. KuligintheHooligan - 10/13/2004 7:38:16 AM

"I disregard your idea that Christianity has staying power 'because it's true' because it is, indeed, a meaningless one. Not because things can't be true, but because it's a tautology."

Just a quick comment about A-5's quote above. It is certainly NOT meaningless to put to the veracity of a certain thing as proof for its positive outcome. It is not, in other words, just a tautology.

Again, showing that some things, although not true, do in fact succeed, does not necessarily yield that truth itself cannot be one factor, perhaps among many, for why something has succeeded. Such an argument is a non sequitur.

Christianity could very well have succeeded because it was true. You simply cannot discount this outright. However, it may have succeeded for other reasons as well. But to point to things which have succeeded and NOT been true, that is a non-sequitur. Pointing to things which have been true and have not succeeded is also a non-sequitur.

The possibly for the truthful of Christianity and hence it success must a priori be allowed if one is to look intelligently and openly at the possible explanations for its success.

A-5 either doesn't understand the word "tautology" or just doesn't know how to use it properly.

24866. KuligintheHooligan - 10/13/2004 7:42:30 AM

Christianity has "worked" for millions of people throughout the centuries. Why it has succeeded must be answered within this context.

Of course, moving to Islam, the very same criteria must be allowed. But no one, in the name of good research and open, honest investigation, can a priori disallow the truthfulness of either Christianity or Islam when studying the success of each. To disallow it for either only shows the investigator to be a fanatic, or at bare minimum disallows the investigator from claiming that he or she is being open, honest, and fairly in his or her investigation.

Clearly Jenerator has a point to make in this discussion, namely, that all agnostics and atheists and skeptics who frequent this thread ASSUME from the outset that Christianity cannot possibly be true. Then they pretend to be objective observers and act as if they are making objective, honest evaluations of its success throughout the centuries. But that is very clearly not a good research methodology.

24867. pelty - 10/13/2004 7:53:35 AM

"It is very simple. To see how important theft was to the success of Christianity, imagine what would have happened to Europe if the western hemisphere did not exist."

Perhaps you need to define "Christianity" for me here. Are you using it in the sense of "the religion based upon the teachings, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth" or in the cultural sense? Undoubtedly, "spread the gospel to the primitives" was one aspect of the imperialistic land grabs of the post-Renaissance period(although how large a part is up for debate), but I think one could make a good case that religion was not the driving force behind these conquests. Further, there were indeed a large number of missionaries who did have a concern for the indigenous people, who did preach the gospel to them, and who did seek to aid them in other ways as well. Thus, it might be argued that there was a legitimate effort made to help these people on another level. Whether you feel they *needed* that help is another matter, I know. The point here is to differentiate, to some degree, btwn cultural Christianity and the role it played in political decisions and "missions Christianity" in which an attempt was made to spread what was viewed by the missionaries as good news to those who were in need of it.

24868. alistairconnor - 10/13/2004 9:09:06 AM

Perhaps you need to define "Christianity" for me here.

We learned here recently that "Hitler was not a Christian". I guess Cortez wasn't either.

24869. wonkers2 - 10/13/2004 9:25:53 AM

K-man, I for one, do not assume that "Christianity cannot possibly be true." It obviously contains much wisdom and truth. For me, it's not a matter of either-or, true or untrue, but one of finding and preserving and following the truth and casting aside what modern physical and social science and ethics have shown to be false.

24870. clydefo - 10/13/2004 9:31:54 AM

It seems that judith is telling Jenerator that before she has studied up on the Koran, she cannot possibly begin to make sweeping statements about it.24864. KuligintheHooligan

Read the exchange again carefully. "It" is Jen's comment, not the Koran itself

Jen: The Koran has not stood up to the same level of scrutiny that the Bible has

Judith: You cannot possibly know if this is true or not. There are millions of believers who study the Koran and unless you have studied their writings as extensively as you have studied the Bible and its critics and scholars, you cannot make a statement like that.

24871. angel-five - 10/13/2004 10:07:55 AM

The possibly for the truthful of Christianity and hence it success must a priori be allowed if one is to look intelligently and openly at the possible explanations for its success.

The truth of Christianity cannot be demonstrated via any medium, Kuligin. It must either be accepted in faith or not so accepted. Therefore the 'truth' of it is in no way an explanation for its success, when compared to the perception of that 'truth' -- its believability. It doesn't matter whether or not it's true if someone believes it to be, and the truth can not be proven. It doesn't matter whether or not it's true if someone doesn't so believe, and the truth cannot be proven.If we were speaking of any other religion you would concede this right off the bat.

When truth can be verified -- i.e. 'Gravity is working as normal today' it matters as to whether or not someone will keep believing the statement. After all, you can check. But when truth cannot be verified, it is epistemologically worthless. Your problem is that you keep creeping back into ideas that suggest your religion can be properly subjected to logic and science.

I know how to use the word 'tautology'. You just aren't prepared to embrace any argument which smells like it might disavow Christianity's righteous self-evident truth.

24872. KuligintheHooligan - 10/13/2004 10:25:37 AM

24873. clydefo - 10/13/2004 10:36:56 AM

Again, showing that some things, although not true, do in fact succeed, does not necessarily yield that truth itself cannot be one factor, perhaps among many, for why something has succeeded. Such an argument is a non sequitur 24865. KuligintheHooligan

Your statement is contradictory gibberish. If a thing has been shown to be not true, then truth indeed cannot be factor.

Christianity has "worked" for millions of people throughout the centuries. Why it has succeeded must be answered within this context. 24866. KuligintheHooligan

I'm surprised that any educated person would use the "millions can't be wrong!" argument.

24874. KuligintheHooligan - 10/13/2004 10:45:32 AM

"Read the exchange again carefully. "It" is Jen's comment, not the Koran itself"

That is immaterial to my original point, which was that judith is chastising Jenerator for making sweeping statements about the Koran, on her assumption that Jenerator has not studied it enough to make said sweeping generalities.

Ironically, judith does precisely the same thing wrt the Bible, ON TOP OF WHICH she admits she has hardly studied it or read it. And when I tell judith she needs to read it and study it more before making her nonsensical statements about the Bible, she calls me arrogant.

However, what makes judith's recent behaviour all the more laughable is the fact that she doesn't even know if Jenerator has studied the Koran in-depth. In other words, whereas judith admits she hasn't studied the Bible, yet continues to make her stupid nonsensical generalities about the Bible, she chastises Jenerator for seemingly doing the very same thing, yet doesn't even know if Jenerator has done in-depth study of the Koran. Go figure.

Please, try to keep up clyde.

24875. KuligintheHooligan - 10/13/2004 10:47:08 AM

"I'm surprised that any educated person would use the "millions can't be wrong!" argument."

I didn't make this argument, clyde. I have merely repeated what has already been questioned in this thread, namely, why has Christianity succeeded. That you jump to the wild conclusion that I am saying "millions can't be wrong!" is just silly. Are there not millions of atheists in the world today? There you go.

Again, please try to keep up.

24876. KuligintheHooligan - 10/13/2004 10:49:12 AM

Also, as I read alistair's brief list about the possible reasons for the success of Christianity, one popped to my mind that he did not mention, a quote from Tertullian actually:

"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church."

Tons of similar examples of the persecution of Christianity, followed immediately by its success in those regions, can be produced from missiology. It should not be discounted that many people were attracted to the early Christians and their faith simply by how they withstood what was at times vicious persecution.

24877. angel-five - 10/13/2004 10:54:05 AM

I must disagree, A-5, at least on the level that you are just being sloppy. In short, some things in Christianity are very much true and can be proven as such, while other things are indeed left to the realm of "faith." You are painting "Christianity" with far too broad a brush.

And now you're moving the goalposts from 'Christianity' to 'some things in Christianity'. One senses you're doing this just to be difficult, because it's far too retardedly obvious to be a genuine tactic.

I disregard your idea that Christianity has staying power 'because it's true' because it is, indeed, a meaningless one. Not because things can't be true, but because it's a tautology. was what was said in response to My answer is that Christianity has lasted because it was and is true and because it changes the lives of people. And it is indeed a tautology for the likes of Jenerator to say that. We already know she thinks it is true. Her entire approach to the religion is part and parcel crafted on the assumption and faith that it's completely, irrevocably true. You can start up your yammer machine if you like and stick to your initial assertion if you want, but I know what was said and why, whereas you just came snuffling.

24878. clydefo - 10/13/2004 11:12:24 AM

Are there not millions of atheists in the world today? There you go.
Again, please try to keep up.

Are you asserting that someone is claiming that millions of atheists can't be wrong, or are you saying that atheism is "successful"? Or what?
I do try to keep up as best I can but it is difficult slogging through your fractured logic mixed with deliberate misstatement of what others say.

24879. Bill Russell - 10/13/2004 11:56:44 AM

Even though religion was an important part of the
founding fathers' lives their writings never placed
God on one side of a political issue or another.

While they sought spiritual guidance in a personal
way they strongly believed in the separation of church
and state.

They did not turn religious groups into
political actors, as the Bushites are doing.

24880. sakonige - 10/13/2004 12:23:14 PM

pelty, what Jenerator says "took over the world and influenced every aspect of culture in the [sic]Western hemisphere for the last 1700 years" is a culture.

24881. clydefo - 10/13/2004 12:26:48 PM

Also, you did indeed use "tautology" improperly. Take a look again. "Christianity is successful because it is true" is not a tautology, no matter how you slice it. You might say that the truth itself cannot be verified, but that still does not make the above statement a tautology. You are using the word improperly, that's all. 24872. KuligintheHooligan

From Webster's New World Dictionary & Thesaurus (CD):

tau-tol-ogy
n.,
pl. -gies
1 a) needless repetition of an idea in a different word, phrase, or sentence; redundancy; pleonasm (Ex.: “necessary essentials”) b) an instance of such repetition
2 Logic a proposition that is ANALYTIC (sense 5)

ana-lytic
adj.
[ML analyticus < Gr analytikos < analytos, soluble: see Analysis]
...
5 Logic necessarily true by virtue of the meaning of its component terms alone, without reference to external fact, and with its denial resulting in self-contradiction; tautologous [an analytic proposition]: opposed to SYNTHETIC

From the "internets":

In logic , a tautology is a statement which is true by its own definition, and is therefore fundamentally uninformative. Logical tautologies use circular reasoning within an argument or statement.
In linguistics , a tautology is a redundancy due to superfluous qualification.

(continued)

24882. clydefo - 10/13/2004 12:27:15 PM

Logical tautologies
A logical tautology is a statement that is true regardless of the truth-values of its parts. For example, the statement "All crows are either black, or they are not black," is a tautology, because it is true no matter what color crows are. As a humorous example, the tautology is famously defined as "that which is tautological". (That definition is, of course, tautological.) In a more realistic example, if a biologist were to define "fit" in the phrase "survival of the fittest" as "more likely to survive", he would be forming a tautology.
The opposite of a tautology is a contradiction , which is a statement that is always false.

Example
Sometimes a logical tautology can be quite subtle. Suppose that a news analyst were to make the following statement:
All mainstream U.S. Senators agree that the House bill is unacceptable.
This would seem to be a meaningful statement. But suppose further that he were to also reveal his opinion that "Senator K disagrees, and has therefore shown himself to be outside of the mainstream." In this case, the analyst's definition of "mainstream" requires opposition to the House bill. Therefore his original statement was a tautology.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Tautology

VERDICT: Given both
" necessarily true by virtue of the meaning of its component terms alone, without reference to external fact, and with its denial resulting in self-contradiction
AND
"In logic , a tautology is a statement which is true by its own definition, and is therefore fundamentally uninformative."
from above, the statement "Christianity is successful because it is true" is clearly a tautology.

Next!

24883. Bill Russell - 10/13/2004 12:39:20 PM

Chris·tian·i·ty

Pronunciation: "kris-chE-'a-n&-tE, "krish-, -'cha-n&-, "kris-tE-'a-

Function: noun

Date: 14th century

1 : the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies

2 : conformity to the Christian religion

.......................................................

As stated above there are many "Christian" religions plus many thousands of different sects professing different interpretations of Christiainty.

How does someone who wants to believe in Christianity decide which one is the right one? It would take a lifetime of study, and even then he conclusion may well be a false one.

24884. KuligintheHooligan - 10/13/2004 1:20:17 PM

"And now you're moving the goalposts from 'Christianity' to 'some things in Christianity'."

Perhaps it has already been done and I just missed it, but where was "Christianity" ever defined in the question, "Why did Christianity succeed?"

You seem to be limiting the discussion to only the seemingly unprovable aspects of the Christian faith, and then making your conclusions based on that. Perhaps, though, I am wrong.

24885. KuligintheHooligan - 10/13/2004 1:22:09 PM

Actually, I see now in "24867. pelty" that he asks this question. I do not, however, see it answered by anybody so far. Perhaps pelty was having the same sort of problems with your sweeping generalities as I was?

24886. KuligintheHooligan - 10/13/2004 1:25:07 PM

"My answer is that Christianity has lasted because it was and is true and because it changes the lives of people."

Again, this is not a tautology. It is, rather, an answer to the question of why Christianity has lasted. Of course, it may be a wrong answer, but it is clearly not a tautology.

And again, you can say that the truthfulness of Christianity cannot be proven, but that still does not make the above statement a tautology. What it would make it is an unprovable statement, but that is not tantamount to a tautology.

24887. angel-five - 10/13/2004 1:52:18 PM

Perhaps it has already been done and I just missed it, but where was "Christianity" ever defined in the question, "Why did Christianity succeed?"

You seem to be limiting the discussion to only the seemingly unprovable aspects of the Christian faith, and then making your conclusions based on that. Perhaps, though, I am wrong.

Why do people think limp and sickly tendentiousness is a better excuse for something they said than just being wrong? It's like telling your girlfriend the reason you were staring at some hottie in the parking lot is you thought she was a twelve year old boy.

Kuligin, you're the only one who has tried to make the topic anything other than Christianity as a whole, and that just for some weak-sister argument that no one else would bother to make. The question was about Christianity, not some subset of it, and why it succeeded. Christianity was the subject of my statements, and, indeed, everyone else's but yours. And if a component of the whole is unprovable then the whole is unprovable, by logical definition.

Again, this is not a tautology. It is, rather, an answer to the question of why Christianity has lasted. Of course, it may be a wrong answer, but it is clearly not a tautology.

Read my answer again as many times as it takes. The fact that you didn't get it the first time shouldn't be my problem.

24888. angel-five - 10/13/2004 2:06:03 PM

You can, of course, address my argument and prove me wrong. You need merely demonstrate that Christianity is true. I feel comfortable in suggesting that you won't be doing that. You, like everyone else in your religion, rely upon faith in your god, which for you provides all the substantiation you require. Which is absolutely fine.

The only problem is that means the truth itself, as it cannot be proven, can't be a reason why Christianity -- or for that matter any other unprovable religion -- has staying power. What matters is that people can be convinced by its appeal and continue to do so over time. You may feel that their ability to remain content that Christianity is true is dependent upon Christianity being true, but in fact their ability to remain in that state is dependent upon their willingness to have faith in that which can't be proven.

24889. KuligintheHooligan - 10/13/2004 2:44:24 PM

"And if a component of the whole is unprovable then the whole is unprovable, by logical definition."

Nonsense. You cannot discount the obvious "provable" aspects of Christianity by stating that at least some of it is "unprovable," therefore it must all be. That is hogwash and you know it.

And when I tried to speak of some component aspects of Christianity, you said I was moving the "goalposts!" So from one side of your mouth, you say we must speak of it as a whole. Yet, from the other side, you say that if certain parts of Christianity are unprovable, then the whole is. You, buddy, are the one moving the goalposts.

24890. KuligintheHooligan - 10/13/2004 2:48:02 PM

"The only problem is that means the truth itself, as it cannot be proven, can't be a reason why Christianity -- or for that matter any other unprovable religion -- has staying power."

No, all it does state, though, is that the truth cannot be proven. THAT, my friend, is an actual tautology. You are, in fact, falsely accusing Jenerator of using a tautology, while the whole time you are using one!

Also, this entire argument rests on what is considered "provable." Obviously, your presuppositions will automatically negate any definition of that term which allows Christian tenets to be true, which is the entire complaint Jenerator had with you and yours from the beginning. You first a priori eliminate certain possible answers to the question, "Why did Christianity succeed?" and then you go about your "investigation" as if you are being open and objective. Hardly. You first negate the possible answers you don't like or accept, and THEN and only then do you begin your investigation. Sloppy, sloppy methodology.

24891. KuligintheHooligan - 10/13/2004 2:48:57 PM

24892. Jenerator - 10/13/2004 3:00:25 PM

Thank you.

24893. PelleNilsson - 10/13/2004 3:20:04 PM

"Tautology"

The current craze. Let's hope it will pass.

24894. angel-five - 10/13/2004 3:22:59 PM

Nonsense. You cannot discount the obvious "provable" aspects of Christianity by stating that at least some of it is "unprovable," therefore it must all be. That is hogwash and you know it.

But that's not what I'm doing, unfortunately for you. Read the lips, Kuligin -- you're the only one talking about aspects of Christianity. All I'm talking about is the whole of it, which cannot be proven if it can't all be proven! Do you get this? Do you need a picture painted for you?

It's like I'm saying 'It can't be proven that Dubya Bush is a coke-snorting smirk monkey jackass' and you're saying 'Well, it can be proven that he's a jackass!' So? Does that mean that he's a coke-snorting smirk monkey jackass? No. The fact that you can prove he's a jackass doesn't cut the mustard. And you are getting indignant and insisting that 'The fact that you can't prove he's a monkey doesn't mean that you can't prove he's a coke-snorting smirk monkey jackass!' Of course it does, you simpleton! It's a basic rule of logic! Think a little before you type at me.

And when I tried to speak of some component aspects of Christianity, you said I was moving the "goalposts!" So from one side of your mouth, you say we must speak of it as a whole. Yet, from the other side, you say that if certain parts of Christianity are unprovable, then the whole is. You, buddy, are the one moving the goalposts.

You were moving them. Now since I respond to you, I'm the one doing it?!?!? Kuligin, is there some place you can sit down and breathe deeply for a few hours?

I'm not saying it must be spoken of as a whole, merely that we were speaking of it so. You didn't like that, so you started up about some bits of Christianity which you presume you can prove (I'd like to see that, BTW, for the record). Grasp that.

24895. angel-five - 10/13/2004 3:24:26 PM

No, all it does state, though, is that the truth cannot be proven. THAT, my friend, is an actual tautology.

This is freakishly ridiculous.

No, Kuligin, isn't. It's a simple argument. Saying that since it can't be proven whether or not Christianity is true, the putative truth of Christianity cannot be a factor in why people choose to embrace it, is a simple and straightforward argument from first principles. If it were a tautology it would be something like 'The appeal of Christianity can't be because it's true, because Christianity can't be true.'

If you mention the word 'tautology' again I may be ill, so please find some other point of wrongheaded obsession if you wish to continue.

Also, this entire argument rests on what is considered "provable." Obviously, your presuppositions will automatically negate any definition of that term which allows Christian tenets to be true, which is the entire complaint Jenerator had with you and yours from the beginning.

You're embarrassing yourself now. Go back and read the posts instead of ranting and raving about nonsense that was never said or implied, let alone telling me I'm bringing up the things you admit you brought up. If you find your medication along the way remember to take it.

I have never said that Christianity cannot be true in this discussion, even indirectly. In fact I believe I've made a point to illustrate that it doesn't much matter whether or not it is true. My point has been that whether or not it is true cannot be proven. Once again, if you don't like that point, then prove Christianity is true. You can't and we know that bugs you a whole lot, Kuligin. And that's fine. But for the love of Roman body-piercing stick to what's really been said.

24896. angel-five - 10/13/2004 3:29:20 PM

So let's cut to the chase, A-5. Are you open to the possibility that "Christianity" is true?

I find it supremely unlikely and boorishly stupid but I cannot logically rule it out. So, yes, I am open to the possibility. However, before you grab that like a dog with a stick and run with it, you have to be made to understand that it doesn't matter whether or not it is true if that truth cannot be logically made manifest. All that matters is if people can be made to believe in that truth, or not.

People do not believe unbelievable truths unless those truths are proven to them. Cut and dried, that is it. The point of you and the Tejano Termagant there is 'You're not open to the possibility that Christianity is true and that's why you're being so mean to me and refusing to listen to what I'm saying.' It's a common refrain. Guess what? We could even for the sake of argument pretend that I was completely closed to the possibility and I could still have a compelling argument why your rationale is fallacious and wrong. You keep clapping lips about how I'm closed minded -- well, if you weren't so slope-browedly intent on pursuing your point, you'd see that it's irrelevant and it's only your frustration at the fact that I don't buy your god's story which is impelling you, and your friend there, in this argument.

24897. judithathome - 10/13/2004 3:31:00 PM

I find that a most shocking statement coming from judith.

Why? Because I am holding Jen to a standard you demand of me? Why is that shocking? I'm certain she has no intention of studying the Koran but I still think she's making an ignorant remark about it. You do the same with me...even though I have studied the Bible (very little, I'll admit) you still accuse me of making ignorant statements and you know I have no intention of furthering my studies...and even if I did have that intent, it could never add up to what you feel I must do.

What's shocking to me is how offended your sensibilities become when someone uses your own ploy on you (or Jen)...you haven't a very thick skin when it comes to being shocked by me.

Toughen up, Kuli! It's a cruel world out here.

24898. angel-five - 10/13/2004 3:38:08 PM

Really. What is so scary about the notion that since you can't prove Christianity, people are converted to it by how persuasive they find it?????? Someone tell me so I can know. I am genuinely at a loss as to how that's a hard concept -- that when truth cannot be established, one must rely upon persuasion in order to convince someone that something is true. It seems straightforward and simple to me.

24899. angel-five - 10/13/2004 3:39:51 PM

And while we're at it, if anyone can see how use could be derived from Kuligin's expostulations here today and the resulting discussion, I'm all ears.

24900. Jenerator - 10/13/2004 3:56:51 PM

A-5

For giggles, I have decided to dissect your last post, cutting out all of your insults and opinions and hyperbole. Let's see what's left...? Your insults, opinions and examples of hyperbole are italicized and in brackets and bolded all that remains.

[I find it supremely unlikely and boorishly stupid] but I cannot logically rule it out. So, yes, I am open to the possibility. However, before you grab that [like a dog with a stick] and run with it, you have to [be made to] understand that[it doesn't matter whether or not it is true if that truth cannot be logically made manifest.] [All that matters] is if people can be made to believe in that truth, or not.

[People do not believe unbelievable truths unless those truths are proven to them.] [Cut and dried, that is it.] The point of you and [the Tejano Termagant] there is 'You're not open to the possibility that Christianity is true and that's why [you're being so mean to me and refusing to listen to what I'm saying.'] It's a common refrain. Guess what? [We could even for the sake of argument pretend that I was completely closed to the possibility and I could still have a compelling argument why your rationale is fallacious and wrong.] You keep [clapping lips] about how I'm closed minded -- well, if you weren't [so slope-browedly] intent on pursuing your point, [you'd see that it's irrelevant and it's only your frustration at the fact that I don't buy your god's story which is impelling you, and your friend there, in this argument]

24901. Jenerator - 10/13/2004 3:57:14 PM

Here's all that's left when I cut out the usual invective from you:

...but I cannot logically rule it out. So, yes, I am open to the possibility. However, before you grab that...and run with it, you have to...understand that... is if people can be made to believe in that truth, or not... The point of you and...there is 'You're not open to the possibility that Christianity is true and that's why... It's a common refrain. Guess what?... about how I'm closed minded -- well, if you weren't... intent on pursuing your point

24902. Jenerator - 10/13/2004 4:00:34 PM

I find it supremely unlikely and boorishly stupid but I cannot logically rule it out. So, yes, I am open to the possibility.

You sound really open.

All that matters is if people can be made to believe in that truth, or not.

Speaking of truth, you have not made your claim to openness believable, at all. I mean, not even a little.

Thanks for the great laugh!

24903. KuligintheHooligan - 10/13/2004 4:22:02 PM

"I find it supremely unlikely and boorishly stupid but I cannot logically rule it out. So, yes, I am open to the possibility."

Good. Then you admit the possibility that Jenerator is indeed correct, that the success of Christianity is due to the fact that its claims are true. Finally, we are getting somewhere.

Therefore, her original statement is no longer a tautology if you allow for the possibility that Christianity is in fact true.

24904. KuligintheHooligan - 10/13/2004 4:24:57 PM

As for the whole versus the parts, A-5, there are varied truth claims concerning Christianity. Some of them involves the supernatural (the Bible is a book inspired by God), some of them historical (Jesus was a itinerate rabbi living in first-century Palestine), and some of them are practical in nature (the Bible has no contradictions of fact, or Christianity promises me a better life and it has delivered).

Yours has been a rather simplistic approach up to this point. pelty asked a question about what was meant by "Christianity" for good reason, because it seems he recognized that there are varied aspects to it. I was merely aiming at the same goal.

Some things within the Christian faith are indeed provable, others not (of course, depending on one's definition of "provable").

24905. KuligintheHooligan - 10/13/2004 4:28:01 PM

"In fact I believe I've made a point to illustrate that it doesn't much matter whether or not it is true."

This is where I must admit that your stupidity in all of this really amazes me. You said this earlier and Jenerator correctly chastised you for it. So let's be very, very clear here. IF the claims of Christianity are true, then it matters very, very much when one is discussing why it has been successful.

That you have already admitted the POSSIBILITY that the claims of this faith are true, then you must also admit that its veracity matters very much when it comes to its success throughout the centuries.

24906. wonkers2 - 10/13/2004 4:29:19 PM

It's pointless to argue whether "Christianity" is true or not. Most of us subscribe to Judaeo-Christian values and morality. Problems arise when fundamentalists insist on THEIR version of Christianity which contains much with which contemporary educated people do not agree--homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research, creationism, capital punishment, male dominance over women, male only clergy, just to name a few and which have little or nothing to do with Christianity.

24907. KuligintheHooligan - 10/13/2004 4:30:21 PM

"What is so scary about the notion that since you can't prove Christianity, people are converted to it by how persuasive they find it??????"

Is this addressed to me, because I don't recall ever addressing this issue. I think what you have done here, A-5, is jump to conclusions that I did not imply or state. Obviously I believe the claims of Christianity to be persuasive, so I'm not sure why you think I do not.

Of course, the above hasn't been my point at all. My point, which I believe was Jenerator's original point if I read her correctly, is that you cannot a priori exclude the possibility that Christianity's success has been the result of its truth claims being in fact true. That when it promises new life, it gives it, and so on.

24908. KuligintheHooligan - 10/13/2004 4:34:52 PM

"Why? Because I am holding Jen to a standard you demand of me? Why is that shocking?"

Dense, dense, dense. I've pointed out and explained the irony twice now, judith, so I'm surprised you've missed it. So I'll go a third time at it, the charm, right?

Every time I use the above standard on your nambypamby conclusions about the Bible, you scream and rant at how arrogant I am, how all I ever do is ask you to study it more before making your ridiculously uninformed comments, and so on.

Had you never objected to my suggestion that you study more, no irony would exist in you suggesting the same to Jenerator. But that you foam at the mouth every time I tell you to improve on your ignorance, to see you trying the same tactic on Jenerator is most laughable.

In other words, oh wise judith, heal thyself! Yours is nothing but hypocritical until you first recognize FOR YOURSELF that you must do the very same thing.

However, I'll allow you this out. If you indeed do recognize your own ignorance wrt to the Bible, and that that ignorance makes the vast majority of your statements about the Bible stupid and idiotic, then I take back my recent "ironic" comments concerning your remarks to Jenerator about the Koran. Okay?

I hope you follow this. I don't want to have to repeat it.

24909. Jenerator - 10/13/2004 4:34:54 PM

You read me correctly.

24910. KuligintheHooligan - 10/13/2004 4:37:16 PM

"I'm certain she has no intention of studying the Koran but I still think she's making an ignorant remark about it."

More irony here, judith. For starters, you have no idea how much Jenerator has studied the Koran, and secondly, from what I recall from this forum, it is certainly much more than you have ever studied it!

Sooooooo, that you conclude in your ignorance of the Koran that what Jenerator said about it is ignorant is, well, ironic. In other words, you suggest she cannot conclude what she does about the Koran based on what exactly? Your superior knowledge of the Koran? Your HUNCH that she is wrong?

Even here you stumble.

24911. KuligintheHooligan - 10/13/2004 4:40:37 PM

"What's shocking to me is how offended your sensibilities become when someone uses your own ploy on you (or Jen)...you haven't a very thick skin when it comes to being shocked by me.

Toughen up, Kuli! It's a cruel world out here."

Whatever. Assuming you have (once again) missed the point, you can question all you like judith. Just don't act like you actually know what you are talking about, though.

In the future, here's a much better tactic. "Jenerator, your statements about the Koran are just plain wrong AND HERE IS WHY, GIVEN MY OWN STUDY OF THE KORAN AND/OR ISLAM." That would be a great comeback, judith.

But instead, what we get are hunches and impressions from you, because, guess what, YOU HAVEN'T STUDIES DIDDLY ABOUT IT YOURSELF!! "I think Jen must be wrong because I can feel it in my gut that she is" just doesn't cut it, judith.

So take your own medicine. Go, study up on the Koran (and the Bible while you are at it) and then, perhaps, you can actually refute Jenerator's claim(s) about it. Until then, you just look stupid.

Either that, or just cut your losses and don't respond. Save some face while you still can.

24912. clydefo - 10/13/2004 4:43:50 PM

A-5: I find it supremely unlikely and boorishly stupid but I cannot logically rule it out. So, yes, I am open to the possibility.

Jen: You sound really open.

Don't pout. Do you want and emotional commitment? He clearly means "open to the possibility for the sake of discussion."

24913. KuligintheHooligan - 10/13/2004 4:44:08 PM

wonkers

Please read these two sentences of your outloud to yourself:

"It's pointless to argue whether "Christianity" is true or not. Most of us subscribe to Judaeo-Christian values and morality."

Do you subscribe to Judaeo-Christian values and morality because they are false?? Do you believe them to be false yet hold to them anyway?? Or don't you, by the fact that you subscribe to them, believe them to be true?

And if they were shown to be false, would you still subscribe to them, or would you chuck them for something else? Please don't tell me you knowingly subscribe to false teachings!!

OF COURSE it matters if the truth claims of Christianity are in fact true if one is to analyze the success of that faith. It promises new life, both here and now. Is that in fact a true claim? If the answer is yes, then obviously it has at least played a part in the success of Christianity.

24914. KuligintheHooligan - 10/13/2004 4:47:59 PM

The only way one can say that the veracity of the truth claims of Christianity have not in fact played a part in the success of that religion is to a priori rule out the truthfulness of the claims of Christianity.

However, to say, "Um, yes, the claims of Christianity could in fact be true, but that wouldn't have had anything to do with its success" is about as nonsensical as one can get.

Again, if what Christainity claims it can deliver is true, then people are going to find that out and move toward it, unless they are already hell bent are rejecting any possibility of its truth claims as being in fact true. And if people move to this faith because its claims our true, that is certainly at least one reason why that faith has succeeded. It has succeeded because it has delivered on what it has promised, i.e., what it claims is true.

24915. alistairConnor - 10/13/2004 5:11:53 PM

However, to say, "Um, yes, the claims of Christianity could in fact be true, but that wouldn't have had anything to do with its success" is about as nonsensical as one can get.

Ku, substitute "Islam" for "Christianity", and see how you like it.

Ten thousand screaming fanatics who have direct personal revelation of God can't possibly be wrong, can they?

whether the fellow's called Jehovah or Allah. All the same to me.

24916. Marshame - 10/13/2004 5:25:51 PM

TOTAL SIDEBAR - the point of which is to show you that Christianity is not the most ridiculous or ludicrous religion in the world....

Recently I was in India, and I was to give a speech to a group of 8th and 9th standard (grade) students. On the way to the place where I would speak, the "captain" of the 9th standard told me in beautiful English (she had lived in England for 5 years, so was free of that heavy Indian accent.) Anyway, she told me crisply, "Today we are having a celebration for Ganesh [it was the 8th day of a 10-day celebration to the elephant god. He is a son of Krishna who accidently got his head whacked off so an elephant head was popped on, in its place, and as a result, he is the god of wealth/good fortune - go figure!]... anyhow, back to the captain's speach.... "Today we are having a celebration for Ganesh and we would like you to participate. We will be blessing the idol and praying so please remove your shoes!"

24917. Marshame - 10/13/2004 5:26:34 PM

More..
At that, she led me to a shrine on a patch of dirt in the middle of this lovely modern school. In front of the shrine were about 5 students, and the lower grades surrounded them and everyone looked happy and cheerful because Ganesh is a happy and cheerful god. The idol was on the center of the shrine, surrounded by small chrysanthumum blossoms (the're everywhere in this part of India) and burning incense. I told the girl "I'm a Christian, and we don't worship idols, so I won't be participating. But I'd like to watch and perhaps you can tell me what is going on." The girl smiled and led me to the side where we proceeded to watch them toss flower petals over the idol, then someone rang a bell while someone else prayed in Hindi. I was told that at the end of the 10-day festival, they carrying one of the many Ganesh idol's to the river and have great fun dunking it. No one felt the need to explain any of the theological meaning of any of this to me other that to tell me that Ganesh is very, very popular!

24918. Marshame - 10/13/2004 5:33:26 PM

Later that day, while I was watching a GIS demonstration, I could not help but notice a shrine on the wall next to the guy's computer workstation. It had idols to the elephant god, the money god, and a third one, and all were draped in floral wreathes with votive candles burning under them.

Amazing! Later, I was told that if religion is involved, the government does nothing. For example, if a spontaneous demonstration erupts in a busy intersection, tying up traffice for hours, the police will do nothing if it is a religious demonstration. This poses many problems, as you can well imagine. For example, right in the middle of a traffice circle, a squatter started building his cardboard shanty ("illegal encroachment", as the Indians diplomatically call it) and the next day when the city folks came to tear it down, he had smartly set up a shrine to some idol right in the middle, with a poster and a votive candle, and voila, it was a religious shrine and therefore could not be taken down.

Of course, you might wonder why anyone would want to live on a traffic circle in the middle of a congested intersection, but that, as they say, is one of the many contradictions one finds in India.

24919. clydefo - 10/13/2004 5:51:50 PM

So let's cut to the chase, A-5. Are you open to the possibility that "Christianity" is true?
If you are not even open to that possibility, then you can hardly be considered an objective investigator into why it has proven successful. 24891. KuligintheHooligan

A-5: I cannot logically rule it out. So, yes, I am open to the possibility."
However, before you grab that [like a dog with a stick] and run with it...

Kulgin: Good. Then you admit the possibility that Jenerator is indeed correct, that the success of Christianity is due to the fact that its claims are true.

Whoa, Fido...he uses "possibility" to refer only to the actual truth of formative events, i.e., did they really occur? And not to Jen's assertions about the impact of such alleged events on the success of Christianity. He still maintains that success is due to other factors.

The only way one can say that the veracity of the truth claims of Christianity have not in fact played a part in the success of that religion is to a priori rule out the truthfulness of the claims of Christianity. 24914. KuligintheHooligan

No, not the only way. Another way is to posit fraud or gullibility.

However, to say, "Um, yes, the claims of Christianity could in fact be true, but that wouldn't have had anything to do with its success" is about as nonsensical as one can get.

No one is saying this. The "claims" might not have had anything to do with it.

24920. alistairConnor - 10/13/2004 5:57:07 PM

I told the girl "I'm a Christian, and we don't worship idols, so I won't be participating.

ummmmright. That cross thing with a little man on it isn't an idol. (hint : it's the real thing. It's true.)

24921. Jenerator - 10/13/2004 5:58:33 PM

That's weird. Even the girl said it was an idol.

24922. alistairConnor - 10/13/2004 6:01:16 PM

"idol" has a negative connotation in Christianity (and Christian idols are not called idols for that reason) but not for Hindus apparently

24923. angel-five - 10/13/2004 6:32:27 PM

Therefore, her original statement is no longer a tautology if you allow for the possibility that Christianity is in fact true.

No, Vic. Because you are once again slipping back into that state where you pretend the truth of Christianity is something that can be established, and the point all along has been that it isn't something that can be so established. Whether or not it is 'true' is meaningless to people who cannot, in fact, establish whether or not it is true, insofar as it being true or false changes their thinking. Do you see this? Epistemologically it doesn't fit into the equation.

So what is left? Well, of course, as you, and Regan and Goneril there would point out, the fact that you can't logically prove that your Christian ethos is true doesn't mean that you can't think it's true. You do think it's true, of course. You just can't know it to be true, save through faith. So where we're left is pretty simple, once you allow for the fact that no one fervently practices a religion they believe to be false -- the question of truth itself does not matter. Although of course everyone who practices a religion thinks it is true and would be upset if they were to somehow learn it was false, that has very little to do with whether or not the religion is actually true. What matters is how persuasive the religion is, since there's no other avenue open by which people can decide whether or not it's legitimate, whether or not they'll follow it themselves. Do you see that?

Then you start off about how you don't understand why I'm addressing that argument to you, because you haven't made it. Well, guess what? I have! It is, in fact, an essential part of the explanation, one that you were blowing on by because you had the bit in your teeth. Glad you noticed it this time. Glad you aren't disagreeing with it.

24924. angel-five - 10/13/2004 6:33:40 PM

So let's be very, very clear here. IF the claims of Christianity are true, then it matters very, very much when one is discussing why it has been successful.

To sum up. No, it doesn't matter. Not when the one who is discussing it can never know the truth of it save through faith. And the act of putting faith in something is nothing less than choosing to believe in it even though you can't know for sure if it's correct. So, once again, the truth doesn't matter there -- not in determining how the religion appeals to people who can't discern that truth.

I am amazed this is a topic of discussion. It's very simple. The world is full of competing religions, most of which claim to have an exclusive lock on the truth, The truth of these religions cannot be known to human beings. Yet all believers think their religion is true, although (unless you get new-agey) at least all but one, and possibly all, are demonstrably false. That doesn't matter to the believers either, as they have already decided they're on the right path. The intensity and appeal of their religion to them is unaffected. Does it matter whether Islam is true or not to its adherents? Of course it does, but since they a) can't know and b) already think it is true despite claims to the contrary, whether or not it actually is true is irrelevant.

********************************************

Now, the root of your argument probably would tend toward the idea that although logic can never demonstrate the truth of your god's religion, that god can nevertheless inspire you directly with the truth. Is that, in fact, so?

24925. judithathome - 10/13/2004 6:50:09 PM

In other words, oh wise judith, heal thyself! Yours is nothing but hypocritical until you first recognize FOR YOURSELF that you must do the very same thing.

Kuligin, you are indeed the most dense person around. I RECOGNIZE THE IRONY. I understand you all too well. YOU are the one who completely misses the point.

I WAS PARROTING YOU you silly, arrogant, puffed-up, irony-impaired piece of self-important blustery. I do indeed get it.

Maybe one day you will realize I am not the ignorant feebe you think me. I have no problem understanding anything written on this forum and certainly not written by YOU. The fact you want to believe otherwise is your own petty business but let me clue in on something: I am not the one who draws reams of ridicule except from you. People who come here continually chide you for missing the point. And for being pompous. And for being condescending. It seems to fuel you.

And I know Jen hasn't studied the Koran IN DEPTH because of the way she trashes it and everyone who believes in it. She comes in here and does the exact same thing about other religions that you slam me for doing about Christianity. You do it, too. You are BOYH hypocritical in the extreme.

Is that plain enough for you? Or do you feel compelled to go on for about 6000 more fatuous words about how frickin' dumb I am?

Have at it, buddy.

24926. judithathome - 10/13/2004 6:54:47 PM

So take your own medicine. Go, study up on the Koran (and the Bible while you are at it) and then, perhaps, you can actually refute Jenerator's claim(s) about it. Until then, you just look stupid.

Oh, but Jen doesn't have to prove her studies of the Koran before I believe her assessment of it, right?

24927. clydefo - 10/13/2004 6:55:18 PM

"It's pointless to argue whether "Christianity" is true or not. Most of us subscribe to Judaeo-Christian values and morality."

Kuligan, you sneer at this. Most all societies through all time subscribe to essentially the same set of values and moral precepts. Many cultural variations, of course, but nobody likes thieves, murderers, adulterers, blasphemers. Its not just Jews, Christians, and Republicans that adhere to "family values". Please name any values that are original with Christianity.

24928. judithathome - 10/13/2004 6:59:26 PM

On the way to the place where I would speak, the "captain" of the 9th standard told me in beautiful English (she had lived in England for 5 years, so was free of that heavy Indian accent.)

How nice for her. Maybe she is posting tonight to some Indian forum about the American lady who, though she spoke impecible English, sounded odd since she couldn't seem to overcome her Texas accent.

Sorry if that sounded condescending. I'm sure you didn't mean to sound that way (where I did) but just think about it for a bit.

(And before Kuligin attacks with his usual zeal, Marshame and I have met and know very well what each other sounds like.)

24929. Bill Russell - 10/14/2004 12:47:57 AM

" Marshame and I have met"

Hmmmmmmmmmm

A conspiracy .... ;^)

24930. Bill Russell - 10/14/2004 1:56:19 AM

I won't take my religion from any man who never works except with his mouth.

Carl Sandburg (1878 - 1967)

24931. Bill Russell - 10/14/2004 1:56:21 AM

I won't take my religion from any man who never works except with his mouth.

Carl Sandburg (1878 - 1967)

24932. Bill Russell - 10/14/2004 2:17:36 AM

When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion.

Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865),

24933. alistairconnor - 10/14/2004 6:43:51 AM

24916
TOTAL SIDEBAR - the point of which is to show you that Christianity is not the most ridiculous or ludicrous religion in the world....

Matter of opinion! I'm not sure you want to go there...

"I'm a Christian, and we don't worship idols, so I won't be participating"

That sure looks like a non sequitur to me...

If you'd said "I'm a Muslim, and..." or "I'm a Jew, and..." -- that would make perfect sense, because they are serious about the no-graven-image thing. But hey, what's Jesus-on-a-stick, if not an idol? Absolutely central to the history of Christianity.

Nuance : maybe your particular brand of Protestant is serious about graven images?

24934. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 7:37:08 AM

"Ku, substitute "Islam" for "Christianity", and see how you like it."

Alistair, as I already said (perhaps you just didn't read closely enough) the same criteria used to evaluate the success of Christianity should be used when the question is asked of Islam as well.

24935. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 7:41:50 AM

"Kuligin, you are indeed the most dense person around. I RECOGNIZE THE IRONY. I understand you all too well. YOU are the one who completely misses the point."

Ah, yes.

"I WAS PARROTING YOU you silly, arrogant, puffed-up, irony-impaired piece of self-important blustery. I do indeed get it."

Now comes judith's consistent fallback position, "Oh, I was only joking." Just once, judith, it would be refreshing to see you actually admit you put your foot in your mouth, instead of pretending you did not while we all see it stuck firmly in that trap of yours.

But whatever. So now you were "just joking" as you normally state when caught.

Which only brings us around to the issue itself, namely, if you were only parroting someone else, then you do indeed admit that Jenerator has a firm enough grasp of Islam and the Koran to make her statement about it, right?

I still see you foot in your mouth judith.

24936. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 7:45:39 AM

"And I know Jen hasn't studied the Koran IN DEPTH because of the way she trashes it and everyone who believes in it. She comes in here and does the exact same thing about other religions that you slam me for doing about Christianity. You do it, too. You are BOYH hypocritical in the extreme."

Your rant is informative, judith, but still does not negate the fact that you are ignorant of things when it comes to Christianity and Islam, for that matter. Further, you have absolutely no basis upon which to make your conclusions about Jenerator's knowledge of Islam, because, well, you are just ignorant of Islam. So how can you really know anything, or even deign to be critical, when you admit you don't know anything about it yourself?

Don't you see how stupid you look? You chastise Jenerator for her comments on Islam, which, "obviously to you" MUST just be ignorant drivel, all the while proclaiming your own ignorance of Islam! In other words, in your own criticisms you refute your right to claim criticism!

"Or do you feel compelled to go on for about 6000 more fatuous words about how frickin' dumb I am?"

I don't need to. All we have to do is read your own posts to see that.

24937. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 7:48:25 AM

"Oh, but Jen doesn't have to prove her studies of the Koran before I believe her assessment of it, right?"

Actually, Jenerator has already proven herself to be knowledgable enough about Islam and the Koran in order to make the comment she made earlier, the one you threw-up on.

However, what we know from you so far is your own confession that you are ignorant of it.

Of course, I expect Jenerator to have something to back up her statements about the Koran. From where I am sitting, having studied Islam extensively, her original point about the Koran is highly accurate.

Now then, you can either 1) admit that it was, or 2) provide specific proof that what Jenerator said was wrong. The latter, of course, would require some actual scholarship on your part.

So which will it be, judith?

Or just more ranting and "Oh, I was only joking" nonsense from you??

24938. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 7:51:30 AM

A-5, your recent spate of posts to me suffer from the same problem as earlier. You are painting "Christian truth claims" with too broad a brush. I've said this already and endeavored to show why, but you just ignore that. So what's the point to proceed further? Not all the truth claims of the Christian faith are of the same level, or same provability or unprovability, but you continue to ignore the specifics in order to make broad, general (and hence wrong) conclusions.

Please return to your debate with Jenerator why don't you?

24939. judithathome - 10/14/2004 10:17:17 AM

But whatever. So now you were "just joking" as you normally state when caught.

I never said I was joking, just parroting you. Come to think of it, that might mean a joke since you sometimes ARE one.

Which only brings us around to the issue itself, namely, if you were only parroting someone else, then you do indeed admit that Jenerator has a firm enough grasp of Islam and the Koran to make her statement about it, right?

How does ME parrotting YOU make what Jen said accurate. Kuli? How does the fact I admit to imitating you make what she says more informed?

Your rant is informative, judith, but still does not negate the fact that you are ignorant of things when it comes to Christianity and Islam, for that matter.

Please show me when I have EVER said I had anything more than a casual knowledge of your religion or of Islam...I have never made claims otherwise. I read the bible from the age I could read til I was around 15 or 16 and I went to church twice on Sunday and on Wednesday nights for "bible study" but I have never once claimed to KNOW the bible as you and Jen do nor to have studied the Koran. YOU are the one that seems to be most bothered about this.

24940. judithathome - 10/14/2004 10:17:33 AM

I do think I can have an opinion on the bible but evidently you think that is some great sin in this world. You seem so offended that I could even read the bible and not believe it or to have been exposed to Christianity and not buy into it...didn't they tell you in divinity school that you wouldn't be able to convert everyone? Just consider me one of the bad seeds, why don't you?

Of course, I expect Jenerator to have something to back up her statements about the Koran. From where I am sitting, having studied Islam extensively, her original point about the Koran is highly accurate.

From where you are sitting...right. On the throne of judgement. See, I don't take your statements all that seriously, either, since you constantly pooh-pooh Angel Five's intelligence in matters he seems to have "extensively" studied. To me, you never seem to credit anyone with intelligence as actually having any, except for youself and Jen. You two are intellignet but no one else is. That's a little too narrow for me.

Now let's drop this...you've established that I am dumb. I've established that I don't believe you. I'm certain everyone is tired of both of us.

24941. judithathome - 10/14/2004 10:19:50 AM

Should have read:

Of course, I expect Jenerator to have something to back up her statements about the Koran. From where I am sitting, having studied Islam extensively, her original point about the Koran is highly accurate.

From where you are sitting...right. On the throne of judgement. See, I don't take your statements all that seriously, either, since you constantly pooh-pooh Angel Five's intelligence in matters he seems to have "extensively" studied. To me, you never seem to credit anyone with intelligence as actually having any, except for youself and Jen. You two are intellignet but no one else is. That's a little too narrow for me.

24942. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 10:21:56 AM

"How does ME parrotting YOU make what Jen said accurate. Kuli? How does the fact I admit to imitating you make what she says more informed?"

Gosh, you are slow. Let's try it this way, judith. Are you claiming that what Jenerator said concerning the Koran is false? If so, produce your solid bases upon which you build this conclusion. So far, all you have said is that you "think" she is wrong, or that you just know in the pit of your gut that she MUST be wrong, yadda yadda yadda. That's it.

It seems now that you are backtracking from your previous chastisement of Jenerator by your "I was only parroting you" comments.

24943. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 10:24:44 AM

"Please show me when I have EVER said I had anything more than a casual knowledge of your religion or of Islam...I have never made claims otherwise."

Geez, you are dense. Of course you don't know anything about the Bible and/or Islam. You've admitted as much, which is precisely the point. You chastise Jenerator for her comments about the Koran, but then you admit you haven't a clue about the Koran! Don't you see how stupid that is? You tell her she needs to stupid more because obviously what she has said about the Koran can't be true, but then you admit to not having studied the Koran yourself.

And when you are caught in this obvious hypocrisy, then comes the standard judith line, "Oh, I was only joking" or something akin to it.

The irony is based in your IGNORANCE, judith. No one here is claiming you actually know what you are talking about, least of which you!

24944. judithathome - 10/14/2004 10:28:01 AM

Kuligin, you must have a very boring life. You grab on to some niggling little detail and beat to the very death. Are you this way with your students? If so, I can't imagine how they manage to stay in class without thoughts of braining you.

What was Jen's original statement? She panned an entire religion with one statement. MY OPINION, just that, MY opinion....YOUR opinion is that what she said was factually and 100% true.

I disagree. It's not some earth shattering thing...I just happen to disagree with both of you.

24945. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 10:28:41 AM

"I do think I can have an opinion on the bible but evidently you think that is some great sin in this world."

This is judith tactic #2, exaggeration of the opponent's position. I have never said it is some great sin that you have an opinion of the Bible. What I have said, though, is that you admit to being fairly ignorant about it and the Christian faith, yet you continue to make bold, sweeping generalizations about it nonetheless.

Had you said something akin to, "I haven't studied it much, but it seems to me the Bible is wrong because..." and then actually shown an openness to learning something, the picture would be much, much different. But you take the opposite approach, make broad, ignorant statements about something you know next to nothing about, and then claim arrogance on the part of those (namely me) who say you need to study up on it more first.

Then, you turn around and chastise Jenerator for what you GUESS is a difficiency on her part about the Koran. Ironic, as I said.

Look, just go ahead and continue to make your ignorant conclusions if you like, it's your life and your loss. But any reasonable would, I think, want to be certain that those ignorant conclusions have some basis in fact, not the fiction that you pull out your ass every so often.

24946. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 10:31:36 AM

"What was Jen's original statement? She panned an entire religion with one statement. MY OPINION, just that, MY opinion....YOUR opinion is that what she said was factually and 100% true.

I disagree. It's not some earth shattering thing...I just happen to disagree with both of you."

Actually, I'd like to see Jenerator produce some substantiation for her claims. I believe I would learn something from it.

And I'd like to see you go further than just "that's my opinion" without any further substantiation there. Hunches and guesses are not good enough, judith. If you want to call what she said stupid, then back it up with counter intelligence. Otherwise, all you are doing is blowing hot air.

And let's be honest, judith, you have blown things out of proportion, not me. If you actually possessed a sense of humor you would have laughed off the irony, because it IS ironic, you emploring someone else to study up more first before making stupid remarks, while all the while you do the same thing wrt Christianity.

24947. judithathome - 10/14/2004 10:31:59 AM

Why don't you have papers drawn up committing me to a home for the criminally dense, Kuligin? Obviously you can't stand to have me running loose...

I'm a lost cause, Kuli...don't fret yourself over me any longer. It will lead you to an early death.

Of course, then you would meet God sooner and I would be consdered to be doing God's work.

You may save my ass yet!

24948. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 10:36:11 AM

"since you constantly pooh-pooh Angel Five's intelligence in matters he seems to have "extensively" studied."

You obviously do not read this thread too carefully, judith. In some areas A-5 poses as an expert but clearly hasn't a clue what he is talking about. But in other areas he clearly does have something of substance to say. And in the latter cases, I have affirmed that.

"To me, you never seem to credit anyone with intelligence as actually having any, except for youself and Jen."

You just have a chip on your shoulder, that's all.

"You two are intellignet but no one else is. That's a little too narrow for me."

There you go again with the whining, while all the while not producing one shred of evidence to back up your claim that what Jenerator said about the Koran isn't true. Not one piece of evidence so far.

If you are so intelligent, judith, then prove it. Refute Jenerator's claim, that's all you have to do. I'd find the exchange fascinating between the two of you. Hopefully I'd learn something as well.

So go at it. But please, please, please, don't give us the standard cop-out response: "I'm entitled to my opinion and that is that" without any actually substantiation of that opinion. That is just a blind cop-out.

Prove you are intelligent, judith, by intelligently attempting to refute Jenerator's claim(s) about the Koran. The floor is yours.

24949. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 10:38:15 AM

"Of course, then you would meet God sooner and I would be consdered to be doing God's work.

You may save my ass yet!"

Ha ha. Seriously, ha ha. I found it funny. This is not meant to be sarcastic.

Judith, in a forum such as this, people are looking for good, honest exchange of ideas. As well as spitting and ranting and raving. They are not disappointed wrt the latter, but often times they are wrt the former. I'd honestly like to see you produce some solid reasons why Jenerator's sweeping comment about the Koran is false. It would be a good chance for us to learn something here.

24950. angel-five - 10/14/2004 10:39:28 AM

You are painting "Christian truth claims" with too broad a brush. I've said this already and endeavored to show why, but you just ignore that. So what's the point to proceed further?

There's apparently no point. You are singularly incapable of admitting the mistake or acknowledging that no matter how you try to break the components of your religion down, the whole cannot be swallowed without faith. Instead you keep pretending otherwise with these little half-steps-of-faith things, which still require faith anyway.

You airily allude to parts of your faith which can be proven although I think we both know if you laid them on the table for examination things wouldn't go easy for you. But the wonderful point is that that doesn't much matter. Christianity as a whole was the topic. Christianity as a whole cannot be proven. There are people who believe, for example, that there was a historical Jesus and that Christianity helps people today, but not the rest of it. It turns out that those folks aren't Christian, and don't believe in Christianity. People who believe in the whole enchilada -- Jesus's divinity, not just Jesus's existence, and so on -- are the believers.

Please return to your debate with Jenerator why don't you?

You say that like you didn't bust on into it in the first place, poorly understanding what was being discussed, and start yammering nonsense that you're only now disengaging from. You say that, in other words, like this wasn't your brilliant idea. Get some help, Kuligin.

24951. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 10:39:50 AM

"Now let's drop this...you've established that I am dumb. I've established that I don't believe you. I'm certain everyone is tired of both of us."

I've said my bit and taken my shots. In fairness, you should have the last word in regards to our bitter exchange.

However, once you've taken your final shot, I'd really like to see some substance produces by you wrt Jenerator's Koran comment. And then hopefully some substantiation from her in reply.

24952. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 10:43:45 AM

"There's apparently no point. You are singularly incapable of admitting the mistake or acknowledging that no matter how you try to break the components of your religion down, the whole cannot be swallowed without faith."

You continue to avoid it, A-5, which is fine. So I'll help you our here.

Christianity promises eternal life once you die. You can't possibly know that until after you die, so you must take it on faith that it is true.

However, Christainity also promises you certain things in THIS LIFE. These things you clearly can test to see if those promises of Christianity are indeed true.

And if they are true, then their truthfulness will attract people to the faith. And then the success of Christianity can, indeed, at least in part, be measured by its truthfulness.

It really isn't that difficult to comprehend, and I know you do comprehend it. But you'd rather not actually admit that you got your butt kicked by Jenerator, who is a mental midget in your opinion and not worthy to stoop down and tie your shoelaces.

So keep talking in your sloppy, broad generalities as if each and every truth claim of the Christian faith CAN ONLY BE TAKEN BY FAITH. Lie to yourself all you, while people continue to flock to Christ.

24953. angel-five - 10/14/2004 10:44:14 AM

I should point out that I think it's pathetic how Kuligin's trying to save some face by bullying Judith, and failing. Anyone can see that he's just obfuscating and that when he's trying to smile and say 'it's just a good chance for us to learn something here' he's full of shit. He knows Jenerator doesn't know anything about the Koran that you can't read in a Baptist flyer and/or hear in five minutes discussion with a prof but he wants to hold Judith to a much higher standard. Why is that? It's because, while he's going on about wanting the discussion and the larger picture, he's still up to the same old partisan stuff.

24954. angel-five - 10/14/2004 10:47:50 AM

And if they are true, then their truthfulness will attract people to the faith. And then the success of Christianity can, indeed, at least in part, be measured by its truthfulness.

Oh, that's just more bosh. Jenerator wasn't saying anything of the sort when she said that Christianity succeeded because it was true. She meant Christianity was true. Let's see her, and you, say that Judaism and Islam are true religions because they've helped people too.

24955. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 10:52:32 AM

"He knows Jenerator doesn't know anything about the Koran that you can't read in a Baptist flyer and/or hear in five minutes discussion with a prof but he wants to hold Judith to a much higher standard."

I base my understanding on previous interchanges in this forum about Islam, and on Jenerator's contributions in that regard.

"Why is that? It's because, while he's going on about wanting the discussion and the larger picture, he's still up to the same old partisan stuff."

Whatever. The onus is on judith to either substantiate her claim against Jenerator, or to sit down and take a seat. And I'm certain that if she does the latter, we'll all learn something from it. Huff and puff all you want to, A-5, but even you must be curious to see judith and Jenerator have at it over the Koran, no??

I certainly am.

24956. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 10:55:59 AM

"She meant Christianity was true. Let's see her, and you, say that Judaism and Islam are true religions because they've helped people too."

red herring alert! red herring alert!

Certain aspects of the Christian faith, or more specifically, certain truth claims, are indeed verifiable, no matter how much you might like to think otherwise, A-5. Many people are attracted to Christianity because it works, it delivers on its promises. And on that basis, one must admit the possibility of its truthfulness as a legitimate answer to the question, "Why has Christianity succeeded?" If you do not, then you aren't being an objective investigator.

And as I have said numerous times already, the very same criteria must apply to all other religious claims of truth as well. Each should be investigated openly for their own merit and tested as such.

24957. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 10:58:05 AM

"Jenerator wasn't saying anything of the sort when she said that Christianity succeeded because it was true."

Actually, as I have elaborated on this point, Jenerator has indeed confirmed that what I perceived to be her point was indeed her point. Did you miss that post, A-5?

Now then, I suppose I'm faced with a choice here. Do I believe Jenerator's opinion as to what she meant, or do I believe A-5's opinion of what Jenerator REEEEEEALLY meant?

24958. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 11:02:43 AM

It really is quite simple, A-5. Really. Certain clubs promise this or that improvement to one's life, and people join the club hoping to gain those improvements. If they don't pan out, and more and more people realize they don't pan out, the club fails.

However, if the promises do pan out, more and more people may begin to learn of this and join the club. Adn therefore, the success of the club's growth is directly related, at least in part, to the truthfulness of its claims.

To a prior exclude truthfulness as a criterion of success if not only stupid, it is just poor methodology. And worse, it displays you presupposed bent against the object under investigation.

And that is precisely how to describe you, A-5. You want to pose as this open-minded guy honestly investigating this or that aspect of Christianity, but all you are doing is blowing hot air, because a priori you have excluded those conclusions which you just can't stomach. Too bad for you. Jenerator called you on it, you've been made to look like a mental midget, and you just can't take your own medicine.

I suggest licking your wounds and looking to fight another day. I'm sure you'll make up for it somehow.

For those who are keeping score:
Jenerator - 1
Angel-Five - 0

24959. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 11:18:23 AM

"Are you this way with your students? If so, I can't imagine how they manage to stay in class without thoughts of braining you."

judith, just for clarity's sake. There is one big difference between my students and many of the skeptics and anti-Christian types on this forum, namely, that my students are actually open to learning, ask honest questions seeking honest answers, and do in fact learn. There is an incredible diversity in our student body, both culturally as well as denominationally. It is a very fun experience, both for the students as well as for me, and I have learned a great deal from it.

If only more people here were like that. But nah, we have judith, anomie, A-5, and a whole hoard of other people who are only interested in parodying and caricaturing the Christian faith, making fun of their belief in God and Christ, and so on. The atmosphere here is very, very different. No real openness for learning, only readiness to deride those who have faith in Jesus. Constant, mindless attacks on the Christian faith and those who hold to it, with little to no actual willingness to learn about it.

Of course, there are some exceptions to this. jay is sometimes very open-minded when discussing Christian things, and vonKreedon was at times too. wonkers occasionally has something good to add which actually shows he isn't all negative toward Christianity, and so on. But by and large, all we have is anti-Christian nonsense which is almost always built upon a shocking paucity of actual knowledge of what Christianity and the Bible state. clyde immediately pops to mind as an excellent example of such.

24960. PelleNilsson - 10/14/2004 11:32:51 AM

Kuligin

From where I am sitting, having studied Islam extensively …

And what did you conclude? Based on which objective, scholarly criteria?

Actually, I'd like to see Jenerator produce some substantiation for her claims. I believe I would learn something from it.

I'd like to see that too, not least for the entertainment valuse. Some months ago Jenerator became the laughingstock of Random International when she demonstrated her "knowledge" there.

24961. Jenerator - 10/14/2004 12:19:28 PM

Actually, I find Islam quite interesting. I think that what I am most intrigued by is the whole concept of nasikh. I admit to not being a professor of Islamic Studies, but I have studied Islam.

24962. Jenerator - 10/14/2004 12:20:51 PM

Pelle,

I was not the laughing stock, I just challeneged the status quo with the truth about Islam. You, and a few others, displayed your predictable remarks by stating opinions rather than facts.

24963. Bill Russell - 10/14/2004 12:26:42 PM

opinions rather than facts

hahahaha

24964. angel-five - 10/14/2004 12:35:52 PM

"She meant Christianity was true. Let's see her, and you, say that Judaism and Islam are true religions because they've helped people too."

red herring alert! red herring alert!

Sure thing, Vic. If one can speak of the truth of Christianity because it has promised to show people a good path to walk, and you feel it has, then one can certainly speak of the truth of Islam or Buddhism or Shinto or Wicca or Ba'hai or Satanism. Why is it you're reluctant to extend the standard?

And you're the one claiming I'm not being objective.

24965. angel-five - 10/14/2004 12:44:15 PM

The atmosphere here is very, very different. No real openness for learning, only readiness to deride those who have faith in Jesus. Constant, mindless attacks on the Christian faith and those who hold to it, with little to no actual willingness to learn about it.

There are plenty of people in this forum who have at one time espoused belief in the Christian god. Wrap yourself up in the Christian flag if you like, but the facts are that you get slapped up because of who you are, not because you believe in a god.

And it's a standard of yours to insist that the people who disagree with you just are ignorant of the truth and unwilling to learn it from you. You really won't publicly admit that someone might have considered your religion and tossed it out, and it infuriates you that someone might find your studies to be self-referential, self-fulfilling-prophetic gibberish where all the effort put into deciding whether 1 means 1 or 2 is rendered meaningless anyway when you add 1 and 1 and get 11. No, they just must be turning away from the just radiance of your god! They're just small-minded and petty and vicious and so on and so on and so on. Keep telling yourself that, Kuligin. One day they'll all realize how smart and right you were, just you wait.

And I suppose you can score the debates any way you want. Neither one of you has understood the main point because it makes you deeply uncomfortable on a level you don't like talking about. ;) Have a nice day, Vic.

24966. PelleNilsson - 10/14/2004 12:50:40 PM

I just challeneged the status quo with the truth about Islam.

Which status quo?

24967. angel-five - 10/14/2004 12:53:29 PM

By all means, if Jenerator has something authoritative to say about Islam and the Koran, she should do so.

24968. Bill Russell - 10/14/2004 12:55:57 PM

" truth about Islam "

Proceed, please. You are the only one with the truth.

hahahahahaha

24969. Jenerator - 10/14/2004 1:21:04 PM

The status quo is that Islam is a religion of peace. I have challenged that by delving into the Koranic scriptures, hadith and the principle of nasikh. Plus, I have quoted experts (Ie leading Imam's - Al Alzhar's Sheikh Mohamed Sayyed Tantawi, etc.) and others.

24970. clydefo - 10/14/2004 1:38:14 PM

Certain aspects of the Christian faith, or more specifically, certain truth claims, are indeed verifiable... 24956. KuligintheHooligan

For instance?

24971. Bill Russell - 10/14/2004 2:21:00 PM

For instance?

24972. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 2:40:49 PM

"I'd like to see that too, not least for the entertainment valuse. Some months ago Jenerator became the laughingstock of Random International when she demonstrated her "knowledge" there."

Can't comment on RI, really, since I've never been there. Besides, seems rather moot to me. Currently, we have Jenerator making a statement about the Koran, judith chastising her for that statement but providing nothing - yet - of substance to point out why she chastised her. I'd be interested in seeing the substance and the rebuttal. I don't really care what happens in RI.

24973. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 2:44:57 PM

"If one can speak of the truth of Christianity because it has promised to show people a good path to walk, and you feel it has, then one can certainly speak of the truth of Islam or Buddhism or Shinto or Wicca or Ba'hai or Satanism. Why is it you're reluctant to extend the standard?"

I've already said now, at least three times, A-5, that the same criteria used to evaluate the success of Christianity should be used in evaluating any other religious truth claims. I'm not sure if you just don't read too closely, or have a problem with short-term memory loss, but I'll be happy to look up the posts for you where I have said that and you can go and read more closely this time if you like.

However, in terms of debate procedure, I'd like to see one topic finished up first before others started. So do you concede that 1) the claims of Christianity - at least some of them - are possibly true, 2) that given their veracity, and that they deliver on their promises, people are attracted to the faith, and 3) that this truthfulness is at least one possible explanation for the success of the faith?

Do you admit that, or are you still going to huff and puff, through out red herrings, and the like?

And remember the score:

Jenerator - 1
Angel Five - 0

I'm looking forward to seeing you attempt to make up ground. So far, though, I don't see that effort. Try hardly please!!

24974. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 2:46:47 PM

"By all means, if Jenerator has something authoritative to say about Islam and the Koran, she should do so."

I agree. And I'm looking forward to judith's rebuttal, both of Jenerator's original comment, as well as any further that judith might disagree with. Of course, substantive rebuttal is what I am looking forward to, not just "You're wrong, neener neener" type stuff.

24975. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 2:54:42 PM

Here you go, A-5:

post 24866
post 24934
post 24956

In all three, I state that the same criteria must be used in evaluating any religious tradition and its success. That you attempt to make it appear that I am not willing to do so, is, well, just a lie from you, or simply sloppy. I'll opt for the latter, though, given the sloppiness you have displayed so far in this debate. But it is perfectly clear from my own words - as opposed to your fabrications -that I am perfectly willing to treat all religions with the same measuring stick in answering the question: "Why has Religion XYZ succeeded?"

Are you willing to do the same, or do you a priori exclude the same sorts of things for ALL religions that you do when it comes to Christianity?

24976. PelleNilsson - 10/14/2004 3:09:26 PM

However, in terms of debate procedure, I'd like to see one topic finished up first before others started.

What gives you the idea, Kuligin, that you have any say about "debate procedure" around here?

24977. SnowOwl - 10/14/2004 3:14:52 PM

However, if the promises do pan out, more and more people may begin to learn of this and join the club. Adn therefore, the success of the club's growth is directly related, at least in part, to the truthfulness of its claims.

This is an absolutely stupid argument. If this is the criteria for judging the truthfulness of a religion, Islam must be true given it's rapid growth rate in recent years.

24978. angel-five - 10/14/2004 3:48:22 PM

In all three, I state that the same criteria must be used in evaluating any religious tradition and its success. That you attempt to make it appear that I am not willing to do so, is, well, just a lie from you, or simply sloppy.

Yes, of course, and I read all that. But I didn't ask you for your criteria. I asked you to say that these religions are true because they deliver on their promises. You act like you've been all out front about it and I'm just missing it, but every time I've asked you to do so you veer away from it. You even called it a 'red herring' which is quite odd, considering that now you remember you agree with it and found it valid yourself in this context.

Surely it's not that hard to do?

24979. angel-five - 10/14/2004 4:00:36 PM

So do you concede that 1) etc etc

1) I cannot rule out that thumpers are right, if that's what you mean. At least some of them.

2)I dispute the veracity and that your religion delivers on its promises. The veracity is by no means established (no matter how many times you've repeated that parts of it can be proven, Kuligin, the repetition doesn't mystically transform it into truth) and if Christianity promises a better life for the people who come to follow it, I know that is not categorically true. People have tried it and found it wanting, people have abandoned it for other beliefs and been much happier for it. Perhaps you might say 'Well, it's worked for many people' but that's not the sort of thing which guarantees a promise to any potential believer.

3) No. Look, no matter how slyly you imagine your words come round to the point, the fact of the matter is that we have already established, time and time again, that the 'truth' of Christianity can't be proven. Truth doesn't even apply in this context. Belief is another matter and I would happily concede that one of the reasons Christianity has hung around as long as it has is that people come to believe in it, if I hadn't already said as much way back at the beginning of this brouhaha.

Now Jenerator can pretend that she meant, when she said, that the reason Christianity has stuck around is that it's true, is really that Christianity works for some people as other people say it should work. But that's not what she meant and I believe you already know that. It's like she said 'A' and I said 'no' then you came in and said 'b c d e and f, isn't that what you meant to say Jenerator, am I reading you correctly' and she bobbed her head and said 'yes, Mr. Kuligin, that's exactly what I meant to say!' People who mean to say that a religion pragmatically works don't say 'it's true'. They say it works for people, even if they're Jenerator.

24980. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 4:02:18 PM

"What gives you the idea, Kuligin, that you have any say about "debate procedure" around here?"

Then let me put it this way, pelle. Any debate IN WHICH I CHOOSE TO PARTICIPATE will only have my participation if we move logically and consistently from one point to the next, as opposed to people jumping all over the place and nothing otherwise getting accomplished. Put another way, I am not willing to sit here, make my arguments, and have them ignored so that people can go off on tangents and red herring hunts. If this isn't satisfactory to others, I'm happy to sit out.

24981. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 4:03:51 PM

"This is an absolutely stupid argument."

Not at all. The success of any given religion could indeed be tied to its truth claims and whether or not those truth claims deliver on what they claim. This is nothing more than a reasonable supposition.

"If this is the criteria for judging the truthfulness of a religion, Islam must be true given it's rapid growth rate in recent years."

As I have already said numerous times, the same criteria must be used when evaluating any religion in this way.

24982. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 4:07:33 PM

"People have tried it and found it wanting, people have abandoned it for other beliefs and been much happier for it. Perhaps you might say 'Well, it's worked for many people' but that's not the sort of thing which guarantees a promise to any potential believer."

This I do not dispute. And that a particular religion "works" for some people and not others must also be considered in the evaluative process.

"Now Jenerator can pretend that she meant, when she said, that the reason Christianity has stuck around is that it's true, is really that Christianity works for some people as other people say it should work. But that's not what she meant and I believe you already know that."

I actually prefer to take the opinions of the persons themselves as a basis for my evaluation of what they do or do not believe. Perhaps you can read minds, Angel-Five, and you "really" know what they believe, but all I can go on is what they actually say. Kudos to you if you have this special divining ability. I do not.

24983. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 4:10:06 PM

"I dispute the veracity and that your religion delivers on its promises."

Then you are just stupid, Angel-Five, or you think that all Christians who claim that it has delivered on its promises - at least the measurable, "provable" ones - are just liars. That's too bad. It is like placing your head in the sand just because what you hear is something you don't like to hear. Of course, that is your perogative, but then all conclusions you make concerning the success of Christianity will be invalid because you are not considering all data in your investigation.

Which brings us right around to Jenerator's original point once again: you a priori exclude certain conclusions, and then pretend you are making an objective evaluation. This, however, is sloppy methodology. It is a form of fanaticism, not research.

24984. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 4:14:33 PM

"if Christianity promises a better life for the people who come to follow it, I know that is not categorically true."

Even if it delivers, say, 50% of the time, Angel-Five, this still must be considered in your evaluation of why it has succeeded. But as you have already stated, you don't think it delivers even 1% of the time, so what is the point really of trying to reasonably discuss this aspect with you?

Again, you already categorically deny that it delivers on its promises, despite the fact that people who are Christians (whereas you are not) DO claim it delivers. So, once again, you are being sloppy. You just chuck the data you don't like because it won't fit into your preconceived conclusions. Then you thump your chest in triumph that all your conclusions fit the data!

"It's like she said 'A' and I said 'no' then you came in and said 'b c d e and f, isn't that what you meant to say Jenerator, am I reading you correctly' and she bobbed her head and said 'yes, Mr. Kuligin, that's exactly what I meant to say!'"

This is an excellent example which illustrates my point above. Even when a Motie says, "Yes, that is what I meant," you don't grant them their own opinion! Rather, you believe you reeeeeeeally know what they think, despite what they say.

In essence, you are excluding the data - in this case, their very own opinion about something - because you don't like it. It doesn't fit what you want it to fit.

24985. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 4:18:11 PM

Soooo, when Jenerator says in response to my request to clarify if, indeed, I understood her point correctly, "You read me correctly," I must take her at her word on that. That you choose to read her mind and divine what she really meant is, well, beyond my abilities. I applaud you for this gift that you have. I wish I had it, to be honest.

And so, I'll keep on arguing the point or points until Jenerator butts in and says, "Ah, Mr. Kuligin, you didn't understand me correctly on that issue." Until then, "You read me correctly" will just have to do as an accurate portrayal of what Jenerator believes, regardless of how you really know what she believes.

As I already said, I'll take Jenerator's opinion about her own views and what she believes over and above your opinion about her views and what you really know she believes, even though she states otherwise. I have no other option, really, if I am to allow people to speak their own opinions - you know, as opposed to putting words into their mouth and then pretending that such and such is REALLY their opinion.

24986. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 4:20:22 PM

But please, Angel-Five, continue to read the minds of various Moties here (assuming your gift which works so well with Jenerator works on others as well). I'm sure it provides some fascinating reading for many here. Perhaps it even holds the secret to your success in this forum. Again, I wish I possessed such a talent. Then, I could just ignore the posts and opinions of people here, and tell them what they REALLY believe, despite what they actually say they believe. That would save me heaps of time.

24987. angel-five - 10/14/2004 5:00:00 PM

And once again Kuligin refuses to speak of the truth of Islam, Buddhism, Wicca et al even though he expects others to speak such words about Christianity based on its attested successes, which those religions share in terms of delivering a better life. How completely strange.

Kuligin: I can't read Jenerator's mind. I do, however, have direct experience of her mendacity, and while you are content to give her the benefit of the doubt when it means she agrees with you and supports your point of view (quite big of you there, really) even when that agreement wasn't even hinted at in her original words, I'm content to do no such thing. I'd rather just read what they say the first time and then hold them to it.

24988. angel-five - 10/14/2004 5:02:40 PM

Again, you already categorically deny that it delivers on its promises, despite the fact that people who are Christians (whereas you are not) DO claim it delivers.

Do you genuinely believe yourself when you say such things?

I have not categorically denied any such thing. I did deny that it categorically delivered on its promises, but if you don't understand that the former means that I ruled it out in every case and the latter means I just said it wasn't true for each and every case, then perhaps you should leave the school you're in and find one that teaches reading and writing comprehension, because it doesn't seem to be doing the trick for you now.

Then you are just stupid, Angel-Five, or you think that all Christians who claim that it has delivered on its promises - at least the measurable, "provable" ones - are just liars.

Not at all. Once upon a time I recall that you could at least argue logically and recognize it when it was handed to you. What happened, Kuligin? Is all you've got these days nothing more than 'You're stupid' and outright invention?

If a religion promises a better life for the people who come adhere to it, and that isn't true for everyone (especially a notable percentage of those who try it) then that is definitely not a kept promise. You can't say 'well, it was kept for some people' and expect it to be a valid promise for everyone for whom it would purport to be valid. Either it's a valid categorical promise that is categorically kept or it is not.

You say 'well, you have to weigh the success rate as a potential reason why the religion succeeds' and I have no problem with that. Of course you have to. But that wasn't what you originally said and what I disagreed with. As is typical, one has to chase you off your wide-ranging statements down onto those defensible specifics which you actually can substantiate, lest you try to later take it all as a given.

24989. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 5:11:45 PM

"I have not categorically denied any such thing. I did deny that it categorically delivered on its promises"

Aaaaaah, I see. Perhaps what I need is a healthy dose of that mind-reading ability you have, A-5. You are starting to sound like Kerry now.

24990. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 5:17:09 PM

"You say 'well, you have to weigh the success rate as a potential reason why the religion succeeds' and I have no problem with that."

Then why are you still arguing about it??

"But that wasn't what you originally said and what I disagreed with."

What I said was that when a religion promises XYZ and delivers on it, that must be taken into account when one is measuring why that religion is successful. Now you have slyly added into my comment the word "categorical" but I defy you to find that word in any of my posts, excluding this one of course.

Again, if a religion makes promise X and it delivers on promise X, even if it is only 50% of the time, that MUST be included in one's evaluation of the success of that religion. In other words, it can deliver on its promise.

You have subtly changed my point, and then claim that I am wrong based on your subtle change. That may fool some, A-5, but not me.

Again, just face it, A-5. You have conceded so much ground in this particular debate I don't know why I am even still wasting my fingers posting about it. You got called out by Jenerator, who rightly perceived the error in your supposed logic. That's it. Finished.

24991. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 5:20:48 PM

"I dispute the veracity and that your religion delivers on its promises."

You have already admitted, A-5, that it doesn't really matter what Christians say about Christianity and whether or not it delivers on its promises. That doesn't matter to you. So why are we wasting out time on this? If you exclude the data you don't like in order to make the conclusions that you presuppose MUST be valid, then how can I possibly refute that? Every time I produce data that you don't like, you'll just ignore it.

Same thing goes for the opinions of certain people in this thread. If you don't like Jenerator's opinion, just make one up for her! Who can really argue with someone who plays such games?

24992. KuligintheHooligan - 10/14/2004 5:25:41 PM

Let me try this one more time before I hit the sack.

Please read this comment of yours carefully, A-5:

"You say 'well, you have to weigh the success rate as a potential reason why the religion succeeds' and I have no problem with that."

So you admit that there is a "success rate" as I have been using the term, right? That in certain instances, whatever the ultimate % is, the promises made by the truth claims of a religion - in this case Christianity - are delivered because, in fact, those truth claims were proven true. And if that is the case, and you recognize that as a valid item upon which to place our study, you have agreed with Jenerator. In other words, the truthfulness of the religion is at least one item for consideration as to why it has succeeded.

Or are you going to attempt to backtrack again? Do I need to list all the concessions you have made so far, which has brought you to this point of basically conceding Jenerator's original point?!

24993. angel-five - 10/14/2004 6:45:02 PM

Aaaaaah, I see. Perhaps what I need is a healthy dose of that mind-reading ability you have, A-5.

Or you could try, you know, regular reading.

Then why are you still arguing about it??

You simple dunce, I'm not arguing about that. I'm arguing with what you're trying to wrongly establish from it.

Now you have slyly added into my comment the word "categorical" but I defy you to find that word in any of my posts, excluding this one of course.

Kuligin, you are a fucking idiot.

From Message # 24979:

2)I dispute the veracity and that your religion delivers on its promises. The veracity is by no means established (no matter how many times you've repeated that parts of it can be proven, Kuligin, the repetition doesn't mystically transform it into truth) and if Christianity promises a better life for the people who come to follow it, I know that is not categorically true.

Your response, in Message # 24983, excises all of that but the first line and rants and raves about how I'm calling all Christians liars.

Then you say in your post Message # 24984

Again, you already categorically deny that it delivers on its promises, despite the fact that people who are Christians (whereas you are not) DO claim it delivers. So, once again, you are being sloppy.

Get that, Vic? Your post.

24994. angel-five - 10/14/2004 6:48:47 PM

When I clarify what I said you say I'm inserting words into your argument ex post facto and insist that you never said the word, when I used the word when first answering your question AND then you wrongly used it to mischaracterize my position! And then you act like you need to be a mind reader to read fuckin' English right the first time around.

Quit acting like your head is so far up your ass you're looking out your own mouth, start reading the things you're going to respond to, start understanding the simple and easy arguments handed to you instead of pretending they're just too difficult for little old you to grasp, and try to remember what you've said just a few posts ago.

This basic dishonesty of yours has once again reared its ugly head. It, and your repeated grade-school insistences that I have lost an argument and that I am back tracking, are not covering up the fact that you're running from your previous line of query because you're afraid if the words 'Buddhism is in some degree a true religion because it backs up its promises' come out of your mouth, something bad will happen to you!

I invite you to do what you, er, threatened you would do before, which is to show me where I've backtracked. Please do go ahead. Come on, Kuligin, put it where your mouth is.

24995. angel-five - 10/14/2004 6:49:07 PM

In other words, the truthfulness of the religion is at least one item for consideration as to why it has succeeded.

I shouldn't be surprised that you're still getting this wrong, nor that you're adding wretched amphiboly to the list of logical sins you're dabbling in today. Whether or not Christianity helps people is irrelevant to whether it's a true religion as a whole, and the truth of Christianity as a whole cannot be demonstrated. Once again, this partial proof business is all your invention, and a separate argument, but to insist that because something in Christianity might be true, Jenerator's argument about it all being true is now vindicated, is every bit as short sighted and moronic as to say 'I never used the word categorical'. Why? Because the posts are right there to read.

Now, please do go read them.

24996. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 4:57:24 AM

I’ll try this one last time.

I decide to sit down as an objective investigator, in order to determine why religion XYZ has succeeded. So I begin to make a list of possible reasons for its success. The list might begin to look something like this:

1) it has succeeded because it was originally well organized by its founders
2) it has succeeded because it physically threatened people with violence who did not succumb to its teaching
3) it has succeeded because it has had a bunch of underhanded redactionists who have secretly fiddled with its teachings and covered up all possibilities of error

And so on. (The above is obviously not meant to be exhaustive.)

In that list of possible reasons, the objective investigator must include

4) it has succeeded because what it teaches is true, that it delivers on the promises it makes and therefore has attracted followers

To simply conclude from the outset that either a) the truthfulness of XYZ is immaterial, or b) its truthfulness cannot be measured, therefore it can’t be considered as an possible explanation, is just sloppy methodology. Again, such an investigator is seen more as a fanatic hell bent on proving his preconceived theories, than on actually performing honest investigation.

24997. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 4:57:42 AM

Further, just because it doesn’t deliver all the time isn’t in itself a good argument for negating the truthfulness angle. Your position, Angel-Five, is shocking in its crudeness and lack of nuance. You fail because you do not take human nature into consideration at all. Generally speaking, a religion succeeds because it beats the competition. Generally speaking. In other words, people move to this religion from the plethora of other offerings on the market.

Now then, if XYZ delivers 50% of the time, but that is better than all the other offerings at hand, it will succeed more so where others fail. It simply is not an all-or-nothing scenario here, A-5. As I’ve said numerous times already, you are thinking far too broadly here, and that is why your supposedly objective investigation (which already excises the items you don’t want, regardless of the facts), fails to produce meaningful conclusions.

Mouthwash ABC claims to have a “minty fresh taste,” but obviously some people do not believe it delivers on its promises. Still, that does not negate the people who believe that it does deliver on its promises. The sales of the mouthwash are successful nonetheless because it does deliver on its promises, even if not 100% of the time. And if the mouthwash were a miserable failure, people would go elsewhere for their mouthwash.

Your crude and simplistic approach to the question of the success of Christianity can only appear reasonable and “logical” if you first ignore the masses of people who have flocked to the faith because it is true, i.e., because it has indeed delivered on what it has promised to deliver. In fact, as you have already said numerous times, this is precisely what you do, ignore their own claims.

24998. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 4:58:08 AM

Just because a good baseball hitter doesn’t get a hit 70% of the time, doesn’t negate the fact that he does get a hit 30% of the time. And that batting average places him among the top 10% of hitters in the league. You are claiming that unless he hits 100% of the time, it doesn’t matter. And what I am saying is that the success of XYZ must be measured against the success (or failure) of all other competitors.

The success of a religion must be measured in the marketplace and how it has succeeded there. You seem to believe that a religion and its success can be analyzed while entirely ignoring the actual human beings involved! And this has been seen by your disregard for Christians who claim it works for them.

“Whether or not Christianity helps people is irrelevant to whether it's a true religion as a whole, and the truth of Christianity as a whole cannot be demonstrated.”

This is just silly, and you can curse and rant and rave all you like, but my position is the more reasonable one which takes into consideration that religion XYZ must compete in the marketplace of religions. Some succeed, whereas others fail. Where is the Cult of Mithras today, taking up an earlier discussion? Why did it fail, when other religions succeeded?

There are many possible answers to this question, but from the outset of the investigation, one must allow for the possibility that XYZ has succeeded, whereas Mithras has failed, because the former actually taught what it true, while the latter did not. Or better yet, the former had a higher reliability factor than did the latter, and it ultimately attracted more follows because it delivered on its promises.

24999. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 4:59:05 AM

And as I noted earlier, there are indeed provable or measurable means by which we can effectively evaluate a religion and its truthfulness. Many make claims which cannot be proven (like when you die you will live eternally in heaven), but they also make claims which can be measured and proven in the here-and-now.

An excellent example is the Jehovah’s Witnesses which by-and-large must be considered a failure in the smorgasbord of religious offerings. In the past century, they have promised no less than seven times that the end of the world was upon us, fixing specific dates for it to occur, and every time, of course, they were wrong. Obviously, they have attempted to cover up their errors, or to reinterpret things so that it doesn’t really appear they were wrong, and so on. But they have lost tons of followers as a result of these gross errors. Put another way, what the JWs professes as truth was discovered to be false. They did not deliver on their promises.

You are trying to analyze the question, “Why did religion XYZ succeed?” while all along ignoring the human factor. A religion doesn’t have to be right 100% of the time in order to succeed. All it really has to do is produce better results than it competition. And religions which actually deliver on their promises – in other words, are in fact true – are the ones which will do better.

25000. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 4:59:25 AM

Now then, as our investigation continues, that original list I had will change, and I may very well find out that in the end, the religions which didn’t deliver on their measurable promises were in fact the more successful ones (doesn’t make much sense, but I must allow for that possibility from the outset). Then, and only then, can I eliminate the truthfulness angle. But I haven’t seen anything near that sort of investigation from you, yet. Perhaps it is still forthcoming? All we have seen, though, is you a priori eliminating the truthfulness factor. But that is just poor investigation. I’d hate to see you write a doctoral dissertation if that is your general approach.

Lastly, many people (rightly or wrongly) make the leap from one type of promise to the next. In other words, if I find that XYZ is indeed true in its promises for this or that measurable reality in this life, then I may very well be willing to believe its promises in all other areas too, even though now, in this life, I cannot possibly know if they are true or not (like the heaven promise). So the success (or failure) of a religion delivering on its measurable promises MUST be included in this sort of investigation.

You are painting religion with too broad a brush, ignoring the human factor and the marketplace in which religions compete, and then ranting and raving that I am being unreasonable. Fine, have it your way.

You may continue to talk about your all-or-nothing notions, but then you are simply starting your investigation in a manner designed to only allow for conclusions you preconceive must be true. This is a form of fanaticism, not honest, objective analysis.

25001. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 4:59:58 AM

Doesn't garnering post #25,000 get ya something in these parts?

25002. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 5:00:21 AM

As for Jenerator, if you think her original point is different than what you and I have been discussing (despite the fact that she said it wasn’t), take up the issue again with her. As far as I have been concerned, I have been very consistent in my points. The above is my last clarification. If you have an axe to grind with Jenerator, go and grind it. But then don’t read her comments in a vacuum, as if nothing has ever been said in this forum which could impinge on the present debate. Very recently, for example, Jenerator had a brief interchange with sakonige about Christianity, with sak making a sweeping, false generalization that Christianity only promises heavenly life. Jenerator countered with saying that it also promises things in this life. You see, I do read closely, and I do pay attention. Perhaps, though, you just missed that interchange between the two.

25003. angel-five - 10/15/2004 7:18:42 AM

You can babble the same line again and again to fill as many posts as you like, Vic. Until I hear you say that Buddhism, Shinto, Wicca, Islam, Judaism, Satanism and the like are true religions because they, too, deliver on their promises, it's all empty blather that you won't even back up yourself. Hell, you can leave Satanism off -- I know you have historical beefs with it.

If you won't say that they're true religions, then your entire point is null and void.

25004. angel-five - 10/15/2004 7:21:29 AM

And you can claim to read closely and pay attention. There's been very little evidence for it so far. And as is typical for you, when caught in an extremely embarrassing lie, you pretend it never happened.

Have a nice day, Vic. I'll respond when you say the words that will substantiate your own position but if you think I'm going to spend another day going round with you over something you can preach but not practice, think some more.

25005. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 8:44:36 AM

In other words, Angel-Five, you don't address any of the substance of my most recent posts. Typical.

"Until I hear you say that Buddhism, Shinto, Wicca, Islam, Judaism, Satanism and the like are true religions because they, too, deliver on their promises, it's all empty blather that you won't even back up yourself."

Try to read this veeeeeery carefully, Angel-Five. A priori, I must allow for the possibility that each and every religion under question -the question as to why or why not it has succeeded - has some level of truthfulness which attracts adherents to itself. As I have said now, what, four times, THE SAME criteria must be used when evaluating any religion. I do not believe that we use one set of criteria for Christianity, but a different set for other religions.

And here is where you are most dense, and no doubt you've never had to do a doctoral dissertation in your life. It is your METHODOLOGY, you stupid schmuck, that I am faulting. You a priori EXCLUDE certain possible answers to the question, "Why did XYZ succeed." It is in your methodology - which I've said time and time again - that you fail. And because you start with a faulty methodology, your conclusions follow suit.

25006. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 8:47:19 AM

"If you won't say that they're true religions, then your entire point is null and void."

This is simply amazing, really. I've never found you so dense as this time. I have never said nor implied that absolutely everything in each and every religion must be true in order for it to succeed. You've been the one saying that.

What I have said, though, is that the truth claims of any given religion - the ones which can in fact be tested to see if they "deliver" - those we can line up and evaluate. And on that basis, we must allow for the possibility that actual truthfulness of this or that claim in this or that religion is at least one factor in the success of this or that religion.

It really isn't that difficult to understand, A-5.

Now then, you can huff and puff, accuse me of lying, whatever you feel like doing, but all the way at the beginning of this whole sordid affair, Jenerator caught your poor methodology. She recognized that you are not being an honest, objective investigator, but rather, you a priori excluded certain possibilities because they did not fit your preconceived conclusions.

And as I've said time and time again, it is this shoddy methodology (go back and read my posts, I probably said this phrase in the very first posting on this matter, but certainly early on in any event) which forms the heart of your poor conclusions.

You are clearly not an objective student. Rather, you are fanatic hell bent on making the conclusions conform to your preconceptions, and this is seen clearly in your willingness to exclude the data you simply do not like.

25007. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 8:50:55 AM

"Hell, you can leave Satanism off -- I know you have historical beefs with it."

I leave nothing off the list. I begin objectively, open-minded, when seeking an answer to the question, "Why did Satanism succeed?" And I will begin with the same criteria that I would use for any faith or religion.

And as I have mentioned already, I would then ask the same question of all major faiths, line up the possible explanations, and begin objectively to evaluate them.

Satanism, of course, would fall deep down the list with its few adherents, so then I'd ask something like, "Why are there so many more people who adhere to the tenets of Christianity than do to Satanism?" Perhaps one has been around longer, or one doesn't have quite the appeal. Whatever the case, ONE OF the possible explanations must be, "The content or truth claims of XYZ have been proven to be truer more so than those of ABC."

Clearly, anybody who says that it doesn't matter whether or not a religion's truth claims are in fact true when it comes to its apparent success must have their head examined.

25008. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 8:55:54 AM

A-5, here is one of your original comments to Jenerator on this matter, and it perfectly shows where you have misstepped.:

"The idea that it's true and that's why it's stuck around is silly. There are lots and lots of true ideas that have never been popular with the public and likely never will be."

What we have here is a non-sequitur. Just because some things which are not true have succeeded, or because some things which are true have not, this does not negate the fact that some things which are true succeed because they are true. Your "logic" simply does not follow.

Here is Jenerator's response:

"It is apparent that truth itself is irrelevent to you as a possible explanation for Christianity lasting because as a priori in your world, truth isn't possible."

And I have been following that line ever since. And even when Jenerator says that I have been following her original point, you basically claim she is lying. Obviously, even in this debate, truth is meaningless to you.

25009. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 9:00:10 AM

In her next series of posts, Jenerator made this comment:

"Admit it, you begin your dismissal of the Bible by first thinking in your hearts that its claims are not true. You never even consider that it might possibly be true."

Once again, she has correctly intuited that your original methodology is faulty. You start already excluding certain possible conclusions, then you act like you are being an objective investigator.

And I note that you have never once addressed this matter, even though I have repeated it often. Why is that? Because you know that in fact you have not been an objective investigator. It is clear for all to see.

You then came back at Jenerator with your ridiculous "tautology" comment, which is when I jumped in. Just bury them with the "facts," right, A-5? I'd rather see you actually address the issues.

25010. angel-five - 10/15/2004 9:01:00 AM

Try to read this veeeeeery carefully, Angel-Five. A priori, I must allow for the possibility that each and every religion under question - the question as to why or why not it has succeeded - has some level of truthfulness which attracts adherents to itself.

*Bzzzzzzzzzt*

Wrong answer, please try again! This wasn't about whether a religion has some level of truthfulness, this was about whether a religion was true. Do you require someone to link the words again so you can read them, you know, very carefully?

The methodology is sound. In fact, it's sounder than what you're trying to peddle in order to win an argument. If truth cannot be proven then it is not a factor. Perception of truth, OTOH, can still be a factor, but that is not the same thing as truth. You would have learned that if you had listened in your phi courses.

You are talking about the perception of truth and pretending it's true. And you're talking about partial truths and 'provable' truths which aren't provable, true promises which are only kept some of the time, incorrect methodologies, unwillingness to consider, you keep assuming everyone else is going to commit the fallacy of composition and you'd desperately like for someone to agree with the idea that it isn't a fallacy, yadda yadda -- you are, in short, grabbing for any straw you can, and desperately trying to change the argument around to something you like better. Guess what? It isn't working. There is no one point in your argument where exchanging 'perception of truth' for 'truth' wouldn't make it a more accurate argument, but for you to do that would be for you to abandon your amphibolizing word games and thus abandon the point.

Let's nail it down, even though we don't have to. Prove to me that the idea that Christianity delivers on its 'promise' to improve lives is provably true, instead of a belief.

25011. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 9:02:26 AM

"Mouthwash ABC promises you cleaner, fresher breath."

Mouthwash ABC has had incredibly good sales over the years.

Jenerator says, "Perhaps the success of Mouthwash ABC has something do with the fact that it promises cleaner, fresher breath, and it in fact delivers cleaner, fresher breath?"

Angel-Five tells Jenerator that that is a needless tautology. "Of course Mouthwash ABC's success cannot possibly be attributed to the fact that it delivers on its promises! How stupid of you to think such nonsensical things, Jenerator."

25012. angel-five - 10/15/2004 9:03:56 AM

I have never said nor implied that absolutely everything in each and every religion must be true in order for it to succeed. You've been the one saying that.

This is another lie. I have never, ever said anything even close to that. Come on, Kuligin, put up or shut up.

25013. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 9:05:00 AM

"This wasn't about whether a religion has some level of truthfulness, this was about whether a religion was true."

That you could not follow Jenerator's logic isn't my problem, Angel-Five. But as she has already noted, what I have been saying is in fact in line with what she originally posited. That you deny this is only to your shame. She said it right here, A-5. Do I need to find the post again for you?

Ah, but you know that already. You read the post, but instead of taking Jenerator at her word, you basically accused her of lying about it. So who is really interested in arguing the facts here? Certainly not you.

25014. angel-five - 10/15/2004 9:06:22 AM

How on earth can you expect anyone to believe you have correctly understood their argument when you can't even get a small part of it right? How is it that you expect people to agree that you're right when you can't even keep something you said straight, let alone something they said? How is it that you can insist something is true but flee when someone asks you to prove it, and how is it that you think ten thousand repetitions of a lie will make it truer? Come on, Kuligin, the questions are on the table. Quit trying for unintentional irony with your 'bury them' babble and answer them.

25015. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 9:07:12 AM

"This is another lie. I have never, ever said anything even close to that."

I made a mistake. Sorry. Here's what I typed:

"I have never said nor implied that absolutely everything in each and every religion must be true in order for it to succeed. You've been the one saying that."

I should have been clearer. What you have said is that unless it is 100% correct, the criterion of truth is meaningless. And I disagree with that on the basis that any given religions competes with all the other ones, and need not deliver 100% of the time in order to succeed.

25016. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 9:08:44 AM

"If truth cannot be proven then it is not a factor. Perception of truth, OTOH, can still be a factor, but that is not the same thing as truth."

To the first point, that would be true, but as I have noted, truth CAN BE PROVEN in any given religion to a certain degree.

To your second point, I don't disagree with the notion of "perception" as a factor. That would be included in my original list of possible explanations.

25017. angel-five - 10/15/2004 9:09:47 AM

Ah, but you know that already. You read the post, but instead of taking Jenerator at her word, you basically accused her of lying about it. So who is really interested in arguing the facts here? Certainly not you.

You have completely abandoned all pretense at a logical argument and are now going for some kind of libelous closing argument. One can only hope that this means you are close to the end of your rant, but I think you're mistaken if anyone's buying the sort of weak nonsense in the above cite.

25018. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 9:10:21 AM

"There is no one point in your argument where exchanging 'perception of truth' for 'truth' wouldn't make it a more accurate argument, but for you to do that would be for you to abandon your amphibolizing word games and thus abandon the point."

Arguing the perception of truth is but one argument. I haven't even dealt with that notion. I've been arguing the other issue. I don't need to interchange terms. They are entirely different issues.

25019. angel-five - 10/15/2004 9:11:57 AM

I should have been clearer. What you have said is that unless it is 100% correct, the criterion of truth is meaningless.

No, you should have spoken the truth instead of an outright lie. 'Clearer' isn't the word you use when you're completely wrong.

To the first point, that would be true, but as I have noted, truth CAN BE PROVEN in any given religion to a certain degree.

Then, as you have been repeatedly asked, prove it.

25020. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 9:12:00 AM

"You have completely abandoned all pretense at a logical argument and are now going for some kind of libelous closing argument."

Did you not accuse Jenerator of lying, or at bare minimum implying that she wasn't being entirely honest when she stated - clearly - that what I have been arguing is in fact what she meant in her original posts?

It is there for all to read, Angel-Five. Should I find that one for you again too?

There is no "libel" when all I am doing is stating what you have said.

25021. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 9:13:30 AM

I can produce for you thousands of people who have put their faith in Jesus Christ and his teachings, and as a result their lives have improved. I am one of them. I am living proof that the promises made have in fact been true.

Now then, are you going to call me a liar about that as well?? No doubt you know my life better than I do, right?

25022. angel-five - 10/15/2004 9:16:40 AM

And, to further wade into areas I don't need to in order to prove the point:

"Down in the dumps? Sprinkle some foo foo dust on your carpet, go out, have a good time, get some air, hang out with your friends, have sex with a hottie, see a good flick, eat some good food."

"Oh, now you feel better? Must be the foo foo dust! Guess it's true what they say!"

25023. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 9:17:16 AM

Can you really be so blinded with rage that you cannot see the reasonableness of the following?

There are dozens of religions in the world, but when it comes to the "World's Great Religions" there are about ten. These garner the vast majority of adherents.

Why do certain religions fare better in the marketplace? Why do some succeed where others fail?

In objectively analyzing these questions, one needs to look at the possibility that the ones which succeed have some level of truth in them that attracts and holds adherents.

You see, A-5, yours has always been a simplistic view of religion. You use the word "faith" as it that implies absolutely not possible, reasonable explanation, but can only be taken solely on blindness. But that is clearly not the case.

Religion XYZ promises things on several levels. It promises things on the temporal level, and it delivers. Therefore, many of its adherents believe that the eternal promises will also be granted.

25024. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 9:18:19 AM

Angel Five, again, just because you can point to false claims, this does not negate the true ones. This is a non-sequitur is ever one existed.

25025. angel-five - 10/15/2004 9:20:30 AM

I can produce for you thousands of people who have put their faith in Jesus Christ and his teachings, and as a result their lives have improved. I am one of them. I am living proof that the promises made have in fact been true.

That's called question begging. 'As a result'. Sure it's the result of that. PROVE IT.

Can you believe it's the result of that? Sure. Might it be the result of that? Possibly. Can you establish the truth of that? Not at all. Can anyone? No. Does it come down to belief? Yes.

What you are doing is essentially taking my statements about belief and perception and trying to work the word 'truth' into them, and then use that word's presence to insist thatI was wrong about something Jenerator said. Guess what, Kuligin? I'm human, and wrong all the time. But I'm not wrong about this. You can't use truth as a factor unless it can be established.

Now, go and rant and rave and miss the point some more and tell me I'm calling all Christians liars.

25026. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 9:21:43 AM

I see a possible gradation of religious truth claims, many contradictory of course, but others very similar in nature. And I see these religious truth claims competing in the marketplace of humanity. In my investigation, I allow for the very reasonable possibility that the religions which are found to deliver more often on their truth claims are the more successful ones.

Have you ever bought a used car, A-5? Do you consistently go back to the guy that sells you lemons, or do you go back to the honest guy you doesn't? Or are you that dense as to say that it doesn't really matter what he sells you?

Of course it matters! It matters very much if a religion can deliver the goods.

Do they have to deliver them 100% of the time? Of course not. They compete amongst themselves, and most likely (this would be one possible explanation at the BEGINNING of my investigation) the ones which deliver the most often are the ones which succeed.

Truth matters. Anybody who says otherwise is just stupid.

25027. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 9:22:08 AM

Perhaps you have become a Post-Modernist and I just missed it, Angel-Five??

25028. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 9:23:22 AM

"I'm human, and wrong all the time."

Well, if you are "wrong all the time," taking you at your own word of course, you must be wrong now. Or doesn't your brand of logic allow for that?

ha ha

25029. angel-five - 10/15/2004 9:23:59 AM

Perhaps you proved what I asked you to prove and I missed it?

No, instead you're just gonna pretend it wasn't asked of you, because you know you can't do it.

25030. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 9:24:31 AM

"I'm human, and wrong all the time."

"But I'm not wrong about this."

Then you are not wrong all the time. It is this type of sloppy argumentation that has gotten you into trouble in this very debate.

25031. angel-five - 10/15/2004 9:25:38 AM

You're getting even more ridiculous now.

25032. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 9:26:12 AM

"Now, go and rant and rave and miss the point some more and tell me I'm calling all Christians liars."

Let's see, so far you've call Jenerator a liar, you've called me a liar, and you've called all Christians who claim to have had certain truth claims of Christianity proven to be true in their lives liars as well.

But that's not "all Christians," right?

25033. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 9:26:48 AM

"You're getting even more ridiculous now."

Just a little levity for the fun of it, A-5.

25034. angel-five - 10/15/2004 9:27:21 AM

I mean, is this really your point now? 'Ha ha, Angel-5, You used an idiom! Ha ha! It's not grammatically congruent! Look how wrong you are! Ha ha!'

Is this what you've sunk to?

25035. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 9:27:28 AM

Tell me, A-5, where do you buy your automobiles? Or rather, from whom to do buy them?

Does it matter to you that the promises made by the salesman are in fact true?

25036. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 9:28:47 AM

"Is this what you've sunk to?"

Did you leave your sense of humor back at the lying car salesman's showroom??

No doubt he was a Christian. They are all liars, right?

Get a grip, A-5. Have some fun. Go for a walk. Use the foo foo dust again. You need it.

25037. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 9:30:52 AM

"But that's not what she meant and I believe you already know that. It's like she said 'A' and I said 'no' then you came in and said 'b c d e and f, isn't that what you meant to say Jenerator, am I reading you correctly' and she bobbed her head and said 'yes, Mr. Kuligin, that's exactly what I meant to say!'"

So you are saying that Jenerator is lying, right? Just blurt it out. Don't try to hide behind some supposed "libel" claims. Speak the truth, man. She's lying, right?

25038. angel-five - 10/15/2004 9:30:52 AM

Let's see, so far you've call Jenerator a liar, you've called me a liar, and you've called all Christians who claim to have had certain truth claims of Christianity proven to be true in their lives liars as well.

I've called Jenerator a liar, but sure, that's been proven many many times. I've called you one, too. If you like I'll go back and compile a list of the things you have said in this discussion that are demonstrably not true. But I've never called Christians who believe that their religion helped them liars. That's been your libel. What I've said is that that's what they believe -- it can be neither proven nor disproven, unlike the falsifiable statements that have earned you, and your friend, the sobriquet of 'liar'.

You can try to equate yourself and Jenerator with thousands of good people who simply believe that their religion has helped them, if you like. But they might be offended by that.

25039. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 9:31:57 AM

This has been fun. I'll check back on your later, A-5. But for now, please address my mouthwash arguments. The success of any given product can in fact be tied to the truthfulness of its claims, right?

25040. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 9:33:22 AM

Then why accuse me of libel when in fact you did accuse Jenerator of lying, and I said that is what you did?

25041. angel-five - 10/15/2004 9:35:37 AM

Oh, yes, Kuligin, you are indeed a careful reader. Now you're insisting I'm just hinting at Jenerator not being truthful on a regular basis, and trying to weave some point out of that.

Message # 24987

Kuligin: I can't read Jenerator's mind. I do, however, have direct experience of her mendacity

How many times are we going to go through this? How many times, Kuligin, before you start reading the posts you're ranting about instead of just hammering one reiteration after another out again and again? You simple fool, what gives you the idea that that is better than just shutting up and being wrong?

25042. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 9:36:20 AM

"1) I cannot rule out that thumpers are right, if that's what you mean. At least some of them."

In this statement you admit that the possibility exists that, in fact, the claims of "thumpers" can be true.

25043. angel-five - 10/15/2004 9:37:40 AM

Then why accuse me of libel when in fact you did accuse Jenerator of lying, and I said that is what you did?

Because when you use the fact that I'm not interested in taking the word of a proven liar at face value in order to say I'm not interested in facts, that's what you get accused of, you simpleton.

You can check back later if you want. I'm bored and all my points have been hammered home. You can have the last word if that's what you need, or even the last six or seven posts worth of them.

25044. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 9:37:51 AM

Now then, all I am saying is that, if you allow for the possibility that what they claim is true, then said truth may very well play a part in the success of their religious beliefs.

And as I reread your comments, I see now that Jenerator was in fact wrong to a point in her original statements, something not even you called her on. But she said you don't allow ANY possibility that Christian's claims are true, but here you admit that you do allow for that possibility. Right?

25045. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 9:39:39 AM

"2)I dispute the veracity and that your religion delivers on its promises. The veracity is by no means established ...and if Christianity promises a better life for the people who come to follow it, I know that is not categorically true."

Let's not play word games. Let's attempt for absolute clarity, if possible.

You have said that you deny that Christians claims are categorically, ie, always true. And you have pointed out that for some people, they are not true.

But what about the middle ground, that some claims are indeed true? Or are you really intending to say that 100% of them are false?

25046. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 10:14:53 AM

"Because when you use the fact that I'm not interested in taking the word of a proven liar at face value in order to say I'm not interested in facts, that's what you get accused of, you simpleton."

Oh, I see. So if Jenerator states that she meant XYZ, this doesn't really matter to you? So once again, we are back to you knowing better what people think and believe than the people themselves. So clearly, it isn't "libelous" for me to say that you don't care for the facts, even when they are presented personally to you.

You know, my daddy told me that if a person consistently accuses others of lying, that person is probably the liar. Of course, that little "proverb" doesn't always apply, and I'm sure it doesn't apply to someone of such high standards as yourself.

Methodology, my boy, methodology. Sloppy all around.

I agree, you should go and scurry on.

25047. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 10:20:06 AM

"have direct experience of her mendacity"

And just for the record, for future assistance if necessary, do you suggest that all people in this thread, upon reading Jenerator's posts, should assume what exactly? That she is telling the truth, some times telling the truth (and A-5 will be able to fill us in on the times she is not), or always lying?

And why does it seem that you are so quick to claim "lie!" with the people you oppose??

Lastly, (I think), whatever Jenerator's original point was, you have yet to address the issues I have asked you to address. Hopefully you won't scurry away until after you have done so. There they sit, waiting for you.

25048. clydefo - 10/15/2004 10:49:18 AM

Lastly, many people (rightly or wrongly) make the leap from one type of promise to the next. In other words, if I find that XYZ is indeed true in its promises for this or that measurable reality in this life, then I may very well be willing to believe its promises in all other areas too, even though now, in this life, I cannot possibly know if they are true or not (like the heaven promise). So the success (or failure) of a religion delivering on its measurable promises MUST be included in this sort of investigation. 25000. KuligintheHooligan

Congratulations. No doubt a reward from God for your perseverance and steadfastness, just as promised.

The heaven promise. Finally a specific, but of no use. I ask of anyone who may know, what are the "measurable promises" made by Christianity upon which its success is determined? Is there a fixed list like the 10C? (these are not rhetorical questions)

truth claims of any given religion - the ones which can in fact be tested to see if they "deliver" - those we can line up and evaluate. 25006

Might you name the "truth claims" that are in line to be evaluated?

25049. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 11:12:52 AM

There are many people who were areligious and suffered from a lack of peace and contentment in their lives. These people moved to Religion XYZ which promised them that if they begin to practice this or that tenet of the faith, their lives would improve. And they did improve.

Other religions have promised freedom from certain addictions, and this has occurred.

Some have claimed that if you live your life according to the principles of their faith, your life will be free from certain problems associated with certain sins. And this has also proven true.

Fact is, there are millions of people around the world (I suppose billions in the past 200 years let's say) who could attest to the fulfilled promises of their religion. But what we tend to have here in the Mote is a bunch of anti-religious zealots, who then atttempt to pose as objective observers of religion! This is an investigation bound for failure.

As I already stated, a promise such as eternal life in heaven is something that can't be known for sure until you die. But other more palpable promises of religion can be known in the here-and-now.

Hoepfully, the little spat between Angel-Five and myself won't totally dampen the original aim of the discussion, namely, to attempt to discern why Christianity suceeded, per pelle's original question. Alistair provided a short list to get things started. I'd be curious to see what others have to say in reply to pelle's inquiry.

25050. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 11:13:48 AM

And Jenerator, let this be a lesson to you. I suggest in the future, instead of actually typing your own opinions and views here, that, if asked what they may be, you just refer people to Angel-Five, who obviously knows them better than you do.

25051. angel-five - 10/15/2004 11:47:10 AM

you have yet to address the issues I have asked you to address.

I have addressed those issues, Kuligin, repeatedly. But you will sit there and repeat them and repeat them until I address them again, won't you? Like you've done with everything else in this discussion, where you harp and harp and harp until someone gives up and doesn't repeat themselves, and then you claim victory.

You can scientifically prove whether or not Mouthwash X Y Z freshens your breath. You can have mechanics double-check a car before you buy it. These concrete examples you offer are falsifiable, unlike the 'religious truth' you keep trying to get them to pinch hit for. You repeatedly insist that it can be proven but you keep failing to do so, and whenever someone asks you change the subject, like you have with the issue of Buddhism being true because it delivers on its promises, like you have with where you say I've backtracked. You dump a dozen frenetic sweaty repetitive posts down on the screen, like you do when someone catches you lying, like you do when you don't want to answer a specific query and are hoping to bury it.

And now you have the utter gall -- you who have been caught in untruths, what, three times in like the last day of this discussion? and many many times before -- to try and brazen it out and suggest I'm the liar because I call you on it every time.

What you desperately want is for me to say that I agree that a religion, even part of it, can be proven true and that truth has an effect on whether people believe it. You don't get that in the terms of this discussion, that's not epistemologically valid.

25052. angel-five - 10/15/2004 11:47:48 AM

When I point out that that truth can never be demonstrated, you shrug it off and then say 'well, part of it can', and then when asked to do so you suddenly discover something else to talk about. When I try to tie in your point to the original, and ask you to speak of the truth of other religions that have delivered on their promises, suddenly there's something good on TV out there in Kuligin-land.

And just now you're finally going back and reading Jenerator's original argument and discovering that there are things wrong with it? This is the argument that you've been insisting you've gotten right and that you've championed? How bad are you trying to look? How retarded are you willing to be in your childish attempts to piss me off?

For the last time -- abstract truth cannot be proven, a priori. For the last time -- when those truths cannot be proven, they cannot be a factor in a methodical analysis. I find it to be pretty funny that you, who keep apishly grunting about methodical analysis and dissertation (like you're pursuing a real PhD, there, Kuligin) keep wanting to include unquantifiable and unsolvable terms in your equation and derive quantifiable and solved results!

Now, this time I really intend on being done. Libel all you want, prattle on about whatever sweaty endocrine-gushing idea seizes hold of your brain next, rant, rave, stand up on your hind legs and howl, pretend that's a win. If you want more discussion, then the ball is in your court. You have a lot of untrue things you've said which you need to correct, and several questions you need to answer, a couple of things to prove and a whole host of religions that you need to admit are true by the dumbass standards you've tried to invoke in this discussion. I won't be holding my breath on anything but more of the same from you, though.

25053. PelleNilsson - 10/15/2004 11:53:03 AM

Kuligin's arguments about the market are interesting. Religions compete he says, and those that are successful are also truthful and therefore better than the others.

Is Windows a better operating system than all its competitors? Is BigMac the best hamburger in the world?

Kuligin's claim that he is "living proof" of the truthfulness of Christianity is pathetic and on the same level as the witnesses who are called up to verify the claims of the snake oil salesman.

It would be interesting to see Kuligin explain the truthfulness of Islam.

So far, in the simplistic style Kuligin favours

angel-five 1
kuligin 0

25054. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 11:56:53 AM

"You don't get that in the terms of this discussion, that's not epistemologically valid."

Not correct. What we basically have here is someone who says, "I used to be like such and such. Then I joined Religion XYZ and my life has done a complete 180. It is for the better, and I owe it all to Religion XYZ."

Then you come along and either 1) say the person is lying, or 2) say that it is immaterial because it can't be "proven." But the proof is right there, staring you in the face.

Again, excise the data you don't like. And don't worry, I very well do know what it takes to earn a PhD, thank you very much, and the methodology you are currently using is precisely the kind used by liberal Christian scholars the world over. So consider yourself in good company!

25055. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 11:57:22 AM

Out of curiosity, Angel-Five, what do you think of Alcoholics Anonymous?

25056. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 11:58:58 AM

"And just now you're finally going back and reading Jenerator's original argument and discovering that there are things wrong with it?"

Yes, there is one thing that was wrong. She said that you allowed for NO POSSIBILITY that Christian truth claims are in fact true, and now you have said you allow for that possibility. That is the only thing I referred to as being "wrong" in Jenerator's original comments.

25057. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 12:00:35 PM

"Libel all you want"

You really are desperate, aren't you? It is evident that the further along this debate goes, the more desperate you become, the more wilder your personal attacks get, and the less actual substance we see.

Oh well, scurry along. Let me hear those little feet shuffling.

25058. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 12:02:58 PM

"Kuligin's arguments about the market are interesting. Religions compete he says, and those that are successful are also truthful and therefore better than the others."

As I have been very careful to point out, I ALLOW for the above to be true at the outset of my investigation. I do not automatically DISALLOW it, as A-5 does.

Whether or not it ultimately proves true is only a matter for the end, the finale of the investigation.

Methodology that does not ALLOW for this possibility at the onset of the investigation is shoddy and fanatical.

25059. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 12:06:02 PM

"Kuligin's claim that he is "living proof" of the truthfulness of Christianity is pathetic and on the same level as the witnesses who are called up to verify the claims of the snake oil salesman."

Unfortunately, what else can I say? Angel-Five will call all others who claim the same thing liars.

Some times, all one needs really is to know the truth and, despite how much people spit about it otherwise, A-5 can never convince me that the claims of Christ have not been verified in my own life. And there are literally millions of people around the world who would say exactly the same thing.

But all of this evidence is unimportant to Angel-Five and apparently to such a super brain as pelle. Again, excise all the date you don't like, THEN make your supposedly objective conclusions. Whatever.

You guys wouldn't know proper investigative methodology if it spanked you on the behind, foo foo dust included.

25060. angel-five - 10/15/2004 12:09:17 PM

As I see it there are four or five reasons why Christianity has flourished the way it has.

The first is that it obviously has a compelling message. Accept Jesus Christ as your savior and you get an eternity of bliss. Otherwise, you are screwed, and not in a good way. (There are, to be fair, other ways the message of Christianity can be expressed, and most of them are nicer. I'm just calling it as I see it, your mileage may vary). This core message is surrounded by a panoply of clever theology created by some very smart people who have had two thousand years to polish it and adapt it to changing times. They didn't start out from a blank slate, but had millennia of Semitic thought with which to prepare their notions.

The second is that is psychologically apt. You are a dirty filthy sinner with base desires. Love of Christ, and Christ's love, can free you and set you on a higher plane of living. Christ died for You. It's Your Fault, base sinners like you. If you feel guilty, come to the Church and atone, because only through us can this be done. It's important to note here that Christianity is also a religion that places a strong premium on proselytizing, which when combined with its appeals creates a strong impulse for its spreading.

The third is that it is not one religion, but in essence several that share a shifting subset of core principles and ideas. This widens the appeal of the religion, and where one sect might turn off a particular person (say, Baptists) another one, quite opposite, is there to pick them up (say, Catholics or Unitarian Universalists).

25061. angel-five - 10/15/2004 12:11:18 PM

The fourth is that it has been a very powerful political religion. Various among the ruling bodies of Europe have made much political capital from their religion, in exchange for letting that religion make real capital from their politics. For several different spans of time the head of the RCC was the most powerful man in Europe. In addition to the monarchical politics, the Church has founded several different religious organizations which have had only one avenue to power -- to grow by converting people and amassing their power into a unified command of sorts.

And the fifth reason that comes to mind as to Christianity's success is that it happened to be the religion of the West, which went on to colonize most of the rest of the world and import many things, including and probably foremost among them, their religion, into the extant cultures there. I suppose some people might wish to believe that if Christ had been born in the Congo that today Africa would dominate the world, because they like to attribute the rise of the West to Christianity, but I'm a bit skeptical of that notion.

So there's five reasons. Of course there are probably more, and I'm sure others who have a more sympathetic view of the Church can add some which they like better.

25062. Bill Russell - 10/15/2004 12:11:57 PM

Hahahahahaha

Feel the hate.

25063. sakonige - 10/15/2004 12:12:49 PM

Why do you ignore the expansio of Christian civilization as a factor in the success of Christianity?

25064. sakonige - 10/15/2004 12:13:20 PM

oh, ok. crosspost.

25065. PelleNilsson - 10/15/2004 12:14:17 PM

I guess that between us A5 and I know all there is to know about the methodology that applies to scientific enquiries. One rule is that it is useless to investigate non-falsifiable claims.

25066. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 12:15:18 PM

Angel-Five, a decent list for starters.

"The second is that is psychologically apt. You are a dirty filthy sinner with base desires. Love of Christ, and Christ's love, can free you and set you on a higher plane of living."

This falls in line with what I have been saying. The religion claims certain things and then delivers them. Tons of testimonials to this fact can be easily found. The truthfulness of the claim is part and parcel for its success.

25067. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 12:17:49 PM

"One rule is that it is useless to investigate non-falsifiable claims."

And very helpful to investigate verifiable ones.

" guess that between us A5 and I know all there is to know about the methodology that applies to scientific enquiries."

Evidently not, unless by the above you imply that the gaps in A-5's approach would be handily filled in by you?

In any event, clearly, if you start your investigation and do not allow certain data to enter it because it negates your preconceptions, this is just bad methodology.

But you go right on patting yourself (and A-5) on the back all you want to there, pelle.

25068. angel-five - 10/15/2004 12:17:56 PM

Out of curiosity, Angel-Five, what do you think of Alcoholics Anonymous?

Oh, god, Kuligin, don't tell me you're in AA. It will destroy whatever faith I have in the twelve steps and twelve traditions.

I think AA is a good, solid program and that it can work for a lot of people, and that even if it has its flaws it's definitely useful. How about you?

25069. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 12:21:06 PM

There are, clearly, millions of people who can personally attest to the following:

"Jesus changed my life. Not just some eternal promises, I mean here and now."

Or something akin to the above.

Now, then, you may AT THE END OF YOUR INVESTIGATION conclude that all of these people are lying, deceived or self-deceived, or just don't know what they are talking about, but you cannot AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF YOUR INVESTIGATION rule out the possibility that, indeed, what they are saying is true because the truth claims of the religion are in fact true. You simply cannot do this and remain and honest, objective investigator.

Again, it is just amazing to me how a couple of self-professed religion haters can act like they are actually objectively investigating religion. Your posts, however, clearly point otherwise [except for A-5's recent list of 5 reasons].

25070. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 12:24:30 PM

"Oh, god, Kuligin, don't tell me you're in AA. It will destroy whatever faith I have in the twelve steps and twelve traditions."

Don't worry, I have nothing to do with it, so you may rest well.

"I think AA is a good, solid program and that it can work for a lot of people, and that even if it has its flaws it's definitely useful. How about you?"

The same, I guess. I suppose I view it as a positive program which works in helping people overcome their addiction.

But according to you, none of its tenets is actually true, or at least cannot be proven as such, even though lives are changed through them, correct?

No trap here, just trying to understand. Because AA competes with other programs I suppose, right? And if it didn't work, wouldn't you agree that most likely it wouldn't stick around for long?

In other words, when we talk about measuring the "success" of something, doesn't the fact that it may or may not actually be true at least play some part in your thinking?

25071. KuligintheHooligan - 10/15/2004 12:25:48 PM

I've got a bunch of students coming over to my house in about an hour to watch "The Mission." I have it on DVD. We just finished the Reformation in our Church History course, and I want them to see a good portrayal of colonization, the struggle between Church and State, and so on.

Have a good weekend all.

25072. angel-five - 10/15/2004 12:45:39 PM

If you're trying to understand, then you're trying too hard, because it's easy to understand.

Christianity is, or is not, true. Its state is independent of our analysis. All the historical facts of the Church, such as they actually are, exist independently of that analysis and of the 'truth' as far as we can discern as investigators. Subjective and non-falsifiable facts, like 'Jesus is Lord' and 'The Lord is what changed my life' may be true. They may not be true. But the fact is that we can never establish whether or not they are true for the purposes of our investigation. This isn't Humean 'I don't know anything but my senses', this is objective investigation running into its limits. So truth is irrelevant to our inquiry.

You have not liked that at all. You have insistently gone on about how things could be true, how I cannot prove they're not true, how I should consider that they're true and so on. The unfortunate fact is that while I, the person, can freely consider such things and agree or disagree with them, the laws of logical inquiry delineate what can be admitted into our inquiry without invalidating it. I keep trying to get that across to you, but all I get in response is 'You are ruling it out! You are ruling out that it might be true and that might be the reason it succeeds!' When I say 'no, I'm not' and explain why then you ask 'Why are you arguing, then?'

You simply haven't ever got the point, I'm afraid.

Truth exists independent of the inquiry and cannot be established by the inquiry. It cannot influence the inquiry in any quantifiable or falsifiable way. And therefore it is irrelevant to the inquiry. This irrelevance is completely independent to whether or not it is true, or not true.

If you can't get that, well, it's as simple as I can make it for you.

25073. clydefo - 10/15/2004 1:01:33 PM

Thanks for the examples of Christian promises. They seem to be nothing more than age-old wisdom on how to live a moderate and disciplined way of life. This can be done on one's own of course, or one could join the army if looking for a structured environment. If one turns to organized religion for such things so easily obtained elsewhere, he must be expecting some extra payoff and agree with you when you point out:

Religion XYZ promises things on several levels. It promises things on the temporal level, and it delivers. Therefore, many of its adherents believe that the eternal promises will also be granted. 25023. Kuligin

Unfortunately for the adherent, his assumptions about eternal promises may be unwarranted.

As I already stated, a promise such as eternal life in heaven is something that can't be known for sure until you die... 25409

It's even worse than that. It can't be known for sure that anything will ultimately be known for sure.

Another question:

What are "truth claims"?

Also, is there any societal value or moral precept that is original with Christianity?

25074. ElliottRW - 10/15/2004 1:05:15 PM

re: 25072

I have not read back far enough to understand the context of this argument, so I don't know what the inquiry is that to which truth is not relevant.

However, I would like to say that I agree with angel-five concerning the difficulty in proving the simple truth of the historical facts upon which normal Christian theology is based. It just can't be done with a degree of certainty that rises above plausibility.

Hope this helps.

25075. Bill Russell - 10/15/2004 1:20:21 PM

" is there any societal value or moral precept that is original with Christianity?"

NONE that I know of.

25076. Bill Russell - 10/15/2004 1:28:02 PM

The origin of the beliefs contained in the present-day Christian religion extends far back into history, back to the days of Andon and Fonta, the first two humans who were born 993,419 years ago from the year A.D. 1934.

The Old Testament and the New Testament are replete with concepts such as sin, original sin, sacrifice, and atonement, beliefs developed by savage man over thousands and thousands of years and faithfully handed down from generation to generation, even unto the twenty-first century.

These primitive concepts constitute the core beliefs of today’s Christian religion.

25077. Magoseph - 10/15/2004 1:57:01 PM

Bill's link

AS PRESENTED BY
THE AUTHORS OF THE URANTIA BOOK

The origin of the beliefs contained in the present-day Christian religion extends far back into history, back to the days of Andon and Fonta, the first two humans who were born 993,419 years ago from the year A.D. 1934. The Old Testament and the New Testament are replete with concepts such as sin, original sin, sacrifice, and atonement, beliefs developed by savage man over thousands and thousands of years and faithfully handed down from generation to generation, even unto the twenty-first century. These primitive concepts constitute the core beliefs of today’s Christian religion. [62.5:1] [63:0-3] [Paper 89]

The authors of The Urantia Book describe in detail the evolution of worship, prayer, the God concept among the Hebrews, and many other topics relating to the nature and origin of our planetary religions. Although present-day Christianity is the best religion on our planet, the authors of this book believe the time has come to examine the beliefs contained in the Christian religion and to point out both their strengths and weaknesses.

Christians have long accepted the Old Testament as the infallible and inspired Word of God. Thus, it seems that the Old Testament is a logical place to begin our examination of present-day Christian beliefs. Just how reliable are the teachings in the O.T.? Unknown to the early Christian theologians the Jews had completely rewritten their history during the Babylonian captivity. As will be shown, this means that some of the teachings in the O.T. are resting on shaky ground, and other teachings are derived from completely erroneous statements. We will begin with an examination of the Old Testament after which we will examine the teachings in the New Testament.

25078. Bill Russell - 10/15/2004 2:21:44 PM

" Christians have long accepted the Old Testament as the infallible and inspired Word of God. "

Yup! And the OT is filled with fear of a god and hate for those who don't believe.

25079. woden - 10/15/2004 4:33:11 PM

"But according to you, none of its tenets is actually true, or at least cannot be proven as such, even though lives are changed through them, correct?

No trap here, just trying to understand. Because AA competes with other programs I suppose, right? And if it didn't work, wouldn't you agree that most likely it wouldn't stick around for long?

In other words, when we talk about measuring the "success" of something, doesn't the fact that it may or may not actually be true at least play some part in your thinking?"

You don't know much about AA. AA doesn't make any claims to any truths whatsoever. The approach of the members is something along the lines of "this worked for me, it might work for you too, if you want to try it, I'll help. In the "big book" of AA it's explicitly stated that AA makes no claims as to why people become alcoholic. Neither does this book claim that any particular person will definitely recover. You may run into individual people in the program who have their own opinions about addiction and recovery, but they are not the claims of AA. The steps are presented as suggestions, and contain no declarations of eternal truth.

What claims you will find are objectively verifiable, such as, my name is Bill W. and I've been sober X number of years. AA is not comparable to Christianity in that sense.

25080. Bill Russell - 10/15/2004 6:15:12 PM

Regarding the bloody history of Christianity and Islam and what is accordingly written in their holy books, one could easily come under the impression that the God of Abraham is very much vulnerable ("I am a jealous God") and therefore attacks whenever his interests are at stake.

After all, only a vulnerable one can have enemies!

25081. Bill Russell - 10/15/2004 6:39:47 PM

Hahahahahaha

Across the Bible Belt this Halloween, some little ghosts and goblins might get shooed away by the neighbors

- and some youngsters will not be allowed to go trick-or-treating at all - because the holiday falls on a Sunday this year.

"It's a day for the good Lord, not for the devil," said Barbara Braswell, who plans to send her 4-year-old granddaughter Maliyah out trick-or-treating in a princess costume on Saturday instead.

Some towns around the country are decreeing that Halloween be celebrated on Saturday to avoid complaints from those who might be offended by the sight of demons and witches ringing their doorbell on the Sabbath. Others insist the holiday should be celebrated on Oct. 31 no matter what.

"Moving it, that's like celebrating Christmas a week early," said Veronica Wright, who bought a Power Rangers costume for her son in Newnan. "It's just a kid thing. It's not for real."

It is an especially sensitive issue for authorities in the Bible Belt across the South.

"You just don't do it on Sunday," said Sandra Hulsey of Greenville, Ga. "That's Christ's day. You go to church on Sunday, you don't go out and celebrate the devil. That'll confuse a child."

25082. anomie - 10/15/2004 6:59:08 PM

Woden,

Thanks for that clarification of AA and "Truth". I was thinking the same thing. KTH's analogies usually miss by a mile. No exception here. And the used auto one. Ha! He can be a funny guy

25083. anomie - 10/15/2004 7:05:51 PM

So, catching up then...A5 has won another one, two actually. I'd give Judith a point too.
A-5 -- 2
JAH -- 1
Kul -- 0
Jen -- NA

Note: I refrained from joining in lest Kul and Jen accuse me of spoiling the argument by asking too hard questions.

...and Kuligin and Judith have broken up again.

25084. anomie - 10/15/2004 7:31:05 PM

KTH, Jen,

How exactly did "truth" influence the growth of Christianity? I'm curious if you have some examples other than the personal anecdote.

Do you believe, for example that Constantine had a revelation from God? Did the Holy Spirit play a role in Cannonization? If so, how? Can you prove it?

25085. Jenerator - 10/15/2004 9:41:52 PM

Woden,

Another famous expression in AA is: "It works if you work it, so work it."

(I was an alateen sponsor for several years.)

25086. Jenerator - 10/15/2004 9:46:23 PM

Oh, and the entire premise of AA is if one works the steps, one will get sober.

25087. clydefo - 10/15/2004 9:57:53 PM

No trap here, just trying to understand. Because AA competes with other programs I suppose, right? And if it didn't work, wouldn't you agree that most likely it wouldn't stick around for long? 25079. woden

Some time back, there was a court case in which an alcoholic parolee was appealing a judges's order that he attend AA as a condition of parole. He was arguing a church/state claim that AA is a religious organization. Anyone know how that stands?

25088. Jenerator - 10/15/2004 10:09:24 PM

Having a "Higher Power" isn't endorsing a particular religion. Besides, in AA, it's a "Higher Power of your own understanding." The typical line is that your higher power can be a toaster.

25089. woden - 10/15/2004 10:11:42 PM

Jen,

Are you familiar with the passage from "How it Works" which is read at the beginning of many meetings? It's probably quoted and read more than any other passage in the literature of AA. It says "rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path." Clearly, AA makes no absolute claims. The steps are suggestions only. The reason for this is that the program of AA was designed to appeal to people who are incredibly skeptical and cynical. No alcoholic wants someone in their face saying "I know the answer...this is what YOU need to do!"

However, even if they did make some kind of claim, it would be more objectively demonstrable than things like, God exists. You can show whether people are sober or not. You can give them a blood test and everyone can see what's going on. That's a physical reality. You're talking about metaphysical claims, about the nature of God and his existence, etc.

Clyde, I don't know about that case, but it's a horrible tragedy that the judicial system has gotten involved with AA in that way. It's a violation of our civil liberties, of the constitution and of several of AA's traditions.

25090. clydefo - 10/16/2004 12:11:14 AM

...it's a horrible tragedy that the judicial system has gotten involved with AA in that way. It's a violation of our civil liberties, of the constitution and of several of AA's traditions.

I agree that it is a tragedy, to the extent it inhibits the good work done by AA. However, there are totally secular recovery programs that the judge might mandate. A principled, non-theistic alcoholic ex-con, intent on recovery, might well find a Judeao-Christian environment a distraction from his main goal. Having a monkey on one's back is bad enough, without having to put up with all the Christian guilt/sin/redemption crap if you don't buy into it, although I don't suggest this is actually pervasive in AA. The religion thing may well be incidental for most members. Like the Salvation Army. They seem to pass-through the greatest percent of donations to the needy, and the brass bands are great, even if they are only a memory. The Judaeo-Christian influences are relatively benign.

Then there is the Boy Scouts of America organization. They take public money pretending to simply be a good wholesome babysitter but have religious tests for participation at the highest level ...only the righteous. Stealth Deism.

25091. angel-five - 10/16/2004 12:43:42 AM

Most AA people I know (that is, most that I know that are in AA) really despise it when someone gets all Jesusey in a meeting.

This is something that I have only a little direct experience of. When my dad started having problems with alcohol after my mom passed away, and AA was recommended to him I talked to friend of mine about it and voiced some concerns -- I knew that my dad wouldn't take to anything that was heavily Christianocentric, being the Deist that he is. So I went along to a meeting on my friend's invitation and was surprised (although I guess I shouldn't have been) that religion plays a very small role in the meeting, and that role is very heterodox and Universalist. My friend further informed me that the spirituality of most meetings is both very muted and rather secular in flavor, and that while having faith that a higher power than oneself can restore one to sanity is one of the twelve steps, that the higher power needn't even be a religious one per se. People are known to have the 'higher power' be, say, the synergy of the group.

I've always found it interesting that it absolutely doesn't seem to matter what higher power you choose to put your trust in -- the results are the same.

I'm sure there's some meetings out there where the participants are all born again and I'm sure that in those meetings they're happy to have very Christ-oriented programming and testimony being shared. And there are church groups which fulfill an AA like service, but of course the spirituality is at once much more omnipresent and not at all heterodox -- there's only one higher power and it's invoked all the time. I guess it attracts the people who'd be attracted to that, and if it works for them, well, they're probably better off Jesusey than drunk.

25092. Bill Russell - 10/16/2004 2:37:41 AM

" better off Jesusey than drunk "

They won't know 'til they get to Heaven, Hell or a complete blackout.

Heh

25096. woden - 10/16/2004 4:41:35 AM

"Having a monkey on one's back is bad enough, without having to put up with all the Christian guilt/sin/redemption crap if you don't buy into it, although I don't suggest this is actually pervasive in AA. The religion thing may well be incidental for most members."

My opinion is that even if it's a vague type of spirituality that's being suggested, the state has no business forcing people to attend. The idea of Church/State separation shouldn't just apply to Christianity but to any group that offers a "spiritual way of life." And where is the proof that this rehabilitates people? Furthermore, what about the right of the members of AA to gather anonymously, and not be asked to break their anonymity by signing attendance slips? I think I have a right to go to a meeting without being forced to participate in the penal system. I don't want my group being made into a tool of the state. Not to mention that the parole officers actively decieve people into thinking that their attendance at meetings is recorded by the state - they are misrepresenting vitally important things about AA to the people who need it most. For every person that is helped by the forced attendance, more are probably turned off forever by being given the impression that the meetings are part of the penal system and monitored by Big Brother. Those, in my personal opinion, are just a few of the legal and ethical issues around that.

25098. angel-five - 10/16/2004 12:19:40 PM

There really can't be any doubt that it's a violation of the Establishment clause, but it will take years to prove it and draw needless attention to people who not only wish to remain anonymous, but depend on anonymity to generate the sort of results which lead judges to 'sentence' people to attend AA.

25099. KuligintheHooligan - 10/16/2004 12:58:44 PM

Talk about a slippery slope.

I've seen that there is a case currently in Utah of a man who was convicted of polygamy and sentenced to 25 years in prison. He has if I recall correctly 4 wives.

He is of course appealing the case, but based on the ruling in Massachusetts which granted same-sex marriage. His lawyer claims that to prohibit him from polygamy is a form of discrimination and he is hoping to get the case up to the Supreme Court.

Earlier this month there was an article in the USAToday about the issue by Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School. He has called laws against polygamy "hypocritical."

Turley: "individuals have a recognized constitutional right to engage in any form of consensual sexual relationship with any number of partners." They "can live with multiple partners" and "sire children from different partners." The only thing is that, under the law, they can't marry them all at the same time.

For Turley, "hypocrisy" is in our culture's unwillingness to take that final step. Prejudice, not a coherent principle, lies behind the criminalization of polygamy. And so, he says, it's up to the courts to protect "the least popular and least powerful," like polygamists.

25100. KuligintheHooligan - 10/16/2004 1:01:54 PM

What I find interesting in this case is that polygamy, as opposed to same-sex marriage, has a rich and strong past in human history. In fact, one could potentially say that this man in Utah actually has a stronger case than those who argue for the legalization of same-sex marriages. And with polygamy, there isn't nearly the thorny issues of child rearing and such, because, after all, it still involves a man and a woman.

Of course, conservatives who have opposed same-sex marriage have said these things would come next, but those who oppose the conservatives have said that is just fear-mongering the like. Kind of like in Sweden where they said a pastor would neeeeeever be convicted of the hate-speech laws protecting homosexuality there, but ....

Could be an interesting topic of discussion in this thread. Should the USA allow polygamy? And is, why? And if not, why not?

25101. KuligintheHooligan - 10/16/2004 1:04:11 PM

On an entirely different area, could someone please explain to me the "woden" and "angel-five" thing? I asked A-5 some specific questions and they were answered by woden, which I assumed was just another moniker for A-5. But now they seem to be talking to each other in the most recent posts. No doubt this has been clarified elsewhere in The Mote and I obviously missed it.

25102. KuligintheHooligan - 10/16/2004 1:06:57 PM

A-5, briefly concerning AA.

AA seems to work. It promises certain changes and it delivers via it program. The same can be said for religions in general, on a varying scale of degree. That's why I brought it up.

Obviously, the claim "when you die you will go to heaven" cannot possibly be scrutinized for its veracity, but "if you follow our program you will be a changed man" can be. So I disagree with your premise that NONE of the truth claims of religion - regardless of the religion in question - can be verified or "proven."

And I'll leave it at that.

25103. KuligintheHooligan - 10/16/2004 1:11:02 PM

Sorry, I saw this from woden just now:

"However, even if they did make some kind of claim, it would be more objectively demonstrable than things like, God exists. You can show whether people are sober or not. You can give them a blood test and everyone can see what's going on. That's a physical reality. You're talking about metaphysical claims, about the nature of God and his existence, etc."

This was addressed to Jenerator but it impinges on my comments. I have endeavored to make a distinction between those claims of a religion which clearly cannot be proven, like future promises of heaven, and those which can be, like present promises of a transformed life, or freedom from this or that sinful behaviour, and so on.

You know, let me give an example which may help. The disciples of Jesus, after his crucifixion, are all hiding thinking they are next. There are a scared bunch of men hiding for their lives.

In a relatively short matter of time, they are bold and brave to the point of death. They all go to their deaths, in fact, except for one, for a belief that Jesus actually came back from the dead. So why the sudden and incredible transformation? [CONT]

25104. woden - 10/16/2004 1:15:27 PM

So, what are the claims of Christianity that you and Jenerator are saying are verifiably true? The Christianity I was taught was of the "take up your cross and follow me" flavor, so I have to say that the AA comparison is missing the mark for me. You guys seem to think that it promises a better life. I'm not saying it doesn't, just please refresh my memory as to where in the Bible it says that?

25105. woden - 10/16/2004 1:16:43 PM

And also, I think that you'd want to show that the results are specific to Christianity, not just benefits of following a spiritual path in general.

25106. KuligintheHooligan - 10/16/2004 1:17:50 PM

Of course, there are several possibilities for the incredible transformation. They could have all gotten together and thought about it for a while and come up with this brilliant idea to make a profit from creating the lie that this Jesus came back from the dead. Or they could have all seen a similar hallucination over 40 days' time which made them believe he did return. Or, as one sociological book that I read explained, they created the resurrection because they HAD to for their own psychological health.

But one answer is also possible, and that is that Jesus did in fact come back from the dead.

Of course, a materialist doing this study wouldn't dream of such a possibility, let alone that God exists anyway. So a priori the possibility that Jesus did come back from the dead is excluded from the outset. But is this really a fair methodology?

Of course, one might counter with, "But the resurrection isn't provable," but that misses the point. It still must be addressed as a legitimate possible explanation for the transformation of the disciples, especially if all the other possible explanations do not hold up to scrutiny (such as these guys creating a lie and then all dying for it knowing it not to be true, and so on).

But I suggest that certain truth claims of religions CAN be proven. They promise transformation of life, let's say, and they deliver. And as such, the actual truthfulness of such claims and the subsequent success of that religion cannot be a priori excluded.

25107. KuligintheHooligan - 10/16/2004 1:20:30 PM

At issue here is NOT that I think unverifiable data cannot be used because it cannot be verified, but rather that I disagree that ALL that any religion has to say isn't able to be verified. And then, in the context of religions competing with one another, and the analysis of their "success" being measured in that arena or marketplace, it does enter into play whether or not what they say is true.

Okay, I've said more than I intended to say on this today. And, like others, I am repeating myself now and I suppose the horse is thoroughly beaten.

25108. KuligintheHooligan - 10/16/2004 1:24:42 PM

"And also, I think that you'd want to show that the results are specific to Christianity, not just benefits of following a spiritual path in general."

Hello, woden, whoever you are.

No, not at this time. Again, I'm arguing for the STARTING place in the analysis. All I am saying is that one's beginning considerations must admit one possible answer as the veracity of the truth claims of religion XYZ. And I've said numerous times that all religions should be granted equal fairness in evaluation.

Only after a considerable amount of time in study could we then begin to make comparisons between them.

My AA example just popped to mind, obviously late in the program, because it is something that promises similar things that many religions promise, a transformed life, or success over a besetting sin, and so on. Again, not just the "pie-in-the-sky" types of promises, but the concrete ones.

Of course, as I've also said, if a religion tends to deliver in the more temporal or concrete promises, then people may be more inclined to accept its "heavenly" ones as well. And thus it's success can indeed be measured by its temporal delivery on promises made.

25109. KuligintheHooligan - 10/16/2004 1:28:58 PM

Perhaps this example will help, woden.

There is a church here which promises financial success for those who are their members. They tell their people that if you do this and that you will become financially successful.

Does it always work? I don't think so, but the church is packed every night, and I mean it, EVERY stinking night. They've purchased land and built a building right in downtown of our capital city, quite quickly as well. So obviously something is working.

Clearly, this church is "successful" by certain measures. So the question begs to be answered: Why?

And I have a hunch that if a person comes to that church expecting financial success, and receives it, that he will be more likely to believe all the other promises the church has made.

Again, the human factor MUST be considered in all of this. This church competes with other churches for that man's attendance and membership. And it seems that the truth claims they make, in this case financial success, come true.

25110. wonkers2 - 10/16/2004 4:50:55 PM

But no one on earth will ever know the truth or falsity of Christianity's principal claim of salvation. Or if, true, what it means, i.e., the conditions that exist in heaven.

25111. clydefo - 10/16/2004 6:25:54 PM

There is a church here which promises financial success for those who are their members. They tell their people that if you do this and that you will become financially successful.

"Promises financial success". Sounds too good to be true.

Let me take a wild guess..."do this and that" means give your money to the preacher and then pray it's not a ponzi scheme.

They've purchased land and built a building right in downtown of our capital city, quite quickly as well. So obviously something is working.

A cynic couldn't have said it better.

25112. wonkers2 - 10/16/2004 6:33:41 PM

Shades of Father Divine!

25113. wonkers2 - 10/16/2004 6:34:33 PM

Or Elmer Gantry.

25114. wonkers2 - 10/16/2004 6:49:20 PM

Or The Reverend Davidson (Somerset Maugham's).

25115. alistairConnor - 10/16/2004 7:04:40 PM

On an entirely different area, could someone please explain to me the "woden" and "angel-five" thing?

I have learned (this is not privileged information, I read it in the Mote) that angel-five and woden are two distinct people, and that they are engaged to be married.

I don't know for sure if they are of different sexes, nor whether there are other people involved.

Or animals, for that.

25116. wonkers2 - 10/16/2004 7:06:03 PM

Definitely, animals involved! Perhaps birds also.

25117. wonkers2 - 10/16/2004 7:13:25 PM

Or Father Coughlin.

The Rev. Jimmy Swaggart.

The Rev. Jim and Tammy Fay Baker.

25118. Bill Russell - 10/17/2004 7:24:49 AM

At least two-thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity: idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religous or political ideas.

Aldous Huxley (1894 - 1963)

25119. Magoseph - 10/17/2004 7:43:01 AM

I don't know for sure if they are of different sexes, nor whether there are other people involved.

Ali, I know that woden is a beautiful young woman. As a matter of fact, I have her picture next to Marj's beautiful young man picture in my very private Motiers' photo album. Tortuous English, but but you get my meaning, right?

25120. Bill Russell - 10/17/2004 8:31:06 AM

IF you believe in a god or gods, you will likely believe in this:

Are we born with a God gene?

Molecular biologist explores idea that we're hard-wired for faith

DEAN HAMER

Religion News Service

Since the dawn of our species, spirituality has been deeply woven into the human experience.

More than 30,000 years ago, our ancestors in what today is Europe painted the walls of their caves with images of strange chimeras representing sorcerers or priests. Across millennia, religion has produced innumerable acts of charity and unspeakable acts of violence. Today, the forces of fundamentalism -- whether Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Muslim -- are sweeping the globe, from the Middle East and Africa to South America and Asia.

Why is spirituality such a universal force? Why do people from all walks of life, regardless of their religious backgrounds, value spirituality as much as, or more than, pleasure, power and wealth?

The answer is, at least in part, hard-wired into our genes. Spirituality is one of our basic human inheritances. It is, in short, an instinct -- rooted in a "God gene" folded deep in the intricate strands of our DNA.

This may sound like a controversial assertion, but it reflects the startling advances of modern biology. The question of "Is there a God?" may be beyond science, but a deeper understanding of why we believe in God may be within our grasp.

The implications will no doubt prove unsettling to many people. Nonbelievers will argue that finding a God gene proves there is no God -- that religion is nothing more than a genetic program for self-deception. Believers, on the other hand, can point to the existence of God genes as a sign of the creator's ingenuity -- a clever way to help humans acknowledge and embrace a divine presence.

25121. judithathome - 10/17/2004 9:45:47 AM

If there's a God gene, does this mean gays are born, not made? Does it mean that the God gene is missing in people like me?

25122. wonkers2 - 10/17/2004 10:27:00 AM

Some of the bishops--the shepherds of the church whose hierarchy bungled the molestation and rape of so many young boys by tolerating it, covering it up, enabling it, excusing it and paying hush money--are still debating whether John Kerry should be allowed to receive communion.

These bishops are embryo-centric; they are not as concerned with the 1,080 kids killed in a war that the Bush administration launched with lies, or about the lives that could be lost thanks to the president's letting the assault weapons ban lapse, or about all the lives that could be saved and improved with stem cell research.

Maureen Dowd 10-17-04

25123. Bill Russell - 10/17/2004 10:36:48 AM

" the bishops--the shepherds of the church whose hierarchy bungled the molestation and rape of so many young boys by tolerating it, covering it up, enabling it, excusing it and paying hush money "

Yep! And it seems to be continuing...

So much for that brand of CHRISTianity.

25124. woden - 10/17/2004 7:54:10 PM

No animals are involved. That's because A-5 wants a beagle and I want a shih-tzu.

25125. justears - 10/17/2004 9:14:10 PM

Wonkers, In that Dowd column you quote above, she uses the phrase "Cherry-picking absolutists". I'm going to use it in my Ethics class. She can really turn a phrase....and even heads for that matter.

25130. wonkers2 - 10/18/2004 10:46:37 AM

She does turn a clever phrase. She's a bit too nasty for my taste, except when attacking Bush. Krugman is more my style.

25131. angel-five - 10/18/2004 10:56:59 AM

She doesn't usually do much for me and I usually don't like her reasoning, even if she's on my side. Krugman = much mo betta.

25132. Jenerator - 10/18/2004 11:20:38 AM

Blood Brothers

From the October 11, 2004 issue: Why the leading practitioners of late abortion wrote checks to Kerry.
by Douglas Johnson
10/11/2004, Volume 010, Issue 05

MARTIN HASKELL, George Tiller, and Warren Hern have several things in common. All three are abortionists who specialize in late abortions. Haskell's name is closely linked with the partial-birth abortion method. Tiller and Hern may be the only two abortionists in the United States who openly advertise their willingness to perform third-trimester abortions.

Finally, all three men have opened their checkbooks to support Senator John Kerry's bid to be president of the United States. Their contributions to Kerry's campaign total $7,000.

That is not a vast sum compared with the millions being spent by liberal groups to attack President Bush. (Federal law limits a contributor to maximum total donations of $4,000 to a single presidential candidate, split between two types of campaign accounts.) Nevertheless, these contributions are worth scrutinizing because of what they reveal about John Kerry.

Although Haskell, Tiller, and Hern have been controversial figures for many years in national debates about late abortions (as anybody can ascertain by entering their names into Google), the Kerry campaign apparently readily accepted the contributions--money that might very well have originated in fees charged to perform partial-birth abortions or other late abortions.

But why would such men send their hard-earned dollars to Kerry? After all, Kerry told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, on January 25, 2004, "I'm against partial-birth abortion, as are many people." And Kerry told the Dubuque Telegraph Herald in July, 2004, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

25133. Jenerator - 10/18/2004 11:20:45 AM

My bet is that the abortionists know
that during his 20 years in the Senate, Kerry has been an absolutely consistent defender of abortion. So why should they be bothered by statements intended only to mislead voters who are strongly opposed to the grisly business that these men are in--voters who are still unfamiliar with Kerry's actual record?

Most likely, these abortionists are quite aware that Kerry has promised to nominate only Supreme Court justices who share his real position on abortion policy--which would guarantee that partial-birth abortions and other late abortions, and of course earlier abortions, would remain almost entirely shielded from scrutiny or restriction by elected lawmakers for the foreseeable future.

DR. MARTIN HASKELL wrote the Kerry for President campaign a check for $2,000, recorded June 30, 2004. Haskell, based in Ohio, owns three abortion clinics, all called Women's Med Center (http://www.womensmedcenter.com). In 1992 Haskell published a paper describing how to perform what he called "dilation and extraction." Circulation of this paper led to introduction of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act by congressman Charles Canady, a Florida Republican, in 1995.

Brenda Pratt Shafer, a nurse who worked briefly at one of Haskell's clinics, witnessed close up the partial-birth abortion of a baby boy who she said was at 26 and a half weeks.

"I stood at the doctor's side and watched him perform a partial-birth abortion on a woman who was six months pregnant," Shafer related. "The baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. The doctor delivered the baby's body and arms, everything but his little head. The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet."

25134. Jenerator - 10/18/2004 11:21:31 AM

How can anyone be in favor of partial birth abortion??

This is a moral issue we should be concerned about and disgusted by.

25135. Bill Russell - 10/18/2004 11:24:16 AM

Murder = Murder no matter the age.

25136. Bill Russell - 10/18/2004 11:56:12 AM

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 - 1882)

25137. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 1:18:52 PM

Okay, so no one is going to bite on the polygamy issue, which is too bad.

How about this one, along the lines of some comments recently made?

Suppose a pedophilia gene is discovered which makes people prone to pedophilia. Should that make the practice legal?

And at what point does the whole genetic thingie begin to allow us to entirely absolve ourselves of any behaviour in which we may participate? Also, can a person act against his own genes, or are we moving toward an entire fatalistic position when it comes to "the God gene," or "the gay gene," and so on?

25138. Bill Russell - 10/18/2004 1:23:51 PM

" so no one is going to bite on the polygamy issue, which is too bad. "

According to the Bible, polygamy is acceptable and encouraged. And Jesus said nothing about it, nor about homosexuality for that matter.

Consenting adults?

Hopefully..

25139. clydefo - 10/18/2004 2:10:50 PM

How can anyone be in favor of partial birth abortion??
This is a moral issue we should be concerned about and disgusted by. 25134. Jenerator

Why be disingenuous? It is not, nor is it intended to be a "birth". It is a death process; always unpleasant, but a technique needed to save the health of the mother. Why are you so callously indifferent towards her? What would you do if you were carrying an encephalitic fetus? This type of abortion is used when the fetus is so defective that it is unlikely to live very long anyway. Carrying it to term is dangerous to the mother and costly to society when huge resources are spent on hopeless cases. Now that does indeed make it a moral issue.

25140. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 2:38:57 PM

"Consenting adults?"

This certainly cannot be your only response? We consistently regulate the behaviour of "consenting adults" all the time in our society. Consent cannot possibly be your sole criterion on which you hang your hat, is it?

You know, I recall seeing some people say that allowing gay marriage would allow for plural marriage, and I mentioned that here some time back to cries of derision and fear mongering. Now we see that the courts are dealing with precisely this matter.

Bill, maybe one day you'll be able to marry your donkey, and all will be a peace in the world.

25141. SnowOwl - 10/18/2004 3:05:15 PM

Suppose a pedophilia gene is discovered which makes people prone to pedophilia. Should that make the practice legal?

We already regulate behaviour that is probably genetic in origin. We do it because the behaviour is harmful to the self or to others. Paedophilia is harmful to the children involved, therefore it would never be legal.

Who is gay behaviour harmful to?

25142. angel-five - 10/18/2004 3:06:07 PM

I'm told it makes Paul very angry.

25143. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 3:12:07 PM

"Who is gay behaviour harmful to?"

Well, let's see. What are the infection rates among gays as opposed to heterosexuals in America, when it comes to a whole hoard of STDs? How many studies have to be piled one on top of the other which show, for instance, that anal sex is harmful and dangerous behaviour?

I wonder what the average life expectancy of gay males in America is compared to, say, drug users? They may run quite similar.

Why don't we allow a woman, for example, to sell her body for sex? Doesn't it involve consenting adults? And who is to say that it is all that bad for the individuals involved, really?

Of course, already there are open-minded European countries who see no problem with prostitution and have legalized it. The slippery slope is all over the place, evidently.

25144. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 3:13:35 PM

"We already regulate behaviour that is probably genetic in origin."

So you would agree then, Snowowl, that the argument, "I am genetically inclined to behave this way, therefore you cannot say I cannot behave this way," or "because I am genetically inclined this way, I have a right to behave this way" is wrongheaded?

25145. angel-five - 10/18/2004 3:13:59 PM

Yes, Kuligin, because all gay people have anal sex!

Right?

25146. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 3:15:07 PM

"Paedophilia is harmful to the children involved, therefore it would never be legal."

Of course, this is up for debate. Some societies in the past have determined it not to be harmful, and similar arguments are being made right now in Holland.

If our society one day determined that pedophilia was okay for the children involved, Snowowl, would you decide to support it?

25147. angel-five - 10/18/2004 3:16:21 PM

The fact that people can have a genetic predisposition toward a certain form of behavior must be weighed in our analysis of it. It neither completely legitimizes the behavior or delegitimizes any other arguments about it. It simply ought to be considered, especially when people start wanting to assign blame.

We don't have to fall into some kind of cut-rate either/or trap when thinking about the issue. We're humans with sophisticated minds capable of holding more than two facts in our mind at one time.

25148. angel-five - 10/18/2004 3:17:11 PM

At least, some of us are.

25149. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 3:17:25 PM

"Yes, Kuligin, because all gay people have anal sex!

Right?"

No, and obviously there is much more that can be said on the matter of sodomy, as many heteros practice it as well. My point wrt Snowowl's question, though, is can it be shown that homosexual practice is harmful to the individuals in question? And I think that medically (and perhaps psychologically as well) it can be shown.

But that would take us right back to only discussing gays. I prefer to talk more about genetics and rights, per my original question. The gay topic has been beat to death in this thread, mainly by me!

25150. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 3:19:07 PM

"It neither completely legitimizes the behavior or delegitimizes any other arguments about it."

Which is not the way the issue is currently used by the gay rights movement. Perhaps your snide little comments should be directed their way, then, since I agree with the above wholeheartedly.

25151. angel-five - 10/18/2004 3:20:20 PM

No, and obviously there is much more that can be said on the matter of sodomy, as many heteros practice it as well. My point wrt Snowowl's question, though, is can it be shown that homosexual practice is harmful to the individuals in question?

Then your point is illegitimate and tendentious, if you acknowledge that gays neither all practice, or even mostly practice, anal sex, and that gays are not the only ones who practice it, then call it 'homosexual practice'. It's misleading and dull-minded.

25152. angel-five - 10/18/2004 3:22:45 PM

Let's see. Homosexuals also rob banks! At least some of them probably do, statistically speaking. Should we call bank robbery 'homosexual practice'?

I eagerly await your explanation of the reasoning by which you choose your terminology, Kuligin.

And please, if you're gonna whine about 'snide', don't practice it yourself so regularly.

25153. angel-five - 10/18/2004 3:24:00 PM

Which is not the way the issue is currently used by the gay rights movement.

Oh, now you're going to say that the gay rights movement is all of one mind, or even mostly so, about the notion that being gay might be a genetically predetermined state? You sure you want to do that, Kuligin?

25154. angel-five - 10/18/2004 3:27:54 PM

The fact of the matter is that there are gay people who believe it's an inheritable thing and those who do not, and each of those groups breaks down into those who like the idea and those who don't. And those who like and dislike the idea do so for their own reasons. Some resist the genetic gayness notion because they fear what may be made of it. Some simply believe that it's not predetermined. Some feel the science is sloppy and don't want to commit to it. Some worry that people will start having fetuses evaluated for the gene and elect to abort, or otherwise dispose of, fetuses carrying it.

If you knew more about the 'gay movement' and its different opinions than what one learns just by being vehemently opposed to the 'gay movement', you wouldn't say such things.

25155. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 3:29:22 PM

"Then your point is illegitimate and tendentious, if you acknowledge that gays neither all practice, or even mostly practice, anal sex, and that gays are not the only ones who practice it, then call it 'homosexual practice'. It's misleading and dull-minded."

See how you slyly put words into my mouth, A-5? I didn't say that not even mostly of them do? We didn't even get that far into the topic!!

Stats show clearly that the vast majority of gay men practice sodomy, and in comparison, a much, much smaller % of heteros do. And medical stats show that sodomy is a very dangerous practice.

Play your games all you want to.

25156. angel-five - 10/18/2004 3:31:21 PM

See how you slyly put words into my mouth, A-5? I didn't say that not even mostly of them do? We didn't even get that far into the topic!!

Stats show clearly that the vast majority of gay men practice sodomy, and in comparison, a much, much smaller % of heteros do. And medical stats show that sodomy is a very dangerous practice.

Pop quiz, Kuligin. What percentage of gays are gay men?

25157. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 3:31:43 PM

"Let's see. Homosexuals also rob banks! At least some of them probably do, statistically speaking. Should we call bank robbery 'homosexual practice'?"

Wow, you are really desperate this evening, and already so soon? You've already called me a liar in the Elections thread for, once again, no reason other than you are desperate.

Sodomy is very clearly a gay practice. Do you have some stats on bank robbers? If the majority of them are gay, then I suppose one could say, yes, it is predominantly practiced by gays.

Why are you so immediately up in arms about this sodomy issue anyway, Angel-Five?

25158. angel-five - 10/18/2004 3:31:45 PM

The first two paras there should obviously be italicized.

25159. angel-five - 10/18/2004 3:32:28 PM

Why are you so immediately up in arms about this sodomy issue anyway, Angel-Five?

Why do you suppose I am, Kuligin?

25160. angel-five - 10/18/2004 3:32:48 PM

Why are you so immediately up in arms about this sodomy issue anyway, Angel-Five?

Why do you suppose I am, Kuligin?

25161. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 3:33:18 PM

"The fact of the matter is that there are gay people who believe it's an inheritable thing and those who do not, and each of those groups breaks down into those who like the idea and those who don't. And those who like and dislike the idea do so for their own reasons."

Please provide some proof of this. It would be helpful to see the studies done. I don't dispute the above, but it makes a world of difference if, say, 5% of gays oppose the "gay gene" argument as opposed to 75%.

So please provide specific substantiation for this.

25162. angel-five - 10/18/2004 3:35:49 PM

Nah, Kuligin, I'm not your secretary. You can do your own legwork, but I'm sure other people here will be happy to inform you that gay people don't all think the same way.

25163. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 3:36:34 PM

See the Election Thread for my challange to you, Angel-Five.

25164. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 3:40:11 PM

Fact is, A-5, you simply cannot debate a point without calling your opponent a liar, and constantly denigrating him with ad hominem attacks.

So this is my challange. For the next month, whenever you and I interact and debate an issue, we BOTH do it in entirely a civil manner. We can disagree, we can point out the weaknesses of the other's position, but we will not name call, imply lying or dishonesty, or otherwise denigrate the other PERSON as a person. We will only argue the issues.

Can you dig it?

25165. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 3:41:13 PM

In other words, the disucssions and debates will ONLY be formed around the issues. They will be substantive and nothing less.

25166. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 3:43:00 PM

"Nah, Kuligin, I'm not your secretary. You can do your own legwork, but I'm sure other people here will be happy to inform you that gay people don't all think the same way."

What?! You can't be serious. You are going to make unsubstantiated claims and when asked to substantiate them, you refuse??

I can't believe it! I wonder how you would treat Jenerator if she pulled the same fast one. Claim a certain "fact" which of course supports entirely her argument, and when asked to provide substantiation, she runs. You'd RIGHTLY chastise her for such wimpiness.

I'm surprised you got so angry so quickly, and ran off so easily afterward.

Seriously. It shocks me.

25167. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 3:45:57 PM

"but I'm sure other people here will be happy to inform you that gay people don't all think the same way."

Duh! Who is saying otherwise? Certainly not me.

Now then, how "differently?" Again, it is a big difference is only 5% of them oppose to "gay gene" argument, as opposed to 75%. But you are effectively doing the same thing you did the other day in our latest debate, talk in broad, general terms, but when the specifics come up, you balk.

We need specifics. What % oppose the gay gene notion? It is your baby, you contention, Angel-Five. So back it up.

My hunch is that it will be piddly. After all, how many pro-gay people in The Mote have EVER said it is a choice and not genetic? As if with one voice, they all say it is something they are born with, not chosen to be.

Are you contesting that notion, A-5? You'll be the first (pro-gay rights)here to do so.

25168. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 3:48:47 PM

25169. SnowOwl - 10/18/2004 3:48:50 PM

Why don't we allow a woman, for example, to sell her body for sex? Doesn't it involve consenting adults? And who is to say that it is all that bad for the individuals involved, really?

We do allow a woman to sell her body for sex in my country, because we've decided it's not harmful. Of course, women in the US also sell their bodies for sex. It's just hidden there because it's illegal.

Sodomy is very clearly a gay practice.

So what. It's a heterosexual practise as well. Are you suggesting that the state should regulate the bedroom behaviours of married couples even when they cause no harm to either of the people involved?

Well, let's see. What are the infection rates among gays as opposed to heterosexuals in America, when it comes to a whole hoard of STDs.

In my country we've successful prosecuted a heterosexual who deliberately had unprotected sex with a number of women, even though he had AIDS, without telling the women that he was infected. If he'd been a gay man who did the same with other men he would also have been prosecuted.

It's easy enough to pass laws to regulate dangerous behaviours. There's nothing dangerous about homosexual practises in and of themselves. Not all gays are promiscuous and not all gays are diseased.

25170. angel-five - 10/18/2004 3:51:02 PM

I doubt it does. And I'm sorry, Kuligin, but if you think I'm intending to not call you on your untruthfulness when it occurs, given your track record, you can think twice.

If you want things to be aboveboard, then start out and stay that way. If you want things to be civil, try being civil yourself -- don't just act civil one day and then be all like 'how dare you act so rude to me'? It doesn't wash.

If you should like a more polite tone between us, that's fine by me. I'm willing to move past what you've done before, as an experiment. I despise you personally but that needn't color every interaction we have, and if you wish to have more genteel discussion, it's worth a try to me. But don't expect to be able to use urbanity to cover for your misdeeds, Kuligin. I trust you about as far as I could toss a tank and will give you only the credence that your actions earn.

And, sorry, I'm still not going to bother substantiating that gay people don't all think the same. Looking into it will be good for you. You're free to take my statement that they do not, and my lack of desire to prove it to you, as proof that they all think the same if they wish. But the people reading this thread know better.

25171. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 3:53:45 PM

"We do allow a woman to sell her body for sex in my country, because we've decided it's not harmful."

Really? It's not harmful? Do you agree with that accessment, Snowowl?

What country do you live in, btw?

25172. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 3:58:22 PM

"And, sorry, I'm still not going to bother substantiating that gay people don't all think the same. Looking into it will be good for you. You're free to take my statement that they do not, and my lack of desire to prove it to you, as proof that they all think the same if they wish. But the people reading this thread know better."

This is a clever ploy, I must admit. Claim some general statement that no one would dispute anyway (whoever said they "all think alike?"). Then allow it to remain general enough, because providing specifics would burst the bubble of the original argument.

"All those nasty fundamentalists think alike, too, ya know. They all love the idea that people who die without thinking exactly the way they do will burn in Hell."

Such a statement is, of course, not accurate. So I say to you, "Naw, they don't all think alike, and you know it. Some don't believe this way at all."

At which point, you being as sharp as you are, would rightly ask, "What % don't think this way?"

Then I backtrack, say you should do your own work, say others can point it out to you, that's I'm not your secretary, yadda yadda yadda. But all that really proves is that I haven't a clue, and was just spouting generalities with no basis in actual fact.

The shoes fits nicely, Angel-Five. I'm just honestly suprised you are so willing to wear them.

25173. SnowOwl - 10/18/2004 3:59:29 PM

"Paedophilia is harmful to the children involved, therefore it would never be legal."

Of course, this is up for debate. Some societies in the past have determined it not to be harmful, and similar arguments are being made right now in Holland.

True. In fact, in the fairly recent past, your own society must have considered it not to be harmful. I'm old enough to remember when Jerry Lee Lewis was made to leave the UK since he insisted on bringing his 13 year old wife (who was also his cousin) with him when he was on tour.

25174. angel-five - 10/18/2004 3:59:42 PM

I'm still not sure what planet one must live on before one thinks that saying 'gay people think differently about different issues' obliges one to present statistics showing what percentage of gay people think what about what. In my own case, I simply know many people who are gay who have differing opinions on the genetics argument.

25175. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 4:01:33 PM

"If you should like a more polite tone between us, that's fine by me. I'm willing to move past what you've done before, as an experiment."

That's mighty big of you. I'll do likewise, and put aside all the nonsense you've pulled in the past, in the hopes that our interactions can be more substantive and helpful, both to ourselves and also to those reading them.

"I despise you personally but that needn't color every interaction we have, and if you wish to have more genteel discussion, it's worth a try to me."

Great. I don't despise you, btw, I feel sorry for you. I'm sorry you have to feel the need to get so bitter so quickly, make up slanderous accusations about your opponents, and so on. I hope you can truly get beyond that sense of desperation that you so often exhibit.

25176. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 4:04:31 PM

"I'm still not sure what planet one must live on before one thinks that saying 'gay people think differently about different issues' obliges one to present statistics showing what percentage of gay people think what about what."

Well, for starters, because it was used to counter my comment that the gay rights movement has indeed argued that homosexuality is genetic, inborn, and as such, is not a chosen "preference" but rather an "orientation." Again, as if with one voice, every single pro-homo person in The Mote has argued that way. Not one has said otherwise.

Then you countered with they don't all think that way. If that is true, it is most helpful to see how far that truth extends. Again, if a pittance of them don't buy that argument, then my original comment which you disputes stands intact. However, if the vast majority of them do not ascribe to the genetic argument, then my original contention if wrong. So it does make a difference, and a big one at that.

25177. SnowOwl - 10/18/2004 4:06:07 PM

"We do allow a woman to sell her body for sex in my country, because we've decided it's not harmful."

Really? It's not harmful? Do you agree with that accessment, Snowowl?

Sure I agree with it. If I didn't I would have opposed the legislation. To whom is the harm caused?

25178. angel-five - 10/18/2004 4:06:57 PM

Slanderous accusations?

True or false, Kuligin. Just the other day I caught you not telling the truth several times in one series of posts.

I mean, I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but if you want politeness, you can start by admitting that I'm right and not by saying that I'm lying about you. It's a simple true or false question.

25179. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 4:07:46 PM

In fact, it would make a world of difference if we have gay people in gay publications disputing the "I'm born this way and it is not a choice" argument used by the gay rights movement. Perhaps we can get jexster in here to discuss the issue.

If it is just a handful of people saying they aren't born that way and that it is indeed a choice, that probably won't mean too much to us. As I've noted here earlier, there are literally thousands of people who have left the homosexual lifestyle and who have said that what they were doing in that lifestyle was wrong, harmful to themselves, and was a choice, not an orientation.

And, of course, in this thread those pro-gay people say that such people are lying, or are brainwashed, or whatever.

So it is quite surprising to me that you now admit that actually have gay friends who dispute the "I'm born that way" argument. Of all your gay friends, just doing an informal poll, how many would dispute the "It's genetic, I'm born this way, and it is my orientation" argument, A-5?

25180. angel-five - 10/18/2004 4:10:43 PM

I 'now admit'? Kuligin, wherever did I ever say otherwise?

25181. SnowOwl - 10/18/2004 4:10:48 PM

I think Kuligin believes that if, in fact, there is no homosexual gene it means that homosexuals must wifully chose to be gay.

If sexuality is not genetic it's presumably environmentally determined. That doesn't mean we have any more choice than we would if it was genetic.

At what point in my life did I choose to be a heterosexual?

25182. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 4:12:04 PM

"True or false, Kuligin. Just the other day I caught you not telling the truth several times in one series of posts."

False. Now prove otherwise.

And don't label making a mistake a "lie," A-5. That is disingenuous of you at bare minimum, and purposefully evil otherwise. I admitted to not properly portraying your pov in one comment that I made. You claimed I "lied" about it, but it was an honest mistake and I admitted it then.

Why must you always jump to "liar, liar, pants on fire?"

So point out my lies.

25183. angel-five - 10/18/2004 4:13:32 PM

Furthermore, the entire range of scenarios do not break down between 'It is genetically predetermined that people are gay' and 'It is a voluntary choice to be gay or straight'. You always natter on about sloppy methodology, Kuligin -- examine your own.

25184. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 4:15:17 PM

"I think Kuligin believes that if, in fact, there is no homosexual gene it means that homosexuals must wifully chose to be gay."

What you think is not what I said, Snowowl. I don't think the gene makes any difference. In fact, as I noted wrt A-5's earlier comment, I agreed with him on that score.

Now then, what I *AM* asking is this: Is the commom gay rights argument valid, i.e., that "we are born this way and therefore you cannot discriminate against us?"

And then, at what point do we allow that argument to stick in all other "I'm born this way" arguments? Thus my posts about polygamy and pedophilia.

Yes, there is a method to my madness!

25185. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 4:17:38 PM

"I 'now admit'? Kuligin, wherever did I ever say otherwise?"

A-5, you seem to be stalling. If I'm wrong, then show precisely where. Don't be so coy. For example:

"Furthermore, the entire range of scenarios do not break down between 'It is genetically predetermined that people are gay' and 'It is a voluntary choice to be gay or straight'."

Why did you stop here? Continue, please.

And please answer the question I asked earlier. Do you have gay friends who believe it is NOT a predisposition, their being gay, i.e., genetic, or inborn, or however one would say it?

25186. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 4:21:28 PM

"At what point in my life did I choose to be a heterosexual?"

Snowowl, here's the difference. It is patently obvious that heterosexuality is "normal" and "natural." Without it, the species would cease to exist, and there can be nothing more natural or normal than that. But the same is clearly not so easily proven when it comes to homosexuality.

The common argument made by the gay rights movement is that this is a civil rights issue. Just like the blacks argued for equal rights, so do the gays. The counter to that is that black people have black skin and can do nothing about it. They are born that way. And the counter from the gay rights camp is, "Hey, we are born this way too!"

Now A-5 is saying it isn't nearly so cut-and-dried as I have just portrayed it. So now I'm asking him to show us all the variety, all the diversity of opinion in the gay camp on this issue. How precisely am I being too simplistic in my characterization? Where am I wrong? I want to know, and I want him to show me with the facts. Dazzle me with the substance.

25187. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 4:23:51 PM

"You always natter on about sloppy methodology, Kuligin -- examine your own."

Great! Then there must be studies done on this, right, A-5? There must exist studies which show all the diversity of opinion within the gay camp on this matter of genetic orientation.

I mean, we are people here who only argue on the basis of facts, and PROVABLE facts at that, right? Please don't tell me this is only your impression, or best guess, Angel-Five? I am hoping that your comments in this regard are based on actual studies, statistics, data, polls, etc., and not on a hunch, or "my neighbor says so" sort of thing.

Right?

25188. angel-five - 10/18/2004 4:37:10 PM

The specific three points at which you lie are posts number 24990, 25006, and 25037. I am sure you will now claim them all 'mistakes'.

I'm under no obligation to tell you jack crap about my gay friends, Kuligin. You're some thumper anti-gay fanatic on the internet. You aren't owed any details on them whatsoever.

But to shut you up because otherwise you'll keep gibbering --
I have no idea how many of my friends and acquaintances are actually gay. I know of many people who are, of course, but those people whom I'm close enough to that I'm either a friend or related to them is surely a low number. Four names come to mind. Two of those people -- a bisexual ex-girlfriend and an aunt -- I have actually discussed the issue with. My aunt's experience is that she was born gay, knew she was different when she was very young, and believes that, genetic or developmental or whatever, she is hard wired to be gay. My ex girlfriend, for reasons that should be obvious, hasn't always preferred women as lovers. She doesn't disagree that some gay people might be 'fated' to be gay, but does disagree that they all must be 'fated', and she herself thinks that her sexual preference is something she led herself to, not something that was thrust upon her.

So, there's the answer to what you're asking. Fifty fifty.

Of course, I don't have any reason to suspect that that percentage is a fair sample. But then again I'm not the one capering around and asking for it.

25189. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 4:38:26 PM

The way the argument normally goes:

"...the implications of these findings for social attitudes toward homosexuality and for public policy concerning it. Science was on the verge of proving what many had long argued: that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeable—a normal and commonplace variant of human nature. In the light of these findings, surely only the bigoted or ignorant could condemn it in any way."

25190. angel-five - 10/18/2004 4:40:36 PM

I mean, we are people here who only argue on the basis of facts, and PROVABLE facts at that, right?

No, 'we' aren't. You've demonstrated that you aren't bound by those constraints.

But one doesn't need to have statistics to prove that gay people don't all think the same. One merely has to know more than one gay person, assuming they aren't mental clones.

And you even understand this. You're just shouting for polling data to be difficult.

25191. angel-five - 10/18/2004 4:42:57 PM

It's a common layman's error to think that everything innate must be genetic. The fact is that you can be born with many conditions which aren't genetic in origin. Human development is a fascinating field of study and you may wish to explore it sometime.

25192. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 4:43:18 PM

"I'm under no obligation to tell you jack crap about my gay friends, Kuligin. You're some thumper anti-gay fanatic on the internet. You aren't owed any details on them whatsoever."

Huh?

Thanks for the details just the same.

"Of course, I don't have any reason to suspect that that percentage is a fair sample. But then again I'm not the one capering around and asking for it."

No, but you were the one implying that the issue is so muddled in the gay community that my generalization of the gay rights movement and their contention that it is "an inborn or genetic orientation" wasn't accurate. So it does matter that we get a little more from you than a sampling of two people. Oh well. I can produce LOADS of data to support my original contention about the gay rights' take on the matter.

25193. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 4:46:24 PM

#24990

I've looked at your first "lie" post. Can you please point out the specific lie, please?

25194. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 4:50:22 PM

"But one doesn't need to have statistics to prove that gay people don't all think the same. One merely has to know more than one gay person, assuming they aren't mental clones."

<>
Kuligin the Hooligan never said all gays think alike. Therefore, all comments by A-5 concerning that is a red herring.

Back to the substance, what I HAVE said is that the gay rights movement attempts to portray homosexuality as an innate, inborn, genetic predisposition.

You then produced the opinions of your aunt and ex-girlfriend as possible corroborations or contradictions to that. But it really has nothing to do with my original comments wrt what the gay rights movement is saying.

25195. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 4:52:45 PM

"<>
Kuligin the Hooligan never said all gays think alike. Therefore, all comments by A-5 concerning that is a red herring."

Okay, I see I shouldn't use those types of brackets. This was meant to look something like this:

**ELIMINATE RED HERRING #1`**
Kuligin the Hooligan never said all gays think alike. Therefore, all comments by A-5 concerning that is a red herring.

25196. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 4:54:15 PM

Again, the argument as it has been commonly presented:

"In its effort to present homosexuality as normal, the homosexual movement turned to science in an attempt to prove three major premises:

Homosexuality is genetic or innate;
Homosexuality is irreversible;
Since animals engage in same-sex sexual behavior, homosexuality is natural."

25197. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 4:55:39 PM

From Dr. Phil:

"Dr. Phil's website recently posted a question from a woman whose 22 year old daughter was involved in a lesbian relationship. The reader wondered if her daughter could have learned this behavior, thus allowing a possibility that her current lesbian relationship could be a phase. Dr. Phil's reply: "Homosexuality is not a learned behavior. A sexual orientation is inherited; you are wired that way." He acknowledges that people can experiment with behavior but if they are "really gay" then they will "find a place in that life and in that community."

25198. angel-five - 10/18/2004 4:57:18 PM

What I said was that when a religion promises XYZ and delivers on it, that must be taken into account when one is measuring why that religion is successful. Now you have slyly added into my comment the word "categorical" but I defy you to find that word in any of my posts, excluding this one of course... you have subtly changed my point, and then claim that I am wrong based on your subtle change. That may fool some, A-5, but not me.

25199. angel-five - 10/18/2004 5:00:35 PM

Kuligin the Hooligan never said all gays think alike.

When Kuligin the Hooligan put forward one side of the genetic argument as being the position of 'the gay movement' he very much implied that this was so. All I did was say otherwise, which has incited Kuligin the Hooligan into a snuffling frenzied series of demands for studies to give exact numbers on precisely what percentage of gays believe what.

25200. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 5:10:07 PM

Yes, A-5, as I already noted, you said "categorically true" and I read that the wrong way, and corrected myself later in that. I thought you were claiming that I said all things must be true, when I was saying that some things are true. In other words, I misread your use of the word "categorically."

Why you want to label that a "lie" is beyond me.

25201. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 5:13:34 PM

"When Kuligin the Hooligan put forward one side of the genetic argument as being the position of 'the gay movement' he very much implied that this was so."

This is correct. The gays rights movements has, indeed, used the genetic argument as one reason why gays should not be discriminated against. There is nothing earthshattering about such a claim as this.

If it is earthshattering, again, please produce substantiation which shows it to not be true. Show us, for instance, where the gay rights movement has produced material contrary to this, or says it isn't as cut-and-dried as I made it to be.

Your auntie isn't sufficient, A-5.

"All I did was say otherwise, which has incited Kuligin the Hooligan into a snuffling frenzied series of demands for studies to give exact numbers on precisely what percentage of gays believe what."

Yes, I have asked consistently for substantiation, facts, data. Not your auntie's opinion. I wasn't talking about the opinions here and there of gay people, I was talking about the gay rights MOVEMENT and how it portrays the genetic argument. What you auntie says in her kitchen doesn't quite qualify as rebuttal material, A-5.

25202. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 5:16:25 PM

Can anyone find a logical fallacy with the following?

The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as follows:

- Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
- Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
- Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
- Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
- Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature.

25203. angel-five - 10/18/2004 5:20:16 PM

Yes, I have asked consistently for substantiation, facts, data. Not your auntie's opinion.

Yes, in fact, you did, you gibbering chimp. And now you have the temerity to say, after you repeatedly demanded the info, and I supplied it and said it wasn't scientific, that you didn't want it!

And you get upset when someone says you aren't good with the truth. Can't imagine why they'd say that!

25204. angel-five - 10/18/2004 5:20:24 PM

Actually you also insisted that you had never used the word and you invited me to go back and look at your posts and find it!

Which I did. And promptly, of course, found it. So what you had done was a) use the word and claim you hadn't b) insisted I'd subtly slipped the word in later when I had used it first, several posts earlier, in a clear fashion c) 'misunderstood' my use of the word d) claimed, upon getting my explanation, that you needed to be a mind reader to get it and e) invite me to find the word in your posts, which I immediately did.

If you want to chalk that up to a simple misunderstanding, that's fine, Kuligin. I don't buy it. If you want to admit that the like happened, then act all outraged when someone says you can't be trusted to accurately report even what you've said a few posts ago, well, I can't help you there either. When I show that there's adequate reason not to trust your 'recollection' I consider my case proven and my job done.

25205. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 5:22:52 PM

Back to the basics:

Hooligan: "Which is not the way the issue is currently used by the gay rights movement."

A-5: "Oh, now you're going to say that the gay rights movement is all of one mind, or even mostly so, about the notion that being gay might be a genetically predetermined state? You sure you want to do that, Kuligin?

The fact of the matter is that there are gay people who believe it's an inheritable thing and those who do not, and each of those groups breaks down into those who like the idea and those who don't."

As can be seen, Angel-Five isn't addressing my original point, but has moved from the gays rights MOVEMENT to individual opinions of this or that gay person. But clearly, as a movement, the gay rights lobby has argued that homosexuality is genetically predisposed and as such cannot be discriminated against. Again, what A-5's auntie has to say on the matter, while interesting, misses the overall point.

25206. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 5:25:04 PM

"Yes, in fact, you did, you gibbering chimp."

Voila!!! Let's see now, how long did that take??

"And you get upset when someone says you aren't good with the truth. Can't imagine why they'd say that!"

And then comes the inevitable questioning of the integrity of the opponent!

Very predictable. I'm trying to stick to substance, A-5. I'll allow you that mistake, and hopefully you can try harder next round.

25207. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 5:27:37 PM

"Actually you also insisted that you had never used the word and you invited me to go back and look at your posts and find it!

Which I did. And promptly, of course, found it."

I'll assume you have short term memory problems, A-5. I didn't say anything was "categorically" true. You introduced that word into the discussion, I at first misunderstood your usage of it, and then corrected myself later.

Again, that you are so quick to find lies in your opponent is telling.

25208. angel-five - 10/18/2004 5:27:58 PM

I'll let other people decide for themselves whether you are, in fact, a gibbering chimp, Kuligin, and whether your integrity deserves questioning.

Bye now.

25209. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 5:31:56 PM

Here is post 25037 in its entirety, one of the posts you said I was lying in. The first paragraph is a quote from A-5:

"But that's not what she meant and I believe you already know that. It's like she said 'A' and I said 'no' then you came in and said 'b c d e and f, isn't that what you meant to say Jenerator, am I reading you correctly' and she bobbed her head and said 'yes, Mr. Kuligin, that's exactly what I meant to say!'"

Then I responsd:

So you are saying that Jenerator is lying, right? Just blurt it out. Don't try to hide behind some supposed "libel" claims. Speak the truth, man. She's lying, right?

This is one of your three examples of me lying. Aaaaaah, now I see.

25210. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 5:36:19 PM

"I'll let other people decide for themselves whether you are, in fact, a gibbering chimp, Kuligin, and whether your integrity deserves questioning."

But first you create an environment wherein you consistently claim I am lying, make generalized references to suppposed lying, and when it is found that I was not lying (look, for example, at post 25037 which you say I am lying in), you then beg off, "Well, I'll let others decide."

No. You cannot slander someone purposefully and continually, and then claim you will let others decide! That is just immature nonsense and you know it.

So my question still stands; Why on earth do you feel the need to so often stray from the substance of the debate, to make ad hominem attacks which add nothing at all to the discussion, and consistently claim your opponent is lying? Why such rotten behaviour from you and so consistently? We already saw it the other day wrt to Jenerator. Why can't you just stick to the substance, even when kindly asked to?

25211. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 5:37:58 PM

And in your post 25198, from where does my comment come, ie, what post #?

25212. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 5:41:42 PM

"Yes, in fact, you did, you gibbering chimp. And now you have the temerity to say, after you repeatedly demanded the info, and I supplied it and said it wasn't scientific, that you didn't want it!"

Let's try this again.

If you claim something like, "The Religious Right states ..." it is understood that you are speaking about the RR as a movement.

Now then, if I come back to you and say, "Yeah, but my auntie says otherwise," what good is that? The original statement concerning the RR still stands, and you'd rightly say that my production of my auntie as counter proof is wanting.

The same applies here. My comment about the gay rights movement stands as absolutely correct and impreachable, as it relates to their usage of genetic arguments in support of homosexuality. That this homosexuality person here or there thinks otherwise doesn't negate my original observation about the gay rights movement.

25213. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 5:44:27 PM

A-5, from the Elections thread: "That I can call you a liar, produce substantiation where you do, in fact, not tell the truth, and then you say 'well, it's all just mistakes!' is what's happened."

Do you ever make mistakes, A-5, in your recollection of a post, either of your own or someone else's?? Then why on earth would you automatically label that a "lie" when someone else does it, and even admits he made a mistake?? Or why label it a "lie" when someone misunderstands your point, later sees his error, admits it, and corrects it? Don't you make mistakes in reading the posts of others too?

25214. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 5:45:02 PM

Your tactics display someone much more interested in winning an argument at all costs, than in someone honestly interested in the truth.

25215. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 6:16:30 PM

The "categorically" snafu:

A-5: “So what you had done was a) use the word and claim you hadn't b) insisted I'd subtly slipped the word in later when I had used it first, several posts earlier, in a clear fashion c) 'misunderstood' my use of the word d) claimed, upon getting my explanation, that you needed to be a mind reader to get it and e) invite me to find the word in your posts, which I immediately did.”

Let’s be very clear here and see if what you say above is true. 1) You introduced the word “categorically” (post #24979) and I had not up until that point in time used it, because I never said that everything in a religion has to categorically be true. Just some of it had to be true, some provable parts, and I address that in #24984, just five posts later.

In #24988 you say this: “I have not categorically denied any such thing. I did deny that it categorically delivered on its promises, but if you don't understand that the former means that I ruled it out in every case and the latter means I just said it wasn't true for each and every case…”

Now let’s look at your above list. At this point, you claim c) that I ‘misunderstood’ your use of the word, but still d) claimed I needed mind reading skills after you explained it to me, AFTER you explained it to me. But this is not how things actually went.

25216. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 6:20:04 PM

In THE VERY NEXT POST, #24989, I say I need mind reading skills to understanding what you mean. We go round a round a bit on that issue, BUT NOT REALLY AGAIN UNTIL #25045, nearly 60 posts later, as well as on other matters, and later I realize my error in your usage of the word, admit it, and correct myself.

I didn’t say I misunderstood your use of the term, but then still claimed I needed mind reading skills to understand you. Your list above makes it appear that I got your explanation, admitted I didn’t understand your original usage, yet still played hard to please about it. Rather, only much later, once we went over the issue again, did I realize my error, admit it, and correct myself.

And I invited you to find where I ever said that the claims of Christianity are categorically true, something I never said, and something you never proved otherwise. In fact, you admit above that you were the one who introduced the word, I thought slyly trying to change my point. But I realized later that I had made an error in reading how you were using the term.

And this you call “lying.”

25217. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 6:21:17 PM

Also, when you said Christians who claim a better life via their faith – that this is not “categorically true” – I thought it was in the same vein as your comments about Jenerator as lying about her own opinion. Christians say they have changed, but they have not and are lying about it. It is THEIR CLAIM which isn’t true. But what you meant was that not all people who come to Christianity claim a positive change. And that misunderstanding I later corrected after further clarifications.

But again, you want to label this “lying.” Why? I can only assume because you think it somehow gives you an edge, to make your opponent appear to be a liar, while you, of course, are impeachable. But what it really makes you look is desperate, constantly crying “liar” and moving away from the substance of the debate. I don’t think it is even possible for you to have a substantive debate without denigrating your opponent and devolving the entire debate into ad hominem attacks. And that was proven in just a short time today, after you agreed to attempt such civil discourse, only to begin unraveling at the seems, calling names, and storming out of the “room.”

But that’s okay. The name calling isn’t a big issue, it is the constant calling into question of my integrity that is. It may make you feel good about yourself, I’m sure, but it hardly helps the thread and the debate forward.

25218. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 6:25:13 PM

#25012
Kuligin: "I have never said nor implied that absolutely everything in each and every religion must be true in order for it to succeed. You've been the one saying that."

A-5: "This is another lie. I have never, ever said anything even close to that. Come on, Kuligin, put up or shut up."

Again, you claim I am lying, but as I noted immediately afterward, my comment above was worded awkwardly. This was in line with the categorical discussion and your all-or-nothing approach that I disputed. Again, I said that a religion need only have some provable truths in order for truth to be a possible explanation for its success. You countered that if it can be shown to be false at this or that point (ie, not categorically true) then even this point of mine was worthless. Thus my hasty comment above.

Again, you call this "lying." I can only assume that you are perfect in your postings, never recall things improperly, never errantly misrepresent another person's pov, and so on. Because I doubt very much that these things constitute "lying" when you do them.

25219. wonkers2 - 10/18/2004 6:27:40 PM

K-Man is definitely a "gibbering chimp!"

Seriously, I'm not sure the cause of homosexuality is necessarily genetic. As far as I know this has not been established. [Anyone, feel free to correct me on this. I do not pretend to infallibility.] My belief is that nearly all homosexuals are born that way either due to their genetic makeup or due to pre-natal events or influences. I would not dispute that in a small percentage of cases homosexual orientation may be acquired by post-natal influences, either physical or psychological.

There are many gradations and permutations of sexual orientation ranging from purely heterosexual to asexual to bi-sexual to purely homosexual as well as others which are harmless such as fetishism and to others such as pedophilia which are criminal. As far as I know, the precise causes of all of the permutations of sexuality are not established. What is clear that compulsive sexual behavior is very hard and usually impossible to change. And in the case of homosexuality or heterosexuality, there is no reason to try to change.

25220. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 6:29:33 PM

Now then, back to substance.

I've presented to intriguing issues.

1) There is a man in Utah arguing that laws against polygamy, like laws against gay marriage, are unconstitutional, and as I have noted, he may actually have even greater historical support for his contention that do the gay rights people. Should we open the door to polygamy too?

2) At what point do we conclude that genetic predisposition is not in and of itself a worthwhile argument in support of this or that behaviour?

On the latter point, a question is still open to Snowowl: If it were found that pedophilia was not harmful to children, would you support it? Obviously, at one point prostitution was illegal in your country and thought to be harmful to those who participated in it, but now that is no longer the feeling, and you supported its legalization. Could you foresee the same thing one day happening wrt pedophilia? And what if it is shown to be genetically predisposed as well?

25221. KuligintheHooligan - 10/18/2004 6:32:19 PM

"I would not dispute that in a small percentage of cases homosexual orientation may be acquired by post-natal influences, either physical or psychological."

Thanks for the response, wonk.

But doesn't even a 'small %' then imply that change is possible? In other words, what of the common gay rights mantra that homosexuality is ingrained and unchangeable? Or put another way, "once gay always gay."

If you admit environmental influences and causes, no matter how slightly, don't you further admit the possibility that a person could change, from homosexuality, to heterosexuality, as in fact tons of people do claim?

25222. Bill Russell - 10/18/2004 6:59:15 PM

Christianity = Fear

7 second prayer:

I would rather live my life as if there is a God,

And die to find out there isn't,

> Than live my life as if there isn't,
>
> And die to find out there is.

25223. wonkers2 - 10/18/2004 8:11:18 PM

Kuligin,
Yes, I'm willing to concede that a very small percentage of homosexuals may be able to change their orientation or, at least,their behavior. Some individuals' orientation or their behavior, at least, change over time. But usually they go the other way, from being married ostensible heterosexuals with children to homosexuals. And all of those I have met say that basically they had been struggling with homosexuality since their teens.

A distinction needs to be made between sexual orientation or desire and acting in accordance with that desire. Some people have the will power not to act on every impulse
whether the impulse be heterosexual, homosexual or whatever. I suppose that many Catholic priests of heterosexual and many with homosexual orientation remain celibate in accordance with their vows. I have a fairly close friend who, as far as I can tell, is asexual--little or no interest in women or men. Ever since reading a book entitled "Sexual Anomalies" as I teenager, very little that I hear or see relating to sex surprises me.

25224. SnowOwl - 10/18/2004 9:15:40 PM

If you admit environmental influences and causes, no matter how slightly, don't you further admit the possibility that a person could change, from homosexuality, to heterosexuality, as in fact tons of people do claim.

Do you understand what "environmental influences and causes" actually mean? They can be things that happen while the baby is in its mother's womb. How do we change that? In fact, why should we?

Your position is that homosexuality is wrong, therefore anyone who is homosexual should do everything in their power to change his or her sexuality. I suppose it makes it easy, in your estimation, if you could show that homosexuality was chosen, rather than innate.

I don't accept that. I don't think homosexuality is wrong so I see no reason to attempt to make people change their sexuality, even if it could be shown that all homosexuals freely chose their sexual orientation.

25225. clydefo - 10/18/2004 9:49:09 PM

The common argument made by the gay rights movement is that this is a civil rights issue. Just like the blacks argued for equal rights, so do the gays. The counter to that is that black people have black skin and can do nothing about it. They are born that way. And the counter from the gay rights camp is, "Hey, we are born this way too!" 25186. KuligintheHooligan

While the "nature vs. nurture" debate about homosexuality, or any other "animal" behavior, is interesting from a sociological point of view, it has nothing to do with civil rights. Court decisions permitting same-sex marriage are rightly based on equal protection and privacy considerations, not genetics.

25232. wonkers2 - 10/19/2004 7:24:35 AM

Snow Owl's position is 100 percent correct in my estimation.

25233. alistairconnor - 10/19/2004 7:54:36 AM

At what point do we conclude that genetic predisposition is not in and of itself a worthwhile argument in support of this or that behaviour?

Flogging a dead strawman...

I would contend that all men have a genetic disposition to rape and to murder (undoubtedly individuals have them to a greater or lesser degree). I wouldn't count on that getting me off a count of murder. Likewise, I don't believe that someone should be disqualified from an Olympic gold medal because he has a genetic predisposition to be tall and strong.

Behaviour has to be judged on its own merits, as acceptable or unacceptable, by the lights of a given society.

Kuligin, if you want to argue that homosexuality is unnatural, that's up to you; but it's beside the point. Driving a car is unnatural; should it be banned?

25234. alistairconnor - 10/19/2004 7:59:05 AM

My intuition is that people who are able to change the orientation of their sexual practices : homo to hetero or the inverse : are people who are to some degree bisexual. It's not, in the general case, a binary thing. I think there is a continuum, with some being 100% homo, others 100% hetero, with every graduation in between.

Whether a sexual orientation actually gets expressed in active sexuality is another question, and depends for the most part on environment and circumstances, with a degree of personal choice too.

25235. alistairconnor - 10/19/2004 8:08:58 AM

As to whether homosexuality should be "permitted", this is an eminently political question.

(I'll leave aside the religious motive, "God told me it's wrong", because it has no relevance other than in a theocracy).

There are two radically opposed starting points in politics : I'm not talking about left/right, but authoritarian/libertarian.

From an authoritarian standpoint, everything that is not expressly allowable is forbidden. Generally, things are forbidden because they have always been forbidden; or because some authority (such as the Bible, or a dictator) decrees that it should be so.

From a libertarian position, everything is permitted unless there is a strong reason to forbid it.

I believe that we are, in most respects, in transition from the authoritarian to the libertarian position. Many taboos, when they are examined on their merits, simply can't be justified, but persist merely out of lazy conservatism. Homosexuality is one of these.

Kuligin : Since we have eliminated "nature" and religion as criteria, can you suggest any reasons why homosexuality, in and of itself, should be forbidden?

25236. Bill Russell - 10/19/2004 8:33:44 AM

The creator (if any) has a purpose for homosexuals and lesbians:

Birth control

What the creator's purpose is for bisexuals is his/her business.

What the creator's purpose is for the asexual and hermaphrodites is his/her business.

What the creator's purpose is for transsexuals is his/her business.

Etc, Etc, Etc.....

25237. Bill Russell - 10/19/2004 8:35:59 AM

Homosexuality does not always involve anal intercourse.

But you knew that ..... of course.

25238. wonkers2 - 10/19/2004 5:16:10 PM

Homosexuality couldn't be forbidden any more than being left-handed or red-headed.

25239. wonkers2 - 10/19/2004 5:17:08 PM

alistair has got it right with the continuum.

25240. clydefo - 10/19/2004 5:44:32 PM

100%?

25241. wonkers2 - 10/19/2004 6:58:35 PM

Perhaps a three dimensional system to accommodate fetishists, sadists, masochists, pedophiles, serial rapists, bestialists, etc, would be better than a simple hetero-bi-homo continuum.

25244. angel-five - 10/20/2004 1:27:12 AM

If we graphed it, we could finally derive the norm.

25248. angel-five - 10/20/2004 11:34:00 AM

The question is why someone should want to ban homosexuality, really.

25250. Jenerator - 10/20/2004 1:04:36 PM

What the hell is Resonance saying anyway? His answers are so convoluted and so full of hyperbole and vitriol that it's impossible to see what, if any, points he's making.

25251. PelleNilsson - 10/20/2004 1:30:18 PM

The recent discussions here seem to be a fine confirmation of Tomas Kuhn's theory of incommensurability between paradigms.

25252. Bill Russell - 10/20/2004 1:45:52 PM

" incommensurability between paradigms. "

Are you practicing speech with a stone in your mouth?

25253. SnowOwl - 10/20/2004 1:54:20 PM

Pelle's using words of more than one syllable which means Bill can't understand them.

25254. Bill Russell - 10/20/2004 1:58:00 PM

Nasty = SnowOwl

But, you knew that.

I suppose personal attacks are welcome here, however.

25255. SnowOwl - 10/20/2004 2:03:35 PM

They must be since you attack people with impunity.

25256. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 2:09:45 PM

"I suppose it makes it easy, in your estimation, if you could show that homosexuality was chosen, rather than innate.

I don't accept that."

Snowowl, as I have noted, it is the gay rights movement which is saying that it is NOT - categorically not - a choice. It is an "orientation," not a preference or choice. And that is what I am contesting.

In reply to wonk's position, then, if a certain % of homosexuals can be shown or admit to it not being the case, at least this one point of the gay rights argument is entirely blown out the window. And keep in mind, they want to make this a civil rights issue, so "I'm born this way and can't do anything about it" really must be part and parcel of their agenda.

25257. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 2:12:40 PM

"I see no reason to attempt to make people change their sexuality, even if it could be shown that all homosexuals freely chose their sexual orientation."

Snowowl, at what point to you say this? For ALL sexual orientations and behaviours, or just homosexuality? You see, that is why the anti-gay folks consistently bring up things like incest, bestiality, and pedophilia. It is because all the arguments used in support of homosexuality can also be used to support those behaviours.

So then, if your society determined that pedophilia was no longer "harmful," would you endorse it? I'm not sure you answered this question yet. If you did, sorry I missed it.

Just several decades ago homosexuality was deemed unhealthy. Will you change your tune if society makes the same determination wrt pedophilia?

Don't you believe that at least SOME sexual behaviour should be wrong?

25258. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 2:15:44 PM

"Kuligin, if you want to argue that homosexuality is unnatural, that's up to you; but it's beside the point. Driving a car is unnatural; should it be banned?"

I'm not sure how you can determine that driving a car is "unnatural," but I think that is beside the point, alistair. The gay rights movement is saying very clearly that homosexuality is natural. The common retort is, "When did you choose your heterosexuality?" I've seen that numerous times just in this thread as well. Then they point to homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom, and so on.

What I am driving at, I hope somewhat clearly, is that if it is natural, then at what point can we claim that ANY sexual behaviour is NOT natural? Again, the pro-gay arguments all cut several ways.

25259. SnowOwl - 10/20/2004 2:17:18 PM

You talk as though gays belonged to some monolithic movement in which all must walk in lockstep.

It's just not so, Kuligin. There are gays with differing views. They're just like heterosexuals in that way.

25260. SnowOwl - 10/20/2004 2:21:16 PM

So then, if your society determined that pedophilia was no longer "harmful," would you endorse it? I'm not sure you answered this question yet. If you did, sorry I missed it.

For the umpteenth time, trying to obfuscate the issue of gay rights with bleatings about bestiality and paedophilia is nonsense.

Neither animals nor children are able to give informed consent to sexual acts. Even if they find that children are not harmed by paedophilia (which is so unlikely as to be a ludicrous proposition), it won't change the basic proposition that sexual acts should only take place between people who are able to consent to such acts.

25261. judithathome - 10/20/2004 2:25:11 PM

I'm not sure how you can determine that driving a car is "unnatural," but I think that is beside the point, alistair.

Of course driving a car is unnatural. We could get anywhere by walking. Instead, we got lazy and started riding horses. Then we invented carriages and made the horses pull them. Then cars were invented.

It's not natural...cars weren't here all along. We walked.

25262. SnowOwl - 10/20/2004 2:25:57 PM

What I am driving at, I hope somewhat clearly, is that if it is natural, then at what point can we claim that ANY sexual behaviour is NOT natural? Again, the pro-gay arguments all cut several ways.

And the point that has been driven home to you many, many times, is that we already regulate natural behaviours when those behaviours are harmful.

25263. PelleNilsson - 10/20/2004 2:27:19 PM

Why don't you lay off, Kuligin? We are not seminar students here, you know. We don't have to defend our views against the man in the pulpit. You have posted mega-words on the evils of homosexuality and nobody has changed theír mind. Nobody has even said "you may have a point there, Kuligin".

25264. angel-five - 10/20/2004 2:31:14 PM

The fact of the matter is that having a trait inborn doesn't mean that people should be excused for displaying it.

What? I meant the God gene. What on earth did you people think I meant?

25265. angel-five - 10/20/2004 2:44:20 PM

Seriously, now.

There are many things which weigh for and against any action. Sex in all its varieties is no different.

The gay rights position isn't monolithic on any one point of view or contention, other than the notion that gays should have rights. But the gay rights 'position' even in aggregate doesn't boil down to saying 'being gay is natural and therefore it is right'. And the reverse -- if being gay weren't a choice and therefore it is wrong -- is ludicrous anyway, as is the notion that if gayness isn't predetermined then it ought not to be protected under civil rights. The fact is that civil rights are civil rights whether or not the person requesting them does so because of a choice he made or the way she was born. If Kuligin wishes to say that civil rights don't extend to you unless you were born the way you are, he's welcome to explain the existence of all those civil rights cases which, for example, center on the exercise of free speech, which is always elective.

Kuligin's cute little would-be trap about pedophilia doesn't only speak volumes about his mindset, but it actually isn't a trap at all. The fact of the matter is that natural tendencies aren't enshrined as inviolable in our Constitution and government, and behaviors are judged by many different means. If 'society' were to someday decide that pedophilia were acceptable (which is about as likely as the Bush daughters doing snuff porn and is in any case an incredibly vague premise) the legislative and justice system in this country would not be forced to simply say 'ok, you can do it all you want'.

25266. angel-five - 10/20/2004 2:48:18 PM

There are people born with extra y chromosomes who suffer from various maladies as a result. People with extra Y chromosomes are much more prone to violent and irrational behavior and are much more likely to end up in jail. Yet there is nothing linking the extra Y chromosome defects to any particular societal conditions, suggesting that these tendencies are, indeed, directly genetically derived.

Yet no one has successfully gotten off a murder charge, for AFAIK any crime at all, let alone a violent one, by the defense that they were just born that way. This is because judges aren't morons and they don't have to think in seminary black and white terms.

The standard argument used by many gay people -- that their gender preference is innate to them -- is more used to discredit (rightfully so) the religious right propaganda about how they're all choosing to be sinners and turning away from God and deliberately perverting themselves and so on and so forth ad nauseam. That's just how it shakes out, and no matter how it's garbled the right of gay people to live gay lives and pursue happiness isn't dependent on the notion that they have no choice in being gay. Indeed, there are decades of gay-rights positions which centered on the right of people to choose to live the gay lifestyle.

25267. wonkers2 - 10/20/2004 2:54:38 PM

My favorite Catholic Bishop, John Gumbleton

25268. wonkers2 - 10/20/2004 3:01:40 PM

A-5--well put!

25269. PelleNilsson - 10/20/2004 3:14:04 PM

Yes.

25270. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 3:28:11 PM

"I would contend that all men have a genetic disposition to rape and to murder (undoubtedly individuals have them to a greater or lesser degree)."

Wow. Upon what basis do you make such a conclusion, alistair?

I have no problem with your post #25234.

"I believe that we are, in most respects, in transition from the authoritarian to the libertarian position. Many taboos, when they are examined on their merits, simply can't be justified, but persist merely out of lazy conservatism. Homosexuality is one of these."

This is interesting. What is the saying, "Today's heresy becomes tomorrow's orthodoxy?" However, I disagree with your final conclusion, because homosexual behaviour is damaging, as are all sorts of heterosexual behaviour as well.

Now then, I am not in favor of breaking down people's doors and 'catching them in the act,' but I am definitely opposed to this nonsense that demands specific rights just because a person decides to sleep with this or that person. And as I've been saying, most of the arguments used in that vein to support homosexuality can be (and are being) used to support other deviant behaviour, such a pedophilia.

25271. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 3:30:47 PM

"Kuligin : Since we have eliminated "nature" and religion as criteria, can you suggest any reasons why homosexuality, in and of itself, should be forbidden?"

I don't know that "we" have done anything of the sort, alistair. Of course, I have always attempted in this forum to argue my views against homosexuality from a vantage point other than simply religious, but I cannot agree that the religious plays no part at all. Obviously, I recognize that the response, "God forbids it" is meaningless to the atheist, but that does'nt make the conclusion itself meaningless. In other words, just because the atheist has no room for God doesn't make him automatically correct, nor does it necessitate that all religious rationales must be discarded.

And clearly, on the "natural" angle, that is certainly not a closed issue.

25272. angel-five - 10/20/2004 3:32:27 PM

Kuligin:

If tomorrow Jesus returned to earth and announced that pedophilia was harmless, would you support it?

25273. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 3:33:14 PM

One could make a religious "natural" argument which basically says that anything done outside the design and purpose of God's plan has inherent potential faults and problems. But one could also say that anything done outside the "natural" design of things, regardless of God, can also bring the same sorts of problems. For example, ramming objects up one's rectum and into this place clearly not equipped or designed for such things, brings with it potential problems. And medical facts point to this time and time again. Sodomy is the single best way to transmit a whole hoard of deadly STDs. It seems that good old fashioned common sense would tell us this, but instead we have people demanding it as a 'right.'

25274. angel-five - 10/20/2004 3:34:38 PM

Don't like that question? Find it tendentious and vaguely obscene and think it's ridiculous and a horribly loaded question?

Well, although society isn't to the rest of us what God is to you, we seem to think the same way about your 'if society says pedophilia is ok, would you allow it' argument.

25275. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 3:36:48 PM

"You talk as though gays belonged to some monolithic movement in which all must walk in lockstep.

It's just not so, Kuligin. There are gays with differing views. They're just like heterosexuals in that way."

As I noted in an earlier discussion with Angel-Five, I am clearly talking about the MOVEMENT, the gay rights movement, and not this or that person's particular preference or pov. I am talking about the movement which lobbies for this or that particular privilege or "right," and as such, my comments must be understood in that context.

Again, as I said to A-5, if there are whole hoards of gays who march to a different drum than what we commonly see from the gay rights movement, where are they? Why do we not hear from them more often? How many of them actually exist? Are they being muzzled by the heirarchy of the gay rights movement?

25276. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 3:39:22 PM

"For the umpteenth time, trying to obfuscate the issue of gay rights with bleatings about bestiality and paedophilia is nonsense.

Neither animals nor children are able to give informed consent to sexual acts."

Snowowl, it is not nonsense. In various parts of the world, RIGHT NOW, pedophiles are making the very same arguments homosexual are making. Again, just several decades ago homosexuality was deemed unhealthy and unnatural. What's to say the same won't apply wrt pedophilia, that what was once thought horrible is now acceptable?

It is naive to think that this is an impossibility. Why? Because we already have historical verification of this from other cultures.

And as the pedophiles argue, children CAN give "informed" decisions. That is simply your opinion, Snowowl, and nothing more. And I would venture that animals can communicate their likes or dislikes readily as well.

25277. SnowOwl - 10/20/2004 3:40:29 PM

Sodomy is the single best way to transmit a whole hoard of deadly STDs. It seems that good old fashioned common sense would tell us this, but instead we have people demanding it as a 'right.

Well, no. Actually it's promiscuity that leads to the transmission of deadly STDs. There are promiscuous gays. There are promiscuous heterosexuals.

25278. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 3:42:09 PM

"Even if they find that children are not harmed by paedophilia (which is so unlikely as to be a ludicrous proposition), it won't change the basic proposition that sexual acts should only take place between people who are able to consent to such acts."

Which brings age of consent laws to bear. In the past couple of decades there have been increasing presure not only to reduce age of consent, but in some arguements to eliminate it altogether.

Again, I'm arguing simply from the facts. It is no accident that NAMBLA, for example, often marching in gay rights and gay pride parades, and is part of the whole lobbying agency. You don't see NAMBLA marching with others do you? So why with the gays and lesbians? Because the arguments for both movements fit hand in glove.

Again, it is just naive of you to think that pedophilia won't be a hotly contested issue in, say, the next couple of decades.

25279. SnowOwl - 10/20/2004 3:45:36 PM

Snowowl, it is not nonsense. In various parts of the world, RIGHT NOW, pedophiles are making the very same arguments homosexual are making. Again, just several decades ago homosexuality was deemed unhealthy and unnatural. What's to say the same won't apply wrt pedophilia, that what was once thought horrible is now acceptable.

I suppose that there could be a social change which would lead to younger people being thought able to give informed consent but, in fact, the opposite has been happening. Instead of the age of consent being lowered it's been raised in most places.

As I said earlier, I remember Jerry Lee Lewis being thrown out of the UK because of his insistence on taking his 13 year old wife with him. I don't think that there's anywhere in the US that now allows 13 year olds to marry.

You're bringing up red herrings because the arguments you put forward against homosexual rights are so weak.

25280. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 3:46:02 PM

"And the point that has been driven home to you many, many times, is that we already regulate natural behaviours when those behaviours are harmful."

That is certainly true. But we also move from society's which had deemed this or that to be wrong, to one's which wholeheartedly accept the same behaviour later. Is your sole argument, Snowowl, resting on Society's imprimature of a particular behaviour and nothing else?

In the past decades we have had society stipulate that it is okay to whipe out whole people groups. Euthanasia is becoming increasingly acceptable, especially in the context of state-subsidized health care. Worldwide we abort hoards of human lives each year. In every instance, a particular society determined that this or that behaviour had now become fully acceptable.

What on earth makes you believe that it won't wrt pedophilia, or polygamy, or bestiality? Already, the groundwork is being laid, at least wrt to some of these issues.

25281. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 3:50:32 PM

"If Kuligin wishes to say that civil rights don't extend to you unless you were born the way you are, he's welcome to explain the existence of all those civil rights cases which, for example, center on the exercise of free speech, which is always elective."

Again, if the notion of one's sexual preferences and "who one decides to sleep with" is called a 'protected right' then it should be extended wholeheartedly all across the spectrum of sexual behaviour. You cannot argue for it in the case of homosexuality, and then say, "Oh, but wait, it isn't a right for the pedophile or the polygamist or the person who sleeps with animals."

"Kuligin's cute little would-be trap about pedophilia doesn't only speak volumes about his mindset, but it actually isn't a trap at all."

It isn't a "trap" at all. It is a genuine and real concern given the events of the past decade, both in Europe and in America, and given historical considerations of other societies which argues for pedophilia. Already in the 90s we have had several university scholars arguing that pedophilia isn't bad. In the Netherlands, it has come right alongside all debates concerning homosexuality in that country since the 80s. This is legitimate concern, not some cute trap or creation by me.

25282. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 3:56:11 PM

"The standard argument used by many gay people -- that their gender preference is innate to them -- is more used to discredit (rightfully so) the religious right propaganda about how they're all choosing to be sinners and turning away from God and deliberately perverting themselves and so on and so forth ad nauseam."

Well, I hope it isn't being used by them knowing that it isn't true. In other words, are you suggesting an "ends justifies the means" sort of approach here by the gay lobby? "Let's argue it is not chosen, just to shut up those religious fanatics, but we really know better."

Either it is or is not inborn, genetic, however you want to label it. But that in itself misses my original question: At what point are we willing to draw the line on these arguments? Again, this Utah case of polygamy is quite interesting, because the man is basing his arguments on the Mass. rulings on gay marriage there, and as I already noted, he may even have a better historical precedent with which to work.

And very clearly, the gay rights movement HAS, time and time again, used the "scientific" argument of genetics in an attempt to bolster their position. "We are gay, we can't help it, we were born this way, and we cannot change our orientation."

25283. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 4:01:29 PM

"If tomorrow Jesus returned to earth and announced that pedophilia was harmless, would you support it?"

Interesting question. Snowowl hasn't answered my repeated questions wrt to this question, but I'll bite.

It certainly isn't cut-and-dried, so let's assume several things first. Let's assume that I know for a fact this is Jesus, however I would determine that. But let's also keep in mind that if this "Jesus" did in fact say pedophilia was okay, it would fly in the face of everything we know about Jesus. As such, I am quite confident that your hypothetical could never take place.

Still, if I knew for a fact that this was Jesus, then I'd have to say, yes, I'd have to concur with him on that score. Of course, I'd be shocked he'd support it.

But my question of Snowowl is based on the premise that she seemingly thinks that Society makes these decisions, and as such, they are correct. In other words, whereas Jesus is very much my authority, is Society Snowowl's? Again, your hypothetical about Jesus supporting pedophilia is incredibly far-fetched (wouldn't you agree, or do you have that bad of an opinion of Jesus?), but my question about Society condoning it isn't far-fetched at all.

25284. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 4:06:20 PM

"Don't like that question? Find it tendentious and vaguely obscene and think it's ridiculous and a horribly loaded question?"

No, I just now got down to that post.

"Well, although society isn't to the rest of us what God is to you, we seem to think the same way about your 'if society says pedophilia is ok, would you allow it' argument."

Well, it isn't apples to apples in any stretch. Do you really think that Jesus could potentially support pedophilia? Upon what basis?

But my question about Society's condoning it isn't far-fetched at all. So far, we have society's in the past which have condoned it, and we have our modern society's now condoning things we thought at one point equally evil, such as prostitution, drug use, and so on. Throw in wanton disregard for life with abortion, and the current arguments for homosexuality, and my question isn't far-fetched at all. Also, don't forget that we already have certain people in America, university scholars, who have in the past decade begun to argue for pedophilia as a legitimate orientation.

So, Jesus coming down from heaven and supporting something which contradicts all his teaching isn't quite the same as me pointing out the very real possibility that society might one day - and sooner than we might think - condone pedophilia.

25285. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 4:06:40 PM

While we are at it, would you support pedophilia A-5 if our country determined it to be legal? Would you object, or sit quietly on the sidelines and allow others to practice it openly, while you may of course simply not do so yourself?

25286. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 4:08:23 PM

"Instead of the age of consent being lowered it's been raised in most places."

This I did not know. Snowowl, could you provide some substantiation, because I think it is wrong. For example, the UK just lowered its age from 18 to 16, within the last year for sure if not the past six months.

25287. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 4:12:34 PM

"You're bringing up red herrings because the arguments you put forward against homosexual rights are so weak."

Not at all. Among the original tenets of the Gay Rights Movement was the removal at the State level of all age of consent laws.

But regardless, my arguments are based on current trends in societies in the western world. The Netherlands is almost always on the cutting edge. Then there's NAMBLA marching right alongside the gay rights people in the States. You don't see them marching with the Religious Right, do you? No, they march with the gay rights people expressly because they have so much in common, i.e., their arguments are the same. And then there is simple historical knowledge of past societies who have openly accepted it.

No, this isn't a red herring at all. I'm actually surprised you'd think that, especially given all the changes taking place in our society in the past several decades. I think one would just have to be naive to think, "Aw, this will NEVER happen in OUR country!" So much has already.

25288. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 4:18:06 PM

Interestingly, the age of consent issue in the UK happened further back than I thought, and it involved lowering the age of consent for gays from 18 to 16.

http://www.irishhealth.com/?level=4&id=1131

Here's a chart of age of consent laws from around the world, but it doesn't give any idea really if the ages have been going up or down.

http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

I did a web search on Yahoo!: "age of consent country by country"

25289. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 4:24:34 PM

Found a sort of discussion area on the web where this was said by someone posting:

"Since you present this as "REAL fact", could you please cite sources for your opinion that young people are much more impressionable than older people. Speaking as a former child, an adult, and a parent, that certainly hasn't been my experience. My first sexual encounter was at the age of six (with a fifteen-year-old), btw, and I began a sexual realtionship when I was nine, which lasted seven years (longer than most adult marriages); one of my foster sons had been a boy prostitute for a few years, from the age of twelve; and, in my thirties, I had an affair with a seventeen-year-old (horrors!) which lasted off and on for three years (though this was in Ireland where the age of consent was sixteen). I am not, therefore, speaking entirely out of ignorance - and none of the sex I've just mentioned was in any way coercive."

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=936&st=15

25290. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 4:26:30 PM

From the same thread comes this comment, a bit further down the page:

"First, I believe there should be no age of consent, period. Why?

1. People of all ages should have a say so in what goes on with their own bodies.

2. If a parent doesn't want little Sally getting her freak on, they need to keep a better eye on her.

3. I think that if there were honest to goodness SEX education in schools as well as being more encouraged to have such talks at home that our "children" would be better prepared to handle sexual relations. The answer is not to raise the age, the answer is EDUCATION.

4. Victimless crime. I don't buy into prosecuting victimless crimes. Sure, you can say the child is the victim but that is not always true... I daresay that isn't even mostly true."

25291. angel-five - 10/20/2004 4:27:39 PM

Again, if the notion of one's sexual preferences and "who one decides to sleep with" is called a 'protected right' then it should be extended wholeheartedly all across the spectrum of sexual behaviour.

No, it doesn't, unless one wants to institutionalize the sort of slippery slope they're saying will irrevocably come from this!

Besides that's shit-awful logic. When we deem something a right it doesn't suddenly extend blanket coverage to everything vaguely related. Instead rights are examined on a case by case basis to see if they conflict with other rights and/or legal necessities. And the case for rape, case for sex with children under the legal age of consent, case for sexual harrassment and so on simply do not fall into the same sort of category as any sort of consensual sex between consenting adults.

The history of American law has been one long exposition on the limitations and definitions of rights as we flesh out the system more and more. Freedom of speech was so important to our founding fathers that they made it the very first amendment to the bill of rights, but our society sensibly recognizes that there are places where your right to free speech may impinge upon various of my other rights -- the classic SC argument example being whether you have the right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater, and the decision being that you do not. If you have the right to sleep with members of your own sex (and I indeed think the government has no business saying that's wrong) the recognition of that right doesn't suddenly mean that someone has the right to fuck people to death, for example. Really, it's ridiculous.

25292. angel-five - 10/20/2004 4:31:00 PM

And to answer your questions, no, I wouldn't support pedophilia, even if everyone else thought it was ok. By my lights it is ethically and morally wrong for an adult to have sex with someone that isn't an adult. As our courts rule, children aren't competent to make those sorts of decisions, especially under pressure from an adult.

I am generally open to any sort of logic and can reverse my thinking on just about anything if presented with the proper arguments, but for me to accept the notion that pedophilia is ok would require that, well, pedophilia be ok, which it manifestly is not now and will AFAICS never be. One of the main differences between you and I is that if Jesus told you that pederasty was the way to go, you'd flow with it even if you had severe reservations, whereas it doesn't much matter who tells me the same thing -- I'll reserve my own judgment.

People who are concerned with legalizing kinds of sex they don't like shouldn't try to link pedophilia with homosexuality, however subtly they think they are in doing so. There's no slippery slope where someone goes 'well, now it's ok to sleep with another man! I guess that also means it's ok to molest children!' It's disingenuous. Of course, Kuligin, you may well insist that you had no such intention in mind --but that's the way you're coming across, and you should know.

25293. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 4:35:41 PM

"Even if they find that children are not harmed by paedophilia (which is so unlikely as to be a ludicrous proposition), it won't change the basic proposition that sexual acts should only take place between people who are able to consent to such acts."

I've already commented on Snowowl's comment here, but it bears another point. Who says that sex should only be consentual? I mean, where does this "law" come from, this "basic proposition" as Snowowl labels it? Common sense? Society? Religion? Or is it just personal opinion and preference from Snowowl?

I'm not trying to be difficult here, because this brings out my point. The hanging of one's hat entirely on "consent" doesn't work in other areas, such as drug usage and the like. And if the argument of consent is entirely rooted in Society's determination, who's to say this won't some day change as well?

Again, we already regulate tons of consentual adult behaviour, so basically conclude that sexual XYZ is okay because some adults consent to it doesn't follow. There simply must be more to the argument than simply "consent," right?

25294. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 4:37:04 PM

Actually, this website "America's Debate" has some very substantive discussions going on there. Here's another commment or two on this issue:

"As I mentioned in the thread which gave rise to this one, I have spoken to literally hundreds gay men and lesbians about their beliefs regarding their sexual orientation. I have not encountered one - not a single one - who felt that their sexual preference was a matter of "nurture"."

"The fact that homosexuality has been observed in all higher mammals (as well as many species of bird - from lesbian seagulls to male swans who, like their heterosexual counterparts, "mate" with other males for life) suggests to me that the natural disposition toward homosexual behavior is not a matter of conditioning. It has also been argued that there is a biological necessity for homosexuality -especially in human society"

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=15&t=471

25295. angel-five - 10/20/2004 4:42:05 PM

I'm not trying to be difficult here, because this brings out my point. The hanging of one's hat entirely on "consent" doesn't work in other areas, such as drug usage and the like.

But that's just it! No one, but, well, you, are hanging one's hat entirely on anything at all! The rest of us are analyzing according to several parameters. Rights are one. Consent, and the capacity to consent, is another. Effects are a third. Cost of outlawing is a fourth. Philosophical matters come into it. Viability comes into it. Questions as to whether government should get involved in such things come into it.

We're all intelligent people and capable of viewing these things as the complex matters they are. We aren't thinking in black and white, and won't, no matter how handy it would be for your argument, Kuligin. That's that.

25296. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 4:42:09 PM

"When we deem something a right it doesn't suddenly extend blanket coverage to everything vaguely related. Instead rights are examined on a case by case basis to see if they conflict with other rights and/or legal necessities."

Exactly! And currently, as one right is granted, others are being argued, right now, in our time. Again, this is no red herring or spurious examples, this is real life.

"case for sex with children under the legal age of consent...simply do not fall into the same sort of category as any sort of consensual sex between consenting adults"

Not now, A-5, not now. But the groundwork is being laid, as it was for the gay rights movement decades ago. What will you do if in, say, twenty years a very strong voice is heard in America supporting the removal of age of consent laws and pedophilia? Will you sit quietly and allow people their right of free speech and right to do whatever they want to do in the privacy of their own bedroom? Will you speak out against it, especially if more and more "scientific" studies say it is okay for the children involved? Or if more "scholars" support it?

Or do you really think this is all such a ridiculous hypothetical that one needn't even think about the possibility?

25297. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 4:44:39 PM

"And to answer your questions, no, I wouldn't support pedophilia, even if everyone else thought it was ok. By my lights it is ethically and morally wrong for an adult to have sex with someone that isn't an adult."

Okay, I see your answer now in the next post. But one's definition of "adult" changes over time, right?

Just curious, but on what basis do you think it is morally and ethically wrong? Your own opinion, or scientific studies which show the harm, or what?

25298. angel-five - 10/20/2004 4:47:19 PM

I do think you're being tendentious and ridiculous and I'm pretty sure the sky isn't falling, Kuligin, yes. There are people who would like to legally fuck children, but they have existed in every age regardless of how we view their activities. They don't suddenly come out of the woodwork because someone decided that people of the same sex should be allowed to sleep together!

I can't decide if you actually believe this slippery slope crap or if you just think it's a smart argument against gay rights.

Exactly! And currently, as one right is granted, others are being argued, right now, in our time. Again, this is no red herring or spurious examples, this is real life.

I don't care that they argue them. Arguing them is a good way to air the issue out. Unlike you, I don't think that we should never talk about things we don't like. The fact that someone wants to argue them doesn't make them less wrong.

But what you're saying is that people will become more likely to bone children if we extend rights to gays. Or is that not your argument, Kuligin?

25299. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 4:47:29 PM

"There's no slippery slope where someone goes 'well, now it's ok to sleep with another man! I guess that also means it's ok to molest children!' It's disingenuous."

fact: we already have societies which have extended the arguments from homosexuality to pedophilia

fact: the Netherlands has already had an intimate link between self-professed pedophiles coming alongside the gay rights movement there in "open dialogue" about these matters

fact: the vast majority of arguments used to support homosexuality as legitimate is used by pedophiles

fact: NAMBLA marches right alongside gay rights people here

Again, there is nothing disengenuous about this at all. To suggest so means you must first bury all the facts.

25300. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 4:51:47 PM

"No one, but, well, you, are hanging one's hat entirely on anything at all!"

As my statement was addressed to Snowowl, who mentioned consent as the sole criteria in her post, that is all I have to go by. Further, just the other day I made a similar comment to Bill Russell, who seemed to be doing the same thing.

"The rest of us are analyzing according to several parameters. Rights are one. Consent, and the capacity to consent, is another. Effects are a third. Cost of outlawing is a fourth. Philosophical matters come into it. Viability comes into it. Questions as to whether government should get involved in such things come into it."

Several of these items you are just now adding into the equation. As it stood, my comment was wrt Snowowl's comments about consent. That you add more items in now is helpful, but it certainly can't be held against me that I didn't read you mind (or Snowowl's) up to this point in time.

Also, you are speaking for yourself now, and my comments were addressed specifically to Snowowl's posts. Of course, she can come and say "ditto" to your above, but until said time, why not just talk about yourself and your own views instead of acting like you are talking for everybody else other than me? That would be most helpful.

25301. angel-five - 10/20/2004 4:55:02 PM

Well, the Klan has marched alongside the Religious Right, RR people extend the arguments against pedophiles to the arguments against gays, and the same arguments that have been used against homosexuals have also been used against interracial sex, desegregation, and just about everything the far right doesn't like.

Do you believe any of that proves that if someone agrees with you, they are de facto supporting the Aryan Nations and the Spanish Inquisition?

25302. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 4:56:19 PM

"They don't suddenly come out of the woodwork because someone decided that people of the same sex should be allowed to sleep together!"

What we have in the past several decades is an entire redefinition going on of what constitutes sexual rights, and rights and wrongs. One is necessarily tied to the others. They don't all just pop out of a vacuum. As one traditional more falls, so goes the next, and so on.

Personally, I find it shocking that a society would deem prostitution as okay and not harmful, whether physically or mentally or emotionally or psychologically, let alone spiritually. But whole countries disagree with me. What was once abhorant is now right out in the open, done happily, with our approval. Heck if we can make some tax dollars from it, why not, right?

And as we continually stretch the limits of sexual mores, it is only natural and in fact wise to consider just how far those things are going to stretch. Again, you can label it a "slippery slope" because that is precisely what I label it.

I'm just amazed how often these things happen, and how often people say, "Ah, it will neeeeever happen to US."

25303. angel-five - 10/20/2004 4:59:15 PM

Assuming that your answer is, in fact, 'no':

The statements which you supply in no way indicate that if the people of this nation extend simple civil rights protection to gays, they must end up giving them also to people who molest children. You like the idea of a slippery slope because if it were true it'd make your argumentation easier, but I don't think too many people outside your political camp end up buying it.

25304. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 4:59:26 PM

"The history of American law has been one long exposition on the limitations and definitions of rights as we flesh out the system more and more."

Right. And as we "flesh it out," we agree to slaughter over a million lives every year in the name of a "right," and so on. The whole system is changing, and rapidly, and we are chucking traditional values and mores at an alarming rate.

"Unlike you, I don't think that we should never talk about things we don't like."

Let's try to keep this as civil as possible. The above is putting words into my mouth. Here I am talking about these matters, right now. How can you say that I never want these things aired or talked about?? Stick to my words and posts, not what you think I might believe or will potentially say.

25305. alistairConnor - 10/20/2004 5:00:34 PM

Message # 25271
[Me]"Kuligin : Since we have eliminated "nature" and religion as criteria, can you suggest any reasons why homosexuality, in and of itself, should be forbidden?"

[Kuligin:] Wriggle wriggle wriggle. Waffle waffle waffle. Oh, um, strawman.

-- I'll take that as a "no", Kuligin.

25306. SnowOwl - 10/20/2004 5:00:53 PM

But let's also keep in mind that if this "Jesus" did in fact say pedophilia was okay, it would fly in the face of everything we know about Jesus. As such, I am quite confident that your hypothetical could never take place.

Still, if I knew for a fact that this was Jesus, then I'd have to say, yes, I'd have to concur with him on that score.

Amazing. Kuligin tacitly admits that he sees nothing innately wrong about paedophilia.

25307. alistairConnor - 10/20/2004 5:03:10 PM

Still, if I knew for a fact that this was Jesus, then I'd have to say, yes, I'd have to concur with him on that score. Of course, I'd be shocked he'd support it.

Well, that's a show-stopper, kuligin.

I guess you would gas Jews for Jesus too.

25308. alistairConnor - 10/20/2004 5:03:35 PM

No moral compass of his own. It's sad.

25309. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 5:04:24 PM

"But what you're saying is that people will become more likely to bone children if we extend rights to gays. Or is that not your argument, Kuligin?"

As we begin to extend the definition of what constitutes "right sex behaviour," and as we move away further and further from the traditionally held views in this regard, we open ourselves up to further re-definitions which may, yes, make pedophilia acceptable one day in our society.

Again, it is no accident that these arguments and connection are already being made, and have been made, over the past decade or more.

Go back to my polygamy question. Once we have started to process of expanding the definition of marriage beyond its traditional bounds, why should we stop at gay marriage? In and of itself, homosexuality has little to nothing to do with polygamy. But as we open the door and redefine "marriage," it makes perfectly good sense to ask when will the redefining stop??

Also, as we talk more and more about "rights," when will that talk extent to children too? What of the children who have a "right" to have sex with adults? Again, these arguments are already being made. It is just naive to think either 1) they are not being made, or 2) they will just fade away or come to nothing. I hope the latter is true, but we can't just sit idly by and willynilly hope that will be the case.

25310. angel-five - 10/20/2004 5:05:52 PM

Right. And as we "flesh it out," we agree to slaughter over a million lives every year in the name of a "right," and so on. The whole system is changing, and rapidly, and we are chucking traditional values and mores at an alarming rate.

Well, I don't think the sky is falling, Kuligin, but you can go ahead.

And you can act upset that I 'put words in your mouth'. You seemed worried that people were arguing in favor of pedophilia and linking it to the fact that people are arguing in favor of gay rights. So do you want people to argue in favor of pedophilia or not? And if you don't mind them doing so, what's the problem?

25311. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 5:08:45 PM

"Well, the Klan has marched alongside the Religious Right"

This doesn't support your argument at all, A-5. I assume they marched with the Religious Right because at the time they were saying the same thing, right? Are you claiming that the gay rights movement and NAMBLA are saying the same things?

"The statements which you supply in no way indicate that if the people of this nation extend simple civil rights protection to gays, they must end up giving them also to people who molest children."

That all depends on your definition of "molest children." In a world where sex is becoming freer and freer, where the traditional bounds are being cast off, and where talk of "rights" is being greatly extended to all classes of people, we may indeed find that pedophilia is no longer considered an evil that it once was considered. Again, today's heresy is tomorrow's orthodoxy.

25312. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 5:10:03 PM

25313. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 5:12:47 PM

"You like the idea of a slippery slope because if it were true it'd make your argumentation easier, but I don't think too many people outside your political camp end up buying it."

Whether I "like it" or not is immaterial. That such things exist is fact. One argument leads to the next. The same has happened in tons of similar instances, where, for example, the pro-abortion camp said that abortion would never encourage the buying and selling of human body parts, then PrimeTime blew the cover off that lie. Etc.

"Slippery slope" is just a shorthand for saying there exists a logical progression. As we open one door, another appears before us. And human nature hasn't proven itself to particularly good at not opening that next door.

25314. angel-five - 10/20/2004 5:13:09 PM

Are you claiming that the gay rights movement and NAMBLA are saying the same things?

No, you are. I'm merely pointing out why your argument blows.

Kuligin, do you find it odd, at all, that I the secular agnostic would refuse to support pedophilia regardless of what the authorities tell me, and you, the man worried about the slide of morality in America, would support pedophilia if Jesus told you to?

What, moreover, is one to make of your assumption that people would start fucking children if it were legal? Do you think they all want to do it now, or is your position more that they would just go 'Well, I didn't want to before, but now since it's legal I might as well'.

I'm at a loss.

25315. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 5:17:07 PM

"Well, I don't think the sky is falling, Kuligin, but you can go ahead."

Have you familiarized yourself at all with the specifics of this issues as they currently exist? Have you seen anything about the arguments in Holland, or wrt those American university scholars who have spoken openly for these things? Perhaps you should if you have not.

"Unlike you, I don't think that we should never talk about things we don't like."

This is putting words into my mouth, A-5. "Unlike you..." and then creating something I don't believe or do. That's what I mean. Just stick to my actually comments and posts, that's all.

25316. angel-five - 10/20/2004 5:19:03 PM

"Slippery slope" is just a shorthand for saying there exists a logical progression.

No, 'slippery slope' is shorthand for the slippery slope fallacy, which is recognized by the school of logic to be a good-sounding argument which is complete bunkum.

25317. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 5:19:19 PM

"No, you are. I'm merely pointing out why your argument blows."

The KKK marched alongside racist Christians. NAMBLA marches alongside people calling for sexual rights and freedom.

The KKK lost, as did the racist Christians who marched alongside them.

Those with whom NAMBLA marches are winning.

It isn't apples to apples your comparison.

25318. alistairConnor - 10/20/2004 5:20:44 PM

I'm at a loss.

Angel, it's the libertarian/authoritarian thing. An authoritarian has no use for a moral compass of his own. Everything's cut and dried. Kuligin simply can't get his mind around the fact that people can have their own moral values.

He actually discounts the notion of consent as important with respect to sexuality. This puts him in line with the traditional authoritarian position, which considers rape as a property crime (against the woman's owner : father or husband).

25319. angel-five - 10/20/2004 5:20:51 PM

This is putting words into my mouth, A-5. "Unlike you..." and then creating something I don't believe or do.

Please clarify. Are you against people arguing for pedophilia, or not?

If you aren't, then what's the problem? If you are, then don't squawk when I call you on it.

25320. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 5:21:41 PM

"What, moreover, is one to make of your assumption that people would start fucking children if it were legal? Do you think they all want to do it now, or is your position more that they would just go 'Well, I didn't want to before, but now since it's legal I might as well'."

Currently, the best stats we have is that less than 2% of Americans are homosexual. Legalizing homosexuality doesn't mean in my mind that all the sudden we will have heaps more people. It just means that we have said to a deviant sexual behaviour that now it is okay in our eyes.

The same would potentially apply with pedophilia. We would now be saying to those deviants that it is okay that you do what you do. Folks like you and me wouldn't go run out and do it now, anymore than we would wrt to homosexuality.

I think your point above misses the mark.

25321. angel-five - 10/20/2004 5:22:19 PM

You're right, it isn't apples to apples. It'd be apples to apples if the success of NAMBLA would benefit from the recognition of gay rights, but you know damned well you can't demonstrate that, save by what you think to be guileful inference.

25322. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 5:24:18 PM

"Kuligin, do you find it odd, at all, that I the secular agnostic would refuse to support pedophilia regardless of what the authorities tell me, and you, the man worried about the slide of morality in America, would support pedophilia if Jesus told you to?"

As you know, your hypothetical was silly and meant to divert the attention from my questions about Society potential imprimature of pedophilia. That Jesus would condone it would go against absolutely everything Jesus taught and stood for. That Society would do so might is another matter altogether.

You can make your conclusions on the matter any way you want to. But you know it wasn't a fair hypothetical, as you know that I profess complete allegiance to Jesus Christ. So create something Jesus would never do, something clearly sinful, and then see if Hooligan will still confess allegiance.

25323. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 5:25:43 PM

"[Kuligin:] Wriggle wriggle wriggle. Waffle waffle waffle. Oh, um, strawman."

alistair, this adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. I made my points clearly as to why religion isn't negated in all of this, nor "nature" as you put it.

Address the substance of my responses if you like, but the above doesn't move the discussion forward and rather impedes its progress.

25324. angel-five - 10/20/2004 5:26:53 PM

It just means that we have said to a deviant sexual behaviour that now it is okay in our eyes.

I wouldn't choose to call it a deviant sexual behavior and it is okay in my eyes, so, I'm not much moved.

And I thought your whole point was that the success of gay rights encourages society down the road toward legal pedophilia. Which American society won't legalize, IMO, ever.

Alistair:

Yup.

25325. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 5:27:07 PM

"Kuligin tacitly admits that he sees nothing innately wrong about paedophilia."

Snowowl, this is ridiculous and you know it, and cannot possibly be concluded from the non-existent hypothetical A-5 conjured up. But go ahead and believe what you want to. The issues are still there for you to debate nonetheless, and my open questions of you are, well, still open.

25326. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 5:28:56 PM

"He actually discounts the notion of consent as important with respect to sexuality. This puts him in line with the traditional authoritarian position, which considers rape as a property crime (against the woman's owner : father or husband)."

Alistair, another example of where you are not helping the discussion. There is vast difference between me objecting someone saying that consent is the SOLE criterion, and me saying is no criterion at all. The latter I never said.

Please, again, stick to the substance and my actual posts and comments, not what you want to make up for me. Thanks.

25327. angel-five - 10/20/2004 5:30:49 PM

Well, Kuligin, I dare say no one else in this thread thinks society's going to up and legalize pedophilia either. Oh, I know you find it more likely than Jesus championing it (and so do I, for that fact, because I think your Jesus is quite mortally dead) and see the ominous lineaments forming in that bugaboo of all right thinking people, the Netherlands, home of lots of fucking and the munchies.

But the fact of the matter is that I, at least, don't buy what you're selling today. I'm not interested in painted pictures of the falling sky. I'm sure you think my head's in the sand; I think your head's been stuck someplace else too.

Now, is there any particular point in going forward?

25328. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 5:31:13 PM

"Are you against people arguing for pedophilia, or not?"

One last time. You said I was for NEVER talking about these things, but we are talking about them now, right?

I am against those who argue for pedophilia, yes. I oppose their arguments. But I am not opposed to debating said issues, as we are doing right now in this thread.

25329. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 5:33:15 PM

"It'd be apples to apples if the success of NAMBLA would benefit from the recognition of gay rights, but you know damned well you can't demonstrate that, save by what you think to be guileful inference."

Well, it seems that NAMBLA clearly sees a connection. They certainly see a connection between the success of the gay rights movement and their own position. You can't deny this, can you? Otherwise, why on earth would they march with them??

And as I am arguing, they see what I see. If you open the door here, you potentially can open the other door later there. Is that not their hope?

25330. angel-five - 10/20/2004 5:35:03 PM

But I am not opposed to debating said issues, as we are doing right now in this thread.

Then I fail to see any problem with the advancement of the gay rights agenda as it might possibly encourage people to argue for pedophilia. As this has been a large part of your presentation I'm at a loss why you brought it up, and since you think such arguments won't encourage people to start having sex with minors I can't see how you have any problem with the discussion whatsoever. But I'm sure you have your reasons.

25331. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 5:35:27 PM

"And I thought your whole point was that the success of gay rights encourages society down the road toward legal pedophilia. Which American society won't legalize, IMO, ever."

People have said the same thing about a whole hoard of things, and they were wrong. And in this particular context, with how things are developing elsewhere, particularly in Europe, it isn't a stretch at all to see our society in America going down the same paths.

At bare minimum, I hope you are well prepared to fight against pedophilia should it ever garner a voice like the gay rights movement has done. There we will witness a rare treat I hope, you and me on the same side for once!

25332. angel-five - 10/20/2004 5:36:43 PM

Well, it seems that NAMBLA clearly sees a connection.

First off, we're just taking it as a given that what you're saying is true, for the sake of argument. Second off, if the above is in fact true: so?

25333. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 5:37:12 PM

"Now, is there any particular point in going forward?"

If you are done with this, that's fine. You can sit there while I discuss it with others, then. The issues are still open for discussion and I'm willing to discuss them with others.

Thanks for YOUR opinion, A-5.

25334. angel-five - 10/20/2004 5:37:37 PM

Btw:

in that sort of usage it's spelled 'horde'.

25335. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 5:38:31 PM

"I think your Jesus is quite mortally dead"

This gave me a good chuckle. Thanks for the levity.

25336. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 5:39:27 PM

"First off, we're just taking it as a given that what you're saying is true, for the sake of argument. Second off, if the above is in fact true: so?"

What other reason do you propose for why NAMBLA participates in gay rights parades and marches?

25337. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 5:41:12 PM

"Then I fail to see any problem with the advancement of the gay rights agenda as it might possibly encourage people to argue for pedophilia."

Let's be clear here. If later, in the future, it was shown clearly that granting rights to homosexuals was the basis upon which rights were granted to pedophiles, you'd have no problem with that?

25338. angel-five - 10/20/2004 5:41:23 PM

Well, I don't want to go out on a limb here, but I would expect it's because they're mostly gay.

25339. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 5:42:53 PM

And there is a big difference between arguing to make pedophilia legal, and making it legal! The latter opens the door for the perverts to do their thing freely and legally, while keeping it illegal doesn't.

Again, just because I don't think that making pedophilia legal will create hoards more pedophiliacs, doesn't mean I want pedophilia legal! I still want the small % of sickos out there stopped from freely doing it.

25340. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 5:43:36 PM

"in that sort of usage it's spelled 'horde'"

thanks

25341. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 5:45:02 PM

"Well, I don't want to go out on a limb here, but I would expect it's because they're mostly gay."

Which brings up an interesting question, at least to me. Why? Aren't most pedophiles, at least in terms of numbers, heterosexual men? Why would NAMBLA be comprise mainly of gays, if indeed you are right>

25342. angel-five - 10/20/2004 5:47:07 PM

Pedophilia wouldn't be accorded rights simply because gays were accorded rights, Kuligin. It's not like some judge is gonna go 'well, we'll let men sleep with men, so I guess it's all right for you to fuck four year olds too.' If the case for decriminalizing pedophilia is ever really made in an arena where decriminalization could actually be effected as a result, you can believe that the discussion will be a lot more complex than that.

And in any case, it's already screamingly clear but I'll reiterate it yet again -- I don't think people would buy the argument that because gays should have rights, so should child molesters, and I certainly don't. I wouldn't see the according of rights to gays to be a green light for pedophiles and I certainly would exercise my rights in the defense of children.

Unlike you, I just don't think that the one is going to lead to the other.

25343. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 5:47:23 PM

"Second off, if the above is in fact true: so?"

My guess is that NAMBLA intuits that a win for open rights for gays may accrue some benefit for them as well with it comes to their man/boy aims and objectives. Of course, I can only surmise as I am not in NAMBLA. But given historical precidence, and the arguments I've seen in Holland and here in the States from the cutting edge university scene, I'd say it is a fairly reasonable hunch.

25344. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 5:50:28 PM

"Pedophilia wouldn't be accorded rights simply because gays were accorded rights, Kuligin. It's not like some judge is gonna go 'well, we'll let men sleep with men, so I guess it's all right for you to fuck four year olds too.' If the case for decriminalizing pedophilia is ever really made in an arena where decriminalization could actually be effected as a result, you can believe that the discussion will be a lot more complex than that."

Agreed. That is why it is called a "sloooooooope." There would have to be several, I think rather subtle, steps involved. Again, it is no mystery to me that in the early Gay Rights platforms, the removal of age of consent laws were targeted at a state level.

Again, the issue in my mind isn't so much confined to GAY issues. It is to SEXUAL ones. Sexual freedom, sexual rights for all, etc. In this sort of milleiu, it isn't out of the realm of reasonable possibilities that such things could be tranferred to children in time. In other words, pedophilia would be argued from the angle of childrens' rights as much as from the angle of individual, sexual freedom.

25345. alistairConnor - 10/20/2004 5:51:51 PM

If later, in the future, it was shown clearly that granting rights to homosexuals was the basis upon which rights were granted to pedophiles, you'd have no problem with that?

This is the strawman. In order to make any connection, you have to examine the basis on which homosexuals claim rights.

Insofar as the rights claimed are based on the rights of consenting adults to do as they please without state interference, there is no common basis whatever, nor can there ever be. The notion of consent is antithetical with paedophilia. (The question of different or changing ages of consent is a red herring : the existence of an age of consent is what makes paedophilia a crime.)

Insofar as opposition to homosexuality is based on notions of religion and of what is "natural", it may appear logical to put paedophilia on the same footing. But, as we have seen, neither of these elements are at all pertinent in respect to rights claimed or granted to homosexuals.

25346. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 5:53:07 PM

"And in any case, it's already screamingly clear but I'll reiterate it yet again -- I don't think people would buy the argument that because gays should have rights, so should child molesters, and I certainly don't. I wouldn't see the according of rights to gays to be a green light for pedophiles and I certainly would exercise my rights in the defense of children."

Who living in the fifties would have had any reasonble idea that concerning sexual mores we'd be where we are today in the world?! Perhaps only a very few forward thinking people.

Again, I'm not saying something as simplistic as "Oh, if we allow gays to do it, then we should allow pedophiles too." But now I'm repeating myself, as are you!

"Unlike you, I just don't think that the one is going to lead to the other."

I know, you've said so several times now.

"I certainly would exercise my rights in the defense of children"

Great, I would too.

25347. angel-five - 10/20/2004 5:53:17 PM

Why would NAMBLA be comprise mainly of gays, if indeed you are right>

You know NAMBLA stands for the 'North American Man Boy Love Association', right? (Or something similar anyway).

Again, not to put too fine a point on it, but I'd expect the reason so many of them are gay is that you pretty much have to be down with same sex relationships in order to pursue one. The fact that men who like to sleep with men are only as related to men who like to molest boys as you are related to men who like to rape little girls should be kept in mind when we call them 'gay' though.

25348. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 5:56:13 PM

"This is the strawman."

No, it is not, any more than the guy in Utah now arguing for polygamy on the basis of allowing gay marriage in Mass.

"In order to make any connection, you have to examine the basis on which homosexuals claim rights."

I agree entirely. And if said connection can reasonbly be made -certainly legally it would be possible - then it isn't a strawman argument.

"Insofar as the rights claimed are based on the rights of consenting adults to do as they please without state interference, there is no common basis whatever, nor can there ever be."

If that were the only argument made in support of gay rights, but that isn't the case.

"The notion of consent is antithetical with paedophilia."

Precisely why pro-pedo people argue that children can, indeed, consent.

25349. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 5:58:31 PM

"(The question of different or changing ages of consent is a red herring : the existence of an age of consent is what makes paedophilia a crime.)"

Not a red herring at all, alistair. Let me provide some examples.

Would it make a difference to you if, say, the age of consent was moved down tomorrow to ten years old? Would you now say, "Ah, pedophilia nows only exists under the age of ten?"

And what if the laws were permanently removed (which boggles my mind), or better yet, moved down to only protect infants?

The issue of age of consent, instead of being a red herring as you put it, is in fact a very important issue of debate. Personally, I'm having my eye on the issue, because I think there is where the battle may very well begin.

25350. angel-five - 10/20/2004 6:00:59 PM

The fact of the matter is that there is no equivalent linkage between gay marriage-polygamy and gay-rights-pedophile rights.
That's tendentious and wrong-headed. The issues that society has with polygamy are different from the issues we have with child molestation and although it's convenient for you to link the two in your slippery slope argument I doubt anyone else here agrees with you.

They are, of course, free to disagree with me on that.

25351. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 6:01:28 PM

"You know NAMBLA stands for the 'North American Man Boy Love Association', right? (Or something similar anyway)."

Yes, I think that is it.

"Again, not to put too fine a point on it, but I'd expect the reason so many of them are gay is that you pretty much have to be down with same sex relationships in order to pursue one."

Perhaps here is where my thinking is muddied. Aren't "most" pedophiles heterosexual men? I've been referring to NAMBLA as a pedophile organization. Perhaps that isn't true then, especially if it does NOT have a preponderance of hetero men. Comments?

25352. angel-five - 10/20/2004 6:02:48 PM

Would it make a difference to you if, say, the age of consent was moved down tomorrow to ten years old? Would you now say, "Ah, pedophilia nows only exists under the age of ten?"

He's already said it wouldn't as he has his own moral compass. Would it make a difference to you if Jesus said eleven year olds were yours for the taking?

25353. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 6:04:14 PM

"The fact that men who like to sleep with men are only as related to men who like to molest boys as you are related to men who like to rape little girls should be kept in mind when we call them 'gay' though."

I agree to a point. I think what NAMBLA is arguing is that it is HEALTHY and GOOD what they want, namely, open relationships without impediment of age of consent between men and boys. Perhaps I am wrong, but wouldn't it be a fair assumption to make that the members of NAMBLA participate in adult sex too? In other words, they are arguing for an increased "pool" if you would of participants, by removing age of consent laws.

Further, I think they would strongly oppose the term "molest" in their eyes. What they want is good according to them, right?

25354. angel-five - 10/20/2004 6:05:47 PM

It's called a Venn diagram, Kuligin.

Most A are B. Some A are not B. Some A are in C. Therefore C is B because B is mostly A? No.

Why don't you proceed to your point?

25355. angel-five - 10/20/2004 6:06:36 PM

Further, I think they would strongly oppose the term "molest" in their eyes. What they want is good according to them, right?

They might. I wouldn't much care.

25356. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 6:07:30 PM

"The fact of the matter is that there is no equivalent linkage between gay marriage-polygamy and gay-rights-pedophile rights."

Yes, I opened up two different issues recently, the polygamy one and the genetic argument (from which this discussion came). However, there is some potential overlap wrt the legality matter. Who would have thought that someone would use the Mass gay marriage issue as an argument to support his polygamy? Well, actually, some conservatives did and warned of "multiple marriage" problems. Of course, those who supported gay marriage yelled "slippery slope, we aren't no dopes." But here it is.

Of course, the man may lose. I assume he will.

Look it is after midnight here and I'm pooped. Have a good rest of your day there.

25357. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 6:10:11 PM

"He's already said it wouldn't as he has his own moral compass."

Please, Angel-Five, I know you are the host of this thread, but attempt to refrain from answering questions put to others for them. My point to alistair is that age of consent is not a red herring, and it would indeed matter to him, I think, if people attempted to lower it. You may answer for yourself of course. Would you oppose the lowering of age of consent laws to, say, 10?

If you say yes, (and if alistair does as well), then the issue ceases to be a red herring as he claimed. And if he says no, then I'd be interested in why he wouldn't oppose such a move in the law.

25358. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 6:11:22 PM

"Why don't you proceed to your point?"

I'll do so in the next day or two, and after others have offered their two cents on these matters.

25359. KuligintheHooligan - 10/20/2004 6:16:32 PM

I'll leave you with this, A-5. I don't hold out much hope for our society and its ability to properly choose. From where I am sitting, it is in a steady rate of decay of moral values. Today, obviously pedophilia is tabboo, but so was homosexuality just 30-40 years ago, if even that long ago.

There obviously are differences between two adults having consentual sex, as opposed to a man having it with a boy. But as I've seen the arguments used to support homosexuality, so I see the same arguments used wrt pedophilia and other sexual behaviour. Obviously, consent is just one portion of the debate, and that is why age of consent laws are so important. But the possility exists that little chips here and there will be made, the bolder voices may grow, and we may find ourselves calling orthodoxy what was clearly heresy not too long ago. And the overlap of the arguments is shocking at times.

Good night.

25360. angel-five - 10/20/2004 6:36:11 PM

Well, if you want someone to sing an elegy over the decline in Church-based laws, you probably want to look elsewhere. You don't trust society to choose right; I trust myself to choose right, and society to choose better than the Church. I am quite happy with the fact that these matters are now decided in more secular ways and I regard it as the moral strengthening of society. I believe that if practices are bad they can be proven to be so without 'God' entering the picture in any way, and if they are good, they can withstand such inquiry as secular civilization can derive for them. And I'm more than pleased to see society moving toward such a model itself.

25361. jexster - 10/20/2004 11:46:59 PM

Kerry Cleared of Heresy Charge--But What About Bush?
Yesterday, according to the Catholic News Service, an unnamed Vatican official representing the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith addressed this argument by saying: "No, Kerry is not a heretic."

Now that we've cleared that up, Catholics might want to apply a similar test to President Bush

Although he does not appear to belong to any specific religious congregation, Mr. Bush has publicly identified himself as a "born-again Christian" of the Methodist denomination.

He is thus presumptively an adherent of the Protestant Heresy, condemned most notably and definitively by the sixteenth-century Council of Trent. If so, Bush has implicitly embraced an array of subordinate heresies, including:

* Denial of the teaching authority of the Church
* Bibliolatry (rejection of Church tradition as amplifying and interpreting scriptural authority)
* Symbolism (rejection of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist)
* Sacrilege (rejection of marriage, holy orders, penance, confirmation and extreme unction as valid Sacraments of the Church)
* Dishonoring the Mother of God (rejection of the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception, Assumption and Coronation of the Blessed Virgin Mary)
* Schism (rejection of papal authority and establishment of a separate ecclesiastical structure)

In addition, as a Methodist, Bush must be suspected of additional grave errors associated with the heresiarch and patron saint of that denomination, John Wesley.

* Pelagianism (belief in the perfectibility of human nature, suppressed in the 4th century by the Emperor Honarius, following the teaching of St. Augustine).
* Abandonment of the Apostolic Succession of Bishops (achieved when Methodists seceded from the Church of England)

25362. jexster - 10/20/2004 11:47:50 PM

Moreover, as Msgr. Ronald Knox argued in his influential 1950 book, Enthusiasm, Wesleyans reflect a persistant heretical tendency towards elevation of subjective experience in the pursuit of religious truth that links them to such widely varying heresies at Donatism, Hussism and Jansenism.

Finally, the President's persistant "unilateralist" demand that the United States must enjoy a privileged and unique status with respect to the use of force specifically and international law generally raises some concern that he is guilty of the Americanist Heresy (the belief that this country's special conditions require deviations from universal laws of faith and morals), condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1899.

25363. Bill Russell - 10/21/2004 12:16:01 AM

Perhaps Herr Bush doesn't care what the Pope says or thinks, or what any Pope has said or thought.

If so, I can't fault him for that.

25364. Marc-Albert - 10/21/2004 12:43:56 AM

My two cents on these matters? On reading the last 200 posts in one single session, it has become clear to me that your extraordinary fascination (from fascinum: phallus) with homosexuality - and your outward aversion to it - simply showed that you were indeed a homosexual (of the repressed type, of course). On second though, I concluded that you were more attracted to paedophilia, that, as a connoisseur, your rightly distinguished from homosexuality.

Also, I enjoy your passionate corps-à-corps with angel-five, your brilliant but somewhat passive partner.

25365. jexster - 10/21/2004 12:54:30 AM

I thought so too...a real closet case, perhaps even went for the "cure" from Jimmy Swaggert

25366. alistairconnor - 10/21/2004 5:31:04 AM

[me]"Insofar as the rights claimed are based on the rights of consenting adults to do as they please without state interference, there is no common basis whatever, nor can there ever be."

[Ku]If that were the only argument made in support of gay rights, but that isn't the case.

But it is the necessary and sufficient argument.
If some person supports gay rights because he wants to be free to hump anything, including children and animals, then that is an extremist view, which in no way weakens the moral strength of the mainstream gay rights position.

The mere formulation of the proposition demonstrates the feebleness of your "slippery slope" position. Gay rights isn't, in the general case, a matter of defending the right to perform certain physical sex acts -- that battle has been won (you have already conceded that you do not wish to interfere with what consenting adults do behind closed doors) but with ending discrimination against homosexuals.

Reductio ad absurdam : Hitler was a vegetarian. Does that mean that supporting vegetarianism puts us on the slippery slope to Nazism?

25367. alistairconnor - 10/21/2004 6:25:25 AM

[me]
"The notion of consent is antithetical with paedophilia."
[ku]
Precisely why pro-pedo people argue that children can, indeed, consent.

Immaterial to the debate on homosexuality, but an interesting debate all the same.
You wish to discount the consent argument, because it completely destroys your shonky analogy between homosexuality and paedophilia. But it is completely crucial to all moral beings. We know that the idea of a child giving their informed consent to sex is a nonsense; in my view, this argument is a smokescreen. What paedophiles really want is to dispose of children as chattels. They are authoritarians.

25368. wonkers2 - 10/21/2004 6:34:20 AM

alistaire, to change the subject, what's your take on the head scarves issue? I notice in my morning paper that the authorities in France have begun to expel little Muslim girls from school in the past few days. One reportedly commented, that "all they want is to see us in tight pants like the other girls!" Do Frenchmen really go for little girls in tight pants? According to the article, Sikh boys with turbans are next. The French apparently aren't apostles of diversity???

25369. alistairconnor - 10/21/2004 6:35:15 AM

Ku:
From where I am sitting, it is in a steady rate of decay of moral values. Today, obviously pedophilia is tabboo, but so was homosexuality just 30-40 years ago, if even that long ago.

The nub of your argument, and the only part of it that has any substance at all. And will it stand up to examination?

According to legend, Jerry Lee Lewis married his thirteen-year-old cousin. Mediaeval kings did it all the time. To me, that's clearly paedophilia, whatever the law said.

Would that be legal today? Are there states which permit a man to marry, and have sex with, a thirteen-year-old child?

What I want to establish is : in which direction are we heading with respect to paedophilia? Down the slippery slope into dens of iniquity? Or towards a greater respect, and greater protection, of children? I rather think the latter.

The notion that children sometimes need protection against their parents or guardians is a recent one. Its development is a sign that our society is prepared to intrude into families' lives in order to protect the vulnerable. It is breaking down the old, authoritarian model of the family, where children were chattels, and the father the absolute monarch.

Paedophilia, in particular incestuous paedophilia, has always existed. Statistically, it is probably on the rise, precisely because it is increasingly likely to be reported.

25370. alistairconnor - 10/21/2004 6:51:21 AM

Thanks Wonk, I just had an interesting insight on the headscarf issue.

I have several opinions on the question. (To quote Marx : These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others.)

* Firstly, what business do we have dictating the way people dress, etc.
* Secondly, but School is the place where the Republic integrates all comers, and where they learn respect and tolerance, this is disrupted by the visibility of religious/ideological factions which refuse the rules of the Republic etc.
* Thirdly, but diversity is good, and uniformity is grey
* Fourthly, but these girls are being forced, or brainwashed, to follow this reactionary code by their fathers/owners, it's a chattel relationship (culturally, he must ensure her virginity until he sells her to a husband, and the headscarf symbolises this)
* Fifthly, but these girls are freely choosing to wear the headscarf, often as a symbol of rebellion and against the will of their parents

* Sixthly (eureka) but the age of consent is a consideration here.

Girls are supposed to wear the headscarf as soon as they have their period, typically at 13 or so. Clearly, they are not adults. The school is in loco parentis, and entitled to enforce whatever dress code seems appropriate in school hours. Parents are free to enforce whatever dress code, outside of school hours.
From the age of consent (16 I think), they should be allowed to wear the headscarf at school if they so wish.

25371. wonkers2 - 10/21/2004 7:00:14 AM

Thanks for the thoughtful observations. I, too, have libertarian tendencies on such matters. However, based on my children's experience in an upscale community where expensive clothes and other possesions are over-emphasized, I too can see the value of school uniforms and/or reasonable dress rules. However, I would be surprised if anyone attempted to ban Muslim head scarves in the U.S.

25372. alistairconnor - 10/21/2004 8:24:53 AM

In the particular instance of the two girls expelled the other day, I think the principal was particularly block-headed. They had been in negotiations with the families, and the girls were wearing little flowery bandannas rather than the original strict scarves that hide their hair completely. That seemed a pretty good compromise to me, and the legislation leaves it sufficiently vague to give everyone wiggle room. But no, she had to go all the way, she wanted them to back down and lose face. Hardly surprising they dug in their heels after the initial compromise.

25373. alistairconnor - 10/21/2004 8:34:22 AM

Message # 25323
alistair, this adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. I made my points clearly as to why religion isn't negated in all of this, nor "nature" as you put it.
I fully understand that your personal religion informs your personal view of homosexuality, but this does not advance us one iota with respect to public policy, which is why I think we should agree to discount it.

As for nature : no, you have not explained at all how, IN YOUR VIEW, the question of "nature" should affect public policy with respect to homosexuality. As you decline to do so, it seems that you have conceded that it is indeed irrelevant.

Message # 25326 Now we're getting somewhere. You acknowledge that the notion of consent makes the questions of homosexuality and of paedophilia fundamentally different, rather than morally equivalent as you have previously tried to insinuate.

25374. ronski - 10/21/2004 1:49:52 PM

Among the original tenets of the Gay Rights Movement was the removal at the State level of all age of consent laws.

A wild exaggeration on the part of Kuligan. In the U.S., support for eliminating age of consent laws was found among a handful of leftists and anarchists; as the gay rights movement mainstreamed such support withered to nothing. All mainstream gay rights groups have opposed legalizing pedophilia for years.

Then there's NAMBLA marching right alongside the gay rights people in the States.

Another grotesque distoration of the kind Kuligan likes to indulge in.

Gay march groups in cities like New York expressly forbid NAMBLA groups from registering and marching. What happens is a few of these creeps crash the parade, which is difficult to prevent, or carry a few signs within small cells of arch-lefties.

25375. PelleNilsson - 10/21/2004 2:47:14 PM

Kuligin is constantly bringing up the Netherlands as an example of the slippery slope effect. Here is the situation in Sweden, another secular European country.

Gay partnerships are recognized. For church marriages each parish can decide on a policy, but they don't have any legal effects.

Prostitution is illegal. The customer, the buyer of sex services, is also considered a criminal.

Pedophilia is of course illegal. So is child pornography. That includes not only the production and distribution of the stuff, but also the possession of it.

25376. Bill Russell - 10/21/2004 7:37:55 PM

" Prostitution is illegal. The customer, the buyer of sex services, is also considered a criminal.

Pedophilia is of course illegal. So is child pornography. That includes not only the production and distribution of the stuff, but also the possession of it. "

Makes sense to me.

25377. angel-five - 10/21/2004 8:13:18 PM

Well, these minor key arias on the horror of the Netherlands would perhaps resonate a bit with me if these people knew what the hell they were talking about, or if all their doom-struck predictions about the Netherlands going to hell in an handbasket were to have come true.

25378. clydefo - 10/22/2004 12:23:38 AM

Wonderful news! But remember, like Evolution, "it's only a theory!"

Theory of Relativity Evidence Found

By Guy GugliottaWashington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 22, 2004; Page A03

"By measuring variations in satellite orbits, scientists have found the first direct evidence of one of the hallowed tenets of Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity -- that the Earth and other large celestial bodies distort space and time as they rotate..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52713-2004Oct21.html

25379. angel-five - 10/22/2004 12:09:27 PM

Yes, unless Kuligin wishes to continue with his efforts to suggest that if we support gay marriage, we'll end up ushering in child molesters as well, maybe that'd be a good place to switch topics.

My suggestion: How has the advent of technology changed the way people think about the Almighty?

25380. angel-five - 10/22/2004 12:39:05 PM

Today when we think of science and religion they are often viewed as philosophical competitors squared off against one another. The debate between creationism and evolutionary thought is an excellent example --battle lines are drawn with strict adherents on both sides. And there are those who see, in the rise of technology, a sinister shifting in the educated mindset away from spiritual beliefs and towards a secular, enlightened humanism. Many in the religious camp look with a jaundiced and suspicious eye upon science -- not so much for the technologies it produces, which they are happy to make use of every day, but with the fear that science erodes faith. The Bible is full of admonitions about worldly wisdom. Zen Buddhism can be seen as a system for frustrating our logic, cracking its walls and forcing the awakening mind into a different space altogether where truth is to be found. New Age religion seems to be little more than a reaction to the growing human distance between daily life and spirituality -- the desire to find a new, more palatable source of religious well-being in a world where that can be very satisfying and soothing and grounding to thought, yet people are dissatisfied with the available, traditional sources of that well-being.

Yet, despite how easy it is to see the two sides in their entrenchments, it can be easy to overlook the no-man's-land between them, where so many people have come to reside. I speak of, to name one example, Christians who have come to believe in a prime mover God who created the cosmos and then let the wheels of evolution turn, who see no contradiction between Darwin's science and St. Augustine's religion. While there are relatively few hard scientists who believe in a luddite God, it's no secret that many scientists are deeply religious people.

25381. angel-five - 10/22/2004 12:39:24 PM

And it can be forgotten, in the here and now, that there has long been a school of thought that held that the understanding of the world around us teaches us the nature and reality of the divine, and the systematic study of nature's law moves the student toward enlightenment. The great cathedrals of Europe are easy to marvel at, but it's less easy to remember that they were designed and built with the principles of sacred geometry in mind, in a time when the architects believed that mathematics held the keys to understanding divinity and that the natural world was the coded message from God to those with the ears to hear it. Speculative freemasonry is no longer a power in the world, but it once forged a nation and restructured an entire continent. Our history, both East and West, is full of examples where men tried to bridge the sacred and the mundane, and others taught that it was all one ball of wax to begin with and the chasm was but an illusion of our minds.

I find this a rich field of thought and believe it to be worthy of our investigation. If you agree, dive in.

25382. Bill Russell - 10/22/2004 1:58:46 PM

" While there are relatively few hard scientists who believe in a luddite God, it's no secret that many scientists are deeply religious people. "

And what religion do most of the world's scientist follow, if any?

[I don't know the answer, btw... Does anyone?]

25383. PelleNilsson - 10/22/2004 3:02:28 PM

Shut up, Bill.

25384. Jenerator - 10/22/2004 4:07:02 PM

I had not heard that there were "relatively few hard scientists who believe in a ludite God".

25385. angel-five - 10/22/2004 5:07:42 PM

And we'll definitely want to get to the bottom of that.

25386. ElliottRW - 10/22/2004 5:21:39 PM

I think this is a wonderful discussion topic, A-5, and I'm willing to participate.

Is it possible to extend an invitation to PseudoErasmus and Jeremiad? I think they'd be strong participants in this discussion.

25387. Bill Russell - 10/23/2004 1:43:27 AM

Bring 'em on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

25388. wonkers2 - 10/23/2004 9:00:24 AM

God and Sex

25390. angel-five - 10/23/2004 4:57:35 PM

The notion that some people have a genetic predisposition toward religion isn't new at all. Some time ago a man named Julian Jaynes published a work called The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Jaynes, a psychologist with a masters and a doctorate from Yale, proposed a fundamentally biological origin for religion; he argued that at least many of our ancestors had 'bicameral' minds, brains that in effect had independent lobes, a state that Jaynes suggested would mimic certain sorts of schizophrenia wherein it would be easy for the bicameral person to 'hear' the gods talk. Jaynes suggested that these traits are still quite common in humans, proposed that there was a demonstrable survival value accruing to societies which had these bicamerally 'inspired' people, and laid out several complex arguments linking his theories to everything from the Iliad to the practices of Egyptian priests, and the Old and New Testaments.

As you can imagine, this work was supremely controversial, with ardent supporters on one side, equally dedicated critics on the other, and a whole raft of people in the middle who found it very interesting and intriguing, but still weren't quite completely convinced on every level, or else were mildly offended by the implications, but couldn't manage to dismiss them outright.

It's an interesting work, to be sure, and as it came out in the late 70s it is even more interesting in the context of the 'new' theories of the god genes.

25391. judithathome - 10/23/2004 5:03:36 PM

I read part of that book because my friend, the bronze sculptor, gave it to me. He made a bronze piece depicting the "bicameral mind" and it was quite weird but very striking.

25395. Magoseph - 10/24/2004 9:49:09 AM

Wrong thread for post Message # 25393, Bill.

25396. judithathome - 10/24/2004 6:33:54 PM

Did anyone happen to hear the Reverend Jerry Falwell on Wolf Blitzer today? I think he said we should kill all the Iraqis and start over...whatever it was he said, Jesse Jackson was stunned and chided him for not having a very Christian attitude.

25397. wonkers2 - 10/25/2004 1:14:53 PM

Jesse is obviously soft on terrorists!

25398. wonkers2 - 10/25/2004 6:25:15 PM

Editor
Detroit Free Press

Patricia Montemurri's article "Catholics split statewide over moral choices" was a timely and good piece of reporting. However, it would have been better if she had mentioned Michigan Bishop Gumbleton's and Vatican Cardinal Ratzinger's position that Catholics may vote based their evaluation of a candidate's positions on a range of issues important to the Church rather than solely on his or her position on abortion. Also, Ms. Montemurri's use of the term "fetal" stem cell research is not accurate because embryonic stem cells, not fetal cells, are used in the research. This error in usage brings to mind the anti-abortion signs often seen in front of the Shrine of the Little Flower saying "STOP CHILD MURDER." Fetuses are not children, and abortion, according to law and Webster is not murder. Such overstatements serve only to widen the gaps that separate people of all faiths.

Sincerely,

W2
Birmingham, Michigan

25399. wonkers2 - 10/27/2004 10:37:12 AM

The Anguish is Plausible But His Eminence Forgets

25400. KuligintheHooligan - 10/27/2004 3:11:05 PM

"Such overstatements serve only to widen the gaps that separate people of all faiths."

Yeah, forget about the abortions themselves. Let's waste our time bickering over word choices, while continuing to slaughter millions of defenseless American lives.

25401. KuligintheHooligan - 10/27/2004 3:12:39 PM

Here is a fascinating find, Flores Man.

Here is a fascinating find, Flores Man.

25402. angel-five - 10/27/2004 3:55:40 PM

Let's waste our time bickering over word choices, while continuing to slaughter millions of defenseless American lives.

Something tells me if it was anti-abortion activists getting called 'religious extremist cro-magnons' and 'wild eyed Christian fundamentalist fanatics hell bent on keeping women submissive' you would find the gumption to worry about word choice.

25403. angel-five - 10/27/2004 3:58:56 PM

That's a very interesting link, Kuligin.

The bad part is that there will be people who want to minimize and debate the findings simply because they don't fit into the picture we've assembled so far.

25404. KuligintheHooligan - 10/27/2004 4:03:32 PM

"Something tells me if it was anti-abortion activists getting called 'religious extremist cro-magnons' and 'wild eyed Christian fundamentalist fanatics hell bent on keeping women submissive' you would find the gumption to worry about word choice."

That's precisely what we are called! Who cares what we are called. I care about the millions of wasted lives via abortion, not only in our country, but around the world as the UN attempts to make it a "reproductive right" tied to its giving of healthcare funds.

My point, as I know you see, is that while wonkers is complaining about the misuse of the word "child" and the like, the abortions are still going on. Many of the pro-abortion people use red herrings to divert attention from the real issue: we are slaughtering human life each and every day in our country, hundreds a day on average, and we don't even bat an eye.

And when I post several pics of these aborted human beings, I'm called a fanatic and crackpot. Incredible.

25405. KuligintheHooligan - 10/27/2004 4:05:19 PM

One related time involved a pic of an aborted fetus with its head ripped off. People here immediately began to claim I was being disengenuous, that the pic wasn't an actual human being, and accused me of lying. All the while, they didn't realize the head was missing because the type of abortion used ripped off the head!

And when I pointed that out, did I receive apologies for the slander? Of course not. The red herring had worked perfectly. Forget about the actual abortion. Rather, attack me personally. Pathetic.

25406. KuligintheHooligan - 10/27/2004 4:07:36 PM

"The bad part is that there will be people who want to minimize and debate the findings simply because they don't fit into the picture we've assembled so far."

It really is an interesting find. Of course, there will be great debate as to what it means exactly. The article only skims the surface on that score. I'd like to see more on the matter but short of it being somewhere on the Net, I doubt I'll have the chance to from here.

I'd also like to know specifically what fragments were found, and what is from the imagination (expecially the pics in that article). From what it says, though, several fragments from several individuals were found.

25407. angel-five - 10/27/2004 4:09:57 PM

If the anti-abortion lobby didn't care about word choice they wouldn't insist on calling abortion 'murder' and themselves 'pro-life'.

The fact is that the labels are important because they frame the debate and help shape the arguments.

I find it interesting that you claim not to care what you're called, though. Do you truly mean that?

25408. angel-five - 10/27/2004 4:12:05 PM

Yes, the unfortunate fact seems to be that they haven't got an intact enough set of remains to say anything definitive. I say unfortunate because that will obscure the debate some.

25409. angel-five - 10/27/2004 4:16:21 PM

With all due respect, though, Kuligin, I think you miss the point when you say that that was some sort of red herring in the abortion debate. People were using it to try to shut you up, but not, I believe, to obscure any sort of truth about abortion. The fact is that people were acknowledging that abortion is ghastly -- whereas you were acting as if they were just in denial about how ghastly it is and were hoping you could shock them into going 'oh, god, how can I support this practice now?' And people were of course completely unfazed by this tactic --they didn't want to see dead fetuses, but seeing them didn't seem to change anyone's mind one way or the other.

25410. KuligintheHooligan - 10/27/2004 4:17:52 PM

"The fact is that the labels are important because they frame the debate and help shape the arguments."

I agree. But when we only argue about the labels themselves, and turn a blind eye to what is actually happening, then I see a problem. Again, as wonkers stated, it is the misuse of the words which is supposedly driving religious people apart. Forget the fact that human beings are being slaughtered by the millions.

"I find it interesting that you claim not to care what you're called, though. Do you truly mean that?"

As in being called names, no, I don't care. Why would I frequent this place if I did care?

Slandered falsely (redundant, I know) I do care about. It isn't right and should be corrected. But being called names, who cares really about that? They are just words.

Attendum: when the name calling is the ONLY recourse used by those who oppose me, of course I don't tire of pointing that out. And that has often happened here.

25411. KuligintheHooligan - 10/27/2004 4:19:15 PM

"Yes, the unfortunate fact seems to be that they haven't got an intact enough set of remains to say anything definitive. I say unfortunate because that will obscure the debate some."

If they found one whole, say, mummified in some way, how do you think it would change arguments either way, A-5? BTW, I'm not particularly heading any direction on this one, just making conversation.

25412. KuligintheHooligan - 10/27/2004 4:20:34 PM

"People were using it to try to shut you up, but not, I believe, to obscure any sort of truth about abortion."

You mean lying is a fair tactic, in your opinion, that people can use to "shut up" the opposition, while still not really "obscuring" the facts of the matter? Seriously??

25413. KuligintheHooligan - 10/27/2004 4:23:29 PM

"People were using it to try to shut you up, but not, I believe, to obscure any sort of truth about abortion."

I agree with you on the point that it was meant to shut me up, which of course, is further meant to kill any discussion or debate about the matters. However, I don't agree with your last phrase. Ad hominem attacks are indeed meant to make your opponent run away, which obviously doesn't work toward any real substantive dialogue about the topic itself.

It is a sort of scare tactic, fear mongering if you would. How many people will feel comfortable coming back the next time to oppose or question abortion, once they've seen how the last guy was slandered and mistreated? So you see, it is far from encouraging any open-minded discussion about the topic. Rather, it is meant to silence the opposition and nothing less, and it doesn't matter how you do it, so long as you silence him.

And the abortions themselves just continue on, ripping off the heads of unborn human beings, and so on.

25414. Jenerator - 10/27/2004 4:28:01 PM

The picture is of a female??

25415. angel-five - 10/27/2004 4:28:29 PM

An intact body is just better evidence from which to make more solid claims. In the case of a human or humanoid where the morphology and physiology are outside of our realm of experience and the organism doesn't seem to fit neatly into either the fossil record or our models of human development and migration, you could build a much stronger case for your new theory with an intact body.

It's more of an issue when the findings are potentially controversial, as these seem to be.

25416. angel-five - 10/27/2004 4:31:13 PM

As far as 'lying being a fair tactic' -- no, of course that's bad. There's just a difference between someone discrediting you and discrediting an argument, if you follow me. I don't think anyone felt that the little sidebar argument over your pictures ended up, for example, convincing people that abortion isn't messy and unsettling.

25417. KuligintheHooligan - 10/27/2004 4:37:37 PM

"There's just a difference between someone discrediting you and discrediting an argument, if you follow me."

I follow. But clearly, attacking the person and implying that he is posting pics that aren't even human, just to "win" an argument, is so ridiculous and uncalled for, even in this forum, that to appear to be defending it (as you appear to be doing) just strikes me as odd.

One thing I have come to appreciate from you, A-5, is that you tend to stick to the issues. In other words, whereas I can expect "hit and run" tactics from many here, you I can at least expect some subtantive debate. But when things degenerate to personal attacks and the issues are entirely avoided or lost, I just see no benefit from that whatsoever.

But of course I recognize that as a tactic of debate, nonetheless.

25418. KuligintheHooligan - 10/27/2004 4:39:26 PM

"the organism doesn't seem to fit neatly into either the fossil record or our models of human development and migration"

Again, I hope to read more about the find. I'm still processing the little data available ot me now. But it comes as quite a surprise, which really, when we think about it, shouldn't be all that surprising.

25419. KuligintheHooligan - 10/27/2004 4:41:23 PM

Side comment, A-5, on uniformity theory. My grandfather told me a story about Niagara Falls, which I never confirmed outside his retelling. But back in the 20s, certain scientists were saying the Falls was X years old, given the rate of erosion by the water. Then in one year, several feet just plum fell off, equating to a huge amount of years or erosion given the "uniform" ideas.

I really do hope this new find makes people rethink old positions, but I wonder how far that rethinking will go.

25420. angel-five - 10/27/2004 4:58:46 PM

Well, I saw a special once on the falls suggesting that several hundred feet of it were carved out in, like, a matter of a few days. There's different bands of rock in the area and some are stronger than others -- our understanding on what's happened there is evolving. So you have the Falls worming back an inch or so a year and then it hits this stretch of rock and guns through it like a chainsaw.

It's hard for us to envision that kind of apocalyptic erosion now but then again none of us have seen Niagara Falls the way it was when we discovered it. About 25% of the original volume of water now moves over the falls. The rest has been diverted to run hydroelectric power stations and for industrial use.

25421. KuligintheHooligan - 10/27/2004 5:07:09 PM

A-5, give me your take on "dating" [no puns please]. Most forms of dating are entirely dependent upon a uniform theory of decay or rate, right?

What if that uniform understanding is dead wrong?

Look, you attempted to get a discussion concerning science and faith started, which is right up my alley, but nobody has really seemed all that interested. Personally, I love science, have two BS degrees, and don't fear scientific discoveries at all, mainly because I believe all truth to come from God. In other words, I think that science and theology are entirely reconciliable and in fact have the same source.

However, on dating methods I have some problems. The age of the earth is a classic example, and I believe that no matter how much some Christians might try to reconcile Genesis with the current understanding that the earth is ~5 billion years old, the explanations fall thin. [CONT]

25422. KuligintheHooligan - 10/27/2004 5:11:24 PM

But most dating methods rely on uniform assumptions, and I wonder how true that can be. For example, can we just assume that the speed of light has always been constant? [BTW, I read somewhere that scientists now believe the speed is changing, but I can't recall which way and by how much.]

Last year some time I posted an article here about the age of the universe. It had been believed to be about 17 billion years old, but new findings suggested 12 billion. Even though BILLION is still a lot, a difference between 17 and 12 is fairly dramatic. What's to say that new findings don't bring it down next time to 5 billion? The rate of expansion of the universe is measured today and assumed to be constant for 12 billion years, right?

Such things give me pause about the findings of science. Obviously, I am a man of faith, and if current findings in science seem to contradict biblical teaching, I'm going to opt for the latter. But that isn't all that unreasonable scientifically anyway, IMHO, because science itself changes regularly. I actually believe the people who place their faith in science are the ones who have greater faith, because science is like shifting sands.

So back to my original question, what is your take on dating methods and their reliability?

25423. SnowOwl - 10/27/2004 5:22:03 PM

I actually believe the people who place their faith in science are the ones who have greater faith, because science is like shifting sands.

Science doesn't change. New discoveries might challenge scientific hypotheses and lead to new knowledge but science is a process not a fixed body of knowledge.

25424. judithathome - 10/27/2004 5:25:46 PM

(Kuli, I left you a message in Elections)

25425. angel-five - 10/27/2004 6:52:13 PM

I have no problem with radioisotopic dating. The fact that it's built on averages is something that I bear in mind but, say, I'm usually not that skeptical of a date once people have independently dated it to the same time.

I'd be very interested to learn that, say, for the first several billion years worth of time in which there were heavy isotopes like radium and uranium, they decayed at a rate different than what they decay now. I don't suppose one can rule that out.

25426. clydefo - 10/27/2004 10:57:03 PM

Just in from observing the total lunar eclipse.
The full moon looked so small and diminished from it's huge dominance when near the horizon. The "Moon Illusion". Not an optical illusion, but a mistaken model of reality created by our minds. (bend over and look at it "upside down" and watch the moon on the horizon lose it's "bigness") Can anyone explain this? What are the philosophical and religious implications if our own minds are playing "tricks" on us?

25427. Ulgine Barrows - 10/28/2004 2:04:21 AM

24427. jayackroyd.
O lordy, you brought in the tooth fairy.

That we could all be kids again, and know what we know now, for this I pray.

Comparing the tooth fairy to a religious or spiritual belief is very insulting, IMO.

25428. alistairconnor - 10/28/2004 4:39:35 AM

Thanks for that link, Kuligin. The breathless hyperbole of the journalist is unnecessary, it really is interesting in itself.
I suspect that what attracts you to the article is

It smashes the long-cherished scientific belief that our species, Homo sapiens, systematically crowded out other upright-walking human cousins beginning 160,000 years ago and that we've had Earth to ourselves for tens of thousands of years.

-- there are no "long-cherished beliefs" involved, and no theories invalidated at all, as far as I can see.

Simply, there was previously no evidence of the survival of pre-human hominids into relatively recent times (but the isolation of their environment makes this perfectly plausible, and it's likely that there are other branches still to be discovered).

They seem likely to be descendants of Homo Erectus, who is not among our direct ancestors -- offhand, I think our common ancestors with H. Erectus, and thus with these halflings, would go back several million years.

Researchers suspect that Flores Man probably is an H. erectus descendant that was squeezed by the pressures of natural selection.

Nature is full of mammals — deer, squirrels and pigs, for example — living in marginal, isolated environments that gradually dwarf when food isn't plentiful and predators aren't threatening.

This is the first time that the evolution of dwarfism has been recorded in a human relative, said the study's lead author, Peter Brown of the University of New England in Australia.

So, in your view, does this represent "micro-evolution" (which you "believe in"), or "macro-evolution" (which you don't)?

25429. alistairconnor - 10/28/2004 5:03:52 AM

Message # 25427 Gigi, Jay was using the "tooth fairy" to illustrate an argument about belief. Message # 24427 He wasn't comparing belief in God to belief in the tooth fairy (well, not directly).

Let me try to be clearer. I say there's a tooth fairy. You say there is no tooth fairy. I say prove it. You're toast. You can't prove that.

... but if I (for the sake of argument) were to compare belief in God to belief in the tooth fairy, then to say "that's incredibly insulting" isn't actually much of an argument...

25430. Ulgine Barrows - 10/28/2004 5:18:31 AM

Look for flaming mercy, you 9-yr-old.
It IS insulting.

Jay is searching.
He's not going to find the freaking tooth fairy.

25431. alistairconnor - 10/28/2004 5:27:01 AM

All Jay was saying is that you can't disprove a mystical belief, because there's no tangible evidence either way.

And now I'm feeling guilty because I forgot, for a couple of weeks, to exchange a coin for my daughter's tooth. She was very patient about it, stoically maintaining the pretense that she believed that the little mouse (French variant of the tooth fairy) had forgotten to do its job.

25432. Macnas - 10/28/2004 5:33:03 AM

Conner, yet again you insult common decency and Christian values by propagating pagan rituals in your won home and thereby dooming your children to a future marred by devil worship.

25433. Ulgine Barrows - 10/28/2004 5:35:26 AM

You're speaking for jayackroyd?
The sugar and the salt, mystical belief, whatever.
I find spirituality and religion on another plane than tooth fairyism.

25434. Ulgine Barrows - 10/28/2004 5:36:53 AM

Macnas, do you have a hammer and a vise?

25435. Macnas - 10/28/2004 5:42:39 AM

Well, yes.

25436. Ulgine Barrows - 10/28/2004 5:48:29 AM

I've lost my sledgehammer, more's the pity.

There's rocks to be broken in the yard.

alistairconnor, you just make me sigh.

jayackroyd is over in the shelter.

25437. KuligintheHooligan - 10/28/2004 8:21:34 AM

alistair,

Actually, I read the article and then hotlinked it here, a couple minutes after I read it. I really haven't had time to digest fully the info there, and as I already mentioned, I'd like to see more on it first before making any definitive comments.

"I suspect that what attracts you to the article is..."

Again, I didn't link the article because I had some axe to grind, or felt that this or that portion of the article either supports my position or contradicts those of others. It was simply interesting to me, a very remarkable discovery.

As for your question of me, I think that "dwarfism" can clearly be categorized in the "micro-evolution" arena, but as for the specifics of this particular case of dwarfism, I can't comment beyond that one article.

25438. KuligintheHooligan - 10/28/2004 8:21:57 AM

judith, thanks for your post in Elections. I really appreciate it.

25439. KuligintheHooligan - 10/28/2004 8:25:49 AM

"I'd be very interested to learn that, say, for the first several billion years worth of time in which there were heavy isotopes like radium and uranium, they decayed at a rate different than what they decay now."

I wonder if any plausible theories have ever been presented to point in this direction. Do you know of any, A-5?

I know in my past reading I've instances of certain pieces of newly formed lava being taken for dating, and the dates coming out horrendously wrong. It is things that this that create questions in my mind about the basic uniform theories and how accurate our current dating really is.

However, I readily admit that the dating would have to be REALLY off base before it could come within a reasonable period of time to jibe with biblical dates.

Also, related to this is the issue of ages of people in the Bible. Why are the people who live early, around or before the time of the Flood, living so much longer? Adam lived 950 years.

Now suppose that current dating and the uniform bases used are really way off. Now all of the sudden, those long lives of the very early people don't look so weird. Perhaps.

25440. angel-five - 10/28/2004 4:59:56 PM

There's no reason to really suspect anything of the sort, Kuligin, when it comes to radiometric dating and the uniformity of decay. There's certainly no science I'm aware of which would bring it into question. I'm afraid I don't understand how that would come into a discussion on the longevity of Biblical characters anyway.

You mention the clash between people who believe in the science of radiometric dating and standard creation science, which is very real, and is the source of whatever debate exists about the validity of radiometric dating. When you can radio-date rocks to 2-3 billion years in age, and creation science holds the world was created much more recently than that, you have a situation in which both camps can't be right. It's a hard battle for the creationists to win, simply because the uniformity of radioisotopic decay is observable every day in the laboratory and no one's ever, for example, found samples which don't decay uniformly, or found evidence to otherwise impugn the notion of predictable radioactive decay.

25441. angel-five - 10/28/2004 5:01:45 PM

A rambling diversion for the people who don't really understand what we're talking about:

I: The nucleus and isotopes

The nucleus of an atom is where almost all of its mass is. An atom is mostly empty space with this tiny little nucleus in the center of it and an electron 'cloud' surrounding it (the electron cloud is a region in space around the atom where one finds electrons). Take an atom and blow it up to the size of the Rose Bowl -- the nucleus will be the size of a small marble. If all matter were as dense as a nucleus, a teaspoon of material would weigh quadrillions, even quintillions, of tons. (That's a 1 with 18 zeroes after it). So it's pretty dense stuff.

A) Nuclei are made up of protons and neutrons.

Protons and neutrons weigh about the same (neutrons weigh a bit more). The weight of a neutron is designated as one AMU. We use the weight of the nucleus -- i.e. the number of protons and neutrons -- as the weight of the atom itself. (Electrons have mass, less than one two-thousandth of a neutron, but the weight of a proton and electron is pretty much the weight of a neutron so for all intents and purposes we just count protons and neutrons).

B) While all atoms of any one element -- take carbon for example --have the same number of protons in their nucleus, they can have differing amounts of neutrons.

While all atoms of, say, carbon, have 6 protons, only most of them have only 6 neutrons. Some have seven or even eight. So an atom of carbon can weigh 12, 13, or even 14 AMU. This is why you'll see designations such as carbon-twelve or ¹²C, and ¹³C and ¹⁴C (Carbon 13, Carbon 14). These are known as different isotopes of carbon.

C) Atoms in nature are found with predictable concentrations of different isotopes.

All complex atoms -- i.e. anything bigger than beryllium, atomic number 4 -- were made by the process of stellar fusion.

25442. angel-five - 10/28/2004 5:02:36 PM

(Except for the ones formed by radioactive decay, which we'll get to in a moment)

It gets so hot and pressurized inside a star that different smaller atoms can get crushed together to form one larger one (layman's terms here). Those larger atoms in turn can be fused into even larger ones, and so on. Basically a star takes a bunch of hydrogen, helium and so on and fuses it into larger elements and then burns out and dies. New stars can be formed from the dust of old ones, and produce even bigger elements. This is why hydrogen is so common in the universe, and uranium so rare. It is also why certain isotopes are a lot more common than others -- the processes which made them are easier to initiate and require more common ingredients than the processes making the rarer isotopes.

So for a given amount of carbon atoms, we will know that a little over 98% of them will be carbon twelve, a little over 1 of them will be carbon thirteen, and a trace fraction will be carbon 14. This is important because knowing the concentrations of an isotope is half of what lets us radio-date an item containing that isotope.

II: Nuclear decay and half-lives

Nuclei, as mentioned, are really densely packed things with a lot of mass and energy and charge jammed into a tiny little space. So it's not surprising that they can be a bit unstable.

A) The nuclei of most different isotopes in our environment are relatively stable

Take carbon twelve for example. It isn't going anywhere. The particular ratios of charge and mass in the carbon twelve nucleus yield a stable equation. It likes being the way it is and isn't much going to change unless you stick it in the heart of a star and fuse it with some other element.

B) Some, OTOH, are unstable

We call these 'radioisotopes' and speak of them being 'radioactive'.

25443. angel-five - 10/28/2004 5:03:06 PM

People usually think of big heavy elements like uranium and plutonium as being radioactive, but hydrogen -- the smallest atom -- has radioactive isotopes. These isotopes have unstable nuclei, meaning the balance of mass and charge in the nucleus causes more repelling pressure than the standard forces of mass attraction which keep a nucleus together (once again, layman's terms). So every once in a while these nuclei will spit out a particle and actually change into a different type of isotope or even a different type of atom! Potassium-40 (⁴⁰K) will emit a burst of radiation and become Argon-40 or ⁴⁰Ar. (So, yes, when your grade school science teachers taught you alchemy was wrong and you can't transform one atom into another, they were incorrect).

c)Unstable isotopes decay at predictable rates.

Some types break down quickly -- as in, within milliseconds. Others take billions of years to break down. This is measured by what we call the half-life of the isotope -- the half-life of an isotope is how long it will take half the isotopes in a sample to decay. (It doesn't matter how big the sample is). A sample of ²²⁶Ra, or Radium-226, has a half life of about 1600 years, meaning if you assemble a sample of pure radium 226 and leave it alone for 1600 years, and come back, half of it will have decayed. Come back in another 1600 years and only a quarter of the original isotopes will be left, an eighth in another 1600 years and so on. (In comparison, ²²⁷Ra has a half life of 42 minutes which just goes to show that small differences in a nucleus can mean big changes in stability).

25444. angel-five - 10/28/2004 5:03:20 PM

So,

D) Because stable isotopes hang around and unstable ones decay, the environment is one in which stable isotopes are most common, and unstable ones relatively rare.

And,

E) Because we know how much of a particular isotope should be in any given sample of an element (or a compound where the concentration of the element is mathematically derivable), we can compare how much of it is present in a sample to how much of the byproducts of its decay are in a sample and determine as a result how old it is.

That's what we call radio-dating. If you have a mineral sample that's made up of feldspar, geology teaches you what concentration of potassium will be found in the feldspar. Potassium-40 decays to argon-40 which isn't a part of feldspar, and feldspar won't form around it. So you know if you have a piece of feldspar, it started out with no argon. You can assay it in a lab and find traces of argon, where the potassium-40 has broken down, and hence determine, from how much argon is in the rock, how long it's been since that rock was formed. Radio-dating.

Simple, no?

25445. angel-five - 10/28/2004 5:15:54 PM

Now, Kuligin makes reference to certain studies where fresh lava was radio-dated and the results hopelessly wrong. Basically one has two choices here -- one can believe that the creationists hyping them don't know much about geology and radio-dating, or that they do and they're just cherry-picking good-sounding but unscientific examples to make their case sound strong.

With radio-dating you start by obtaining a sample of known composition. This needs to be a mineral or a compound or something in which you can make a definitive statement about what was in it when it started out. After all, if you're assaying something by determining the level of argon in it, it's not going to be helpful if the sample started out chock full of argon, right? So you stick to things like I mentioned -- feldspar or glauconite for K-Ar dating. You want something that starts out with measurable amounts of potassium and no argon.

Hot lava isn't one of these things. It isn't of predictable composition. Different batches of lava, even from different eruptions of the same volcano, have different amounts of different chemicals in them. You're taking part of the liquid core of the earth, melting up hunks of the earth's crust in it, then spitting it out randomly according to where the pressure builds and where it doesn't. This isn't going to yield something where you can say, for example, 'There should be no argon in this to start' -- you can't know that. And as a matter of fact in the case of the Mt. St. Helens lava radio-dating, we know that the lava started out with argon in it. It didn't just spring up from the aether.

25446. angel-five - 10/28/2004 5:17:08 PM

This is why, if you try to K-Ar date that lava, you're going to find a whole shitload of Ar compared to usual levels of it, when compared to the amount of K in it. And that's why if you try to K date Mt. St. Helens lava, it'll come up with something that's a quarter of a million years old.

The important thing to realize here is that not only is it scientifically worthless to try to K date something that you know has an extant and variable amount of Ar in it regardless of K decay, but trying to do so not only proves nothing, but.... it's more than a little like Macing a bloodhound and then saying that, since that bloodhound can't follow a trail at this moment, it's obvious that the abilities of bloodhounds to track convicts has been exaggerated and the practice should be stopped.

Or, to make the analogy more apropos, it's like macing the bloodhound that caught you, and then later arguing in court that since the bloodhound wasn't able to track anyone right after that, that its tracking abilities are suspect and your conviction should be overturned.

25447. RickNelson - 10/29/2004 10:10:59 AM

Let me tell yah all a tale:

There's something in this faith business. There's a bit O' good and a bit O' evil. That's a fact of biblical theology.

Then there's this tribulation business.

Not to get to heady (hahahaha, inside joke ya-all.)

Anywhooo, Bush is acting like a forerunner to an antichrist.

There is no way that the evil powers would abandon this mix of politics and religion. The faithful who give a shit about this crap will care, the rest just read and laugh your asses off.

Bush is leading via his faith, his nose, his hand holding childlike following of Chambers. This is exactly what is needed to instill the will of evil over those who think they are being faithful. And of course people like me will be labelled heretics. Ohhhhh mah gawwwwd, not that!

There is obvious evidence that the sheep of the faithful can be led by the nose, yoked and driven like the wild west.

OOOOO yeeeeeeeeehawwwww big dawwwwwg riding them hard, ooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, yah feeeeeeels goooooooood.

Gonna smack 'em deep, oooo yah that's where it feels real goooooood.

So, like I say, this tale is rather ambiguous and obtuse I admit. It only relates to those who have flipant mentality for the sheep like nose led faithful. I can see how the antichrist will rule over these minions of stupid chattle.

Bye bye birdie.

25448. KuligintheHooligan - 10/29/2004 11:18:24 AM

“It's a hard battle for the creationists to win, simply because the uniformity of radioisotopic decay is observable every day in the laboratory and no one's ever, for example, found samples which don't decay uniformly, or found evidence to otherwise impugn the notion of predictable radioactive decay.”

This is all well and good, of course, but creationists don’t object to the PRESENT measures of rate of decay. Let me explain the problem as a creationist sees it.

Thanks, btw, for the brief yet thorough explanation of isotopes and decay. As you know, measurements of decay do not measure life spans, they only measure decay. Put another way, scientists do not measure the age of rocks, for example, they measure isotope concentrations. No one is arguing that these measurements are bad, or can’t be done to the utmost degree of accuracy.

But what happens next is the difficulty. In your quotation above, perhaps you imply that it is all cut-and-dried the various assumptions made to move from measuring isotope concentrations to formulating ideas on the age of a particular sample, but nothing could be further from the truth. Granted, a measurement can be made TODAY which says, “There is X amount of Y isotope present,” but moving from that to an age of the sample takes several things for granted, such as:

25449. KuligintheHooligan - 10/29/2004 11:18:42 AM

1) The starting conditions are known. Certainly, we can measure today the presence of parent and daughter isotopes, but how do we know what the STARTING concentrations were? Assumptions must be made on this score, and if these assumptions are wrong, depending on how wrong they are, the final age of the sample can be greatly affected.

2) We assume that decay rates have ALWAYS been constant. I suppose this is where my original questions come from in this discussion. Certainly, we can know what the decay rates are TODAY, but can we really be bold enough to state that the decay rates were precisely the same, say, 5 billion years ago? Who is to really know? Who is to know if they weren’t different just 500 years ago, let alone billions of years ago. Again, this assumption, if wrong, can have a dramatic effect on supposed ages of samples under investigation.

3) Lastly, there is an assumption made that for any given sample, it was a “closed system” if you would. In other words, there is an assumption that no parent or daughter isotopes were added or lost during its lifetime.

25450. KuligintheHooligan - 10/29/2004 11:19:01 AM

So what we know FOR A FACT is what we measure TODAY, the present isotope concentrations. But all else – the starting concentrations, the rate of decay, and whether or not there was isotope addition or subtraction from the initial concentration present in the sample – are all ASSUMED. Of course, I know we must assume something in order to make virtually any investigations, but what if those assumptions are wrong? It can be shown that if the starting assumptions are wrong, the final conclusions will also be wrong.

“I'm afraid I don't understand how that would come into a discussion on the longevity of Biblical characters anyway.”

I don’t blame you as it was only very loosely related to the present discussion. However, the abnormally long ages for pre-Flood people in the Bible has always been baffling, so long as we approach things from a relatively uniform approach to ages of human beings. In other words, so long as we grant certain limitations on the age of humans, given human history and the “typical” ages, we’ll find those long antediluvian ages to be quite odd. But what if we recognize that uniform rates have not always applied, even when it comes to the aging of human beings?

25451. KuligintheHooligan - 10/29/2004 11:19:36 AM

“Now, Kuligin makes reference to certain studies where fresh lava was radio-dated and the results hopelessly wrong.”

Admittedly, mine was a quick and sloppy reference, and I’ll have to look back through material to see if I can find such things again. However, this I do know. You can take the same sample and use the various types of dating methods, and you rarely come out with all of them saying close to the same thing. Often, measurements and whole samples are discarded, and only the ones which already fit into preconceived “ages” are taken. Again, let me go look for more specifics before bogging down in generalities, but let me say now that dating methods are less than reliable at times, and often at times, they can be quite conflicting one against another, and perhaps we need to take a hard look at the assumptions made in those methods before hanging our hat entirely on findings based upon them.

On a related score, A-5, tell me again your position on evolutionary theory as it relates to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. And also, do you believe the universe to be infinite or finite? Thanks.

25452. angel-five - 10/29/2004 11:56:20 AM

Yes, you have to know the starting concentrations, which was my point WRT the lava. You have to know that the sample hasn't been altered over time by exposure to a medium containing the atoms you want to assay and you have to know that there couldn't be any non-negligible amount of it there to begin with. But this isn't a problem with radio-dating any more than, say, the fact that you can't fingerprint something that's been soaking in soap water means that fingerprinting is flawed.

In the case of argon, well, there are rocks that we can authoritatively say it wasn't there to begin with (because we know it won't form) and there are rocks that we can't say that about (like fresh lava). There are rocks that we can say weren't contaminated, and ones that have been sitting at the base of an oceanic volcano immersed in mineral-rich seawater under thousands and thousands of PSI, that we can't say that about.

Now, you mention that different types of radio-dating will yield different results on the same rocks. This is true, and science has known about it since the inception of radio-dating. But it's hardly sinister -- it depends all on the half-life of the isotope you want to assay. Some, like uranium isotopes, have a very long half-life -- these are best suited to testing very old rocks.

The why of this is very simple. All instruments have a margin of error, so to speak -- any scientific instrument has a degree of error which comes up as a result of its method of manufacture and the laws of nature. As someone who's done Chem E you probably know this well.

So if you go to uranium-lead dating, when you're dealing with a very, very, very long halflife, the degree of error with the instruments and the degree of natural error arising from impurities in the rock will be relatively loud signals when compared to the amout of lead produced by nuclear decay, in a young rock.

25453. angel-five - 10/29/2004 11:56:33 AM

Here is a pretty good, very simple page on the basics of radiometric dating. And

is a graph of the concentrations of parent/daughter isotopes arising from nuclear decay, taken from that page. You can see the asymptotic curves for yourself. When you're at either end of the curve, variations in your reading have the strongest effect on your results. You want to select the method of dating which will yield you something in the middle of the curve, where results will be most likely valid.

25454. angel-five - 10/29/2004 12:03:53 PM

This is a page listing the Christian arguments against radio-dating and the scientific rebuttals to those arguments. It's pretty compendious.

I'm not kidding about the Christian debate being the source for all these 'questions'. If you do a search on radio dating you are going to find two kinds of sites -- explanatory prose sites where someone's trying to explain radiometrics for a class, or just for the interested reader, and argumentative prose sites arguing from a creationist perspective. And you'll find a lot of the latter, but they all sound a lot alike.

25455. angel-five - 10/29/2004 12:06:25 PM

Kuligin:

People can demonstrate in a lab that the second law can be broken over time. Have you followed that story?

My point of view on the second law is that it is how things almost always tend to work, but at times Nature moves away from entropy. It's rare, but it happens.

And I think this is a finite universe.

25456. ElliottRW - 10/29/2004 12:51:33 PM

People can demonstrate in a lab that the second law can be broken over time.
I'm very curious about this. Can you provide me with a primer of some sort?

Thanks in advance.

25457. angel-five - 10/29/2004 1:14:39 PM

Well, how about I throw a few links at you?

BBC article about experiments disproving the Second Law

Another brief bit on the experiments

The abstract on another experiment which contradicts the Second Law

A discussion on the principles of the second experiment and Maxwell's Demon

Some pretty dense but informative papers about the limitations of the Second Law

25458. KuligintheHooligan - 10/29/2004 1:19:23 PM

A-5, I'll take a look at those links when I get a chance either later this evening or tomorrow. Also, I should have been clearer in my earlier post about conflicting dating methods. In some instances, different methods produce dramatically different results for the same sample. But in other instances, the same method produced dramatically different results for the same sample. The former is easier to explain, but the latter not so easy.

"Yes, you have to know the starting concentrations, which was my point WRT the lava."

and

"In the case of argon, well, there are rocks that we can authoritatively say it wasn't there to begin with (because we know it won't form) and there are rocks that we can't say that about (like fresh lava)."

Okay, this is fine, but what about dating fossils, for example, where we do not know the age and cannot know the above? In other words, there really is no way of filtering out problems with our assumptions because there is no "control sample" involved.

25459. KuligintheHooligan - 10/29/2004 1:19:42 PM

"People can demonstrate in a lab that the second law can be broken over time. Have you followed that story?"

No, I have not. If you could provide something on that score, that would be great.

"It's rare, but it happens."

If the universe is finite, then it has a finite amount of energy and that energy is moving toward entropy, given the 2nd law. Evolutionary theory seems to posit the exact opposite, though, a movement from the simple to the very complex, from atoms to proteins to single-celled organisms to complex human beings. Obviously, you see where I am going. But one could hardly label evolutionary theory as a "rare" instance of the 2nd law being violated.

Again, that the 2nd law could be broken is news to me. I'd love to see the studies done on it, but would a possible objection in any event be that what one does in a controlled lab experiment might not be indicative of what occurred in random, natural events?

25460. ElliottRW - 10/29/2004 1:25:07 PM

Thanks, A-5.

Very interesting stuff. In particular the bead-and-water experiment will be quite convincing if it is confirmable.

25461. KuligintheHooligan - 10/29/2004 1:27:06 PM

"the so-called Fluctuation Theorem - stating that the chances of the Second Law being violated increases as the system in question gets smaller"

The jist of the first article, at least, is that this is only potentially the case on an extremely small scale and over an extremely small increment of time.

"This effect was seen when the researchers looked at the bead's behaviour for a tenth of a second. Any longer and the effect was lost."

Obviously, much more study must be done before this bedrock principle can be considered no longer valid (at least universally so).

But how would the above help a pro-evolutionist's pov in any event? Or did you never see any conflict anyway on the evolutionary model and the 2nd law?

25462. angel-five - 10/29/2004 1:32:41 PM

Of course it could. I'm not going to preach at you that this is the be all and end all -- just putting it out there. I don't know what the ultimate answer is.

There are two things which need said here. The first is that nature is full of examples where you have complexity growing out of simplicity. That doesn't disprove entropy or enthalapy or the Second Law. What you look at in those situations is total system entropy, not just the entropy of the molecule that's getting more complex. So in order to suggest that evolution is an actual contradiction of the Second Law, Kuligin, you'd kind of have to demonstrate that entropy and enthalapy for the biosphere have decreased as a result of the evolution of DNA bearers. You can't do that.

The second thing is that the second law of thermodynamics is an excellent explanation of how non-biological systems work, but when you apply it to biology you end up swiftly retreating to biochemistry. The second law has never had any answer for life, let alone evolution.

I believe the second law is almost always right as we currently understand it, because most of the time that's how things go. I just think that our understanding of the real world principles underlying our wording of the second law are incomplete and that we have yet to formally discover what life has been showing us all along -- that entropy isn't the boss of everything.

25463. KuligintheHooligan - 10/29/2004 1:36:21 PM

Last question, and thanks for answering them all. If you believe the universe to be finite, where did it come from?

25464. angel-five - 10/29/2004 1:39:42 PM

Look at the solar system, which starts out as this seething sea of plasma and scattered elements in a bigass cloud with no center and no particular motion, Kuligin.

And ends up so remarkably well sorted and orderly and intricate. Does that violate the second law? No... but if it did, well, we have the solar system staring us in the face and the law is an abstract idea. I know which side to back there.

The jist of the first article, at least, is that this is only potentially the case on an extremely small scale and over an extremely small increment of time.

This is the same scale as our model for the evolution of complex biochemicals, you know.

Obviously, much more study must be done before this bedrock principle can be considered no longer valid (at least universally so).

We're never going to show that the Second Law is invalid. We see its validity every day. What might end up happening is that we can better see where the second law applies and where it doesn't.

If you go to the level of quantum mechanics, for example, they've done away with the Second Law. Quite a while ago. IT just doesn't seem to apply to the quantum universe, like so many of our other macro-universal rules don't apply there.

25465. angel-five - 10/29/2004 1:44:15 PM

Last question, and thanks for answering them all. If you believe the universe to be finite, where did it come from?

My answer: I don't know.

My more complex answer is that nobody knows, but some of us don't like the uncertainty so we settle on one explanation and stick with it no matter what. But I think it's obvious that our fledgling science has only scratched the surface of the principles underlying our universe so I'm not too worried about not being able to paint a complete picture with what we've got. In fact, I find the idea that we don't know jack, yet, to be pretty invigorating and exciting.

25466. angel-five - 10/29/2004 1:47:05 PM

Some people think that when you admit you don't know, that's somehow exposing a weakness in your position. To me it's just basic honesty.

25467. robertjayb - 10/29/2004 3:40:42 PM

A letter much-needed in my fundie-ridden community. Thanks, Prof.

No detour needed

As a biologist, I was very happy to see news of the exciting archaeological discovery of an extinct species of human, Homo floresiensis, which evolved as a dwarf on a small Indonesian island as recently as 12,000 years ago. According to the journal Nature, these diminutive humans were likely the result of the phenomenon called “island dwarfism,” which has been repeatedly documented in typically large species such as elk and elephants confined for generations to small islands. Indeed, fossilized dwarf elephant remains were found in the same layers as the little people.

I was very surprised and disappointed, however, to read the misleading headline, “Theory of Evolution takes a Detour.” because the theory does not take a detour here. Instead, the fascinating finding confirms once again that the human condition is subject to the same evolutionary pressures as do other species. Rather than a detour, then, this finding confirms Darwin’s theory — again.

Professor and Head
Department of Biology

25468. KuligintheHooligan - 10/29/2004 4:21:21 PM

"Some people think that when you admit you don't know, that's somehow exposing a weakness in your position. To me it's just basic honesty."

I agree. "I don't know" isn't all that big a deal for minor issues. But for the basic origin of the "stuff" that the universe is made of, I suppose it isn't that satifying a response. Any conjecture, at least, on your part as you take the universe to be finite (which is quite reasonable given observation)? Assuming you don't believe it created itself, there must be some cause for its existence, right?

Faced with a finite universe, many have posited some "greater being" creating it. I know you find belief in God somewhat silly, but outside of this option, what other options present themselves as reasonable possibilities according to you?

If I could put this one more way, "I don't know" can also be a cop-out answer used by some people who are just too lazy to think things through entirely. I don't picture you that way at all. Rather, I think you use the response because you have weighed certain options and just can't come to a solid conclusion yet. I'm like that in many issues as well. I'm just curious what possibilities you have weighed up to this point as viable answers to the question, "How did our finite universe get here?"

25469. angel-five - 10/29/2004 5:12:04 PM

Assuming you don't believe it created itself, there must be some cause for its existence, right?

It's easy enough to think that, as that's the way things work in our world. Even freak occurrences have causes, and we spend inordinate amounts of time determining them. We like knowing causes, we need to know them, and when we can't know them we propose them.

Yet cause and effect breaks down on the quantum level, the most basic and fundamental level of the universe that we've encountered. That's in no way any exaggeration. Cause and effect aren't rules of quantum behavior as we understand it. This notion is inevitably one of the things that disturb people the most when they start learning about QM.

So when we contemplate the genesis of the universe (which is itself a premise dependent upon other premises, i.e. that universes have ultimate beginnings, that ours does, that it hasn't always existed in some sense, as well as several deeper and similarly unanswerable premises about the nature of existence) we're faced with the realization that the impetus for the universe might not be anything we can understand, using the metaphors of our day to day lives.

Science, smart science anyway, knows what it can't answer, and doesn't try. It sticks to pragmatic things and leaves the 'why' to philosophy. Yet it's easy to think you're adopting that stance while in actuality your position is crammed full of unfounded assumptions. This is us, talking about the birth of the universe (if there was such a thing) as something we can make scientific conjectures upon. But when we start really evaluating the question, our assumptions come to light.

This obviously renders the answers of science less meaningful and unsatisfying to you. You want an answer that we don't have. You are far from alone in this want, of course, which is why there are so many organizations on this planet which will promise you answers.

25470. angel-five - 10/29/2004 5:12:14 PM

The fundamental difference between them and science is that they rely upon faith in an unknown and teach what cannot be proven, where there are no absolutes in science. Those of us who are comfortable with that have learned how to be so, and those of you who don't find sustenance in our ideas adopt other ones.

Faced with a finite universe, many have posited some "greater being" creating it. I know you find belief in God somewhat silly, but outside of this option, what other options present themselves as reasonable possibilities according to you?

I don't discount the possibility of a higher power, Kuligin. I don't know if one exists or not. I'm reasonably sure the one you believe in doesn't exist, but I can't rule it out. I do believe that if there's a supreme being that it is, at the least, not too worried about people understanding its nature, because I'm pretty sure if there was a god that existed and wanted something out of people like me, it'd manage to let me know in an unequivocal, unambiguous way. I can only tell you that if it exists, it's done no such thing yet.

But I have concluded these things based on logic and observation. While these are the only tools I have to divine such things, they may not apply, so I'm content saying 'I don't know' about the existence of a higher power, and content not to worship one I don't believe in, and content not to worship one I wouldn't worship even if I knew it to be real.

I know you won't be satisfied with that either. But I am. I'm quite happy with the idea that it's all a mystery that we can't solve and until we can it's best not to rule anything out. It isn't a nothing, but a numinous Something, this mystery, which I choose to be happy about. Certainly I owe it my existence as I wouldn't have had one otherwise.

25471. angel-five - 10/30/2004 2:30:42 PM

I've considered the potential causes a lot, though.

The way I see it there's pretty much three different cases. The first that comes to mind is that whatever gave rise to us is just a law of whatever there was before there was a Universe -- something can arise from the void, not conscious or even alive in any sense, not a will, just the possibility that before the universe there was a nothingness out of which something might come.

The second is that there is something to creation which has a will to be. This would fall along the loose lines of the Gaea hypothesis, and is interesting, but simply consists of positing that there was something before the Universe which wanted to be the Universe, or had an instinct to become it. I find it as satisfying as anything else, and more than most, when it comes to explanations but the simple fact is that it's fabular in notion and anthropomorphic in execution.

And the third is that there is a supernatural cause for the universe, or natural in a sense we don't yet comprehend.

Of course, there are other possibilities. You always end up butting into the 'first cause', but I've never found the argument that something had to cause the universe a compelling one... simply because you aren't answering the question. You're just pushing it back a notch. Something caused the Universe, ok, we can rest easier now, that question's answered. But what caused the cause? Why, if the Universe requires a cause, doesn't the prime mover require one? You can make all the arguments you want about the prime mover not needing a cause, but they can equally apply to the universe. Prime mover arguments are intellectually lazy, you're just saying 'well the Prime mover caused everything' and leaving the question alone, or trying to get all Aquinas and say the Prime Mover is pure impulse that doesn't need any cause, which is in essence begging the question.

25472. angel-five - 10/30/2004 2:31:12 PM

There are the causeless universe, or birthless universe notions -- the universe has always been and always will be. We can't really understand how this could be, and it doesn't satisfy the people who need there to be a cause for everything, but it does away with the need for something to set it all in motion.

I don't know. It's a fun thought exercise, but to me it's also a bit like blind people trying to describe Monet's work when they've never encountered art before. The creation of the universe is the classic black box problem and we are like children making up childishly satisfying explanations for the things which preoccupy them.

Most explanations of Why and How the Universe came to Be are just what people come up with when they are bothered by the uncertainty and want to be soothed and satisfied. People don't believe in these things unless that belief satisfies their inner questions to some extent and that's a real danger signal to me. The things you need to believe are the ones you need to be most careful about accepting to be true, because your organ of analysis is least likely to be fair and objective in its assessment about them.

25473. clydefo - 10/30/2004 7:12:00 PM

The way I see it there's pretty much three different cases. The first that comes to mind is that whatever gave rise to us is just a law of whatever there was before there was a Universe -- something can arise from the void, not conscious or even alive in any sense, not a will, just the possibility that before the universe there was a nothingness out of which something might come. 25471. angel-five

..."void"... "nothingness"...

Even in such a state, "something" must have always existed, or been going on, else we would not be here. The abstract human notion of "absolute nothingness" obviously can never have been. This being true, there really isn't any need to seriously consider the other two cases. Let us concentrate on the cause and effect of the first case.

25474. angel-five - 10/30/2004 11:22:20 PM

That's an assumption, clydefo, to which I can't adhere. The logical mind assigns value to such things as 'the void before the universe' as you have done. 'Well, there must be something, if there is something to allow something to came out of nothingness'. But what if your understanding of nothingness is just limited? What if something can come out of nothing?

And just like that, trying to answer that question, even asking the question, you've made even more assumptions.

Assumptions aren't the bad thing that people sometimes make them out to be. They make the world go round, we all make them -- if there is someone that does not, I should say, then they are truly outside the realm of my experience and conception. But they are assumptions.

You are in essence ruling everything out that doesn't agree with them -- something must have been here before the Universe. And in that case you're just pushing back the imponderable one step. What was here before that? You either propose something illogical, eventually -- the causeless cause -- or else you give up and say 'well maybe the universe has no beginning or end'. There is nothing in our world experience that has neither a beginning nor an end. Even ouroboros has them. People end up choosing the 'no beginning nor end' because they're frustrated by first causes, (or because they're taught it) not because it makes sense in and of itself.

25475. angel-five - 10/30/2004 11:22:43 PM

Try to look at it this way, if you would understand where I'm coming from more clearly.

Break it down into different cases.

The universe had a cause:
... and its cause did not have a cause.
... or its cause had a cause had a cause and so on, an infinite regression of causes, or else after several causes you run into causelessness.

The universe did not have a cause:
... it has no beginning or end.
... it does not require one in order to come into existence.

All four of those cases are illogical according to our power of description and understanding. There's nothing concrete in our world which we can point to which is causeless or doesn't require a cause. You have to go to the quantum universe to discover a place where cause and effect don't rule everything, and these instances of quantum mechanics are, themselves, by definition outside our logic.

So why would you assume that the rules of our logic apply when you are discussing what is wholly illogical, what transcends logic? It's GIGO.

This doesn't mean that you must go all whimsical. Reason is always good. But it's very important to understand the lines of logical demarcation and where they lie in this case, and the point beyond which you cannot go unless you have made a faith of your logic.

25476. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 10:58:58 AM

“Yet cause and effect breaks down on the quantum level, the most basic and fundamental level of the universe that we've encountered. That's in no way any exaggeration. Cause and effect aren't rules of quantum behavior as we understand it.”

Assuming you are referring to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, sure, the rules don’t work “as we understand” them. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t any cause and effect at work. Again, it seems that you are saying QM shows us that at this fundamental level, cause and effect are non-existent. If that is what you are implying here, I strongly object. Causality is not disproved on the quantum level, rather, we just haven’t figured out yet how it works. At this point man is limited in his ability to measure it.

Again, the particles don’t just appear from nothing. We just don’t know yet how they get where they are. I just think it highly premature to cite QM as proof that cause and effect do not always operate.

You do say this later, though:

“There is nothing in our world experience that has neither a beginning nor an end.”

So perhaps I misunderstand your reference to QM in the discussion of cause and effect. I know you will correct me if I do.

25477. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 10:59:14 AM

“So when we contemplate the genesis of the universe (which is itself a premise dependent upon other premises, i.e. that universes have ultimate beginnings, that ours does, that it hasn't always existed in some sense, as well as several deeper and similarly unanswerable premises about the nature of existence)”

You and I both agree that the universe is finite, so many of the above premises are no longer operative, at least in a discussion between you and me.

“This obviously renders the answers of science less meaningful and unsatisfying to you.”

Not sure if “you” is general or specific to me (the latter in context seems to be the case), but I don’t look to science to answer philosophical questions. I look to science to answer scientific questions. However, I expect science and philosophy and theology, et al, to ultimately agree in the sense that they all come from the same source, and seek to observe the same creation. It is actually when science steps beyond its bounds and attempts to act philosophical that I object. I find this particularly to be the case when it comes people who hold to evolutionary theory.

25478. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 11:00:00 AM

“I'm reasonably sure the one you believe in doesn't exist, but I can't rule it out. I do believe that if there's a supreme being that it is, at the least, not too worried about people understanding its nature, because I'm pretty sure if there was a god that existed and wanted something out of people like me, it'd manage to let me know in an unequivocal, unambiguous way. I can only tell you that if it exists, it's done no such thing yet.”

This reminds me of a discussion, well, actually, several, with a cousin of mine who was an atheist. She said in essence that if God wanted her to believe he existed, he should reveal himself to her so that there was no question in her mind that he existed. So I began to delve into the possible ways he could do that, such as a booming voice from the sky, or a hand writing on the wall before her very eyes. And as we talked, she admitted that even in those instances, she’d probably find a way to rationalize them away. In other words, she admitted both that she wanted greater proofs, but that those same proofs would probably be insufficient regardless.

That was my cousin and not you, A-5, but the similarities are nonetheless striking. Incidentally, she now believes God exists, but that isn’t because of anything I said. Her fiancé came down with a form of cancer which ultimately killed him. On his death bed, he had a vision of heaven and God, and from that, she now believes God exists. Go figure. I would think if anything could be rationalized away, it would be such a vision.

25479. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 11:00:16 AM

However, I’m always somewhat befuddled by people who say God hasn’t done enough for them, but all the while they reject the obvious evidence right before their eyes. Here we are discussing a finite universe which sits, as it were, right before our eyes, and that isn’t enough evidence that something greater had to create it. As Bertrand Russell said, if upon dying he was faced with God and He asked him why he didn’t believe, Russell would say, “Not enough evidence.”

Still, I get your point. Not enough evidence for you, although I think there is quite enough. It is just that we both interpret the same evidence differently.

25480. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 11:00:33 AM

“But I have concluded these things based on logic and observation. While these are the only tools I have to divine such things, they may not apply”

Agreed. That may indeed be the case. However, in dealing with the universe, it seems fairly evident that they do apply. Can you think of any area where logic and reason do not apply, like uncaused causes and such, in our universe? Then why wouldn’t they equally apply to the universe’s start?

Put another way, it is supremely reasonable to conclude that the same laws that apply to the running of the universes also apply to its inception. If cause and effect rule the runnings of the universe, why posit something else other than cause and effect relationships for its beginning? It is actually a retreat from reason and logic, IMHO, to do so, and reveals a basic mistrust in them by the person who claims to live by them, but then abandons them when it comes to origins.

“I'm quite happy with the idea that it's all a mystery that we can't solve and until we can it's best not to rule anything out.”

An aside, but when Christians speak of “mystery” don’t you occasionally scoff at them?

25481. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 11:00:52 AM

“It isn't a nothing, but a numinous Something, this mystery, which I choose to be happy about. Certainly I owe it my existence as I wouldn't have had one otherwise.”

And obviously, you have begun to seek answers concerning its existence, even though you haven’t as of yet settled on anything specifically. By why, then, do you say earlier that you are fairly certain that this “mystery” isn’t the God I subscribe to? Why are you seemingly open to all other possibilities expect my Christian one?

“I don't know if one exists or not. I'm reasonably sure the one you believe in doesn't exist, but I can't rule it out.”

25482. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 11:01:08 AM

Concerning your three broad possibilities for the existence of our finite universe, I’ll just briefly comment:

1) “Something out of nothing” doesn’t make sense, as you rightly note, but perhaps the “rules” aren’t the way we think them to be. But then I’ll appeal to my prior comment: it is much more reasonable to assume that how the universe came to be – its initial existence – works along the lines of its current existence. It is actually a retreat from virtually everything we know about the universe and how it works to posit that at its inception, the rules were somehow different. In other words, you don’t get something from nothing.

2) “The will to be” is intriguing, but again, what creates itself? Such an argumentation is a retreat from all that we know. Logic and reason have done us very well the past 300 years in determining how the universe operates. Why retreat from these bases and posit something highly implausible, that something that didn’t at one point exist (it is finite as we agree), yet, could come into existence by its own will to exist?

25483. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 11:01:36 AM

3) “And the third is that there is a supernatural cause for the universe, or natural in a sense we don't yet comprehend.”

The first two just seem like vast amounts of conjecture are necessary, plus a retreat from the natural laws we see each and every day when it comes to the universe and how it operates. But with the third option, we don’t have to do that. I’ll try to explain.

“You always end up butting into the 'first cause', but I've never found the argument that something had to cause the universe a compelling one... simply because you aren't answering the question. You're just pushing it back a notch.”

Agreed. But there is a difference between citing a “necessary cause” and a “contingent cause” in your arguments. The universe operates in a certain way. That we can see and measure and observe. However, stating that the “Prime Mover” does not isn’t contradictory at all. Saying that the universe did not, at its inception at least, is contradictory.

25484. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 11:01:51 AM

“Why, if the Universe requires a cause, doesn't the prime mover require one?”

I think Aristotle’s arguments, which Aquinas used, are a good starting point. If we agree that the universe is finite, and further, that cause and effect are at play wrt the universe and its operation, then the need for something or someone to start it – and this something or someone NOT being subject to the same rules as the universe itself – is highly reasonable. Again, this isn’t just Christian argumentation, although Christians such as Aquinas have certainly used it. It is philosophical and BC thinking as well.

“You can make all the arguments you want about the prime mover not needing a cause, but they can equally apply to the universe.”

Not so, because we already know how the universe operates. Arguing that the universe is infinite, or a cause of itself, or such things isn’t reasonable and logical given how we see the universe operate. I suspect that the scientific reasons for why you and I agree that the universe is finite are the same, even though I also believe it, of course, because of my theological convictions.

Again, the natural laws which govern the universe as a “contingent being” need not apply to a “necessary being,” and further, we should not attempt to make the universe do things which are contrary to its own nature as a contingent and finite entity.

25485. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 11:02:09 AM

“Prime mover arguments are intellectually lazy, you're just saying 'well the Prime mover caused everything' and leaving the question alone, or trying to get all Aquinas and say the Prime Mover is pure impulse that doesn't need any cause, which is in essence begging the question.”

I certainly can understand why you would say this. In essence, it is the “let God be God” argument of Luther. But specifically, where you appeal to mystery in the scientific plain and don’t find that a problem, why all of the sudden on the theological or philosophical plain is it now “lazy” to do so? Obviously, a Christian must appeal to mystery at some point. So why isn’t that allowed?

Personally, I have no problem at some point appealing to mystery in my theology. Fact is, I must!

However, I object to the notion that Aquinas’ arguments, for example, are “intellectually lazy.” I just don’t think that is a fair portrayal of, for example, his “Five Ways.”

“There are the causeless universe, or birthless universe notions -- the universe has always been and always will be.”

Yes, some people believe this. But you and I do not. The universe is finite, as we both agree.

25486. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 11:02:30 AM

“Most explanations of Why and How the Universe came to Be are just what people come up with when they are bothered by the uncertainty and want to be soothed and satisfied.”

I don’t know if I could quantify it as “most,” but certainly this is the case with some people. But it is certainly not the case with all.

“People don't believe in these things unless that belief satisfies their inner questions to some extent and that's a real danger signal to me. The things you need to believe are the ones you need to be most careful about accepting to be true, because your organ of analysis is least likely to be fair and objective in its assessment about them.”

This is reasonable, but then it is a sort of Catch-22. Obviously, if a person has found satisfactory answers to the deep questions of existence, one could always argue that he isn’t only agreeing with those answers to make himself feel better. But then who really holds to answers to these questions that do not make them, at least on some level, feel comfortable? You’ve noted, for example, that your present answers you are quite content with. I could argue that you are only happy with those answers, though, because they make you feel content, regardless of whether or not they are valid and true. This argument could be used on virtually anybody, then, and as such, it seems to wash out.

25487. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 11:02:47 AM

“What if something can come out of nothing?”

This was in your response to clyde. Again, when do we see this in our existence? (if you mention QM, I’ve already voiced my objection on the use of QM in that regard). It is supremely reasonable to NOT expect something to just pop up out of nothing. “What if….?” is all well and good, but the only way we can really argue this way is if we retreat from everything we know about our world. That doesn’t seem too reasonable.

25488. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 11:03:08 AM

“Assumptions aren't the bad thing that people sometimes make them out to be. They make the world go round, we all make them”

Definitely true. We all make them, and then from those assumptions, we automatically rule out certain possibilities. All assumptions are not bad, but some assumptions are bad, and from bad assumptions come bad conclusions. So we must always be testing our assumptions, assuming we even recognize them in the first place!

“All four of those cases are illogical according to our power of description and understanding. There's nothing concrete in our world which we can point to which is causeless or doesn't require a cause.”

“Nothing concrete in our world” is exactly the point, of course. But outside that world, it needn’t necessarily be termed “illogical.” All I mean is, it IS “illogical” to posit that the universe created itself, for example, but not “illogical” that there was an Uncaused Cause, not subject to the natural laws of the universe, which brought the universe into existence. Because “logic” only applies to our universe and the laws therein. Therefore, even the term “illogical” need not necessarily apply to a Creator who exists outside time, space, and the natural laws which govern his creation.

25489. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 11:06:42 AM

CLARIFICATION ON QM

I don't want to put words into your mouth, or misunderstand your comments in this regard, so let me be clear and hopefully avoid confusion and wasted time.

I have had discussions with people before who have argued that the particle uncertainty we find in QM is proof that cause and effect doesn't operate at all levels. And if it doesn't operate there, who is to say that we need a cause for the universe?

That is what I thought you were saying wrt our discussion about cause and effect.

However, all I think the uncertainty principle tells us at this moment in time, is that we simply do not know what the cause is yet. Far from proving a bedrock principle wrong (cause and effect), we should take a far humbler approach. The particle seems to pop up out of nowhere. But all that really might mean is that we haven't figured out yet what causes it to seemingly do so, rather than to posit that no cause is present, period.

And I think this is a far more reasonable approach to the issue, scientifically, in any regard, given our very limited knowledge, and the tentativity of that knowledge.

25490. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 11:08:35 AM

Okay, "tentativity" is probably not a word, but you get my point!!

25491. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 11:12:32 AM

MISTAKE post #25477

I errantly said this:

"You and I both agree that the universe is finite, so many of the above premises are no longer operative, at least in a discussion between you and me."

The premises of A-5 DO apply. I misread his post initially, and just now caught my mistake.

25492. angel-five - 10/31/2004 12:59:47 PM

Assuming you are referring to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, sure, the rules don’t work “as we understand” them. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t any cause and effect at work. Again, it seems that you are saying QM shows us that at this fundamental level, cause and effect are non-existent. If that is what you are implying here, I strongly object. Causality is not disproved on the quantum level, rather, we just haven’t figured out yet how it works. At this point man is limited in his ability to measure it.

I don't know why you'd think of Heisenberg. Heisenbergian uncertainty has nothing to do with cause and effect.

I know this is a cheap out, but I suggest you read some, or as the case may be, some more, on twentieth century QM. All I'll say is that the layman often thinks that we just haven't found the causality yet, but even Einstein couldn't find it. Modern science doesn't adhere to your view. Quantum mechanics is like nothing else anyone's ever studied and our best science shows, very strongly, that 'God plays dice with the universe'. If you want pointed in the right direction, google on what's known as the 'two slit experiment'.

Again, the particles don’t just appear from nothing. We just don’t know yet how they get where they are. I just think it highly premature to cite QM as proof that cause and effect do not always operate.

That's faith on your part. It's a faith that many people share, but it is faith. The longer one studies quantum mechanics the less faith one tends to have in what you're saying, though.

25493. angel-five - 10/31/2004 1:01:13 PM

You and I both agree that the universe is finite, so many of the above premises are no longer operative, at least in a discussion between you and me.

Not at all. Perhaps we need to clarify what we mean by finite -- I just meant it wasn't of infinite size.

Put another way, it is supremely reasonable to conclude that the same laws that apply to the running of the universes also apply to its inception. If cause and effect rule the runnings of the universe, why posit something else other than cause and effect relationships for its beginning? It is actually a retreat from reason and logic, IMHO, to do so, and reveals a basic mistrust in them by the person who claims to live by them, but then abandons them when it comes to origins.

You need to think a lot more about it, then. Do you mistrust your calculator because it can't drive your car?

An aside, but when Christians speak of “mystery” don’t you occasionally scoff at them?

Christians don't believe in a mystery, Kuligin. They think they've found the answer already, and the unknown to them is just the denouement.

By why, then, do you say earlier that you are fairly certain that this “mystery” isn’t the God I subscribe to? Why are you seemingly open to all other possibilities expect my Christian one?

It isn't all other possibilities but your Christian one, Kuligin. There are many possibilities which I reject fairly early on. I could have used clearer language, I suppose. I try to keep an open mind but when evidence suggests to me that a belief is hokum, after much thought and reasoning, I don't force myself to go around acting as though the hokum is every bit as possible as something more probable sounding to me.

I would suggest at this point that discussions about your god aren't going to profit the discussion at hand, but you can continue to mention Christianity if you wish. I will do my best.

25494. angel-five - 10/31/2004 1:01:52 PM

It is actually a retreat from virtually everything we know about the universe and how it works to posit that at its inception, the rules were somehow different. In other words, you don’t get something from nothing.

It is absolutely not at all a retreat from virtually everything we know about the universe to posit such. It is, in fact, rock solid science, at least, as solid as it gets for origins.

Our laws of physics are wholly dependent upon quantized energy and matter -- they are derived from the study of their behavior. To put it another way, we are studying the rules of matter and energy in space. There is no such thing as a law of physics that doesn't depend on matter/energy.

Well, we know that primal energy wasn't quantized -- because you need matter to quantize energy -- and we're really sure that matter came into being AFTER the Big Bang or whatever creation story you prefer. We have math to describe how that happened. The Big Bang hypotheses stop right before the formation of matter, Kuligin. Why do you think that is?

You are saying, repeating several times in fact, that it only makes sense to apply the rules as we know them to what came before the universe. The fact is that that's like expecting to understand what the dinosaurs were up to by studying the laws of New York City.

25495. angel-five - 10/31/2004 1:05:47 PM

I'll put this another way. Why do you think all the physicists who work on the Big Bang, who are mostly eager to demonstrate a scientifically rational cause for our Universe, draw that line right before the creation of protons and go no further past it, if your reasoning is how things should proceed?

The universe operates in a certain way. That we can see and measure and observe. However, stating that the “Prime Mover” does not isn’t contradictory at all. Saying that the universe did not, at its inception at least, is contradictory.

The weakness in this argument, and all your subsequent rephrasings of it, is very stark.

We don't know how the universe works. We have no grand unification theories, let alone being able to prove them. What we know about how the universe really works is a drop in a very very large bucket, Kuligin. If you really want to argue otherwise I'd be more than happy to post a really big list of stuff that's befuddled science for a long time and ask you for the answers, because according to you we know how the universe works.

Do you get my point? Are you willing to concede that our knowledge of how the universe works is limited to crude and mechanistic armatures of argument which are constantly being changed and updated and we haven't got to the 'guts' of it yet? Once again, if you don't, we've got a long list of stuff I'd like answers to. And I don't mean I expect you, the non physicist theologian, to prove it to me. I mean that you have to explain why no one else knows the answers to these things either.

25496. angel-five - 10/31/2004 1:07:46 PM

So, this pretty much disposes with the Prime Mover argument -- it doesn't disprove it, per se, but demonstrates that we know little enough about how the universe works that you can't fairly say what you've said. Aristotle didn't know shit about the laws of nature. He thought men had more teeth than women. Aquinas didn't have to contend with black holes and chaos mathematics. Neither one had the faintest whiff of quantum mechanics and if they had, god alone knows what would have happened to them.

I know that you are happy to posit some underlying thing to QM that matches up to day to day life. That's just an impasse. I don't think it's impossible, but I do heartily urge you to read some of the latest stuff on quantum uncertainty. If you read it, I am really sure you will be much less liberal with your assumptions that it all makes sense in a way we can understand based on our knowledge of how the macro-universe works.

25497. angel-five - 10/31/2004 1:08:35 PM

I'm going to the National Gallery for the afternoon, so feel free to take plenty of time to collate your reply.

25498. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 3:14:24 PM

"Perhaps we need to clarify what we mean by finite -- I just meant it wasn't of infinite size."

Aaaah, that makes a big difference. I assumed you meant it had a beginning, so that any talk of the universe being infinite in terms of always being here wasn't applicable, at least in a discussion between the two of us. So then, for clarity's sake, you do believe it could have just always been here?

25499. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 5:24:23 PM

“All I'll say is that the layman often thinks that we just haven't found the causality yet, but even Einstein couldn't find it.”

And his answer was the same that I have given here now, that our knowledge of QM is limited and incomplete, and it would be premature to jump to the conclusion that cause and effect does not exist at the quantum level, especially when we see it all over the place elsewhere.

Just to be clear here, since you didn’t answer the question the first time, do you believe that cause and effect are inoperable at the quantum level? If yes, then we can continue, but if no, then I don’t know what we are arguing about. And if your answer is, “I don’t know yet,” then my original objection still stands, and it would be foolish to jump to conclusions which make us contradict the vast data we do have on cause and effect in the universe.

25500. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 5:24:41 PM

“That's faith on your part. It's a faith that many people share, but it is faith.”

What?! To say that modern science has not yet been able to divulge the inner workings of QM is labeled “faith” by you now? That’s a rather loose usage of the term. It is rather reasonable to conclude that science is tentative, and at this point we just don’t know what exactly is happening at the quantum level. Let me remind you, though, of what you said from the outset on this score:

“There's nothing concrete in our world which we can point to which is causeless or doesn't require a cause.”

So me saying that in QM we can reasonably assume the same thing, until proven otherwise, is considered “faith” by you? Naw, it is just good scientific skepticism. If you told me that we have found something that proves everything we currently know about cause and effect wrong, I’d be rightly skeptical. And the fact that all you have to back that up is QM, which in your own words involves an incredible amount of mystery to us, makes my skepticism all the more scientifically plausible.

25501. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 5:25:16 PM

Here’s your original comment when I spoke about a finite universe needing a cause:

“Yet cause and effect breaks down on the quantum level, the most basic and fundamental level of the universe that we've encountered. That's in no way any exaggeration. Cause and effect aren't rules of quantum behavior as we understand it.”

When I then said that we know enough about cause and effect in our universe in order to make it reasonable to NOT question it, but rather to assume that we haven’t yet found all the quantum answers, you call this “faith” and then tell me this:

“We don't know how the universe works. We have no grand unification theories, let alone being able to prove them. What we know about how the universe really works is a drop in a very very large bucket, Kuligin. If you really want to argue otherwise I'd be more than happy to post a really big list of stuff that's befuddled science for a long time and ask you for the answers, because according to you we know how the universe works.”

Are you saying in all of the above that the relationship of cause and effect is not solidly proven, time and time again, in our universe? Didn’t you say this earlier?

“There's nothing concrete in our world which we can point to which is causeless or doesn't require a cause.”

25502. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 5:25:34 PM

“If you read it, I am really sure you will be much less liberal with your assumptions that it all makes sense in a way we can understand based on our knowledge of how the macro-universe works.”

Didn’t I say the exact opposite of this? I said we do NOT understand fully how it works, therefore, it would be foolish and premature of us to jump to the conclusion that somehow, on the quantum level, all our understand of cause and effect – something clearly seen each and every day in our world – is thrown entirely out the window.

Again, I am saying that we do not know enough about QM to make conclusions that it contradicts all we currently know about cause and effect relationships in our universe. You seem to be the one saying that QM allows us to do precisely that. I am the one saying that as we further study QM, there should be a reasonable expectation that we will, indeed, find cause and effect relationships at the quantum level which mirror C&E at the “concrete” level. And you are saying that such talk is “faith.”

25503. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 5:26:22 PM

“So, this pretty much disposes with the Prime Mover argument -- it doesn't disprove it, per se, but demonstrates that we know little enough about how the universe works that you can't fairly say what you've said.”

Not at all. Are you really saying that we know very little about cause and effect, because this is what we are SPECIFICALLY addressing. Sure, you can talk about all the mysteries of the universe before us, and you will certainly get no objection from me. But are you really questioning cause and effect itself?

Let’s be very clear here. This is what you said earlier:

“There's nothing concrete in our world which we can point to which is causeless or doesn't require a cause.”

You then invoke QM as an area where this may in fact now apply. And I am simply saying that at the present moment, that is highly premature. You said earlier that the response “I don’t know” is a darn good one in certain instances, and I agree. Especially here. Why on earth would you be willing to question everything about cause and effect that we clearly do know, right now, through millions of provable observations and experiments, for something that you already admit is “outside our logic?”

25504. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 5:26:42 PM

Then when I say that we shouldn’t jump to conclusions, and I actually hold out hope that science will one day be able to confirm that, indeed, even on the quantum level, things operate at a cause and effect relationship that we see on the macro scale, you call this “faith.” I call it good science. Not jumping to wild conclusions which in essence contradict everything we know right now about cause and effect in our universe.

Again, you can appeal to all the mysteries before us, but I am being precise here. Cause and effect. Cause and effect. Give me one instance where cause and effect do not operate in your own life. But I don’t need you to answer that, because you have already said this:

“There's nothing concrete in our world which we can point to which is causeless or doesn't require a cause.”

25505. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 5:27:03 PM

“Aristotle didn't know shit about the laws of nature. He thought men had more teeth than women.”

You are fond of speaking of logic and the rules of logic, and pointing out how often people break these rules. Were not many of these rules formulated by this dolt, Aristotle. You say this, for example:

“But I have concluded these things based on logic and observation.”

Why now when I cite Aristotle and his rational explanations concerning the existence of an “Uncaused Cause,” do you now denigrate the man’s intellect? I used Aristotle to note that arguments for the need for a necessary being are not simply fundie gobbledygook, but are part and parcel of some very learned thinking on the part of Greek philosophy, from which we also get some of the logic you so much love.

It is this same logic which drove people like Aristotle to posit Prime Movers and the like. And I’m certain that many of the same people who formulated the logic you so much admire and respect, also believed in goblins and ghouls. So what? Philosophically, Aristotle’s arguments (at least some of them) are still solid.

25506. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 5:27:44 PM

“You are saying, repeating several times in fact, that it only makes sense to apply the rules as we know them to what came before the universe.”

More precisely, the rules apply to the universe, period. Cause and effect, which are readily seen in the daily operation of the universe, also apply to the initiation of the universe. To invoke something contrary to this flies in the face of what we know about the universe, wrt cause and effect relationships. Again, you’ve said this:

“There's nothing concrete in our world which we can point to which is causeless or doesn't require a cause.”

And I am saying that that fact should be strongly considered in any theories about the origin of said concrete world. Retreating to “self-creation” models or “out of nothingness” notions of the universe are a retreat from science, and really involve “faith” as the word is properly used.

25507. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 5:28:14 PM

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

In my comment about cause and effect and retreating from everything we observe concerning it, to a “cause” for the universe which flies in the face of all observable fact concerning C&E, you said this:

“Do you mistrust your calculator because it can't drive your car?”

I must admit, I have no clue what you are driving at. Please explain, if it will help this conversation along.

25508. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 5:28:36 PM

MISCELLANEOUS

“Christians don't believe in a mystery, Kuligin. They think they've found the answer already, and the unknown to them is just the denouement.”

You posted this just after this Christian admitted to mystery in his theology. Did you read my comments in this regard? Any Christian worth his weight will speak of mystery when it comes to the things of God.

Of course, if your comments are solely limited to answering the question, “How did the universe get here?” then the Christian does, indeed, have an answer. “God created it.” But my comments about mystery were not limited to just origin of the cosmos, and were much, much broader than that.

25509. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 5:29:09 PM

“The fact is that that's like expecting to understand what the dinosaurs were up to by studying the laws of New York City.”

This is a poor analogy. However, both the dinosaurs and laws of NYC are built on cause and effect relationships, as is everything in our universe. Invoking QM at this point in time, with the vast amount of uncertainty surrounding – again, uncertainty that you have emphasized strongly – isn’t good enough to chuck the tons of data we currently have concerning C&E in our universe.

I am content to concede that AT THE PRESENT MOMENT QM presents us with some very real questions, the answers to which MAY overturn our understanding of cause and effect relationships in our universe (as I must given the tentative nature of science). What I am not willing to concede is that the argument is finished and sealed, something you seem willing to do. However, I think I am correct in understanding Einstein’s objections on this score, that he too believed that jumping to conclusions concerning QM and cause and effect was premature, that our understanding of QM was (and still is) very incomplete (as you have already noted), and that it would be foolish to abandon all the observable, readily understandable stuff we have now for a phantom.

25510. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 5:29:34 PM

“It isn't all other possibilities but your Christian one, Kuligin. There are many possibilities which I reject fairly early on. I could have used clearer language, I suppose. I try to keep an open mind but when evidence suggests to me that a belief is hokum, after much thought and reasoning, I don't force myself to go around acting as though the hokum is every bit as possible as something more probable sounding to me.”

Let’s be clear here. On the one hand, you say that the Prime Mover argument is moot because all the arguments used for it fail on the issue of cause and effect. Again, if we need to argue for a cause for the universe, then why not the same for the PM. Your quote:

“Why, if the Universe requires a cause, doesn't the prime mover require one?”

And you consider such PM arguments as “intellectually lazy.”

But then you also note that cause and effect aren’t as rock solid as we might have thought they were, given our current understanding of QM.

25511. KuligintheHooligan - 10/31/2004 5:30:01 PM

So which is it? Does C&E apply or not? If yes, then certainly the universe needs a cause. And if not, then your objection to the PM and its need for a cause melts away.

So we are back where we started. I said a finite universe needs a cause, but you invoked QM as a semi-proof against such a notion. However, in that you have now eliminated your own argument against the Prime Mover, who in your argumentation would also need a cause.

So I’d like to know from which position you are basing your arguments. I’ve already asked in this series of posts, but I’ll ask it again in conclusion:

**Do you believe that cause and effect are inoperable at the quantum level?**

Obviously, on the “concrete” or “macro” level you agree with C&E as operative.

25512. angel-five - 10/31/2004 9:25:04 PM

So then, for clarity's sake, you do believe it could have just always been here?

Yes. That is to say, I don't rule that out either.

it would be premature to jump to the conclusion that cause and effect does not exist at the quantum level, especially when we see it all over the place elsewhere.

I have no problem with that, but this and subsequent statements by you lead me to believe that either I haven't been terribly clear or you've been jumping to conclusions.

I'll clarify:

We see, at the quantum level, many events which don't seem to require causality as an explanation for them. Your statements (if you like I'll cut and paste them) is that it's still reasonable to believe that these events do follow the rules of cause and effect.

I'm saying that's an assumption, a leap of faith. It may well be that there is a quantum causality at work in these events which we cannot yet divine, but it may also very well be that there is no such causality -- that things, on the quantum level, simply do act differently than how our common-sense logic would dictate, based upon our experiences in the macro world. You simply cannot gainsay that without abandoning science as we know it.

In other words, it's perfectly fine for you to stipulate that things might operate according to causality on the quantum level, and if that is the case, then we have much less reason to envision that the origin of the universe requires causality. But it is a mistake, and illogical (ironically enough) for you to conclude that because it's possible that the quantum universe runs entirely on cause and effect (and we just don't see how) that we can't posit an acausal origin for the universe.

For you to do that you would have to positively declare and then prove that the QM universe DOES run according to cause and effect at all times. Which you can't do.

25513. ElliottRW - 10/31/2004 9:25:21 PM

Kuligan,

Is time a property of the observable universe, or does it transcend the universe? When you ask a question like "how did the universe get here" you must suppose the latter first.

That is, the question doesn't make sense if time is simply a property of the observable universe.

But let us suppose time does transcend the observable universe. Then it would seem that that would require a space within which things (like universes coming into being) can happen. That's what time means: stuff happening.

Let's call this space God. Now, answer my question...how did God get here? What created God? This is a kindergartener question, but it cuts to the chase: At some point, you have to accept that either something exists independent of time, and the universe as we know it subsists in that thing, or the universe itself is that thing.

As it turns out, I believe in God. Not the God-as-prime-mover, but rather as a spiritual force in my life. I can't help it; when they hook me up to a polygraph I'll have to admit I believe in God. I don't know why. When they ask what God is, I'll have to admit that I'm not sure.

But I don't pretend that I can prove the existence of God apriori by asking questions that presuppose the existence of God. That would be a mistake.

25514. angel-five - 10/31/2004 9:25:40 PM

do you believe that cause and effect are inoperable at the quantum level?

Here's your favorite answer, Kuligin -- I don't know. I am content, not knowing, to not rule out either case. That's really the basis for what I've said. We have good reason to believe the universe of quantum mechanics operates, at least some of the time, contrary to the laws of cause and effect. In those cases, the only reason we have to believe it IS causal is your faith that it is so, your macro-universe common sense and scientific data.

I'm not the lone voice in the wilderness on this, either. If you want to turn this into a credentialing match I can produce a long ton of quotes by people who have doctorates in quantum mechanics and agree with what I'm saying in re causality and QM.

And if your answer is, “I don’t know yet,” then my original objection still stands, and it would be foolish to jump to conclusions which make us contradict the vast data we do have on cause and effect in the universe.

Let me frame this for you properly. You are arguing that there is no reason to believe the origin of the universe didn't require cause and effect to be at work. Your argument is that we know how the universe works and it needs cause and effect, whereas the prime mover (aka the deus ex machina of scientific creationism) does not. When I start talking about the parts of the universe we don't yet understand, esp. those which seem to abandon causality, you start talking about 'not jumping to conclusions'. Well, you can't have it both ways. Either we know how the universe works or we don't. I think you know that we don't. I am not jumping to a conclusion in saying that the universe might occasionally go acausal. We have strong evidence that it does. You are jumping to the conclusion when you say that apparent acausality is really causality we don't yet understand.

25515. angel-five - 10/31/2004 9:26:12 PM

The bottom line is that you can't point to a complete, or even complete enough, understanding of how the universe works in order to properly say that we need the Prime Mover to explain how it got there. That's why the PM argument doesn't apply and why we end up at 'if the universe requires a cause, why doesn't the PM, and if the PM doesn't, why does the Universe' again. You can't demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the universe is never acausal in its actions, in order for us to logically create the need for the PM to set it all in motion.

So me saying that in QM we can reasonably assume the same thing, until proven otherwise, is considered “faith” by you? Naw, it is just good scientific skepticism.

Scientific skepticism, Kuligin, is when you look at QM and see apparent acausality at work and go 'well, it could be causal after all, and it might not be.' Assuming that it is causal after all is an act of faith. I am sorry, but you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

Are you saying in all of the above that the relationship of cause and effect is not solidly proven, time and time again, in our universe? Didn’t you say this earlier?

“There's nothing concrete in our world which we can point to which is causeless or doesn't require a cause.”

You understand that there's nothing really concrete in QM, right? You can't point to a photon and you can't watch an electron change states. Does that help?

Again, I am saying that we do not know enough about QM to make conclusions that it contradicts all we currently know about cause and effect relationships in our universe.

Let's be candid here. How much about the topic do you actually know? How much literature on quantum mechanics have you read? How conversant are you with modern QM?

25516. angel-five - 10/31/2004 9:26:24 PM

You know how you get upset when someone, say, says the Bible is wrong because there's two geneaologies for Jesus and they're different? And you tell them to go do some reading because they're in over their head? Well, you just simply wouldn't be saying what you're saying and suggesting it's all far-fetched to think there are acausal acts on the quantum level if you were conversant with the scholarship.

I may be moved to post a bit of hard science here to demonstrate what I'm saying, but would like to wrap this up and go watch a movie with my GF, so lengthy expositions aren't the order of the day right now. Lengthier ones, anyway.

Why now when I cite Aristotle and his rational explanations concerning the existence of an “Uncaused Cause,” do you now denigrate the man’s intellect?

Because I am pointing out that their understanding of the natural world and subsequent arguments about the PM are based on, well, an extremely limited understanding of the natural world. I'm not trying to smear Aristotle, just to point out that neither he nor Aquinas really had the basis to say what they said, given what we now know about science.

I must admit, I have no clue what you are driving at. Please explain, if it will help this conversation along.

You suggested I was backing away and mistrusting logic. The point, Kuligin, was that I use it where it applies, and not where there's strong reason to believe it does not. When I do so anyway, I do so conditionally.

25517. angel-five - 11/1/2004 12:22:29 AM

Here's an exercise for you to try that will hopefully illustrate something and forestall a 'this is what the scholarship says' headbutting match, Kuligin.

Go to www.google.com and search on 'quantum acausality'.

25518. clydefo - 11/1/2004 9:00:54 AM

What if something can come out of nothing? 25474. angel-five

If this is possible, then I'd say we're in real trouble. Maybe it's just semantics. I define "nothing" as the absence of anything.
The Big Bang was a transition, not a beginning.

25519. angel-five - 11/1/2004 11:02:50 AM

I missed this:

So which is it? Does C&E apply or not? If yes, then certainly the universe needs a cause. And if not, then your objection to the PM and its need for a cause melts away.

If the universe doesn't need a cause then my objection to the PM melts away? I wish you'd think about that for a bit longer.

The entire justification for the notion of the PM, the reason why people came up with it in the first place and the one notion which has shaped it to the exclusion of all else, is that the universe requires a cause. The Prime Mover is defined by exactly that -- it is the causeless cause which can start the universe without being contradictory in nature, it is the thing which can be causeless AND cause the origin of the Universe. If you propose the universe occasionally acts acausally, then there is no need at all to propose a Prime Mover in the first place, Kuligin. It doesn't stand on its own, either.

So if I propose a causeless universe, I suppose I make it easier to suggest that a Prime Mover exists (because no one has to explain how it can be causeless) but... That's like arguing that Santa Claus exists because the presents appear under the Christmas tree, versus arguments that it's improbable Santa Claus puts them there, and when someone says 'well, you know, it's possible that the adults put them there' turning around and replying 'Well if you think that adults can put them under the tree, your objection to Santa doing it just melts away!'

Like I said, just think about it for a bit more.

25520. sakonige - 11/1/2004 11:28:48 AM

(jesus christ, are you two still going on about this??)

25521. wonkers2 - 11/1/2004 11:46:47 AM

How many A5s and Kmen can dance on the head of a pin, anyway??

25522. Jenerator - 11/1/2004 11:57:25 AM

A-5,

Your appeal to authority upthread(I can post Ph.D's with the same position as me) and your usual smugness in this matter make me curious.

I know you don't have a master's degree, but you do have a bachelor's degree. Assuming your got your undergrad in science, wouldn't someone with two degrees in science be qualified to speak on the matter?

I mean, I know you're the inherent expert of all things, but don't people with actual expertise greater than yours have the freedom to discuss things with you without you resorting to insulting their intelligence??

25523. angel-five - 11/1/2004 12:29:34 PM

I haven't said Kuligin can't discuss the matter or insulted his intelligence. After much discussion I chose to point out that what he's saying doesn't agree with most of modern QM. Kuligin knows what I am talking about, knows that he's not well-versed in QM, and knows my point, which puts him three better than you.

Anyone, furthermore, can discuss anything, degrees or none. But a Chem E degree doesn't cover advanced subatomic physics beyond intro courses, so if you're expecting to use that as an authority, well, I'd expect no less from you. Kuligin won't.

I know you have this enormous, screeching, incoherent animus toward me, Jenerator, and that's understandable considering what I think of you and your worth as a human being and how I have often made fun of your best efforts at reason. So feel free to keep it up, but if you're going to waste my time at least try to get things right.

25524. angel-five - 11/1/2004 12:38:26 PM

I should probably be flattered in some immature way that I occupy such a prominent role in Jenerator's thoughts that she focuses on me so much, makes up my educational history (which she doesn't know), and keeps on trying to talk to me.

Instead I am annoyed in a superior and arrogant way and wish she would just go and peddle her coke-addled faux-Jesus meretricious psychodrama someplace else. And I'm vaguely creeped out, as I usually am. It's like walking into that apartment in Seven with all the notebooks.

25525. KuligintheHooligan - 11/2/2004 2:14:49 PM

Here is some food for thought from a couple of websites. I’ll get back to the specifics of our discussion tomorrow.

“In 1935, three physicists, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen criticized quantum mechanics claiming that if it were a complete model of reality, then nonlocal interactions between objects had to exist. Since that was deemed inconsistent with the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics had to be either wrong or at least incomplete. This critique is known as the Einstein-Podolosky-Rosen (EPR) paradox.”

Experiments since that time have resulted in several theories. Here is a quick summary of the three most common responses:

“In the face of the difficulties of interpreting these results in the sense of traditional notions of causality, physicists developed a number of responses, which can be conveniently divided into three groups.

1) Planck, Einstein and von Laue adopted the Conservative Response. According to this view, quantum mechanics was incomplete in the sense that it failed to specify the spatio-temporal trajectories of the quantum systems.

2) Heisenberg, Bohr and Pauli adopted the Radical Response. This view leads to the rejection of the notion of causality in quantum mechanics. The argument proceeds from the experimental failure of predictive determinism to the adoption of acausality in quantum mechanics. The reason given for adopting acausality, is the validity of the Heisenberg indeterminacy relations in quantum mechanics.”

[As an aside, when I initially brought up Heisenberg in this discussion, you said the uncertainty principle had nothing to do with cause and effect. Of course, I brought it up precisely because I thought it did, but I dropped that particular nit for other issues. Personally, I think using Heisenberg’s principle to disprove causality is misplaced, especially given the little we know overall concerning QM.]

25526. KuligintheHooligan - 11/2/2004 2:15:09 PM

“3) Sommerfeld, de Broglie and the later Born adopted the Philosophical Response. This view leads to a separation of the notions of causality and determinism. It holds that even though determinism fails, causal accounts may still be given in quantum mechanics. This required a notion of probabilistic causality.”

Angel-Five seems to be leaning strongly toward point 2, whereas I am hoping for point 1, with an eye to point 3 and the notion that, whereas causality does exist, we may have to redefine exactly how. I think point 2, while obviously possible, isn’t probable. And unless someone is willing to state that we know all there is to know about QM (and nobody will say that), then I think it reasonable to move from macro observations and expect similarly from micro. In other words, our incomplete knowledge now isn’t sufficient reason to take the position of point 2 and bluntly conclude acausality.

25527. angel-five - 11/2/2004 3:17:23 PM

In other words, our incomplete knowledge now isn’t sufficient reason to take the position of point 2 and bluntly conclude acausality.

Neither is it sufficent reason to conclude an undiscovered causality, and from it, say the universe is all causal and therefore if one wants to propose a cause for the universe one needs a PM. You can call it 'reasonable' all you want, but it's not scientific.

If you want it stipulated that there can be no conclusive proof of acausality, I've already acceded to that. Surely you will likewise agree to the stipulation that there is strong evidence for acausality nonetheless. And that's the ballgame.

The argument then changes to 'If the universe ends up being entirely causal in nature, And you believe the universe required an external cause, Then we have the notion of the prime mover'. But I'm not holding my breath.

25528. angel-five - 11/2/2004 3:18:00 PM

'there can be no conclusive proof' should read 'there is as of yet no conclusive proof'.

25529. Ulgine Barrows - 11/5/2004 12:02:46 AM

Religion goes out of favor in 2037
when science discovers the gene that regulates fear
-from the film Happy Accidents

25530. alistairconnor - 11/5/2004 5:47:17 AM

Hey UB, that's an insult to all God-fearing folk.

No gene therapy for the Tooth Fairy... she's all about love.

25531. alistairconnor - 11/5/2004 7:50:21 AM

Indeterminacy and causality : my take.

* I had understood that experimental QM had conclusively excluded determinacy at a QM level. If this is so, then it eliminates the conservative hypothesis -- Ku's group 1 (the expectation that there is some undiscovered rule, in function of which QM would prove to be actually determinate)
* Groups 2 and 3 explicitly recognise the indeterminacy of QM.

How can we get from indeterminacy at the QM level to causality at a macro level? That's quite a leap. You can't sum up a bunch of ill-defined terms and come up with a well-defined answer.

My own intuition is that, at a macro level, we have an sum of indeterminate, acausal QM phenomena which aggregate to an approximation of causality. A sort of statistical phenomenon. So Newtonian physics, etc, only appear to be determinate -- a useful illusion.

And unless someone is willing to state that we know all there is to know about QM (and nobody will say that), then I think it reasonable to move from macro observations and expect similarly from micro.

That doesn't hold water at all, it will not float. You want to extrapolate Newtonian physics back to the Big Bang, and we know that this is not valid.

25532. KuligintheHooligan - 11/5/2004 11:17:16 AM

"Neither is it sufficent reason to conclude an undiscovered causality, and from it, say the universe is all causal and therefore if one wants to propose a cause for the universe one needs a PM."

As you noted earlier, A5, all things start with certain assumptions, and this is particularly true of science. I have consistently noted that I have a strong hope or expectation that an undiscovered causality will be divined in QM. And at this point, you are still open yourself to the possibility, as you have stated above.

So I suppose that if I have "faith" on that score, then so do you, right? Or is your openness to the possibility of a discovered causality "reasonble," but mine is "faith," because I believe a little more strongly than you that that is what will happen eventually?

25533. angel-five - 11/5/2004 11:50:36 AM

Do you wish me to cut and paste your exact words?

Again, it seems that you are saying QM shows us that at this fundamental level, cause and effect are non-existent. If that is what you are implying here, I strongly object. Causality is not disproved on the quantum level, rather, we just haven’t figured out yet how it works.

That isn't 'believing a little more strongly'. That's outright faith. And that's fine by me, but let's not pretend that there's only a miniscule difference between saying it's possible and saying it's the case.

25534. angel-five - 11/5/2004 12:22:49 PM

If you would rather use other terms that fairly imply the respective degrees of belief in probability, Kuligin, that's quite fine by me. You seem to have stuck on 'faith', a term I thought you would appreciate and understand. Whatever floats your Ark.

25535. KuligintheHooligan - 11/6/2004 8:12:56 AM

Perhaps you are right, A5. I actually formulated about ten posts' worth of responses to your last batch of posts, but then started to wonder if it was even worth it. I still have them, of course, saved on my PC. But we seem to be talking past each other enough to not make it worth it to go further.

I suppose my main objection to your use of "faith" is that you have used it in the past in a highly derogatory fashion, and in the way that seemed to exclude all reason or scientific understand or endeavor. At least wrt this discussion, though, I find the use of that word wrongheaded when it comes to my position on QM.

25536. KuligintheHooligan - 11/6/2004 8:15:56 AM

A5, here is something which may be helpful, if you so desire to continue this discussion.

Get highly specific about your views on QM and why they negate the notion of causality. Talk about the 2-slit experiments specifically and why you believe they disprove the notion of causality. My take is that we are simply too limited to measure exactly what is happening on the quantum level for us to make such bold proclamations as causality being disproved (position #2 from the three possible responses I posted earlier).

Give us the nuts and bolts of why you, A5, believe causality to be disproved, or rather, acausality to be bolstered, by QM.

25537. angel-five - 11/6/2004 1:08:53 PM

Prove a negative? Maybe later, Kuligin. It's gorgeous outside anyway.

And you need to honestly apprehend the difference between your arguments -- 'I don't think we can disprove causality' and 'Acausality is probably just hidden causality' -- and mine -- 'I don't think we can disprove acausality'. In the above posts you slip back and forth between one and the other as it best strengthens your argument. If you want to stop 'talking past each other', talking to what I'm saying would be a start.

25538. KuligintheHooligan - 11/6/2004 1:10:59 PM

Thus my request that you explain in detail from QM your thoughts as to why it supports your present position on acausality.

I'm asking for more detail from you precisely because I do not want us to talk past each other.

25539. angel-five - 11/6/2004 1:33:07 PM

You don't need more detail in order to grasp what's already on the table, Kuligin. I mean, do you? Does the difference between 'not disproving acausality' and 'disproving causality' really require further explanation in order for you to understand it?

You aren't asking for me to delve into QM so you can better understand my argument. You're doing so because you hope to be able to disprove a positive argument for acausality and thus bolster your notion that acausality doesn't exist.

25540. KuligintheHooligan - 11/6/2004 2:07:28 PM

In all honesty, up to this point you have told me to go and do some more reading. I have. But what I don't have is any detailed explanation of your position. All I have is your general comments about QM and acausality.

Here's your original comment on that score:

"Yet cause and effect breaks down on the quantum level, the most basic and fundamental level of the universe that we've encountered. That's in no way any exaggeration. Cause and effect aren't rules of quantum behavior as we understand it."

And when I have asked for details, you have told me to go and Google this or Google that. And I have.

But that doesn't explain YOUR position and YOUR conclusions to me (or anybody else reading this for that matter) at all. Thus my current request.

I obviously do not understand YOUR pov, so please explain it to me in greater detail. That is my simple request.

25541. KuligintheHooligan - 11/6/2004 2:08:48 PM

Or just drop the topic. I'm open to that too, because, unless you explain in detail why you believe QM supports your acausality contentions, I cannot effectively discuss these matters further, without us "talking past" each other. In other words, until you provide a fuller explanation of your reasons, there doesn't seem any point for us to continue this discussion.

You decide.

25542. angel-five - 11/6/2004 4:45:06 PM

This is no impasse. We don't need to get into quantum mechanics in order to address the argument on the table, which Kuligin has already agreed to piecemeal and is just refusing to be caught acknowledging it once it's put together.

Kuligin: you are bending over backwards to avoid acknowledging the point that we don't fully know how the universe works AND we have reason to believe that in the quantum universe, things act acausally, and, therefore, it is illegitimate to propose that the universe's origin could be acausal. I know you know we have reason to believe that, because you mention the very theorists who put that belief into words (although you forgot Schrodinger, probably the most important of the people putting forward the Copenhagen interpretation). I know you know that we don't fully understand how the universe works, because you admit it when you speak of 'jumping to conclusions' with insufficient QM data. And I know you're smart enough to follow my argument to its conclusion, and that you have done so -- the very way you studiously avoid it is sufficient demonstration, in fact.

That argument, for the sixth or seventh time, is as follows:

We have strong reason to believe the quantum universe does not act according to our macroscopic cause and effect logic. We can neither prove, nor disprove, acausality at this juncture; therefore we can neither argue the universe is entirely causal or acausal, when proposing its origins. And therefore we cannot invoke a Prime Mover (which is in essence, once again, just a causeless cause with a flowing beard) by saying that the universe only acts causally and therefore requires a cause external to itself.

I should just leave it there and expect you to address it, but I'm pretty sure you won't. You'll just trumpet that I'm not explaining myself (over something I have no need to explain) and pretend that's salvaged your argument.

25543. angel-five - 11/6/2004 4:46:11 PM

No, you will say. Impasse. Never mind that the argument's still on the table and of course the only thing left is for you to actually address it, and if you can't disprove it, to acknowledge that from our limited forensic knowledge, my argument against your PM proposal is correct. And of course you aren't doing that. What are you doing? Saying that if we are to progress I have to personally go about proving my assertion of acausality, when you've already mentioned the theorists and theories I am citing and show no willingness to engage those theorists and theories. No, you want me to post it out longhand, so you can attack that.

To be frank, this would take a lot of time and effort on my part. If I were of the point of view that you honestly want to know it and it would be a fruitful thing for me to do, I might be moved to do so. But you are arguing that there's no reason to discuss the larger topic further unless I do this, when there are very clearly things that can be discussed. This, as well as old acquaintance with you, leads me to believe this is another tactic of yours.

Still, I don't see why we can't split the difference, for the sake of interest. I'll briefly describe where I'm coming from, although I'll stipulate that I'm not setting out to prove acausality. In response I damn well expect you to acknowledge the flaw in the PM argument or at least honestly address the italicized paragraph above without pretending an impasse that isn't there.

25544. angel-five - 11/6/2004 4:47:09 PM

There are two main ways to describe the action of an object in the quantum world (we'll use an electron as our object) -- the discrete model which treats it as a particle, and the probabilistic model which treats it as a wave. These two models are said to possess complementarity -- that is, when you're explaining the electron as it moves through space-time, as the discrete model becomes more useful, the probabilistic model becomes less so, and vice versa. (In other words, sometimes the electron behaves more like a defined particle that does definite things, and sometimes it acts like an undefined wave which we cannot narrow down, but exerts an indeterminate effect over the wide area coming in contact with the wave as opposed to a determinate effect of a defined electron. And where the probabilistic model gains strength, the discrete model weakens -- they have an inverse relationship, the product of which is a constant, so to speak).

Now, what's this mean to experimental science? Repeated studies have confirmed that the electron will act particulately, with discrete effect, only when it is forced to by observation. (If you googled and read on the two slit experiment, you know what I mean. If you did not, here is a brief graphical look at an introduction to it and here is a bit more explanation of some of the results). The rest of the time it acts as a wave, i.e. as indeterminate as possible. An elegant, if somewhat Romantic, way to say this is that 'nature likes to keep her options open'.

25545. angel-five - 11/6/2004 4:47:56 PM

What does this mean to us? It means that cause and effect as we know them break down on the quantum level. Instead you have probabilistic causes and effects, all of which go forward until the wave function is 'collapsed' and the universe is forced, by observation, to choose exactly where the 'particle' is in the wave field, and what it's done in the meantime. This isn't cause and effect. This is a chain of events determined after the fact, like a writer reading a story to an eight year old and having to constantly be interrupted by their questions and make up answers on the spot that aren't in the text.

Now, you might be thinking, 'That's baloney. What's to say that the universe didn't know all along what the particle was doing, and all this wave business is just our inability to determine what's going on?' The problem once again harks back to the two-slit experiment, where electrons fired one at a time at a plate with two slits act as if they're going through both slits at the same time -- something they clearly cannot be doing, if they are in fact doing what a particle would be doing all along. The effect does not match the cause.

Here's one for you, Kuligin, to try sometime. (You can google it if you don't want to do it yourself.) Take three polarized light filters and find some light. Line two of them up with the source of light and turn one sideways -- in essence, you are first removing all the light that's not polarized up down and then removing all the light that's not polarized side to side. What do you get on the other side? Black -- no light gets through. We can predict that, right? We know how that happens. It makes all the sense in the world.

Put the third filter in between them at a 45 degree angle. And suddenly light comes through the other side. Classical cause and effect does not explain it. Quantum acausality does.

25546. angel-five - 11/6/2004 7:29:32 PM

There are numerous other angles of attack on quantum acausality -- from nuclear decay and its absolute unpredictability in the individual atom yet its complete predictability in the aggregate, to the way electrons sort themselves out in an energized field. There's the old chestnut about the two photons created at the same instant and traveling in different directions, and observing one at one point has an instantaneous effect on the other. There's the positron/electron pair genesis which you alluded to earlier (the particles have to come from somewhere). And then there are the time paradox 'cause and effects' where the effect seems to come before the cause, or at the same time, despite the laws of physics preventing action faster than light. If you want further explanations of it, you can look yourself.

Nobody can prove causality or acausality on the quantum level. (As a matter of fact, if you google 'proof quantum acausality' the Mote is the first hit you get!) That's one of the reasons I'm content to leave it all unanswered. And I don't want to repeat myself twenty times when nineteen will do, so I'll just leave it here - in order to posit the Prime Mover as a necessity for our universe, you must prove that there is no acausality in the universe AND demonstrate why the Prime Mover can be acausal (and sorry, just positing that it is acausal because it must be, really isn't the sort of theological prestidigitation that impresses me).

25547. KuligintheHooligan - 11/8/2004 1:11:45 PM

An interesting lawsuit currently in Georgia involves evolution. In textbooks there it says the following on a sticker placed on the inside cover of the books:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Fairly incredible that those who oppose this sticker are arguing that the above is an intrusion of religion in the public school, per the ACLU's argument.

Also, A5, didn't you say earlier this year that it is okay to teach creationism in public schools? This comment also from the article:

"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that creationism was a religious belief that could not be taught in public schools along with evolution."

Here's the full article:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041108/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate

25548. alistairconnor - 11/8/2004 1:16:52 PM

Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.

This is clearly counterfactual, and only makes any sense at all in the context of a religious agenda. So yes, it's an intrusion.

What sort of stickers would you like to see on quantum physics textbooks?

25549. Jenerator - 11/8/2004 1:17:59 PM

"Warning, this book may contain information that will bore you to death."

25550. alistairconnor - 11/8/2004 1:21:50 PM

"Warning : this book claims those funny little quarks are unpredictable critters, but we have faith that it's all explained in the bible somewhere, we just haven't found the right page yet."

25551. KuligintheHooligan - 11/8/2004 1:31:56 PM

Ah, you make the point exactly in your hyperbole, Alistair. That sticker doesn't say diddlesquat about religion. It is an appeal to open-mindedness, but all of the sudden, when it comes to your god evolutionary theory, you balk. Why is that?

Again, note our your hyperbolic sticker reads, and how the actual one reads. No one should be the least bit offended or troubled by that sticker. Are evolutionists really that insecure in their beliefs??!

25552. KuligintheHooligan - 11/8/2004 1:34:02 PM

Here is the sticker again:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

I'm amazed at how scared pro-evolution people are. The above is an appeal to open-mindedness and critical thinking.

If your evolutionary theory is so rock-solid, alistair, I wouldn't expect you to be so worried about it being critically studied. What are you so worried about??

25553. KuligintheHooligan - 11/8/2004 2:27:50 PM

A5, I decided to go back over those posts I decided earlier not to post, and take some comments from them. In light of your further explanation, some points were moot and have not been included. I'll get to your most recent batch of posts tomorrow, hopefully.

I will admit, I am somewhat confused by what you are saying. On the one hand, you say this:

“There's nothing concrete in our world which we can point to which is causeless or doesn't require a cause.”

It is, in fact, this principle from which I make my current arguments. But when I do this, you then begin to speak of all the things we don’t know and how my position is actually one of “faith.” You say things like this:

“We don't know how the universe works.”

Admittedly, I’m having a very difficult time reconciling your two statements above. If there is nothing concrete in our world which we can point to which is causeless or doesn’t require a cause, I’d say that we have a fair understanding of how the universe works, at least in this respect. And as I have been talking regularly about C&E, and not appealing to all the mysteries we don’t know, I think I have been consistent in my arguments.

Again, you seem to be saying C&E is self-evident, but if I argue from that position, I am acting in “faith.

25554. KuligintheHooligan - 11/8/2004 2:28:08 PM

On the issue of “faith,” just to be clear on that score:

When we see C&E in our universe, daily, and we know that “there is nothing concrete in our universe which we can point to” which violates the laws of C&E, then I don’t think it is “faith” at all to expect the same things in other areas that we endeavor to study. Fact is, it requires “faith” to think that the opposite is true, that despite all our observations backing up C&E, that it just doesn’t apply in this or that arena.

And so, when one seems open to self-generating universes, or universes that “will” themselves into existence, or universes which pop up out of nothing, I’d say that that position is clearly the one based on “faith,” not the one that takes the things we already know and can observe, and then attempts to apply them to the new area of study.

25555. KuligintheHooligan - 11/8/2004 2:28:26 PM

“I am content, not knowing, to not rule out either case. That's really the basis for what I've said.”

Okay, I find this reasonable. But then if you can’t rule out either case, I’m unclear why you seem to want to rule out my position, which is one of the cases?!

25556. KuligintheHooligan - 11/8/2004 2:28:56 PM

“You can't demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the universe is never acausal in its actions, in order for us to logically create the need for the PM to set it all in motion.”

But I can quote your own words to you, again, which state that nothing in the concrete world operates outside C&E. Then you come back with QM, an area you admit we know very, very, VERY little about.

And you know from your own life that you cannot possibly operate as if C&E do not apply. Therefore, it is highly reasonable that the universe did not just pop up out of nothing, or will itself to exist, and so on. Such explanations are based almost entirely on irrational faith.

In fact, and this is perhaps ironic, you call Christians irrational, yet you say you are open to some of the most irrational possibilities imaginable for how the universe “got here.” I’m not trying to be mean or anything, but if you truly are open to the possibilities you enumerated earlier, I just don’t see how you can possibly say Christians are irrational, stupid creatures.

And I think it is entirely valid to use our senses and our experience, as well as our best science, to extrapolate from what we know to what we do not know. Again, you can appeal to the present rules being entirely violated, but I just don’t think that is too reasonable.

WRT C&E, we see it every day, in every conceivable arena, so it isn’t less logical or irrational or unreasonable at all to start with the basic assumption that the universe and how it got here also operates at that level.

25557. KuligintheHooligan - 11/8/2004 2:29:17 PM

“Because I am pointing out that their [Aristotle, Aquinas] understanding of the natural world and subsequent arguments about the PM are based on, well, an extremely limited understanding of the natural world.”

But I venture a fair wager that Aristotle would have agreed with this statement of yours:

“There's nothing concrete in our world which we can point to which is causeless or doesn't require a cause.”

And it is from this cause and effect relationship that he makes his conclusions. Sure, he didn’t know quantum physics, but as you already note several times, we don’t know jack really about how our universe works on this level. But we DO know how it works on the macro level, as you point out in your quote above. There is NOT ONE THING we can point to that is not subject to the law of causality. Not one thing. Those are your words.

So Aristotle’s conclusions aren’t that ridiculous. In fact, they are fairly reasonable.

25558. KuligintheHooligan - 11/8/2004 2:29:52 PM

If I may make a concluding statement, because I fear we have come to an impasse, I really cannot argue effectively against someone who can go either way on a given topic, in this case, causality. Put another way, A-5 is open to both possibilities, that the universe needed a cause and didn’t need a cause. Personally, I’m with clyde wrt his comment: “If this [something out of nothing] is possible, then I'd say we're in real trouble.”

A5 is seemingly open to the possibility that the universe willed itself to exist, or came out of nothing, or is self-generating, but considers the Christian understanding of a Being which created the universe as “hokum.” But he also agrees that on the concrete level the law of causality rules the day. That on the concrete level he cannot point to one single instance of something creating itself, or coming out of nothing, or willing itself to exist before it actually existed, and so on.

I’m at a loss. Personally, and this is obvious, I believe the universe to be finite (A5 is open to it being either finite or infinite wrt time, not size), for the law of causality to be self-evident and therefore reasonably applied to the initial existence of the cosmos, and that we need something or someone not subject to the law of causality to bring it isn’t existence.

And I believe that the options A5 still leaves open, like the ones enumerated above, are really “hokum” and involve a tremendous amount of faith on his part, without any real rational data to back them up, at least not from our observable world. The Christian view of a Creator does not involve suspending the laws of nature, or ignoring them, or muddying them.

I think the universe needs a cause, and although you say you are open to that possibility, you appear not to be.

25559. KuligintheHooligan - 11/8/2004 2:31:02 PM

Okay, that more fully explains why I believed we were at an impasse. However, now that you have explained your interpretation of QM experiments, we can continue further. I'll respond tomorrow if I can.

25560. SnowOwl - 11/8/2004 4:35:47 PM

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.

This is a joke, surely. To begin with, evolution does not deal with the origin of living things. That's in the realm of the abiogeneticists.

25561. angel-five - 11/8/2004 6:08:42 PM

Admittedly, I’m having a very difficult time reconciling your two statements above.

Well, don't expect sympathy from me, Kuligin. They're very easily reconciled and I get the sense you're just being difficult.

We don't entirely know how the universe works, and in that set of things we can observe, there's nothing concrete that we can point to where we don't see cause and effect. You keep on trotting back to my statement about concrete reality as if you've found something damning in it, but you haven't. It is what it is. Our concrete reality -- the things around us we can directly experience -- seems to operate on the level of cause and effect. However as I have said and demonstrated (and linked and so on) the quantum universe doesn't seem to operate the same way.

And as I've also said that which we know about how the universe seems to work is a small drop in a very large bucket. What we do know is that according to our best science, the laws of physics as we understand them are dependent upon matter and quantized energy, and according to our best models (and common sense), if the universe had an origin, matter and quantized energy came after it.

You are presuming two very large and uncertain things. The first is that there is no acausality in the universe, (especially questionable in quantum mechanics) and the second is that the 'laws' we percieve in our matter and energy universe not only obtain prior to the creation of matter and quantized energy, but also prior to the genesis of the universe! And you appear to rankle at any inference that these are leaps of faith, because to you they are simply what makes sense. I should think you would be comfortable with the idea that what you believe requires faith, Kuligin, with as much faith as you have in the tenets of your religion, but apparently this comfort zone doesn't cover your scientific conjecture.

25562. angel-five - 11/8/2004 6:11:09 PM

I sense that you have a very difficult time with the notion of acausality. I do not, and furthermore I find you unscientific in your 'reasonable conclusion' that since cause and effect seems to be how our macroscopic universe operates, we should assume it is the rule in situations where our macroscopic universe's rules do not apply.

But then if you can’t rule out either case, I’m unclear why you seem to want to rule out my position, which is one of the cases?!

It isn't one of 'the' cases. It is a position on which case is right and which is impossible.

I’m not trying to be mean or anything, but if you truly are open to the possibilities you enumerated earlier, I just don’t see how you can possibly say Christians are irrational, stupid creatures.

Well, I don't wish to be mean, either. But I don't see how someone who claims to be intelligent can consistently fail to understand the difference between 'not being able to rule something out' even though it seems improbable, and taking one of those improbabilities and saying it is right to the exclusion of all others. I mean, that's a black and white difference and I just don't apprehend how you can equate the two honestly.

But then again, I similarly don't understand why the following is hard for you to grasp:

We don't know how the universe works, but have laboratory evidence that it may act acausally from time to time. This cannot be proven, yet it is also reason not to rule out acausality, especially for 'common sense' reasons which never encounter the inside of a QM lab anyway. And if you cannot rule out acausality but instead have significant reasons to believe it does exist, despite your common sense rationales, you simply cannot propose an origin for the universe which requires, a priori, that the universe always works causally.

25563. angel-five - 11/8/2004 6:11:58 PM

Common sense once held the world was flat, that tomatoes were poisonous, that men had more teeth than women, that the brain's purpose was to cool the blood, that when you sneezed your soul left your body, that European whites were genetically and socially superior to other races, that wet dreams were caused by female demons, that the world was made of four elements and that the sun was pulled by a chariot and horses. The list of things common sense once stoutly defended that we now laugh at is far beyond either of our scopes, but perhaps the best example for our purposes is that common sense -- and your Church --once held that the world was at the center of the universe and all else revolved around it.

Seems kind of stupid, doesn't it. And we ask ourselves why people might not only believe that ignorantly, but come to depend on the notion so much that the Church burned people at the stake for 'heretically' arguing otherwise, suppressed their findings, and did their best to discourage all interest in heliocentric models of our larger world.

The answer is twofold. The Church had so much invested in its earth-centered model of the universe (having drawn upon earlier traditions to create elaborate cosmological maps of the universe upon which various pieces of dogma depended) that heliocentrism didn't just threaten to change astronomy, but to undermine the Church's philosophies and hence the Church itself. And although the reasons to question the geocentric model were there for anyone to see --retrograde movement of the planets, varying brightness, and so on --the knowledge, mathematics and science necessary to comprehend how a heliocentric model could work were, much as QM is today, incomplete, not widely shared, and hard to comprehend. In this situation you have the recipe for what happened... and it is exactly analogous to this debate today.

25564. angel-five - 11/8/2004 6:15:22 PM

Incidently, what was the largest stumbling block to heliocentrism, Kuligin? Bueller? Bueller? Anybody?

The answer: Aristotelian thought. Which your church had hung its miter on in order to substantiate many of its philosophies.... including the Prime Mover. Which was the best wisdom of Aristotle's time but has, time and time and time again, been disproven by modern science and logic. And here you are, again, hanging your hat on Aristotle over two thousand years later, and scowling in the face of modern science. Thank you, please drive through.

25565. angel-five - 11/8/2004 6:16:23 PM

Knock knock, Mr. Kuligin.

Who's there?

Two thousand years of scientific advances.

.....Who?

25566. alistairConnor - 11/8/2004 6:43:44 PM

Message # 25552 I'm amazed at how scared pro-evolution people are. The above is an appeal to open-mindedness and critical thinking.

If your evolutionary theory is so rock-solid, alistair, I wouldn't expect you to be so worried about it being critically studied. What are you so worried about??

Why is it that fundies wet their pants whenever the subject of evolution comes up? Why don't they want disclaimers in physics text books, or microbiology, or geology, or metallurgy, or goodness knows whatever field of science? Why must they ridicule themselves with their insecurity about evolution?

Hey, any time you want to go back to the evolution debate you wimped out of, Kuligin :

It's all still there, several hundred posts back, waiting for any comments or questions you might have.

25567. angel-five - 11/8/2004 7:04:53 PM

Oh, and Kuligin: The Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction" in Edwards v. Aguillard.

Have you ever heard of 'Intelligent Design'? I bet you have. It's being taught in America today.

25568. Jenerator - 11/8/2004 8:51:01 PM

Where precisely in America? It certainly isn't being taught in PISD, RISD or GISD - and I'm in Baptist country.

25569. angel-five - 11/9/2004 2:50:08 AM

How about you wander on over to Google and answer your own damn question. I'm not saying it's the standard, but it is perfectly legal to teach it in public school as an alternative theory -- in other words, the reason most school districts don't teach intelligent design isn't that it's illegal. The reason most school districts don't teach it is that a) it's lousy science with no place in the science classroom, b)there are plenty of institutions already which can teach the interested child religious beliefs and c) educators fear, rightfully so IMO, that intelligent design is just a thin-edge-of-the-wedge issue for people like you who believe in preaching to children. Nobody believes your church just wants to leave the issue there.

25570. angel-five - 11/9/2004 2:54:38 AM

I have to add to what Alistair said the following: Most evolution people aren't scared of people critically evaluating evolution. They're rather more concerned with the mile fundamentalists take when you break down and offer them an inch.

25571. Jenerator - 11/9/2004 1:14:53 PM

the reason most school districts don't teach intelligent design isn't that it's illegal. The reason most school districts don't teach it is that a) it's lousy science with no place in the science classroom, b)there are plenty of institutions already which can teach the interested child religious beliefs and c) educators fear, rightfully so IMO, that intelligent design is just a thin-edge-of-the-wedge issue for people like you who believe in preaching to children.

Too bad this isn't true. The science Dept. Head for the school I am in, as well as the Communicatons Director and Science Coordinator for the District are close, personal friends of mine (and my husband's)-Intelligent Design is not allowed to be discussed in class because everyone is afraid of a lawsuit. Legality is dismissed for fear of bored evolutionary bigots with too much time on their hands who want to sue over such issues as *(shriek)* First Cause, Prime Mover, Intelligent design *(shriek)*.

The same principle applies to the other subjects as well. Anything having to do with faith - especially Christianity is not welcomed. If we cover the Reformation, we have to stick to the bare bones - no religious discussion. All of this caution is because of fear.

It's the same at the other two districts surrounding the area - as well as in Friso ISD. But who knows, maybe up in Ohio things are done differently? That, or you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to what is allowed in public schools wrt Intelligent design or faith in general.

25572. Jenerator - 11/9/2004 1:23:23 PM

This morning, after I initially read your reply, I went and asked a science teacher I know to be a Christian, what she says regarding the origin of the universe in class. Her personal belief is that God created everything and that He alone is all that has ever been eternal. He created everything out of nothing because only He is omnipotent.

In class, all she can say is that earth is approximately 6 billion years old - some arguments exist as to that exact age, and no one knows how it came to be. Some students have asked, "Do you believe that God created it?" and she replies, "My beliefs are private, but we can discuss them after school."

25573. Jenerator - 11/9/2004 1:25:24 PM

By the way, in the History Dept. we can talk about Islam aka "The Religion of Peace" (hahahahahahaha) and Buddhism at length! Not Christianity though, that would be bad.

25574. KuligintheHooligan - 11/9/2004 1:30:08 PM

"Hey, any time you want to go back to the evolution debate you wimped out of, Kuligin :

It's all still there, several hundred posts back, waiting for any comments or questions you might have."

That's humorous alistair, really. Let's recap what happened way back then:

1) jayackroyd listed 8 or 9 reasons why he believed evolutionary theory was right.

2) I went through all his points and made counter arguments.

3) You popped your head in, but then deferred to jay. You did this at least twice. Want me to find the posts? It is easy enough to do.

4) You then picked at a sub point of one of my 8 or 9 major points, called me a wimp (while continuing to defer to jay for all the other points you didn't even scratch).

5) jay never showed up. I'm not sure where he is, but that is his perogative of course.

6) Now you claim victory. Funny, eh? You addressed a sub-point of ONE of my major points, and left the rest for jay to discuss, which he never did, for reasons unknown. Then you claim I wimped out.

Whatever.

25575. KuligintheHooligan - 11/9/2004 1:54:15 PM

Jay’s original comments in support of evolutionary theory started at #24503. I made some initial comments, and jay then said this (#24537)

“I'm busy at the moment. I'll deal with these "objections" later.”

He made a few comments, then later came my thirteen posts which went point-by-point through jay’s original points. Alistair then said this:

“Now that Jay knows what darn-fool position you really hold on evolution, he will make short work of it.” (#24570)

pelty then made this observation (#24582)

“Hmm, I see no one is interested in actually refuting KtH's claims thus far. For someone like Jay who knows evolution is a FACT, I would imagine this will happen any second now.”

Alistair responded to pelty’s comment with this (#24586)

“Jay has said he will reply as time permits.
Bearing in mind that I'm only a heckler (having been recused from the debate), here are a couple of elements of background reading for those who are interested in following the scientific debate.”

Alistair then did a series of cut-and-paste material from a website, with little of his own comments therein. He picked at a sub-point of one of the main points in the debate, and even within that main point, there were several items I enumerated as to my reasons why I thought jay’s original comments were wrong. Alistair simply commented, again and again, on that one sub-point. He particularly had a field day with Stephen Gould, who only got a mention in my original posts.

25576. KuligintheHooligan - 11/9/2004 1:55:01 PM

Then Alistair said this (#24612)
“And thank you for your gracious concession in the Great Evolution Debate.”

In #24614 I responded:
“I'm still waiting for my posts to be answered. … Of course, jay already noted he would be away, so I do expect him to address them in his time.

alistair, you seem all too willing to just take potshots while not really addressing the issues. Since jay seems to be away now, why not take my posts yourself and, point-by-point, refute them? It should be child's play for you, since all I posted was nonsense in your view.”

In #24622 I posted to Alistair again:
“And I'm still waiting for you to go POINT-BY-POINT through my posts. You can basically follow the lead of jay, who laid down the original ground work.”

Does Alistair do this, though? No, instead, here is his comment (#24639):

“I will not address Kuligin's other remarks relating to Jay's posts.”

Outside of the one sub-point Alistair picked at, there is no rebuttal or point-by-point refutation of my original posts. None.

Then Alistair comes back over a month later, says I wimped out of the debate, and he claims victory.

Like I said, whatever.

25577. KuligintheHooligan - 11/9/2004 1:57:14 PM

A5, thanks for the comment on evolutionary theory, the Supreme Court, and whether or not it can be taught in public schools. I must admit that I believe as Jenerator does, though, that to teach anything like creation science or intelligent design and such is, indeed, not only not done, but not allowed as well.

What would be helpful is if you could actually point to a few public schools where it is done. Just assuming it is done, which is what you seem to be doing, isn't enough. Prove that it IS done. That would be helpful.

Thanks.

25578. KuligintheHooligan - 11/9/2004 2:00:42 PM

"and it is exactly analogous to this debate today"

Not really A5. For starters, you and I both agree already that causality is the law of the land when it comes to the "macro" world. The same could not be said concerning flat earth people.

Further, you then point to a highly tenuous field, one in which you have already said yourself that no one can either prove or disprove acausality in the quantum realm. So there you have it. You basic "proof" against causality as a rule in both the macro and micro world is a highly suspect interpretation of experiments.

Round earth proofs are much easier to come by than your suspect QM meanderings. Indeed, it is most helpful to you to attempt to paint me as some anti-science zealot, but that couldn't be further from the truth. But you go right ahead trying to do that.

25579. KuligintheHooligan - 11/9/2004 2:04:02 PM

"The first is that there is no acausality in the universe, (especially questionable in quantum mechanics) and the second is that the 'laws' we percieve in our matter and energy universe not only obtain prior to the creation of matter and quantized energy, but also prior to the genesis of the universe!"

Until there is proof that there IS acausality (and even you admit there currently is no proof of this), then it is quite reasonable and scientific to argue from what we DO know. And what DO we know? I'll let you answer it by answering this question:

Outside of the highly tenuous area of QM, where do you, Angel-Five, see acausality at work in our universe?

Also, I have never said that the laws which dictate our universe were also in force PRIOR to the genesis of our universe. Where did I say that? Perhaps you just misunderstood something I earlier said, or perhaps I misstated and didn't catch it myself. But that is clearly not my present conviction.

25580. KuligintheHooligan - 11/9/2004 2:06:20 PM

"Have you ever heard of 'Intelligent Design'? I bet you have. It's being taught in America today."

Rereading your comment here, A5, I see that you say it is "taught in America today." That is far different than saying it is taught in public schools in America today. Obviously that it is taught in America is a no-brainer. What Jenerator and I would like to see is some proof that it is being taught in the public school system of America, which is what you said earlier (your original comment to which I referred).

25581. angel-five - 11/9/2004 2:26:34 PM

What would be helpful is if you could actually point to a few public schools where it is done.

I see neither of you could be moved to google for your own selves.

a Pennsylvania school board recently voted to include "intelligent design" in the district's science curriculum.

(Note: If you google on Dover curriculum intelligent design you'll get a lot more hits and more info.)

OHIO STATE BOARD ADOPTS SCIENCE STANDARDS THAT PERMIT THE DISCUSSION OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Darby, Montana School Board Declaration on Teaching Intelligent Design

25582. KuligintheHooligan - 11/9/2004 2:30:02 PM

Great! Thanks A5.

25583. angel-five - 11/9/2004 2:32:18 PM

Also, I have never said that the laws which dictate our universe were also in force PRIOR to the genesis of our universe. Where did I say that? Perhaps you just misunderstood something I earlier said, or perhaps I misstated and didn't catch it myself. But that is clearly not my present conviction.

Perhaps you don't remember all your arguments about how the laws of the universe pertain also to the genesis of the universe, Kuligin? If the effect is the universe then the cause comes before it, right? And you're arguing that the cause came before the effect and there needs to be a cause, because in the effect, there's cause and effect. Connect your own dots, man.

In re: acausality:

You can scramble and scrabble all you like about how I can't prove acausality. It only draws attention to the fact that you can't disprove it and you can't mount a decent argument as to how it's just a scientific error. And once again the only thing which is necessary in order to demonstrate the flaw in your prime mover argument is to show that you can't fairly argue that the universe must always act causally. The mile or so clearance you give any statement of mine on this issue is proof enough as far as I'm concerned, but you can go on acting as though you don't see it each time I say it if you like.

25584. KuligintheHooligan - 11/9/2004 2:32:42 PM

However, you do seem a little lucky here, A5. Note what the PA article says:

"The district is now apparently the first school district in the country to require the teaching of "intelligent design"

They instituted it Oct 18th of this year, just a couple of weeks ago. I'm fairly certain you said some time ago that public schools in America teach "creation science." That certainly would have been said before this first public school in America just three weeks ago allowed it.

But thanks for the links just the same.

25585. KuligintheHooligan - 11/9/2004 2:35:27 PM

"You can scramble and scrabble all you like about how I can't prove acausality. It only draws attention to the fact that you can't disprove it and you can't mount a decent argument as to how it's just a scientific error."

Aren't you the one who said earlier, "What? prove a negative?"

I could use the same argument on you wrt the existence of God. Prove God does NOT exist, A5. And if you cannot, then you must be opened to his existence.

That's the same argumentation you are using here now wrt acausality. And as you have noted in earlier debates, it is just bad logic. Even now, as you attempt to use it yourself.

25586. angel-five - 11/9/2004 2:36:41 PM

Until there is proof that there IS acausality (and even you admit there currently is no proof of this), then it is quite reasonable and scientific to argue from what we DO know.

This is absolutely not scientific. The scientific method teaches us to hypothesize, but not rule anything out if you can't rule it out by falsification. It teaches us to keep our options open. Rightly speaking, if this is the 'science' you were taught, you should be slapping your instructors.

The scientific approach is to not rule out what you can't rule out. You can hypothesise, of course, that things are one way, and you can test it. But that's a hypothesis -- not anything concrete enough for you to do what you want to do with this, which is say 'acausality is a myth, it's all causal, it makes sense to act as if everything's always causal everywhere, therefore there's no value at all in suggesting the universe is actually acting acausally when it seems to be acting acausally, therefore we need a prime mover.' Sorry, you should have gone for Door #2.

25587. KuligintheHooligan - 11/9/2004 2:42:44 PM

Here is what we have, A5. You not ruling out anything (but Christianity of course) no matter how ridiculous it is. So you are open to self-generating universes, or even ones that "will themselves to exist" even before they exist.

And all of this you claim is "scientific" because, well, you are an open-minded scientist.

Of course Christianity is "hokum" to you, but not universes that will themselves to exist even before they exist.

Then you say I'm being unreasonable. Go figure.

25588. angel-five - 11/9/2004 2:43:45 PM

Read the cite. Dover schools now requires its teachers to teach intelligent design, making it probably the first district in America to require such teaching. However, laws have been on the books in Kansas, Minnesota, West Virginia, New Mexico,and Ohio (and possibly other states) permitting the teaching of intelligent design and other alternatives to evolution, for some time. The USSC ruled nearly twenty years ago that this was legal.

School boards have been antsy about requiring ID be taught, but not nearly so worried about it being allowed because liability doesn't fall on them in the latter case.

So we can see that once again your reading skills require a little work, and we're faced with the question: why, if it's been legal to teach alternative theories in the US since 1987, and it's been specifically permitted in the curriculum guidelines of several states... why do so few schools want it? Even down there in Baptist country, where Jenerator dwells?

Why indeed.

25589. angel-five - 11/9/2004 2:47:44 PM

That's the same argumentation you are using here now wrt acausality. And as you have noted in earlier debates, it is just bad logic. Even now, as you attempt to use it yourself.

It's bad logic for me to say 'you can't rule out acausality, therefore you cannot rule out an acausal origin for the universe'? Please, Kuligin. That is straightforward logic. The fact that you just don't like it at all doesn't matter.

Once again I invite you to do a bit of looking around. Maybe you'll remember those scientists you linked who strongly believed in quantum acausality, and then stop acting like guys like Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr and Erwin Schrodinger were chasing foxfire. Once again, you can stand with Aristotle if you like, but you've already burned Giordano Bruno and the solar system is still heliocentric.

25590. angel-five - 11/9/2004 2:50:15 PM

Here is what we have, A5. You not ruling out anything (but Christianity of course) no matter how ridiculous it is. So you are open to self-generating universes, or even ones that "will themselves to exist" even before they exist.

You find that ridiculous, but not a causeless God with a flowing beard. In fact, while I merely say I can't rule a self-generating or an eternal universe out, you throw yourself body and soul into your belief, which is that your causeless God is not only real, but it's the only true explanation for everything and everything else is sophisticated nonsense.

So let's stop trying for equivalency.

25591. KuligintheHooligan - 11/9/2004 2:52:38 PM

Well, let's be honest with you as well, A5. You said you are open to the existence if God, but you throw yourself body soul and spirit against it.

25592. angel-five - 11/9/2004 2:57:36 PM

And, for what it's worth:

I could use the same argument on you wrt the existence of God. Prove God does NOT exist, A5. And if you cannot, then you must be opened to his existence.

The fact that you think that's bad logic speaks volumes. It's perfectly sound logic. I can't rule out that your god exists. I'm really sure it doesn't and I would never worship it if it did, but I can't rule it entirely out and I remain open to proof that it exists. I know you'll probably doubt that a lot, and there's nothing I can do about it. Still, it is true.

25593. angel-five - 11/9/2004 3:02:29 PM

I am very much open to the idea that there is a supreme power, either one that brought this universe into being or one that is an emergent property of the universe. I am a priori less open to the idea that the supreme power brought the universe into being; a priori less open to the idea that that supreme power is a god that wants something of us; a priori less open to the idea that it's a Christian god; and a priori less open to the idea that it's your notion of the Christian god.

That's a perfectly sensible web of possibility. Once again, the fact that you don't like it doesn't much move me.

25594. angel-five - 11/9/2004 3:05:59 PM

It is fundamentally foolish and wrongheaded (if unintentional) or dishonest (if intentional) for you to blur the lines between the Christian god and your version of that god, and to apply my arguments against your version of things as if they were against Christianity as a whole. I understand that your position does not lend itself to the sort of statements which differentiate between 'Kuligin's god' and 'the god of Christianity at large' but when you're going to characterize my statements, it's necessary for you to do so.

25595. KuligintheHooligan - 11/9/2004 3:13:47 PM

"and I remain open to proof that it exists. I know you'll probably doubt that a lot, and there's nothing I can do about it. Still, it is true."

Well, given our interactions from the past, it is difficult to swallow certainly. And in some way, I feel that your claim above is tantamount to my claim that I must be open to the possibility that he does not exist. Of course, both of us - in light of the tentative nature of science - MUST be open to these possibilities. But we certainly don't live like we are! Do you live as if God might exist? I certainly don't live as if he does not.

I think when you and I say we are open to XYZ, but we are seen fighting tooth and nail against it, we reveal just how much we really are open to it. Not all that much. Goes for both of us.

25596. KuligintheHooligan - 11/9/2004 3:18:49 PM

"It is fundamentally foolish and wrongheaded (if unintentional) or dishonest (if intentional) for you to blur the lines between the Christian god and your version of that god, and to apply my arguments against your version of things as if they were against Christianity as a whole."

Huh? You mean, you actually aren't against Christianity as a whole? That's news, I think, to virtually everybody who has ever read your posts in the Fray days up until now.

But heartening to hear nonetheless.

25597. KuligintheHooligan - 11/9/2004 3:19:08 PM

Hey, man, clean up your toys!!

25598. KuligintheHooligan - 11/9/2004 3:44:16 PM

does this work?

25599. KuligintheHooligan - 11/9/2004 3:44:58 PM

Okay, I've cleaned up my last batch of posts, so here they are, specifically as they relate to your fuller explanations of QM and how you interpret the findings.

25600. KuligintheHooligan - 11/9/2004 3:45:13 PM

Contrary to what you may think, I do not think your recent explanation is useless or a waste of time. I’m glad you decided to “split the difference” simply because now I know why you are saying what you are saying. Put another way, before your fuller explanation you were consistently telling me to Google this or that topic, but that didn’t tell me what YOU thought about it.

When it comes to QM, there is obvious disagreement about how to interpret the experiments. For our own discussion here in The Mote, then, the only way to have any meaningful give and take between the two of us is for me to know precisely where YOU stand on the issues, i.e., how do you interpret the data produced from, say, the 2-slit experiments, and so on.

The crux of the matter, of course, is the origin of the universe. That is how we got to talking about quantum mechanics. However – and this seems very clear to me – you cannot posit a “something comes out of nothing” argument from QM. Let me be very clear here. The 2-slit experiments, for example, do not teach us that something can come from nothing. All it teaches us is that we cannot measure both the momentum and the position of an electron at the same time.

Take a look at the experiments. We shoot a particle and get a probability, based on its behaviour as a wave or as a particle depending on the intrusiveness of our observation, of where the particle will end up.

25601. KuligintheHooligan - 11/9/2004 3:45:36 PM

Let me say that again. We shoot a particle. The particle has not appeared out of thin air. We don’t miraculously get something out of nothing. We merely cannot predict with the assurances on the macro level of where the particle will end up once we shoot it.

Had you been able to point to an experiment where we shoot ONE particle, and miracle of miracles, we end up with ten particles on the other side of equal size and weight, then I’d have to say, “Wow, perhaps we do get something out of nothing.” But we simply do not have that.

And thus why I have been saying that jumping to any conclusions which state that there is no cause at all, or that we can move from quantum observations and posit a universe that just, poof!, appears from nothing, is clearly a misinterpretation of quantum mechanics.

Again, you use the word ‘acausality’ as a cover for something entirely different, namely, that something can appear out of nothing. But nothing in QM even hints at that. We already have pre-existing material and we attempt to measure its behaviour. That’s it. There is no “something from nothing” here at all.

25602. KuligintheHooligan - 11/9/2004 3:46:00 PM

THE CHANGING STATE OF YOUR POSITION
Much like the electron in the 2-slit experiments, it is difficult to track down your actual position. Okay, a pun intended of course!

Let me track your comments on this score, because your position has subtly changed over the discussion. I’ll use three of your comments, your original one, one in the middle of the debate, and your most recent one.

#1 - “Yet cause and effect breaks down on the quantum level, the most basic and fundamental level of the universe that we've encountered. That's in no way any exaggeration. Cause and effect aren't rules of quantum behavior as we understand it.”

#2 - “We see, at the quantum level, many events which don't seem to require causality as an explanation for them.”

#3 – “Nobody can prove causality or acausality on the quantum level.”

Your first comment, and the one to which I originally objected, is quite firm in its declaration. But as the discussion has proceeded, you have become less and less firm in your pronouncements, and you sound more and more “open minded” about things.

25603. KuligintheHooligan - 11/9/2004 3:46:23 PM

I must admit that it is difficult discussing these matters because you present a sort of “moving target.” In other words, if I propose the universe is finite, you tell me you are open to it being infinite. And if I then argue on the basis that it is infinite, you remind me that you are open to it being finite. You have decidedly (and I dare say uncharacteristically) wishy-washy in all of this. You seem to be open to just about anything, and just about nothing at the same time. Seriously.

Consider the answer “I don’t know.” This may be a good and reasonable answer at times, but it can also be used as a clever ploy to not allow one’s position to be pinned down entirely. Knowing our interactions from the past, this is a possibility in this debate as well. “I don’t know” can be a convenient way of avoiding any firm stand on a position, so that I am left wondering where A5 actually stands. Is the universe finite or infinite? “I don’t know” conveniently skirts any direct criticism, all the while criticizing my belief that it is finite, yet still saying you are open to my belief!

Perhaps you watched too much of John Kerry this election season.

Agnosticism can be an effective argumentation tool, especially when one doesn’t want to commit to this or that position. Your position becomes a moving target, and when it becomes convenient to argue from one side, you do so. But when it becomes convenient to argue from the other, you do that too.

25604. KuligintheHooligan - 11/9/2004 3:46:38 PM

It reminds me of a quote (I had to look it up) from a Christian apologist:

“I often point out the double standard involved: whenever people think that science and religion conflict (for example, Darwinian evolution and Genesis), people jump on the bandwagon of science and proclaim another victory in the “warfare between science and religion,” but the minute scientific evidence confirms the Bible, people start jumping off the bandwagon, and one is apt to hear all sorts of grave intonation about how uncertain science is…. You can’t have it both ways.”

25605. KuligintheHooligan - 11/9/2004 3:47:00 PM

“What does this mean to us? It means that cause and effect as we know them break down on the quantum level. Instead you have probabilistic causes and effects”
But here is where you are “jumping to metaphysical conclusions.” What we do not have is, poof!, something appearing out of nothing. You are errantly using the 2-slit experiment, for example, and then making false conclusions, or allowing for false conclusions. Put another way, what the experiments tell us is that we just don’t understand fully yet how the electrons react, but what the experiments do NOT tell us is that things just appear out of nothing, ex nihilo if you would.
Again, “we shoot a single electron” tells us that the electron already exists. On the other side, we don’t get bunches of electrons. We still get a single electron. And as you already recognize, when we attempt to observe its behaviour, our act of observation actually changes its behaviour! That is another example of cause and effect, nothing less. It is also reason to be humble and very cautious about any conclusions we make, because we recognize that we can’t even really observe what is happening without interfering with what is happening.
Clearly this is interesting and exciting, but it is hardly a proof that the universe could have willed itself to exist, or just popped out of nothing. Again, I’m with clyde on this one, if something can come from nothing, we are in big trouble.

25606. KuligintheHooligan - 11/9/2004 3:47:25 PM

“There's the old chestnut about the two photons created at the same instant and traveling in different directions, and observing one at one point has an instantaneous effect on the other.”

Which, tongue in cheek, is an excellent example of cause and effect! :-)

25607. KuligintheHooligan - 11/9/2004 3:47:52 PM

“you must prove that there is no acausality in the universe”

No I must not. What we have on the macro level is oodles of proof that causality is a law, and what we have on the micro level is, um, well, let’s read your words above again:

“Nobody can prove causality or acausality on the quantum level.”

In other words, it is a split decision. QM doesn’t tell us one way or the other at this moment, according to your own words. Therefore, it would be quite foolhardy of us to assume acausality on the quantum level and then based on that assumption to conclude that we don’t need a cause for the origination of the universe.

Put another way, I am working from what we firmly and very clearly know about the universe. You seem to be working on a phantom, what we may or may not know, and then somehow based on that highly tentative assumption – and one which you admit is highly tentative – to somehow negate all we DO know about the universe and how it operates.

25608. angel-five - 11/9/2004 4:10:23 PM

You can repeat the line about 'something coming from nothing' as many times as you like, but you were originally arguing about acausality --something happening for no discernible reason. You can say that the two-slit experiments only demonstrate Heisenbergian uncertainty, but seem not to want to delve deeper into what that means -- that the electron goes through both slits at the same time. I suspect the reason you don't want to explore that further is that if you go any further you end up questioning whether the universe measurably acts according to classical cause and effect -- which you are proposing -- or whether the universe does not, instead acting probabilistically (which is exactly what the experiment directly suggests). And if the universe acts probabilistically -- i.e. it generates results based on potential unless it's nailed down by observation -- then classical cause and effect breaks down on the level of quantum events.

No I must not. What we have on the macro level is oodles of proof that causality is a law, and what we have on the micro level is, um, well, let’s read your words above again:

“Nobody can prove causality or acausality on the quantum level.”

In other words, it is a split decision. QM doesn’t tell us one way or the other at this moment, according to your own words. Therefore, it would be quite foolhardy of us to assume acausality on the quantum level and then based on that assumption to conclude that we don’t need a cause for the origination of the universe.

You act as though it's just a bunch of people saying 'well, we can't rule it out'. Well, Kuligin, explain all those scientific papers you run across when you google 'quantum acausality'.

25609. angel-five - 11/9/2004 4:16:00 PM

Don't make it about me because that's easier for you. Explain Bohr and Heisenberg and Schrodinger and the others, if you want to take things to this level. Go on, google 'quantum acausality' and then come back and tell me again that the only thing we have to suggest acausality is a statement which you cherry-picked about not being able to rule it out.

Once again, this isn't an impasse. You're just unwilling to go any further.

You seem to be working on a phantom, what we may or may not know, and then somehow based on that highly tentative assumption – and one which you admit is highly tentative – to somehow negate all we DO know about the universe and how it operates.

My assumption isn't what threatens to negate all we know about the universe. It's experiments by Feynmann and Young and Schrodinger and Heisenberg and Bohr, it's all the NPR paradoxes, it is, in short, the field called quantum mechanics. Why don't you go find a quantum scientist and tell him QM really works according to your common sense principles?

Better yet, why don't you go do some reading on QM? You're sitting here flat-earthing it out and talking about how Aristotle was right. You don't get how silly that is. And while I completely respect your right to think the universe is all cause and effect as we understand it, and to surmise that there may be underlying order to apparent quantum disorder, your arguments in support of those theories amount to nothing more than what Aristotle would have made of Epicurus, without any of the moral arguments and hedonism.

25610. angel-five - 11/9/2004 4:22:33 PM

“you must prove that there is no acausality in the universe”

No I must not.

I'm sorry, but you indeed must, if you're going to prove that the universe is causal and therefore there could be no acausal genesis for it. The reason no one since Aquinas has really tried to do that is that they know they can't. And it's not like I'm asking you to scour the corners of the heavens here -- I've provided you with something to work with, the apparent acausality of quantum mechanics. What do you reply to that with, but your day to day common sense analogies of cause and effect?

Well, guess what, Kuligin. You've even mentioned Heisenbergian uncertainty. Does that make sense from a classical physics perspective? No, it does not. Does the two-slit experiment make sense from a macroscopic sensibility? No, it does not. Quantum uncertainty doesn't have any parallel in our daily lives, but we can prove it in the laboratory. We have done that, in fact, for every freshman crop of physics students in America.

So please, enough already with trying to stamp your billiards-physics understanding onto what happens when subatomic particles mix wave functions. If you don't like it that's fine but quit trying to shout it down with the same 'common sense' arguments that have failed for the last two thousand years in the face of every new major scientific discovery. They fail to move me, and they should fail to move you.

25611. angel-five - 11/9/2004 4:45:16 PM

On an aside:

This argument has become very multifaceted and spread out, and both of us are pretty long-winded. I propose that we stick to replies of no more than two posts in length to one another on this subject, which will help eliminate repetitiveness and also ease the deluge of posts.

25612. Jenerator - 11/9/2004 5:27:32 PM

A5,

I didn't question legality, I questioned the practice of teaching it. In the three school districts that I mentioned (one I work in), Intelligent design, nor anything having to do with the Christian faithis welcomed in any discussion. Period.

We are explicitly told that we are to not talk about anything having to do with faith when it comes to 1)science, 2) history - unless only superficially), and 3) personal convictions.

We may be legally entitled to do it, but we are not practically allowed to.

The overwhelming fear is of an ACLU-type initiated lawsuit.

In fact, we're all waiting for our "Panther Pause" to be taken away. (It's a moment of silence for personal reflection that we have in the mornings.)

25613. SnowOwl - 11/9/2004 5:37:39 PM

We are explicitly told that we are to not talk about anything having to do with faith when it comes to 1)science, 2) history - unless only superficially), and 3) personal convictions.

Why do you think this is inappropriate? Science isn't concerned with faith, history isn't concerned with faith apart from the role of faith in shaping historical events, and personal convictions should be kept out of the classroom.

I managed to teach for many years without ever feeling the need to share my personal convictions with students. I doubt that they were worse off for that.

25614. Jenerator - 11/9/2004 5:40:07 PM

SnowOwl,

Science IS concerned with faith if you're discussing the origin of the universe! And by your own wards, faith is interwoven with history and has shaped Western Civilization as we know it. Our personal convictions shape how we interact with students and how we teach in general.

25615. angel-five - 11/9/2004 5:44:30 PM

I didn't question legality, I questioned the practice of teaching it. In the three school districts that I mentioned (one I work in), Intelligent design, nor anything having to do with the Christian faithis welcomed in any discussion. Period.

We are explicitly told that we are to not talk about anything having to do with faith when it comes to 1)science, 2) history - unless only superficially), and 3) personal convictions.

We may be legally entitled to do it, but we are not practically allowed to.

Well, if you do talk about faith in the classroom, I earnestly hope someone sues you into the poorhouse, because it is illegal and it ought to remain so. And the reason you would probably get sued is that you see Intelligent Design as a chance to talk about your faith, which is what worries so many people about intelligent design and proves what I was saying earlier! The state provides you with a captive audience to whom you are supposed to teach, not preach, and your equivocation of ID and your faith just goes to show you why some people are so reluctant to let you talk about ID. Good object lessons are a blessing, Jenerator: thank you for yours.

The supreme court has ruled it legal to discuss Intelligent Design, and other theories in chapters containing evolution, and I personally see no problem whatsoever in doing that. In a perfect world I'd even see no problem whatsoever in letting the existence of one's faith be mentioned in classroom, or even teaching students about that faith's teachings and leaving it there. The problem is, once again, that the people most intent on talking about their faith in a classroom don't seem at all likely to 'leave it there'. They want to spread their holy word. You don't get to do that in a government mandated educational setting.

25616. angel-five - 11/9/2004 5:48:06 PM

In fact, if teaching without also proselytizing is such an onerous burden for you, Jenerator, why don't you start subbing at a religious school? Surely there are plenty of them; after all, as you said, you live in Baptist country.

25617. Jenerator - 11/9/2004 5:48:38 PM

A5,

Well, if you do talk about faith in the classroom, I earnestly hope someone sues you into the poorhouse, because it is illegal and it ought to remain so. And the reason you would probably get sued is that you see Intelligent Design as a chance to talk about your faith, which is what worries so many people about intelligent design and proves what I was saying earlier!

Are you that terrified that discussing faith - when it is relevent to the subject - is akin to preaching the Gospel???

25618. Jenerator - 11/9/2004 5:51:02 PM

I didn't realize that discussing faith = proselytizing.

25619. Jenerator - 11/9/2004 5:53:08 PM

I can say, "Quit being a fucking moron, Resonance!" and keep my job, but if I say, "I'll pray for your rapid recovery, Resonance." I can get fired in fear of an ACLU-type lawsuit.

25620. SnowOwl - 11/9/2004 5:54:15 PM

Our personal convictions shape how we interact with students and how we teach in general.

If you mean that our personal convictions about how we should treat other people influence our teachings, sure. But our personal religious convictions or lack of religious convictions have absolutely no place in the classroom.

Science IS concerned with faith if you're discussing the origin of the universe! And by your own wards, faith is interwoven with history and has shaped Western Civilization as we know it.

If you're telling me that you're not allowed to say that there are competing theories as to the origin of the universe and that as yet there is no clear evidence to support any particular theory I don't believe you. If you mean that you're not allowed to say that God created the universe I'm very glad to hear it.

As far as faith and history are concerned there's no doubt that many historical events have been shaped by faith and again, I don't believe that you're not allowed to discuss such things. How could you talk about the founding of America if you didn't discuss the role of the Pilgrim Fathers and their reasons for leaving England?

25621. angel-five - 11/9/2004 5:56:35 PM

Are you that terrified that discussing faith - when it is relevent to the subject - is akin to preaching the Gospel???

You seem to think that teaching a section on ID is equivalent to discussing your faith, so, yes, I don't expect you to draw the line where it belongs.

25622. angel-five - 11/9/2004 6:03:17 PM

I think if teams of scientists started showing up at your church, and your church schools, and demanded the right to teach them non-religious explanations alongside creationism and Biblical accountings of the current state of man, you would likely go into conniptions. I think if your church hired a minister to preach the word on Sundays and he started complaining because he wasn't allowed to argue for the Big Bang, you would go: "That isn't why we hired you," and show him the door. And if there was a court order by some institution to make your church accept his 'right' to talk evolution to you, to force you to let him take up part of your Sunday morning with an explanation that stood at odds with everything you think you should go to Church for, the list of lawsuits would be impressive indeed.

So you can, you know, anytime you like, stop acting like it's a travesty that people don't let you preach the Word to captive schoolchildren who are forced to be there in the room by the State.

25623. ElliottRW - 11/9/2004 6:53:36 PM

Thoughful,

Over in Election, you say:
I suggest, for one, you take a look at objectivism if you are looking for a philosophy that leads one to moral behavior, and is true to man's fundamental nature as a thinking, rational human being.

I know nothing of objectivism, so I looked it up. From dictionary.com:

Philosophy. One of several doctrines holding that all reality is objective and external to the mind and that knowledge is reliably based on observed objects and events.
On the surface, I would view this is a religious philosophy. It is religious because it holds an unfalsifiable statement about the fundamental nature of reality to be meaningful.

But I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and I have tried to paraphrase objectivism in a way that avoids this problem:

Human beings are creatures of limited perception, but perception is all we have to work with. It makes no sense to talk about that which we cannot observe; we must accept the world it as it seems, and act accordingly.
Is this a fair characterization? If not, please clarify. If so, show how we can proceed from this to a necessary moral philosophy.

25624. thoughtful - 11/9/2004 7:14:30 PM

No, that is a generic description of objectivism...i was referencing work done by Ayn Rand who laid out a very specific philosophical approach to man and morality that focuses on rational thought, not faith.

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

The morality comes from a self-interested approach to the world, recognizing that you are not enhancing your own happiness and self esteem by stealing from others, lying, etc.

Check out some of the quotes here to give you a flavor of what she's talking about.

If you haven't read the fountainhead or atlas shrugged, you should. Atlas Shrugged, I believe is frequently listed as the most influential book on people's lives, second only to the bible, interestingly.

25625. SnowOwl - 11/9/2004 7:26:40 PM

Atlas Shrugged, I believe is frequently listed as the most influential book on people's lives, second only to the bible, interestingly.

I think this is true only in the US. I don't think Ayn Rand is nearly as influential in other countries.

The idea that morality arises from a self-centred approach to the world is quite pragmatic. We don't want to be killed so we don't kill others. We don't want people to steal from us so we don't steal from others.

.

25626. ElliottRW - 11/9/2004 7:52:51 PM

I have read The Fountainhead, and it did not illuminate me. Perhaps this was because I did as an adolescent and I did so without the benefit of a guide.

But reading the quotes on the page you linked to was very interesting. They clearly show that this objectivism clearly differs from the dictionary definition.

Thanks for taking the time to fill me in.

For what it is worth, I don't think, that this objectivism proves your original point. To me, this objectivism is not so much morality arising from reason as it is morality arising from reason-worship. That may be incorrect, but that is the impression those quotes gave me.

25627. angel-five - 11/9/2004 8:29:26 PM

Well, it's all very well and good to say 'you can't have a morality without religion' but it's also completely wrong. It harks back to the notion that the ideas of good and bad only have meaning if there's a deity behind them.

The agnostic response is 'why? why aren't we capable of deciding what is good and bad even if there's nothing hard-wired in the universe that says This is Good and This is Bad?' Because there's nothing against that. We can decide for ourselves what's good and what isn't, and act accordingly. Thinking otherwise is just narrow-minded.

How do I know this? Because I'm an agnostic, and I have no problem deciding what's good and what's bad. The criteria can be anything you bloody well like. Does this mean that someone can decide that, say, murder is good? Sure, and that's a problem.... but there have been murders and other atrocities done in the name of organized religion since time out of mind, so it's not like it's a new problem, or peculiar to agnostic ethics.

25628. angel-five - 11/9/2004 8:32:29 PM

I mean, there's nothing in the universe which says 'pizza tastes good', right? Does that mean it's impossible for us to taste pizza and decide we like it and want more of it and introduce our friends to it? Is it impossible for us to write books on how to make pizza the way we like it, and compare techniques and styles, is it impossible for you to come up with a really good pizza, start up a pizza shop, have it catch on, and end up with a Papa John's size share of the market?

No, of course not, even though liking the taste of pizza is subjective, not ordained by any god.

25629. ElliottRW - 11/9/2004 8:37:45 PM

A-5,

I don't really have an argument with anything you said. I do not, in fact, think that people require "God" to behave morally. I just wanted to learn about objectivism.

25630. angel-five - 11/9/2004 8:44:32 PM

Yeah, I was speaking more to the person who made the original comment today about atheists and morality. I bet you'll never guess who that was.

25631. clydefo - 11/9/2004 10:09:43 PM

I'm puzzled. What comprises the Intelligent Design curriculum that would be taught in our schools? Is there a body of experiments to be examined? What do students do in Intelligent Design 101 lab on Wednesday afternoon? Beyond the assertion that there is in fact an Intelligent Designer, what is there to say or teach except supernatural speculation?

25632. angel-five - 11/9/2004 11:53:27 PM

Intelligent design 'theory' (it's a hypothesis) holds that systems of a certain amount of complexity and selection don't come about by chance. It's not something you do lab work for, obviously. And the Supreme Court ruling which can be used to argue for including intelligent design in a class on origins holds that you can only use other scientific theories with the clear secular purpose of enhancing science education.

Now, nominally the pro-ID people say that that's what they're doing; they say evolution's full of holes and they just want to teach ID to get people to think critically about it, in the name of teaching them better science in the round. But a lot of people are quite suspicious of the agenda and expect it's just a wedge issue. This is not a baseless suspicion; teaching ID is just supposed to be an alternative example of how the cosmos could have come about, rationally, but you saw the terms Jenerator used today. People are bound to teach this in terms of their own faith, and indeed are hungry to do so.

I'm pretty much a free marketeer when it comes to information, so I don't have any a priori problems with intelligent design being offered as an alternate theory to evolution; but I think that one has to be very careful to make sure that some thumper doesn't take it as a chance to push their religion. They are, after all, commanded to do so.

25633. angel-five - 11/9/2004 11:56:29 PM

Anyway, to answer the question:

You're doing a unit on evolution, and you introduce ID (and, of course, other things like Lamarckian evolution), maybe the Gaea Hypothesis, as alternate explanations as to how life arose on Earth. You do crit skills builders letting students bat the different ideas around.

And then you move on to cellular respiration or whatever the next chapter is.

25634. thoughtful - 11/10/2004 9:51:20 AM

Elliott, For what it is worth, I don't think, that this objectivism proves your original point. To me, this objectivism is not so much morality arising from reason as it is morality arising from reason-worship.

Actually it does prove my point. It is not 'reason-worship' as if reason were a god to be taken on faith and in an unquestioning way. Rather it's a recognition that reason is a tool of survival derived from man's nature and his relationship to the world. This is very different and is a perfect example of a moral philosophy not derived on faith or the belief in god.

The morality is not based on the golden rule either. Rather it is based on a desire to enhance one's self esteem and happiness and that can be achieved only through one's own productive effort. A thug or a thief will never be happy sponging off of or destroying the efforts of others. You can't be happy or have a sound self esteem if your life is based on destroying others or their work.

25635. alistairconnor - 11/10/2004 10:43:36 AM

Sounds like a crock of shit to me. And underlines why I think objectivism as a moral philosophy, as outlined in the above posts, is an unsound and vacuous proposition. Fundamentally, self-worship.

You can't be happy or have a sound self esteem if your life is based on destroying others or their work.

Why not? Pop psychology aside, that sounds like a faith-based proposition to me. Counter-examples are so numerous that it is superfluous to provide them. Everyone can think of examples where someone's success and happiness is built on wrongs and suffering inflicted on others. If the answer is "ah yes but really they're all eaten up by guilt inside", then that, as an unproveable assertion, has no place in an allegedly objective system of thought.

If the essence of the philosophy is :
man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life

then I don't see where this nicey-nicey stuff fits. Either it's a external overlay, inconsistent with the internal logic of the thought system, or it's phony window dressing to make it appear more palatable.

[Just doing Kuligin's job for him...

I'm a humanist myself]

25636. ElliottRW - 11/10/2004 11:24:49 AM

thoughtful,

Help me connect the dots here.

I can see how a moral framework can arise from the desire to enhance one's own self-esteem and happiness. But the resulting moral framework is not universal--each individual, seeking these ends, will generate its own moral framework according to its peculiar idea of happiness and self-esteem.

And it seems reasonable to me that a person can hold a ideas of self-esteem and happiness that are entirely consistent with thuggery or whatever. It is just a matter of personality and circumstance.

25637. thoughtful - 11/10/2004 11:29:55 AM

Fine, ac. My descriptions of the philosophy are most probably poor ones. I don't claim to be an adherent nor a philsopher nor even a philsophy student who can express the tenets of this philosophy or others in any way that makes sense to anyone. The only reason I brought it up originally was as an example of a philosophical structure leading one to a moral life without relying on god...something which someone in a different thread said didn't/couldn't exist.

25638. Magoseph - 11/10/2004 11:35:23 AM

I know people who cannot conceive of a world without believing in the entity they call God. To them, the idea that they will be nothing after death, but maybe a remembrance, is just too awful to accept.

25639. alistairconnor - 11/10/2004 11:36:34 AM

I certainly agree with you on that, Thoughtful. The idea that a moral system requires a god (I think it was Jen who expressed the idea, but it's a recurring Kuligin riff too) can only proceed, it seems to me, from a tautological definition : "morality is a code of behaviour which is dictated to us by an authority", something like that.

This might be a sufficient definition for authoritarian moralities, but is no use to people who think for themselves and have a moral compass.

25640. ElliottRW - 11/10/2004 1:55:50 PM

thoughtful,

As you can see, I'm an argumentative bastard. It occurs to me that starting an argument with you may be an odd way of thanking you for doing me a favor. Next time I'll just say thanks, and leave it at that. Really.

25641. thoughtful - 11/10/2004 3:56:31 PM

serious question for the fundies...what do you think of the salem witch trials?

25642. judithathome - 11/10/2004 4:39:58 PM

To them, the idea that they will be nothing after death, but maybe a remembrance, is just too awful to accept.

That is fine with me...live well, do no harm, and leave happy memories. Sounds like a good life to me.

25643. judithathome - 11/10/2004 4:41:16 PM

serious question for the fundies...what do you think of the salem witch trials?

I'm receiving the answer through esp from the fundie beyond: good riddance to bad rubbish.

25644. thoughtful - 11/11/2004 12:51:16 PM

No answers from the fundies on this one. Why am I not surprised.

Radical rightie I know was a big supporter of mccarthy and had no problem with the commie witch hunt he was running. He fully believed that if you were innocent, it wouldn't be a problem and even if it was, there's nothing wrong with sacrificing a few for the sake of the greater good as communists were just THAT evil. Of course, he missed the irony totally in his pov. He seemed completely unfazed when i mentioned to him that there's nothing illegal about being a member of the communist party. That's irrelevant, you see, as he was scouring the govt of russian commie spies who were just every where. Innocent people's lives shattered for no good reason was perfectly fine by him. I guess it's just more collateral damage.

But he's so self righteous, he can't imagine himself or his family as ever being put in the sights of such an inquisitor. But I suggest to all of you fundies that that fragile rule of law is what protects us all and if you bend it to your own purposes, you'd better expect it to backlash on you.

25645. pelty - 11/11/2004 1:22:42 PM

"No answers from the fundies on this one. Why am I not surprised."

It is a stupid, poorly-defined question. What do you mean by this? Do we think that it is a bad idea to dunk witches? Sure. Should we go out of our way to hunt them down and kill them? No. Should we maintain a healthy distance from the practice of the occult? Yes. Admittedly, I have little real knowledge of what the issues were behind those who were killed during these trials, but magic and witchcraft historically have been used to designate "the other," so I would want to get a feel for the victims and what their role in society had been up to that point. In my limited knowledge, they are portrayed as recluses who live on the fringes of society and thus it is not surprising that we should find these accusations attached to them. Do I think that is "right"? Not really, but it is certainly not anything out of the ordinary.

25646. pelty - 11/11/2004 1:24:48 PM

"But I suggest to all of you fundies that that fragile rule of law is what protects us all and if you bend it to your own purposes, you'd better expect it to backlash on you."

Oh, that is rich. Since when have the Dems given a rat's arse about the "rule of law"? I know this is not a political thread, although (un)thoughtful has made it such, but this comment is way too ironic to let slide...

25647. wonkers2 - 11/11/2004 1:41:13 PM

Every culture has a moral system whether or not there is a belief in God. Even apes and other animals have rudimentary moral systems.

25648. KuligintheHooligan - 11/11/2004 1:41:34 PM

"You can repeat the line about 'something coming from nothing' as many times as you like, but you were originally arguing about acausality --something happening for no discernible reason."

No, no, no. Don't try to change topics, A5. I said the universe needed a cause in order for it to exist, and you brought up QM. I asked for specifics from you on that score, and you pointed me elsewhere. Finally, you gave me YOUR specifics, and then I discerned the problem. You have been using the word "acausality" as a cover for "something coming from nothing," which is what I am objecting to.

That an electron sometimes acts like a particle and other times like a wave isn't a problem at all for me. In fact, at the outset I mentioned Heisenberg, and you old me that it had nothing to do with cause and effect!

So you see, from the beginning, I have been concerned with how the universe got here, period. And you pointing to quantum acausality does not negate anything at this point. Again, "we shoot an electron" is dealing with things that already exist. Show me something that poof! appears from nothing, and then we can talk further.

And I don't believe I ever said that my concern was "something happening for no discernable reason." I'm not sure where you got that. From the start, as I asked my first question of you, "Do you believe the universe is finite?" I have been concerned with the idea that the universe could just appear out of nothing.

25649. thoughtful - 11/11/2004 1:41:38 PM

pelty, your response makes it clear that you don't understand the implications of the salem witch trials nor the mccarthy hearings nor how they might apply to the practice of religion in the US today.

Perhaps that is most frightening of all, especially if that's representative of fundie perceptions in general.

(An aside, as I recognize this is not the politics thread, you apparently have confused me for a democrat, which I am not. Further, allow me to suggest, radical as this might seem to you, democrats are as interested in the rule of law as are republicans, they are as patriotic as republicans, and they are as moral as republicans.)

25650. KuligintheHooligan - 11/11/2004 1:43:10 PM

As an aside, that issue is also related to my posts about evolutionary theory. Again, whenever I ask someone who believes in evolution, "Where did the original "stuff" come from?" they either say that has nothing to do with evolution, or "I don't know."

Origins, not behaviour of electrons shot at the wall, that has been my concern, A5. And that is why I asked for YOUR explanation, because I saw a disconnect somewhere between us, and sure enough, that is precisely where it lay.

25651. KuligintheHooligan - 11/11/2004 1:43:49 PM

"then classical cause and effect breaks down on the level of quantum events"

But do we get something from nothing? No, we do not. Thus, my original argument still stands, that the universe did not just pop out of nowhere, that we don't see such in our universe, and that it needs a cause in order for it to come into existence (unless, of course, you are now prepared to argue that the universe is infinite.)

"come back and tell me again that the only thing we have to suggest acausality is a statement which you cherry-picked about not being able to rule it out"

Angel-Five, you are using the term "acausality" but it doesn't address the issue at hand, namely, that the universe could appear from nothing, or that it didn't need a cause in order for it to exist. Don't you see that? Your argument doesn't address anything on this matter, really. Again, unless you can show us that something can come from nothing (and the 2-slit exp do NOT show us that), you aren't addressing the substance of my position.

25652. KuligintheHooligan - 11/11/2004 1:44:00 PM

"Does the two-slit experiment make sense from a macroscopic sensibility? No, it does not."

Answer this: Does the 2-slit exp prove that something can come from nothing? No, it does not. What it does tell us is that electrons do not act like bowling balls. But it doesn't tell us that electrons just appear out of thin air.

Again, QM simply does not address the issue, namely, that things appear from nothing.

Also, and perhaps lastly, when you prove that God does not exist, I'll prove that there is nothing in all of creation that doesn't have a cause. In other words, it is a silly proof, period, and you know it.

"I propose that we stick to replies of no more than two posts in length"

I'll try my best, but after this last series from me, you might find it unnecessary to continue, because I do not believe that present findings in QM disprove the need for a cause as I have been objecting to from the beginning, namely, that things appear from nothing.

25653. KuligintheHooligan - 11/11/2004 1:48:00 PM

"pelty, your response makes it clear that you don't understand the implications of the salem witch trials nor the mccarthy hearings nor how they might apply to the practice of religion in the US today."

Actually, pelty's comments wrt the witch trials were good. The original question was too indistinct and broad.

Let's keep in mind, too, that the Puritans burned something like 30 witches in total, not all that many in raw numbers. How many religionists did the atheistic regimes of Stalin and Mao kill in the 20th century? These two areligious regimes exterminate (conservative estimates) over 120 million.

What the Puritans did so many centuries ago isn't all that much a concern, thoughtful, compared to what is happening right now in the world. No doubt you approve of the 40-60 MILLION abortions performed each and every year around the globe, thoughtful?

25654. KuligintheHooligan - 11/11/2004 1:48:45 PM

"democrats are as interested in the rule of law as are republicans, they are as patriotic as republicans, and they are as moral as republicans"

wow

25655. KuligintheHooligan - 11/11/2004 1:50:15 PM

By the way, A5, thanks for the civil discussion. I really do appreciate it, and we've certainly saved a considerable amount of time, don't you think, in comparison to our past interactions?

25656. KuligintheHooligan - 11/11/2004 1:57:56 PM

A5

Here is where our current discussion began:

25463. KuligintheHooligan - 10/29/2004 7:36:21 PM

Last question, and thanks for answering them all. If you believe the universe to be finite, where did it come from?

25657. KuligintheHooligan - 11/11/2004 2:07:17 PM

I then began to discuss the issue of "God" as the cause of the universe's existence, being that it was finite, and you discerned immediately what I was getting at, of course.

"It's easy enough to think that, as that's the way things work in our world. Even freak occurrences have causes, and we spend inordinate amounts of time determining them. We like knowing causes, we need to know them, and when we can't know them we propose them.

Yet cause and effect breaks down on the quantum level, the most basic and fundamental level of the universe that we've encountered. That's in no way any exaggeration. Cause and effect aren't rules of quantum behavior as we understand it. This notion is inevitably one of the things that disturb people the most when they start learning about QM."

You knew I was looking for a "cause" for the universe, and I don't think your reformulation of my original interest, namely

"something happening for no discernible reason"

is exactly the same thing as looking for a cause for the universe's existence. "Why does the electron behave the way it does in 2-slit exp?" is a far different questions than, say, "how did we get so many electrons when we only started with one," or perhaps better yet, "how did that electron just appear out of thin air, out of nothingness as it were?"

25658. wonkers2 - 11/11/2004 2:36:18 PM

Democrats are much more "moral" than Republicans whose moral values amount to a modern day revival of social Darwinism.

25659. pelty - 11/11/2004 2:54:51 PM

"pelty, your response makes it clear that you don't understand the implications of the salem witch trials nor the mccarthy hearings nor how they might apply to the practice of religion in the US today."

But the question you asked was not "Do fundies think that there are any comparisons to be made btwn the Salem witch trials and the McCarthy hearings" or something of that ilk and your question may have been more interesting to your target audience. As it has now become clear that your sole intent was to make a point about the rule of law (although what you have in mind here - the Patriot Act, something to do w/ gay marriage? - is still unclear), I now have a better understanding of what you are asking and even less interest in answering the question. Surely, you have reached your conclusions by using your acquaintance as the test case and the representative sample.

25660. pelty - 11/11/2004 2:58:27 PM

"(An aside, as I recognize this is not the politics thread, you apparently have confused me for a democrat, which I am not. Further, allow me to suggest, radical as this might seem to you, democrats are as interested in the rule of law as are republicans, they are as patriotic as republicans, and they are as moral as republicans.)"

As a further aside, I am neither a Republican nor do I claim that they have the claim on any of the elements you list. The problem w/your list is that it assumes we can agree on the definition of these words and I suspect we would never find definitions suitable to both of us.

25661. ElliottRW - 11/11/2004 3:00:12 PM

Kuligan and Angelfive,

Kuligan sums up your recent exchange as follows:

...the issue at hand, namely, that the universe could appear from nothing, or that it didn't need a cause in order for it to exist.

I don't see how QM can bear on this question. QM is a scientific model. Scientific models tells us not about how the universe is but rather how the universe seems. It is a leap of faith either way to say that there is or is not some hidden causality or acausality lurking beyond our understanding.

But, on the other hand, I don't see any value in the question at all. Our observations of the universe will not change. QM will still be a useful model. I will still believe (without understanding why) that a benign spirtual force cares about me and every other living thing, yourselves included. La mordida will still be practiced in Mexico.

To what end this conversation? What are we trying to achieve here?

25662. thoughtful - 11/11/2004 3:07:14 PM

Ktheh, 25653, so is your response about what you think of the salem witch trials, it's a matter of numbers, salem being small and thus irrelevant? Or is your response, they did it to us too, somehow making it right? Just want to be sure I understand.

And no pelty, we haven't even gotten close to the key implication of the salem witch trials in my book.

25663. KuligintheHooligan - 11/11/2004 3:14:19 PM

Elliot, it started with me asking how a finite universe got here. Of course, I posit that it must have a cause being finite. A5 countered that on the quantum level, cause and effect do not rule the day (apparently), and thus my argument that the universe needed a cause is moot.

Of course, I disagreed.

25664. KuligintheHooligan - 11/11/2004 3:16:42 PM

Actually, thoughtful, my response was to your response, which was a response to pelty's response! I just thought you shrugged off his answer, which actually wasn't all that bad.

Personally, I think it is wrong what happened in the Salem witch trials, but again, we must keep all things in perspective. My point to you was that, perhaps, you need to pay some attention to much bigger fish as well. Salem is used as if it is some sort of ruler by which the Puritans can be measured, but in actual fact, it stands as a very small blip in their overall existence.

Is that clearer?

25665. KuligintheHooligan - 11/11/2004 3:18:58 PM

thoughtful

"in my book"

Did you write a book about the Salem witch trials, or was this just slang?

Also, I think the reactions in the Elections thread by those who hated to see Bush win are quite telling when it comes to religious freedom in America. Time and time again the vitriol is not only aimed at those who voted for Bush, but also at their religious convictions. This is troubling, because it seems on the surface that many people over there don't really care about the first amendment much.

25666. clydefo - 11/11/2004 3:36:19 PM

Did Stalin work all those peasants to death because they were "religionists" or because he needed slave labor?

25667. angel-five - 11/11/2004 5:20:38 PM

No, no, no. Don't try to change topics, A5. I said the universe needed a cause in order for it to exist, and you brought up QM. I asked for specifics from you on that score, and you pointed me elsewhere. Finally, you gave me YOUR specifics, and then I discerned the problem. You have been using the word "acausality" as a cover for "something coming from nothing," which is what I am objecting to.

No, Kuligin, I have been using the word 'acausality' to mean 'the state of being without a cause'. And you can pretend you weren't going on and on about Cause and Effect for a bazillion posts and how 'common sense' led 'rational, reasonable' people to conclude that Cause and Effect was what ran quantum mechanics. But I can link those bazillion posts, and the precise point when you stopped talking about Cause and Effect and started talking about 'something coming from nothing' -- it is, in fact, right when I posted about the lab experiments where classical cause and effect break down. It will take minimal effort, Kuligin; is that what you want me to do?

You were applying the principles of cause and effect to the genesis of the universe in an effort to show that the universe must have some kind of cause, because everything else in our universe works that way, according to you. Now that that's shown to be a compromisable argument, you are talking about 'something from nothing' which is a very specific subset of 'cause and effect'. Which is fine by me, but the basic conundrum hasn't changed. We don't yet understand fully how the universe works, we don't know how it originated, we don't know how things behave when they aren't matter and quantized energy, we, in short, don't know enough about the universe to fully argue that it must require a substantive cause, especially if you are proposing that your god doesn't require anything similar.

25668. Magoseph - 11/11/2004 6:51:56 PM

Democrats are much more "moral" than Republicans whose moral values amount to a modern day revival of social Darwinism.

Wonk, as far I am concerned, the Bush people look at everything from the standpoint of wealth. Anything that enhances the compounding of wealth is good. Anything that detracts from the ability to compound wealth is bad.

25669. angel-five - 11/11/2004 8:23:22 PM

I don't see how QM can bear on this question. QM is a scientific model. Scientific models tells us not about how the universe is but rather how the universe seems. It is a leap of faith either way to say that there is or is not some hidden causality or acausality lurking beyond our understanding.

PRECISELY!!!! Thank you, Elliot.

You are exactly correct to say that science can't answer these questions and I do not attempt to use it thus. I'm not making any positive statement about the genesis of the universe; instead, I am arguing about the logic of the Prime Mover argument, and the logic is fortunately something that we can address. I was beginning to think the difference was lost on everyone.

25670. sakonige - 11/11/2004 11:38:18 PM

What the hell is QM? please tell me.

25671. sakonige - 11/11/2004 11:38:53 PM

oh, quantum mechanics? Jesus.

25672. KuligintheHooligan - 11/12/2004 1:54:19 AM

A5

"It will take minimal effort, Kuligin; is that what you want me to do?"

Sure, go ahead, but the fact still remains. I asked you if the universe was finite, and you said yes. Then, based on that, I asked if it needed a cause. You then started with QM and "acausality," but from the start I said that QM wasn't a good argument. Even clyde jumped in early and noted that you were positing "something from nothing," but that is a grossly mistaken interpretation of QM experiments, which I've also noted several times.

"Now that that's shown to be a compromisable argument, you are talking about 'something from nothing' which is a very specific subset of 'cause and effect'."

It isn't compromisable at all, A5. Again, if the universe if finite, that means it hasn't been here forever. So where did it come from? Thus my argument for a "cause" which brought it about. Shooting electrons through slits does not negate the idea that something which is finite needs a cause in order to bring it into existence.

Don't you recall your other comments about the universe willing itself to exist and all those points?

25673. KuligintheHooligan - 11/12/2004 1:56:48 AM

"we, in short, don't know enough about the universe to fully argue that it must require a substantive cause"

Again, point to me one thing in our universe, anywhere, where something comes from nothing? Where there was absolutely nothing and then poof! something appeared. You cannot. This law of cause and effect is a perfectly good place to start, then, in discussing how the universe itself came into existence. QM just doesn't cut it in this argument, A5, because it doesn't prove what I am asking you to prove.

Again, recall my original question of you, "Is the universe finite?" From that has flowed all other discussion. If the universe had a beginning, then what started it?

Of course, if you want to now argue that it is infinite, we can do that too. But we both started on the same page, that the universe had a beginning. Then came some of your possible explanations, such as it willing itself to exist, and such.

What QM does NOT teach us, at least not at the present time, is that things appear out of nothing. Again, "we shoot and electron" and then we study its behaviour. This is hardly a counter proof for the argument, "everything which has a beginning has a cause of that beginning."

25674. KuligintheHooligan - 11/12/2004 2:01:36 AM

Lastly, your "we don't know enough about the universe" argument can ALWAYS be used, ad infinitum.

So then, I see you playing both sides of the game. When it is convenient for you, such as with evolutionary theory, you seem to claim absolute knowledge of such things, but when it is also convenient to claim ignorance, you do that too. Your argument, though, cuts both ways A5.

If we really are so cotton pickin' ignorant of how the universe works, how on earth do we accomplish anything?

Your argument is tantamount to saying that we really cannot claim pigs can't fly, because we haven't studied each and every pig. Or we can't say no two fingerprints are alike, because we haven't seen every single fingerprint every existing. Your "you must first prove no acausality exists" before stating the universe needs a cause flies directly in the face of the tons of data we do have the C&E rule the day.

Again, if you think the God of Christianity does not exist, prove it. And of course, that's a silly argument. You can't prove this negative. Similarly, then, you can't now use the same silly argument wrt causality. You act like we know absolutely nothing at this point about the universe, when we know a great deal.

25675. Ulgine Barrows - 11/12/2004 4:19:55 AM

We actually don't know a great deal.

Especially about the beginnings and ends.

We only know what we know in the middle of it all.

25676. KuligintheHooligan - 11/12/2004 4:38:17 AM

A5, I decided to go back and look at the genesis of this discussion. Here is your first QM statement, one which I quoted several times now:

“Yet cause and effect breaks down on the quantum level, the most basic and fundamental level of the universe that we've encountered. That's in no way any exaggeration. Cause and effect aren't rules of quantum behavior as we understand it.”

And here is what I said directly in response to it:

“Assuming you are referring to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, sure, the rules don’t work “as we understand” them. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t any cause and effect at work. Again, it seems that you are saying QM shows us that at this fundamental level, cause and effect are non-existent. If that is what you are implying here, I strongly object. Causality is not disproved on the quantum level, rather, we just haven’t figured out yet how it works. At this point man is limited in his ability to measure it.”

As you can see, already from the very beginning my objection to your use of QM has been that it does not prove that C&E do not exist, and I’ve endeavored to make that point clear each step of the way.

25677. KuligintheHooligan - 11/12/2004 4:40:19 AM

In fact, in the same crop of posts, my first batch in this discussion, I noted the brief interaction between you and clyde, and there again, it is clear that my concern is that something cannot come from nothing. You said this to clyde:

“What if something can come out of nothing?”

Then I commented:

“This was in your response to clyde. Again, when do we see this in our existence? (if you mention QM, I’ve already voiced my objection on the use of QM in that regard). It is supremely reasonable to NOT expect something to just pop up out of nothing.”

So, again, I’m at a loss as to why you think that my main concern in this discussion is "something happening for no discernible reason." That is clearly not a good characterization of my concerns in this debate.

25678. KuligintheHooligan - 11/12/2004 5:05:33 AM

Suppose we find a man in a room with a dead body. It is clearly determined that the living man has been in the room the entire time that the dead man was therein, and further, that the dead man was first alive in that room with the other man. In other words, there was nobody else present in the room which now has the living man, and the dead man with a fatal knife wound.

It is highly reasonable that we conclude that the living man killed the dead man, unless of course the latter committed suicide. But the living man's defense goes something like this:

"While the two of us were in the room, a third man quantum tunneled into the room, killed this guy, and then QTed out."

The authorities call in two prominent "experts" in the field, KtH and A5. KtH says that this defense is utter nonsense, while A5 states that because we can't entirely disprove the possibility of this happening, we have to allow for it.

KtH says this is silly and asks A5 to show us other instances of such events happening, but A5 says he doesn't need to do this. What KtH really has to do is show us, in all of the universe, that it doesn't or never has happened. Then and only then can KtH rule out the ridiculous defense of the murderer.

The court is split and the murderer walks.

25679. KuligintheHooligan - 11/12/2004 5:07:07 AM

From your previous comments, here is what we know:

“There is nothing in our world experience that has neither a beginning nor an end.”

“There's nothing concrete in our world which we can point to which is causeless or doesn't require a cause.”

This gives us something to work on. Just like “We’ve never found two snowflakes or fingerprints that are identical, therefore, it is a good assumption to make that there aren’t two that are identical,” so too we can work from the above when it comes to answering the question, “How did a finite universe come into being?”

We don't need to first look at each and every single snowflake before we can make the conclusion, based on solid observation time and time again, that no two are alike. If we must always prove the negative first and only then make our conclusions, we could never make any worthwhile conclusions.

25680. KuligintheHooligan - 11/12/2004 5:07:33 AM

In the area of QM, we have these statements from you:

“You can't demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the universe is never acausal in its actions.”

[what is “reasonable doubt” if not meaningless when we CAN see millions upon millions of events which prove causality and yet decide that that isn’t good enough to cast aside all doubt?]

“Nobody can prove causality or acausality on the quantum level.”

[As I already noted, both at the very beginning of this debate and now toward the end as well, QM does NOT tell us that something comes from nothing. What it does tell us is that an electron acts both as a particle and as a wave, and that we don’t fully understand this behaviour, not the least of which because when we attempt to observe this behaviour, we actually influence the behaviour of the electron.

“What does this mean to us? It means that cause and effect as we know them break down on the quantum level. Instead you have probabilistic causes and effects.”

[Yes, but we still have ‘cause and effect’ as noted in your own words. Sure, it doesn’t work the same with a bowling ball as it does with an electron, but there still is cause and effect present.]

Again, QM and the behaviour of electrons shot between slits does not tell us that something comes from nothing, or, put another way, does not answer the question, “How did a finite universe come into being?”

25681. angel-five - 11/12/2004 5:15:41 AM

That's pretty feeble, Kuligin. But you show no signs of being willing to address the point which has been on the table all along, and I've given you enough rope.

Again, point to me one thing in our universe, anywhere, where something comes from nothing? Where there was absolutely nothing and then poof! something appeared. You cannot.

; )

Before, you asked me to demonstrate acausality, and I did. Now you've jumped back to 'something from nothing', repeated it about sixty times, insisted QM can't demonstrate it, insisted I can't demonstrate it. But if you actually asked me, I missed it, and IAC I was happy to let you run out ahead.

The math and experimentation of QM definitely do suggest we can get 'something from nothing', Kuligin.

Quantum Foam

Empty space, when examined with quantum theory on a sufficiently small distance scale, is not empty at all. Even at nuclear dimensions (10-13 cm) empty space is filled with particle-antiparticle pairs that are continually flashing into a brief existence, bankrolled on the credit of borrowed mass-energy, only to wink out of existence again as the law of conservation of energy reasserts itself. If the length-scale is contracted to a size appropriate to quantum gravity (10-33 cm) this quantum fireworks intensifies to a "quantum foam" of violent fluctuations in the topology and geometry of space itself. Quantum black holes form and vanish in a span of time of 10-23 seconds...

On measuring quantum foam

Don't like quantum foam? Never heard of it? Suspicious that Aristotle wouldn't stand for it? Well, we can talk about how particles pop into existence in verifiable experiments if you like.

25682. angel-five - 11/12/2004 5:16:16 AM

More on spontaneous particles

on the quantum scale, it is a very different matter. Heisenberg’s uncertainty states that there will always be a level of uncertainty when you try to make measurements of particles and other quantum scale occurrences. You can never know everything about a particle’s position and motion at any one time. This is an intrinsic uncertainty, it is not due to limitations on our measuring devices. This uncertainty of the energy of anything of the Planck scale is size allows some very bizarre phenomena to occur.

To us, vacuums appear to contain nothing at all. But, it you were to look closely, very, very closely (to the order of 10^-35m), space is actually a foaming mass of quantum activity. This quantum foam is made of particles and micro-black holes popping in and out of existence, apparently in contravention of the second law of thermodynamics, they appear out of nothing with energy, then disappear again just as quickly. The key to this is the uncertainty principle. The disturbance is permitted to ‘borrow’ a tiny amount of energy and exist for a very short length of time, and then it must return the energy and disappear again. But, the more energy it borrows, the less time it is allowed to exist. These ‘temporary’ particles, called virtual particles, are not just theoretical, they have been proven to have real effects on scientific experiments...

25683. angel-five - 11/12/2004 5:20:16 AM

On cosmogony

... According to cosmologist Timothy Ferris, resolving the origin of the universe entails a shift "from a classical [relativistic] to a quantum paradigm." He goes on to say: "Living in a macroscopic world where quantum phenomena are rarely manifest, we humans came upon classical physics first, and tend to think of quantum physics as a special case. Nevertheless it's beginning to look like the universe is fundamentally a quantum system."...

..."The doctrine of causation erodes considerably when applied to the subatomic realm of quantum physics, and therefore seems a dubious tool for understanding the early universe, when virtually all particles were subatomic....

"Strictly speaking there seems to be, for instance, no such thing as a "cause" of the radioactive decay of a radium atom.... Similarly, there is in quantum mechanics no such thing as a strict cause of a particular vacuum fluctuation, such as the fluctuation that some versions of inflation theory postulate as the agency of creation... So strict causation may break down both in quantum physics and in considering the origin of the universe...

...The whole argument of "you can't get something from nothing" is a plain English statement of the law of conservation of energy- that a zero-energy system to which no energy is added must remain in a zero-energy state. This would apply to the universe if indeed it has an energy content of zero. As the physicist Edward Tryon proposed, gravitation is a purely attractive force and so should be entered into the negative side of the total energy ledger. When it is calculated against all the matter and energy in the universe, the result, remarkably, is zero. If these observations are correct, then the origin of the universe is not a matter of getting something from nothing, but of getting one zero-energy system from another zero-energy system.

25684. angel-five - 11/12/2004 5:21:47 AM

Don't like that? Well, you can always take it up with Paul Davies. If you're not sure who that is, you can always google, or head on over to Amazon.

Translated into statements about the real Universe, I am describing an origin in which space itself comes into existence at the big bang and expands from nothing to form a larger and larger volume. The matter and energy content of the Universe likewise originates at or near the beginning, and populates the Universe everywhere at all times. Again, I must stress that the speck from which space emerges is not located in anything. It is not an object surrounded by emptiness. It is the origin of space itself, infinitely compressed. Note that the speck does not sit there for an infinite duration. It appears instantaneously from nothing and immediately expands. ...

...the question is often answered with the bald statement "There was nothing before the big bang", and this has caused yet more misunderstandings. Many people interpret "nothing" in this context to mean empty space, but as I have been at pains to point out, space did not exist either prior to the big bang.

Perhaps "nothing" here means something more subtle, like pre-space, or some abstract state from which space emerges? But again, this is not what is intended by the word. As Stephen Hawking has remarked, the question "What lies north of the North Pole?" can also be answered by "nothing", not because there is some mysterious Land of Nothing there, but because the region referred to simply does not exist. It is not merely physically, but also logically, non-existent. So too with the epoch before the big bang.

25685. alistairconnor - 11/12/2004 5:25:36 AM

Actually, contrary to what Ku baldly states from time to time, we know quite a lot about QM.

There is plenty more to discover, sure. Whether, some day, someone will come up with the equations to demonstrate causality or not, I'm comfortable with the idea of uncertainty, of acausality. I find it intellectually satisfying because it fits with my idea of free will.

I can understand that an authoritarian mindset is unconfortable with this, and will desperately yearn for a causal explanation for everything.

Paradox : if there is ultimate causality in everything, including the QM level, then we can postulate (MUST postulate) that all is pre-determined since the big bang, or whatever event (or non-event) is at the origin of the universe.

This might provide a satisfactory model for the creation of the universe by design; but it would apparently leave no room for divine intervention, once the ball is rolling

because any such intervention would appear to be acausal, with respect to the terms of reference of the created universe.

25686. angel-five - 11/12/2004 5:25:42 AM

...cosmologists now invite us to contemplate the origin of the Universe as having no prior cause in the normal sense, not because it has an abnormal or supernatural prior cause, but because there is simply no prior epoch in which a preceding causative agency-natural or supernatural-can operate.

Nevertheless cosmologists have not explained the origin of the Universe by the simple expedient of abolishing any preceding epoch. After all why should time and space have suddenly "switched on"? The latest thinking is that this spontaneous origination of time and space is a natural consequence of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is the branch of physics that applies to atoms and subatomic particles, and it is characterised by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, according to which sudden and unpredictable fluctuations occur in all observable quantities. Quantum fluctuations are not caused by anything-they are genuinely spontaneous and intrinsic to nature at its deepest level.

...according to Heisenberg it is not possible, even in principle, to predict when a given nucleus will decay. If you ask, having seen a particular nucleus decay, why the decay event happened at that moment rather than some other, there is no deeper reason, no underlying set of causes, that explains it. It just happens.

The key step for cosmogenesis is to apply this same idea not just to matter, but to space and time as well. Because space-time is an aspect of gravitation, this entails applying quantum theory to the gravitational field of the Universe...
In spite of these technical obstacles, one may say quite generally that once space and time are made subject to quantum principles, the possibility immediately arises of space and time "switching on", or popping into existence, without the need for prior causation, entirely in accordance with the laws of quantum physics....

25687. alistairconnor - 11/12/2004 5:26:02 AM

aww fuck.

25688. alistairconnor - 11/12/2004 5:26:23 AM

25689. alistairconnor - 11/12/2004 5:26:54 AM

...But go ahead and ignore it anyway...

I'm just heckling from the cheap seats.

25690. angel-five - 11/12/2004 5:27:39 AM

Yes, that should do for starters. And if you require more convincing, well, like I said before, there's always names like Schrodinger and Heisenberg and Planck and Bohr that you have seemingly forgotten about in your zeal to go on about, what was it? How quantum acausality was just something we weren't ruling out?

Even clyde jumped in early and noted that you were positing "something from nothing," but that is a grossly mistaken interpretation of QM experiments, which I've also noted several times.

NO, once again, there is a very real difference between not ruling something out and positing that it is the case. This isn't hair-splitting, this is the whole argument -- you have been all along saying I'm making positive arguments against causality, against the prime mover, that I am saying neither can exist, that the universe must have come from nothing.

All I've been doing is acknowledging that we lack the data to rule some things out, and pointing out the logical flaw in your justification for the Prime Mover (which is, 'We know how the universe works and every effect always requires a cause; therefore we require something to have caused the universe; therefore there must be a prime mover). But still you kept on carping about proving causality and something from nothing.

I know I use this word a lot with you, Kuligin, and I know you always have conniptions: it is fundamentally dishonest of you to keep pretending these are my arguments and then attacking them, and it advertises the weakness of your position. And the reason you are so steadfastly doing so, I imagine, is that you know that you can't overcome the problems QM raises with your 'we know how the universe works and it always acts causally' argument.

25691. angel-five - 11/12/2004 5:28:01 AM

This is all nothing more than smoke-screening, because you don't want to admit there's problems with your Bill and Ted's Most Excellent Prime Mover Justification. It was obvious when you asked me to provide my own examples of quantum mechanics where you were going and how you wanted to attack the examples I set instead of arguing against QM so I let you go there and do your thing... and here we are.

You spend gallons of pixellated ink hemming and hawing about QM experiments you just learned about from a link, and pretend to not remember that many of the best minds of twentieth and twenty-first century physics firmly believe that cause and effect break down at the quantum level, even though you yourself have mentioned them and their school of thought. No, it's all 'highly suspect, highly questionable' and when you can get away with ignoring them altogether you pretend the case for acausality is simply my saying that it can't be ruled out. And then you tell me that your stance constitutes good science and that we don't get something from nothing. Fifty or sixty times. Right. Eppur si muove, Kuligin.

25692. alistairconnor - 11/12/2004 5:37:56 AM

It strikes me that, for the (hypothetical) clever theologian, acausality would be a (um...) godsend : it allows a mechanism for divine intervention.

Unexplained from within our universe, apparent quantum acausality might be a manifestation of a struggle between Good and Evil in some parallel realm.

Or God playing dice with the universe. or something.

25693. Ulgine Barrows - 11/12/2004 5:40:13 AM

You're a ludicrous-looking motherfucker

they told me to say that

25694. alistairconnor - 11/12/2004 5:43:00 AM

You talking to me, beeeayych?

25695. alistairconnor - 11/12/2004 5:43:38 AM

Teleport over here and say that.

25696. KuligintheHooligan - 11/12/2004 9:48:05 AM

“It strikes me that, for the (hypothetical) clever theologian, acausality would be a (um...) godsend : it allows a mechanism for divine intervention.”

God is not subject to the limitations of his creation and the laws which run it.

25697. KuligintheHooligan - 11/12/2004 9:48:24 AM

A5,

The same question still remains, the one I asked from the very beginning, the one you have since pretended that wasn’t really my main focus. From your links (and, by the way, thanks for them, I didn’t know ANY of that stuff at all – of course, I’m just saying this to make you feel better, since you assume I didn’t know anything about QM until about a week or so ago, and I know you get a fair amount of comfort assuming your debating opponent knows next to nothing in comparison to you):

“In spite of these technical obstacles, one may say quite generally that once space and time are made subject to quantum principles, the possibility immediately arises of space and time "switching on", or popping into existence, without the need for prior causation, entirely in accordance with the laws of quantum physics....”

Which is a fancy way of saying at some point nothing, absolutely nothing, existed, and then, poof!, something popped outta nowhere, nothing. But every single QM experiment that we have does not support this, because in every experiment, we already have something which we are observing and measuring. And as one of your links noted, even a “vacuum” is not really such, as it is filled with subatomic particles.

Of course, you already ridiculed me for using existing laws of space and time and then attempting to apply them to the point before they existed, but here you go supporting the same sort of reasoning!

QM does NOT, I repeat, does not teach us that there was nothingness and then something of substance appeared from it. In each and every experiment, there is already existing material that we are testing, observing, measuring.

25698. KuligintheHooligan - 11/12/2004 9:48:48 AM

From one of your links:

“When it is calculated against all the matter and energy in the universe, the result, remarkably, is zero.”

These are the exact types of statements which I would think you, among all people, would recognize as potentially error-laden. Are you really ready to concede that we know all the energy and matter in the universe – as a calculable figure? Go figure. And all that talk from you that we know next to nothing about the universe, while the whole time we know precisely how much energy and matter it contains.

Can’t you see how tenuous such arguments are? We haven’t even gotten past our own solar system, and yet, some guy sitting on little ole earth knows precisely how much energy and matter the entire universe contains.

Also, where now is your open-mindedness to the universe being infinite? Again, you seem all too willing to play both sides of the field when it suits you.

25699. KuligintheHooligan - 11/12/2004 9:49:08 AM

“It was obvious when you asked me to provide my own examples of quantum mechanics where you were going and how you wanted to attack the examples I set instead of arguing against QM so I let you go there and do your thing”

Not at all the case. Why should I debate with someone in The Mote who just hotlinks websites and/or tells you to “go and Google it,” but never really divulges his own take and interpretation on things? You know, if I didn’t know better, I’d say that you have been playing the non-committal game this entire time, because you don’t want to commit to this or that proposal or position, and then put yourself in a position to be attacked.

Again, if I want to debate the guys who make the websites, I suppose I can go and do that. But I’m here, in The Mote, debating a guy who exists in The Mote. So it is quite reasonable that you formulate your own thoughts and ideas on things, in your own words, than just tell me to go and look it up.

25700. KuligintheHooligan - 11/12/2004 9:49:26 AM

“No, it's all 'highly suspect, highly questionable' and when you can get away with ignoring them altogether you pretend the case for acausality is simply my saying that it can't be ruled out.”

Aren’t you the one arguing that you know next to nothing about how our universe works?! To make bold conclusions, then, in the face of such a volume of ignorance, would be rather silly, right? Or “highly questionable,” yes?

In fact, here’s a comment from your quantum foam link:

“If you think this idea of a space-time foam sounds horribly vague, you're in good company. So do the researchers.”

Horribly vague. Highly questionable. Not a lot of difference there, A5.

25701. KuligintheHooligan - 11/12/2004 9:49:46 AM

When I originally mentioned Heisenberg in this cause and effect discussion, you said this (post #25492):

“I don't know why you'd think of Heisenberg. Heisenbergian uncertainty has nothing to do with cause and effect.”

Now, all of the sudden, I see Heisenberg’s name in one of every three posts from you. Why is that, when at the outset you said his principle had nothing to do with this debate??

25702. KuligintheHooligan - 11/12/2004 9:50:08 AM

Can we assume that something has no cause because the cause is not visible? This is what you seem to be doing, A5, “jumping to conclusions” as I labeled it earlier.

And why point me to Planck? Didn’t he argue that our difficulty in understanding these things is epistemological, in other words, just currently beyond our ability to understand? In other words, Planck argued what I am basically arguing now, that our understanding of these phenomena is highly suspect, that even as we attempt to measure the behaviour of certain particles, our very observation influences the outcome, and that at this moment it is highly unreasonable to jump to conclusions based on our current findings because they are based, in no small part, on a huge volume of ignorance.

And besides, even the very experimentation, observation, and measurement of these QM experiments involves C&E. In other words, they must adhere to certain laws and principles in order for us to make calculations and measurements. Otherwise, all the subsequent data would be meaningless. Put another way, if you truly believe that our macro understanding of the universe does not in some way transmit to our micro understanding, how on earth can we even measure the micro realm? If you are correct, we would be faced with a basic limitation in that study, and all our instruments and methodologies which are based on macro reasoning would be fruitless.

25703. KuligintheHooligan - 11/12/2004 9:50:30 AM

Also, your common argument that we know next to nothing about how the universe works also works against your present position. Put another way, what we know NOW is a pittance compared to what we should know in, say, 50 years’ time. So to jump to conclusions, and ones which contradict everything we know about how concrete world, would be foolish, esp. in light of our current relative ignorance.

Again, you can’t have it both ways, A5. You can’t both argue we know next to nothing and therefore I can’t make the conclusions I make, all the while claiming we know heaps of things which make your position more tenable. We are both subject to the same pool of data. Therefore, your ideas can be no more or less reasonable or tenable than mine, according to your own logic. If my conclusions are tenuous, yours are equally such.

25704. KuligintheHooligan - 11/12/2004 9:50:49 AM

From your hotlinks:

“Either space-time fluctuations don't exist-in which case quantum gravity theories are in real trouble-or both paths experienced the same fluctuations…. As yet, however, no one really knows.”

I’ll tell you what we can do. Once you prove without a shadow of a doubt that things just appear out of nothing, then and only then will I abandon my Prime Mover argument. Until said time, pointing to highly vague and questionable experiments and their conclusions doesn’t cut it, A5. “No one really knows” is not sufficient cause to abandon what we DO KNOW, namely, that the universe operates on a C&E level.

Your typical agnosticism, “I don’t know,” just doesn’t cut it in this debate. And given the tentative nature of ALL science, A5, I’ll expect you in the future to use that agnostic tack when it comes to, say, evolutionary theory as well. I mean, really, how much of the world’s fossil record have we investigated so far, 1% if that? Again, when it suits you you claim superior knowledge, but when it also suits you, you claim ignorance.

Again, that quote from earlier is telling:

“I often point out the double standard involved: whenever people think that science and religion conflict (for example, Darwinian evolution and Genesis), people jump on the bandwagon of science and proclaim another victory in the “warfare between science and religion,” but the minute scientific evidence confirms the Bible, people start jumping off the bandwagon, and one is apt to hear all sorts of grave intonation about how uncertain science is…. You can’t have it both ways.”

25705. KuligintheHooligan - 11/12/2004 9:51:07 AM

From your physlink link, you failed to note these comments in your cutting and pasting:

“To summarise, due to the uncertainty principle, particles and space-time bubbles continually pop in and out of existence for short times depending on their energy, without breaking the law of conservation of energy as they dissapear again.

If a particle is to come into complete and real existence, it must take its energy from somewhere, such as a gravitational field.

However, it is possible that one of these space-time bubbles, which is actually an unimaginably small universe, could avoid rapidly disappearing again and be promoted to a full size universe, such as ours. However, for this to work some sort of repulsive force is needed, a sort of anti-gravity.”

In other words, something else has to be there in order for this “unimaginably small universe” in the form of a bubble to appear. Again, this isn’t an argument for “something from nothing” or an effect without a cause.

Also, and I assume you agree with this, if the above quotations are true, then it is reasonable to assume that several universes did this, not just one, right? But that is another item entirely, because still my point stands, these bubbles need something OUTSIDE THEMSELVES in order to pop into existence and be able to stay there until they expand.

This is hardly an argument against “something from nothing.”

25706. KuligintheHooligan - 11/12/2004 9:51:28 AM

At this point, we are faced with three possibilities for explaining the “effects” we see on the quantum level:

1) Their cause is self-produced and does not come from outside the particle. If this is true, then there is still a cause.

2) Their cause is currently undetectable. And given the current state of our science, this is certainly reasonable and one would hope that, in time, we would garner the wherewithal to detect the cause or causes which currently are unperceivable.

3) There is no cause whatsoever, and “effects” really do occur, at least on the quantum level, with no “cause.” Of course, on the macro level we know this is never, ever, the case, period. In essence, then, we have an “effect” dangling there, without a cause.

So we are faced with a choice. Sure, we can be “open” to all the possibilities, but let me use your “openness” to the existence of the Christian God as a measure of levels of openness. Obviously, in order to sound scientifically reasonable, you MUST be “open” to the existence of the Christian God, as you have admitted, but as you have also admitted, you consider the actual possibility of his existence to be virtually nil, “hokum,” and all that rot.

25707. KuligintheHooligan - 11/12/2004 9:51:43 AM

So while you say you are “open,” for all intents and purposes, you aren’t really statistically open at all. If you had to bet your life on things (and by the way, on this one you are), you’d place it on the atheist’s position.

So what about me? Obviously, I must be “open” as well. As one Motie said in the past, perhaps I don’t exist at all, and I’m just a hologram on a Holideck, or a brain receiving electrical stimuli in a jar. But how do I live my life? Do I live it seriously with the above as real possibilities? Of course not. Statistically, I must be “open” to them, but that openness is for all intents and purposes, zero.

WRT to the above three possibilities, I am currently quite open to number 2, only slightly less open to number 1, and virtually not open at all to number 3. Why? Because the last one is “hokum” by virtually every measure conceivable. Further, for 3 to be a reality, I must also accept that whereas on the macro level C&E rules the day, on the micro level it does not at all, and the macro level is in fact made up of micro levels. This appears highly unreasonable to accept.

25708. KuligintheHooligan - 11/12/2004 9:52:01 AM

Also, skeptically, it seems that all such “acausal” conclusions are made by people who are mostly opposed to the concept of God. They much prefer a universe that pops up out of nothing and nowhere, or one that somehow wills itself to exist even before it in fact existed, or is infinite. Put another way, the idea that the universe has a cause outside itself it a priori rejected.

Which, of course, is nothing other than poor science.

Ex nihilo nihil fit

25709. KuligintheHooligan - 11/12/2004 9:52:19 AM

Lastly, and again, your arguments against me cut both ways. The argument of “no cause” rests on the presumption of exhaustive knowledge of all causes, both visible and invisible. Obviously, though, you cannot presume this.

Which brings me back to one of my earlier points. Given the tentative nature of science, and given the lessons we have learned over and over again, that what we thought wasn’t there, was there, and what we thought didn’t exist, did exist, it makes reasonable sense to conclude that, just as in the macro world for each effect there is a cause, so it is in the micro world. However, because our knowledge of the micro world is so limited currently, we just haven’t divulged yet all the causes at work on the quantum scale.

25710. KuligintheHooligan - 11/12/2004 9:52:33 AM

By the way, I suppose you don’t mind violating the “law of non-contradiction” in all of this either, do you?

25711. angel-five - 11/12/2004 2:03:52 PM

Man, that's a whole lotta waffles.

25712. angel-five - 11/12/2004 2:33:29 PM

Kuligin, I'm having a hard time condensing any meaning from the fog of those posts. You seem to go back and forth on whether we do know anything about the universe, to have retreated to cause and effect once more (!) and that there must be causes for quantum changes after all, and that you will give up your Prime Mover theory when someone pries it out of your cold, dead hands. Somewhere in there you say that we can't test nothings in a universe full of somethings and I'm pretty sure I saw you once again slipping toward insisting I'm saying it's proven causality doesn't happen and all that crap. On, and saying 'I don't know' won't cut the mustard out there on the edge, where brave Kuligin forges truth. In other words, it's more chasing the circle with you.

You've asked me to demonstrate acausality and I have; you have insisted that QM can't allow for 'something from nothing' and I gave you several links which indeed do argue that it can. You say the PM argument (i.e. that it must exist) is still operable because Aristotle's in your corner.

The defense rests.

25713. KuligintheHooligan - 11/12/2004 3:39:15 PM

Aristotle was a side issue, A5. I believe you were the one who originally brought up Aquinas, which then lead me to bring up Aristotle. Clearly, if anything which begins to exist must have a cause, then Aristotle's and Aquinas' arguments are still valid. However, as you note, if there can be things which just pop out of nothing, then their arguments no longer hold water.

Again, thanks for the civil discussion, and I've learned a lot from you. Let's just leave it at that, okay?

25714. ElliottRW - 11/12/2004 4:29:35 PM

Alistair,

I think maybe I can unentangle your paradox. Here is my motive for doing this: to score points. If you do not respond, I am the winner by default and score 1 point. Ha ha! Should you respond however, I will need an impartial judge. I nominate wabbit for this. She will reward me a point only if I prove my point. Otherwise, she will award you a point, I will suffer immense embarrassment, and you will get some shadenfreude.

Consider a set S, which represents all the possible states of the universe. When I say state, I mean a sort of snapshot of the universe at a particular point in what we call time.

Now, suppose that there exists a mapping M that relates each element of S to some different element of S. For each element s of S, there is exactly one element M(s), also an element of S.¹

Now consider a series of elements, T_M,s = M(s), M(M(s)),... generated by repeatedly applying the mapping M, where s is some element of S. If you were to think of M as the laws of the universe, then this series represents the flow of time. If you do so, the causality is apparent.

(continued)

25715. ElliottRW - 11/12/2004 4:29:51 PM

Now back to your paradox: Paradox : if there is ultimate causality in everything, including the QM level, then we can postulate (MUST postulate) that all is pre-determined since the big bang, or whatever event (or non-event) is at the origin of the universe.

But wait! I have allowed for there possibly being many elements in S that map to M(s). That is, while we can, knowing n, come up with the complete T_{M, n} , if for any s not equal to n, M(s) = M(n) then we cannot go in the reverse direction.

So being able, with certainty, to trace forward to the end of time does not necessarily mean we can with certainty trace backward to the beginning of time, or vice-versa.

To tie it back in to QM, even if it is in fact causal and the future is actually certain, there may still be many equivalent ways to arrive at the present, so the past can still be an enigma--that is, we could, like Merlyn, be living backwards.

25716. angel-five - 11/12/2004 5:06:56 PM

Now, suppose that there exists a mapping M that relates each element of S to some different element of S. For each element s of S, there is exactly one element M(s), also an element of S.1

Now consider a series of elements, TM,s = M(s), M(M(s)), ... generated by repeatedly applying the mapping M, where s is some element of S. If you were to think of M as the laws of the universe, then this series represents the flow of time. If you do so, the causality is apparent.

Forgive me, but you seem to be saying that if you construct a set of equations to describe the universe in which the progression of events is dictated by repeated application of a single algorithm, then that set of equations shows causality.

And I'm sure it does, but that's implicit in the way you construct the equation, not the states of the universe. It's implicit in your notion that M, repeated, can map the universe as it progresses forward in time. You've just made a tautology -- you might as well say 'We can demonstrate causality if we can find that the universe progresses from one moment to the next due to causality.'

But wait! I have allowed for there possibly being many elements in S that map to M(s). That is, while we can, knowing n, come up with the complete TM, n , if for any s not equal to n, M(s) = M(n) then we cannot go in the reverse direction.

But that's not the ultimate causality that AC mentioned, and once again you're question begging. 'If there can be many elements of S that can be plugged into M(s) and then stacked to form a causal map of the universe, then it isn't necessarily deterministic.' Well, yes, by definition. But in ultimate causality cause and effect your sigma M(s) doesn't yield indeterminate sets of S. It yields one.

25717. angel-five - 11/12/2004 5:09:19 PM

Again, thanks for the civil discussion, and I've learned a lot from you. Let's just leave it at that, okay?

Sure thing.

25718. ElliottRW - 11/12/2004 5:35:08 PM

Angelfive,

You've just made a tautology -- you might as well say 'We can demonstrate causality if we can find that the universe progresses from one moment to the next due to causality.'
The effort was to describe a possible causal scenario. Thanks for the concise summary.

But that's not the ultimate causality that AC mentioned, and once again you're question begging
I don't know what "ultimate causality" you are talking about, but I understood it to mean "causality in fact underlying the apparent acausality of QM."

(What question did you think I was begging?)

I was pointing out that there is a way in which we can have a causal universe (that is, one in which the future, as we perceive it, is certain), that is consistent with reality, that does not imply a particular beginning of the universe from which all hence is predetermined.

25719. angel-five - 11/12/2004 6:43:16 PM

I'll have to think about this pyramidal simplification of the universe. It sounds like an Omega point and is pretty interesting and epistemologically sound (in that it doesn't require us to conclude what we can't conclude) but its uncertainty seems to be a trick of perspective.

That is to say, if at any point on the timeline we have a certain future due to causality, the only way to propose that there is no certain past is to propose that we have multiple universes conjoining (which is the reverse of the usual model, in which there is one origin from which multiple futures spread out). If you don't propose such a mechanism, then you are forced to conclude that there is only one, certain, past, and the only uncertainty lies in our inability to derive it.

25720. angel-five - 11/12/2004 6:44:39 PM

The question begging that I mentioned is that your model depends on strict causality (only one future possible). Once you impose your notion of M terms on the equation you preordain what results you'll get.

25721. angel-five - 11/12/2004 6:49:23 PM

I once had a roommate, who had got his BS in physics and was going to grad school in philosophy. He was nicknamed Bagel for reasons we shan't go into here. Bagel was extremely fond of multiple universe talk as you might imagine from his choice of studies, but he proposed one morning during breakfast that universes don't only branch, but also rejoin. Which is interesting.

Bagel was also fond of bullshitting, and made it clear shortly thereafter that he was doing so in this case; he claimed that the reason we sometimes couldn't remember what we'd had for dinner the night before was simply because there was more than one actual possibility.

25722. KuligintheHooligan - 11/13/2004 8:35:24 AM

For those following the Petersen trial (I have not, but thought I'd at least read about the sentencing), here's something of interest:

"The jury also agreed on a "special circumstance" that calls for capital punishment — namely that he killed another person — the fetus — while committing a felony — the intentional and premeditated killing of his wife."

25723. Wombat - 11/13/2004 10:29:22 AM

Kuligan:

I want freedom to practice my religion (Judaism), and freedom from potential and actual promotion of other religions, particularly the various forms of Christianity that make up the majority faith in this country. I am very concerned that the line between private and personal practice of my faith and government backing of the majority religion is being blurred under this administration.

I would also point out that while there are values that Judaism and Christianity share, there are also ones that they do not; and to lump them together is both false and offensive.

25724. Wombat - 11/13/2004 10:31:20 AM

Sorry, this should be in the Post-election thread. Carry on.

25725. judithathome - 11/13/2004 12:29:57 PM

"The jury also agreed on a "special circumstance" that calls for capital punishment — namely that he killed another person — the fetus — while committing a felony — the intentional and premeditated killing of his wife."

And there you have it...the test case for the future. The fetus is a person and if a woman is 72 hours pregnant and you bang into her car in a traffic accident and cause her to start her period, you are a murderer. Off to prison you'll go!

And no, I am not defending Scott Peterson's behavior with my sarcastic remarks...I think he is guilty of killing them both but had she been 2 weeks pregnant, I'd say he was only guilty of one murder.

25726. KuligintheHooligan - 11/13/2004 1:06:56 PM

How far along was her pregnancy, BTW?

25727. arkymalarky - 11/13/2004 1:07:56 PM

I thought he was convicted specifically of second-degree murcer for the death of his son. His wife's murder is where he might get the death penalty, but he's already been convicted for the death of the fetus, so if that counts in addition as special consideration in applying the death penalty it's not because he wasn't already convicted for it.

25728. arkymalarky - 11/13/2004 1:08:17 PM

Almost 8 months.

25729. arkymalarky - 11/13/2004 1:09:50 PM

A former student of mine was charged (don't know whether convicted) of first degree murder in the death of a fetus. He'd hired thugs to beat his girlfriend's stomach to kill the baby, which they did.

Turned out it wasn't even his.

This wasn't a tough street kid, btw, but a smart and successful businessman who'd moved to the city and had done well.

25730. arkymalarky - 11/13/2004 1:14:36 PM

All the info I learned on the Peterson case was from snippets and watching some tv last night, btw. I frankly get disgusted that a case like that, bad as it is, gets so much national media attention. They have other things of much more importance they should be covering in all the time they're spending on that. Five minutes of headlines is one thing--24/7 is ridiculous.

25731. KuligintheHooligan - 11/13/2004 1:22:09 PM

Killing an 8 month old preborn human being is bad in my book.

25732. angel-five - 11/13/2004 1:27:26 PM

The whole thing was bad, but, still, it got way too much attention.

25733. arkymalarky - 11/13/2004 1:31:07 PM

Exactly. No one suggested it wasn't bad. I hope he gets the death penalty--except living might be more punishment from him, though he seems like a sociopath.

25734. KuligintheHooligan - 11/13/2004 1:34:38 PM

To be honest, I think living the rest of his life in a damp, dark cell would be a far worse punishment than killing him.

25735. arkymalarky - 11/13/2004 1:38:46 PM

If he has any feeling at all I agree.

His parents' behavior, especially his mother's, creeped me out. I know it's not uncommon, but covering up and lying for a son when your grandson was killed (about where he got so much money, etc) makes it a bit less mysterious how he turned out the way he did.

25736. KuligintheHooligan - 11/13/2004 1:47:28 PM

I didn't see a lick about the trial, although I caught headlines about it on Yahoo! The day of the judgment I saw a headline and decided to take a peek.

However, I'm sure it was much more interesting than watching OJ's vehicle driving along.

25737. angel-five - 11/13/2004 1:48:22 PM

There are no good solutions, really, to what to do with someone like Peterson. But a life term is probably the best option.

25738. KuligintheHooligan - 11/13/2004 1:51:47 PM

This reminds me of our discussions long ago about capital punishment. I think if the person has clearly shown himself to be a danger to society, and can reasonably be assumed to be the same wrt fellow inmates and guards in prison, we should fry him. But that normally applies in my thinking to mass murderers and the like.

Petersen doesn't seem like a threat to anybody else, and will probably wet his pants each night in prison.

25739. judithathome - 11/13/2004 3:08:52 PM

To be honest, I think living the rest of his life in a damp, dark cell would be a far worse punishment than killing him.

I disagree...anyone who is far enough removed from morality and cold-hearted enough to kill his wife and infant in such a manner will likely not spend one second in remorse over it. He will adapt to prison life just fine and take advantage of what it has to offer...free room and board, free clothes, free cable TV, a library where he can study law if he so desires, visits from family, a gym. Sounds pretty cushy for a bastard like that.

I say fry him.

25740. arkymalarky - 11/13/2004 4:33:37 PM

I think we should learn more about what his roommate will be like first.

25741. arkymalarky - 11/13/2004 4:34:06 PM

cellmate, I should say

25742. KuligintheHooligan - 11/14/2004 11:56:25 AM

Forget the fundamentalist Christians. These are the guys we should be worried about:

“As you have learned to abort a genetically defective child who will inevitably be a monstrous human, so we have learned to abort a monstrous planetary civilization which gains its evolutionary technologies of transcendence and misuses them for self-annihilation. .. . Evolution is good but it is not nice. Only the good can evolve. Only the God-centered will survive to inherit the powers of a Universal Species. . . . Now, as we approach the quantum shift from creature-human to co-creative human – the destructive one fourth must be eliminated from the social body. . . . We will use whatever means we must to make this act of destruction as quick and painless as possible to the one half of the world who are capable of evolving.”

Can anybody guess what group the above represents?

25743. judithathome - 11/14/2004 12:08:49 PM

Scientologists?

25744. angel-five - 11/14/2004 1:41:58 PM

Yeah, that sounds like them.

25745. alistairConnor - 11/14/2004 2:05:48 PM

... or some deep-ecology nutcase website?

25746. KuligintheHooligan - 11/14/2004 2:06:58 PM

An excellent guess, judith, and you get half-credit because it isn't entirely correct. However, Scientology could rightly be considered a sub-set of this larger group.

No doubt that gives it away now.

25747. Jenerator - 11/14/2004 4:17:40 PM

Judith,

There are some women who want so badly to be pregnant that they track their fertility daily. I have one friend like that who swears she knew when she became pregnant and it was confirmed two days later by hormone testing. Anyway, my friend would have been absolutely devastated if she were to have lost her boys (she was pregnant with twins) at two weeks. If she had been assaulted and the assault caused the death of the two fetuses, it would have been absolutely the worst to hear someone say that her pregnancy didn't really count at two weeks.

I have heard of cases in which the mother lives but the fetus dies as a result of criminal negligence or from a car accident with a drunk driver, and the mother has no legal outlet for the death of her child because her unborn isn't considered legally viable.

Talk about heart breaking.

If a woman is pregnant, she is pregnant with a human life. That life should be protected!

25748. judithathome - 11/14/2004 4:23:14 PM

Jen, if your husband or mother was driving on a slick street and hit their brakes but failed to come to a complete stop and bumped a person crossing against the light...would you be supportive of your loved ones being charged with murder if that jaywalker happened to be a few days pregnant and the bump caused her to start her period?

Both sides of an argument can come up with compelling examples.

I am not saying a failed pregnancy isn't heart-breaking nor am I saying every case is cut and dried. I'm certain you're not claiming that, either.

25749. wonkers2 - 11/14/2004 5:00:41 PM

Jen, check your dictionary. Your friends "boys" were embryoys, not fetuses, at that point.

25750. Jenerator - 11/14/2004 5:07:50 PM

wonkers2,

Regardless of developmental stage, they were human lives. Period.

If my mom hit a pedestrian and her fetus was killed, I would understand any involuntary manslaughter charges. So would she.

25751. ElliottRW - 11/14/2004 5:33:50 PM

Regardless of developmental stage, they were human lives. Period.

This statement seems arbitrary to me. What makes something human? What is humanness?

25752. wonkers2 - 11/14/2004 8:07:22 PM

That's a good question. Embryos and early fetuses are not human beings. They are potential human beings.

25753. justears - 11/14/2004 8:52:01 PM

We don't ordinarily have a funeral for a miscarriage perhaps because we don't believe a person has died but rather a potential person and the hopes and dreams of the parents.

25754. wonkers2 - 11/14/2004 9:27:59 PM

Good point.

Jenerator fancies herself an expert on the ethics of abortion, stem cell research, etc, but she doesn't know the difference between an embryo, a fetus or a baby.

25755. angel-five - 11/14/2004 9:31:00 PM

Well, naturally this debate is going to break down mostly along the abortion divide. That's no shock.

Personally I think that more people would have less trouble with 'Conner's Law' and its application in the Peterson trial -- i.e. if you murder a pregnant woman, you're murdering her baby as well -- if it weren't so blatantly obvious that anti-abortionists want to use that as a stepping stone toward outlawing abortion.

25756. wonkers2 - 11/14/2004 9:38:52 PM

True. And the discussion of abortion could be more civil if the anti-abortion crowd didn't continually escalate the rhetoric. Once a month there's an anti-abortion crowd in front of Father Coughlin's Shrine of the Little Flower waving signs saying things like "Stop Murdering Children."

25757. angel-five - 11/14/2004 9:40:41 PM

In an aside, I just finished The Da Vinci Code and my GF is finishing it now (it's a pretty quick read). It's an interesting work of fiction with a lot of facts mixed with a lot of conjecture in the story (two of the main characters firmly believe, for example, that the Magdalen was Jesus's wife, and present that as a well-buttressed although hidden historical fact; even I, with my often-espoused affinity for the Templar/Priory traditions, have little trouble admitting that's conjecture) and the story presents as its theme the restoration of the lost, 'sacred feminine' to the Christian tradition. It's a good read.

What's really interesting about the book, though, is the weight and depth of invective leveled at the book from various sources online. And I suppose you can understand why these people, Christian believers, wouldn't like the book. But by and large their diatribes are about ten parts froth to one part substance. You'd think they suspected Dan Brown, who is a novelist, had been caught trying to dynamite the Vatican.

25758. wonkers2 - 11/14/2004 9:42:20 PM

And, as I posted here previously, a Detroit Free Press reporter in a long story on the influence of the Catholic Church on the election repeatedly referred to the dispute over "fetal" stem cell research. I emailed her pointing out that the controversy was over embryonic stem cell research, not fetal stem cell research, she reluctantly agreed that she "probably" should have used the term embryonic rather than fetal.

25759. wonkers2 - 11/14/2004 9:45:05 PM

Yeah, I enjoyed the Da Vinci Code. It was a very fast read. It kept me awake reading it in bed which few books do any more.

25760. angel-five - 11/14/2004 9:47:02 PM

Well, legally speaking of course it isn't murder. Murder is a legal term with what is perhaps the most exactingly delineated definition one can construct. There are thousands of legal precedents about what is murder and what isn't. And abortion doesn't fall into that category, so I understand why you say that, Wonkers.

But it's also obvious that whether or not you and I think they're wrong, anti-abortionists do believe it's murder. If they didn't, we would have no debate. Not really. So while I'd like it if they'd use logical language in an effort to find a common ground, I'm neither surprised nor taken aback that they use the word. By their lights -- i.e. laws and decisions which legalized abortion are morally wrong -- they're using the correct terminology.

So it's less a matter of upping the rhetoric and more a matter of having competing taxonomies.

25761. wonkers2 - 11/14/2004 9:51:50 PM

Well, I say it's a big stretch to speak of "murdering" an embryo. Or to call aborting an embryo or using one for medical research murdering a child. An embryo isn't a child and using it for medical research is hardly murder, either legally or consistently with centuries of language usage.

25762. wonkers2 - 11/14/2004 9:53:27 PM

And they don't know what to say when someone asks whether they support criminal charges and sentences for women who elect to have abortions.

25763. ElliottRW - 11/14/2004 10:16:42 PM

In an aside, I just finished The Da Vinci Code and my GF is finishing it now (it's a pretty quick read).
Marry her, A-5, she's a keeper.

25764. arkymalarky - 11/14/2004 11:03:55 PM

A parent at parent/teacher conferences last month was telling me about the book and that I should read it. I haven't read a modern work of fiction in ages and I've got a bunch of non-fiction material I've got to read over the next few months, but from what little I had heard it seemed the premise was silly, so I wasn't very attracted to it. That may be at least partly because my wacky uncle was treating it like the new revelation.

25765. angel-five - 11/14/2004 11:51:27 PM

The premise is actually pretty interesting, and it isn't a new one, but has, instead, a long pedigree in European history. And none of the theories are new if you're familiar with grail mythology. Such sins as the author commits aren't sins at all once you remember that the two main characters are Grail aficionados, who are known to take some pretty uncommon things for granted.

Still, it's a freakin' work of fiction. As Kurt Vonnegut once said, attacking such a thing because you don't like the premise is like putting on full armor to do battle with a hot fudge sundae.

The ironic thing about situations when fundamentalists attack a piece of fiction -- three salient examples being The Da Vinci Code, The Satanic Verses and The Last Temptation of Christ -- is that they usually drive its sales through the roof and get far more people to read it than would otherwise have ever known of its existence.

25766. wonkers2 - 11/15/2004 12:45:29 AM

It's not great literature, but it held my interest. I finished it in a couple of days.

25767. arkymalarky - 11/15/2004 1:05:48 AM

It's not great literature, but it held my interest. I finished it in a couple of days.

Sounds like Bridges of Madison County.

25768. SnowOwl - 11/15/2004 2:21:26 AM

I thought it was an awful book. The subject matter was not new and Dan Brown's writing style was dull. I'm a very quick reader so I got through it in a night but I found it neither interesting nor enjoyable.

25769. thoughtful - 11/15/2004 11:47:28 AM

I found it interesting enough for what it was...a very quick, light read...but was most disappointed in the ending.

25770. judithathome - 11/15/2004 11:58:18 AM

And they don't know what to say when someone asks whether they support criminal charges and sentences for women who elect to have abortions.

That's because so many of their own have had them. Admitting to it is a different story but I know several just in my community who have done so, both had it done and admitted it. And that is more than likely the reason they so strongly advocate against it. I can't fault them for that position, really. But they shouldn't try to deny the right to others just because they feel they made a mistake.

25771. Jenerator - 11/15/2004 5:23:40 PM

Ton Hanks to star in The Da Vinci Code.

25772. angel-five - 11/17/2004 3:14:06 PM

I am now reading The Woman with the Alabaster Jar about the Magdalen. In some respects (i.e. those parts of the story related to the notion that the Magdalen is the Grail) there's little new. But in respect with her life and history there's a lot of good fleshing out and the end result is to make the story a lot more believable.

An aside: the more I read about Provence the more I wish to visit.

25773. wonkers2 - 11/18/2004 10:26:02 AM

Good news. Here

25774. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/19/2004 1:42:41 PM

Bush is my shepherd; I dwell in want.

He maketh logs to be cut down in national forests.

He leadeth trucks into the still wilderness.

He restoreth my fears.

He leadeth me in the path of international disgrace for his ego's sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of pollution and war,

I will find no exit, for thou art in office.

Thy tax cuts for the rich and thy media control, they discomfort me.

Thou preparest an agenda of deception in the presence of thy religion.

Thou annointest my head with foreign oil.

My health insurance runneth out.

Surely megalomania and false patriotism shall follow me all the days of thy
term,

And my jobless child shall dwell in my basement forever.

25775. KuligintheHooligan - 11/19/2004 3:27:41 PM

I like "thou anointest my head with foreign oil." Quite humorous actually.

Of course, when Bush wants to develop our own oil fields more fully, then he gets the one above that, "he maketh logs to be cut down in national forests."

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

25776. angel-five - 11/19/2004 4:36:42 PM

Of course he's damned either way, Kuligin.

1 Timothy 6
1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
6 But godliness with contentment is great gain.
7 For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows...

I should add here that while Bush's choices aren't limited to kissing the Saudis or drilling in Anwar, other threads are probably better suited to the more political aspects of the Bush presidency (indeed, are probably better suited for all aspects of that presidency, given the heat of the topic and the fact that most 'religious' discussion of Bush will just be a thin veneer over political argument.)

25777. KuligintheHooligan - 11/19/2004 5:08:50 PM

A5, something I was reading today made me recall a comment you made earlier here in this thread. Let me give you the quotation from the person and see if you can guess who said this:

"I took it for granted that there was no meaning. This was partly due to the fact that I shared the common belief that the scientific picture of an abstraction from reality was a true picture of reality as a whole; partly also to other non-intellectual reasons. I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently, I assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption.

Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. It is out will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless."

25778. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/19/2004 5:17:57 PM

25779. angel-five - 11/19/2004 5:23:20 PM

That's Huxley.

I agree and disagree with Huxley. On the one hand it is obvious that what people want to believe usually directs their thoughts, and they often don't want to know things which don't support what they want to believe. On the other hand, there are real limits to what we can know, at least according to our current understanding, and there are many among us who would love to know the things which fall beyond the pale. I know I would, even if I were given an absolute guarantee that the things I would learn would go against my grain completely and force me to abandon everything I thought I understood.

25780. KuligintheHooligan - 11/20/2004 5:41:54 AM

A5, you are correct. Nice job. It reminded me of your comment earlier, that the beliefs we MUST hold are the ones that we should be most wary about, something like that.

As for that earlier quote, I forgot to give the final answer. It was from a New Ager, part of the Neopagan movement.

25781. KuligintheHooligan - 11/20/2004 5:43:33 AM

Just saw this on human cloning I noted something akin to this a little while ago, that there is real debate about whether or not we should clone humans, either for spare body parts, or for stem cells.

"The compromise means that the U.N. General Assembly will not vote on rival resolutions that would have started the ball rolling on drafting a worldwide treaty — either to ban all human cloning or just ban reproductive cloning and allow some for stem cell and other research."

25782. angel-five - 11/20/2004 2:09:15 PM

As for that earlier quote, I forgot to give the final answer. It was from a New Ager, part of the Neopagan movement.

If you would characterize that statement as coming from a New Ager ('these are the people we need to be worried about') or even as a Neo-Pagan in general, then you have got no room at all to get upset when someone characterizes Christians, or even Christian Fundamentalists, as all being a bunch of knuckle-dragging neanderthals who want to drag us all back to the Dark Ages, want to see women dying in back-alley abortion shacks, and are praying for Armageddon. I've seen you get quite upset at that sort of thing, however.

And Scientologists have got about as much to do with neopaganism as you have with atheism, you know. Such statements discredit you.

25783. KuligintheHooligan - 11/20/2004 4:30:06 PM

"Neopaganism" is a very broad term which covers, under its umbrella, the New Age movement.

Scientology is one of those streams which those associated with cult and cultic groups would link to the general "New Age Movement."

There is nothing wrong with such a characterization. I'm surprised you think otherwise, A5.

25784. KuligintheHooligan - 11/20/2004 4:31:06 PM

And further, the idea that the human race is "evolving" and that those who don't evolve need to be "eliminated" isn't new to New Age thinking and/or Neopaganism. Perhaps your understand of both, A5, is just a bit narrowminded and limited.

25785. judithathome - 11/20/2004 4:57:36 PM

I disagree...I don't think Scientology ahs anything to do with pagans or New Age at all. It's a cult but in the dark, all cults are not gray.

25786. Ronski - 11/20/2004 6:59:54 PM

Kuligan,

How would you define paganism and neo-paganism?

25787. angel-five - 11/21/2004 12:51:53 AM

Perhaps your understand of both, A5, is just a bit narrowminded and limited.

Yeah, maybe. Perhaps, though, it takes an especially dumb disingenuousness to suggest that Scientology and neopaganism are even within shouting distance of one another on the religious continuum, and perhaps you really don't know what you're talking about.

"Neopaganism" is a very broad term which covers, under its umbrella, the New Age movement.

I suppose you clicked on some link which told you that?

Neopaganism and New Ageism are both big tent terms, but they're mostly different tents, and to the extent that they aren't, New Ageism is by far the bigger tent.

Here's a link to a good definition of New Age religion.

As you can see that's pretty damned wide-ranging. There's New Age Christianity, New Age Hinduism, New Age Taoism, New Age Zoroastrianism, New Age this and that, and just heterodox New Agery that gets called that because there's no other good word to describe it, but it probably involves crystals, channeling, divination and so on. You will find some New Agers who believe that, well, a new age is upon us (the Age of Aquarius) and a lot of others who just putter around with crystals and think that they've channeled the spirit of Hunk Ra of the Atlanteans.

25788. angel-five - 11/21/2004 12:54:50 AM

Here's the corresponding link of neo-paganism. Where new-age religions typically look to the present experience or the future, neo-paganism harks back to older traditions (real or imagined) which center on one or more of the following: recognition of the sacred feminine as well as the masculine, a focus upon and reverence for nature, and a belief in the art of magic.

Just for chuckles, here is the corresponding link for Scientology. An excerpt:

Scientologists follow Mr. Hubbard's belief that a person is neither mind nor body, but a spiritual being - a soul. However, the word "soul" is an ambiguous term, which had been given many meanings by many religions. In order to avoid confusion, Mr. Hubbard selected the word "thetan" from the Greek letter "theta" which has traditionally meant "thought" or "life". A Thetan is the essence of a person, One does not have a Thetan, one is a Thetan. The brain, and the rest of the body, is looked upon as a mechanism, a communication center for the Thetan. The mind is perceived as a collection of pictures.

Scientology recognizes "Eight Dynamics." A "dynamic" is an urge, drive or impulse. Understanding these dynamics help a person gain insight and harmonize all their life activities. The first four dynamics were initially described by Mr. Hubbard in Dianetics; the remaining four were added with the creation of Scientology:

The First Dynamic is the urge to survive as oneself.

The second the urge to survive through family and sex.

The third is to survive in various groups such as a company or with a group of friends.

The fourth is to survive as mankind.

The fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth are the urge to survive through other life forms such as animals, the physical universe, the spiritual universe and Infinity or God respectively.

25789. angel-five - 11/21/2004 12:56:20 AM

The human mind is divided into two components: the analytical mind and the reactive mind. The former resembles Freud's concept of the conscious mind; it senses, remembers, reasons and recalls. The reactive mind is somewhat similar to Freud's unconscious. It records physically and psychologically disturbing events in this life and prior lives. These include perceived assaults in the womb, the birth process, assaults, injuries etc. They are recorded as engrams which are a form of psychic scar. These engrams are considered "the single source of all man's insanities, psychosomatic illnesses and neuroses.". They are not sensed by the analytical mind directly. However, they will degrade a person's life and keep an individual from reaching their full potential. By removing the engrams, one can progress from being "preclear" (PC) to "clear;" i.e. totally free of engrams.

A person can progress beyond "clear" to becoming a "OT" or "Operating Thetan." Scientologists believe that an OT is able to leave their body and mind. They can see, hear and feel without access to their normal senses.

Great religious leaders like Buddha and Jesus Christ are regarded as being slightly above "clear".

Scientologists reject the concept of eternal life in hell and heaven. They believe in reincarnation in which a person passes through a number of lifetimes. "....personal salvation in one lifetime [is] freedom from the cycle of birth and death".

They believe that God exists, but do not have a specific belief about the nature of that deity.

Their goal is to help sufficient numbers of people to become "clear" so that a significant impact can be felt in areas of crime, mental illness, warfare, drug addiction, physical illnesses etc.

25790. angel-five - 11/21/2004 1:05:40 AM

Now, if you like, you can argue that 'New Age' should have a sufficently wide-ranging definition that it could possibly include the above kind of beliefs. But a priori that makes it even more silly to say that New Agery is some kind of subset of Neo-paganism.

And the funny part about it all is that Neo-Paganism and New Age religions are all non-centered. There's no one authority in either of them; in fact, they mostly only agree to disagree.

So, yeah, you think we should be worried about Neo-Pagans and New Agers because of that crap you linked. I can't speak for anyone else, but you'll just have to forgive me if I don't stay up at night worrying about the Neo Pagan L Ron Hubbard conspiracy of spacefaring Thetans who want to purify Earth for the sake of being an acceptable Universal Species. I've got other things to worry about, like cross-waving bigots who think children should praise Jesus in their homeroom class and that Satan is behind lesbianism. They're organized, you know. But of course you know.

25791. Jenerator - 11/22/2004 10:12:16 AM

I've got other things to worry about, like cross-waving bigots who think children should praise Jesus in their homeroom class and that Satan is behind lesbianism.

I can't wait till you're a parent, boy are you going to be humbled!

25792. Jenerator - 11/22/2004 10:30:06 AM

Scientology: Science or New Age Cult?

"...Scientology, thereby, does nothing more than incorporate certain aspects of New Age pseudoscience, psychotherapy, and various occult practices into the ancient lie of promised godhood. Below are the highlights of what Scientology believes and practices concerning its source of authority, roots, tactics, sin and salvation, Christ, and spiritual practice...

Scientology, a New Age cult

..."Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard: Humans are immortal spiritual beings whose experience extends beyond a single lifetime (reincarnation), and whose capabilities are unlimited, though presently imprisoned by matter, energy, space, and time (MEST). Salvation is the recovery of spiritual freedom, ability, independence and serenity, including freedom from the endless cycle of birth and death (reincarnation), and full awareness and ability independent of the body, i.e., being “able to control matter, energy, space, and time."

25793. Jenerator - 11/22/2004 10:51:26 AM

From one of my personal favorite websites:

Neo-Paganism

The new paganism -- a nature-oriented religious movement whose followers either are nature worshippers or have a very high regard for nature. It includes the reinventing or revival of the old gods and goddesses of pre-Christian polytheistic mythologies, mystery cults, and nature religions, such as Celtic, Greek, Egyptian, Roman, or Sumerian, or the interest in existing tribal religions (e.g. Native American religions)

From the same site:

The basic tenets of Scientology result from an eclectic mixture of Eastern philosophy and the personal research of Hubbard into a variety of disciplines, as well as the ''data'' uncovered from ''auditing.'' Auditing is Scientology's ''counseling'' or extensive examination of the present life and ''past lives'' of the ''preclear,'' or initiate. In one of its many definitions, Hubbard has described Scientology as ''the Western Anglicized continuance of many earlier forms of wisdom.'' These include the Vedas, Taoism, Buddhism, Judaism, Gnosticism and early Greek civilization; and the teachings of Jesus, Nietzsche, and Freud. According to Hubbard, ''Scientology has accomplished the goal of religion expressed in all Man's written history, the freeing of the soul by wisdom.''

New Age

The New Age is ultimately a collection of diverse movements that revolve around the central belief that humans are capable of shaping reality and establishing truth; the theories regarding the ways in which reality and truth can be shaped are as varied as the groups espousing them.

25794. alistairconnor - 11/22/2004 11:44:22 AM

These are the guys we should be worried about:

Thank you Ku, thank you Jen. You have identified a wide-ranging tentacular threat. People with all sorts of weird and often contradictory beliefs that lead them to suspend their own moral judgement. New age, neo-pagan, Church of This, Church of That.

The dangerous characteristic that all these people have in common : irrational belief in supernatural forces.

Yes, religious people are the ones we should be worried about.

25795. ronski - 11/22/2004 11:46:17 AM

the central belief that humans are capable of shaping reality

Does Christianity reject the notion that humans are capable of shaping reality? Since Iraenus?

25796. KuligintheHooligan - 11/22/2004 11:48:16 AM

"Perhaps, though, it takes an especially dumb disingenuousness to suggest that Scientology and neopaganism are even within shouting distance of one another on the religious continuum, and perhaps you really don't know what you're talking about."

AND

"I suppose you clicked on some link which told you that?"

Okay, maybe I'm not an expert in quantum mechanics (far from it) but in the area of Cults, it is my expertise and I'm very well versed in it. I have at least a dozen books on my shelf concerning them and don't need to look for some wacky website link.

The first three I pulled off my shelf dealt with Scientology and found connections between it and the New Age Movement (NAM). Here they are:

"Cults, New Religious Movements, and Your Family," Richard Abanes, 1998. He provides a very nice chart showing the historical streams which have gone into the development of the NAM.

"Charts of Cults, Sects & religious Movements," H. Wayne House, 2000. It is from this book that I gleaned the quote I provided earlier, from Barbara Marx Hubbard in "Revelation: The Book of Co-Creation." In this book Scientology is considered "New Age." [CONT]

25797. KuligintheHooligan - 11/22/2004 11:48:30 AM

Lastly, the rather thorough "Encyclopedia of the New Age" by Ankerberg, which devotes a whole article to Scientology.

But you may believe that I just pulled this out my ass if you like. I don't mind. I'm used to this from you by now.

Also, I find it ironic that while you thought that quotation came from a Scientologist, you didn't say boo about me saying we should worry about these people. Now, however, that you realize I quoted a Neo-pagan New Ager, you are all up in arms about it. The quote, however, hasn't changed one iota. Why is that, Angel-Five? Too close to home perhaps??

25798. Jenerator - 11/22/2004 12:01:59 PM

Kuligin,

I was surprised to find that Scientology is classified as a hate group, too!

25799. alistairconnor - 11/22/2004 12:03:27 PM

I believe his point, Ku, is that your use of the term "New Age" is so broad is to be pretty meaningless. For you, it appears to cover about any religious or mystical beliefs that fall outside the "traditional" religions.

His second point is that your attempt to tar such a broad and amorphous body of opinions with one brush (your nutty quote) is, by construction, absurd.

My point is that you, as a believer in supernatural beings, have much more in common with those various new-age freaks than I or Angel have.

25800. ElliottRW - 11/22/2004 12:19:54 PM

alistairconner,

The dangerous characteristic that all these people have in common : irrational belief in supernatural forces.

Well, you might say that describes me. Although in my case, my beliefs are not so much patently false (they are entirely consistent with my reality) as they are unfalsifiable. But religious I am, and I don't believe that that makes me dangerous.

No, what makes people dangerous is that they hold dangerous beliefs, not that they hold irrational beliefs.

25801. PelleNilsson - 11/22/2004 12:29:11 PM

Guns don't kill people?

25802. judithathome - 11/22/2004 12:34:25 PM

I was surprised to find that Scientology is classified as a hate group, too!

In some areas, Christians are starting to look like a hate group, Jen. The letters to the editor I read last week suggested Bush is a Christian leader and that justifies killing Iraqi women and children to rid the world of infidels...one woman quoted the bible and said we should flatten the entire country and everyone in it.

Doesn't sound like a loving, inclusive group to me.

25803. angel-five - 11/22/2004 12:48:59 PM

That's just the thing, Kuligin. It isn't from a neo-pagan. You really need to read all those books again, even if they're just Christian screeds in which New Ageism is some huge and sinister movement, a conspiracy, or whatever, because I simply don't believe that any of them say new ageism is a subset of neo-paganism, especially if they say scientology is new ageist. Or you could just read Jenerator's links, because they don't even remotely suggest neo-paganism is the parent term to new ageism.

Pray tell us more about this expertise, though. I am interested; what motivates a man like you to possess books such as these?

25804. angel-five - 11/22/2004 1:00:31 PM

I find it ironic that while you thought that quotation came from a Scientologist, you didn't say boo about me saying we should worry about these people. Now, however, that you realize I quoted a Neo-pagan New Ager, you are all up in arms about it. The quote, however, hasn't changed one iota. Why is that, Angel-Five? Too close to home perhaps??

You always do this, and it's boring. If I were a neo-pagan I can assure you I wouldn't be ashamed of it. Your offenses aren't against me, merely against truth.

IAC I think we should hear more about this 'expertise' which leads you to talk about the 'new age movement' and how it's all a subset of neo-paganism. Because I figure you probably just bought a few books by Christian crackpots about anti-Christian conspiracies and Satanic fronts. And once again, I'm not saying that to ridicule you. You just need to understand that the diagram you've drawn is as ridiculous as if I explained to you that Roman Catholicism is a subset of Shinto which is a subset of Buddhism, and that, therefore, the fact that a Catholic assassin started World War I should make us worried about all Buddhists. Really, you might pay attention to all the other people who have hopped up and questioned that, too.

25805. angel-five - 11/22/2004 1:06:20 PM

And I can't help but note that while my main criticism of what you've said was that you suggested new ageism is a subset of neo-paganism, and I even allowed how you could argue that new ageism might encompass Scientology.... your responses are all to link Scientology to the, what was it, New Age Movement, and otherwise you just sit there and re-assert about neo-paganism.

I bet they're all tied to those satanists under the water tower...

************************************************8

There's a lot of ridiculousness in Neo-Paganism. Money spells, astrology, pretenses to a tradition that's thousands of years old. It really takes quite a bit of work, Kuligin, to make them look good in comparison. Must tire you out.

25806. judithathome - 11/22/2004 1:27:25 PM

I am interested; what motivates a man like you to possess books such as these?

I think Kuligin once explained about this interest. He was once marginally involved in a "cult-like" church or what he thought to be one. But I will let him explain it because that's all I recall...

25807. Jenerator - 11/22/2004 1:44:32 PM

Well, would it make sense to any of you for him to have books on the subjects he teaches at seminary???

25808. angel-five - 11/22/2004 3:02:20 PM

If he teaches that Scientology is a subset of neo-paganism, he needs better books.

25809. angel-five - 11/22/2004 3:14:30 PM

From the link I posted earlier (I almost excerpted this before);

The "New Age" that does not exist:

Major confusion about the New Age has been generated by academics, counter-cult groups, Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians and traditional Muslim groups, etc. Some examples are:

--Many of the above groups have dismissed Tasawwuf (Sufiism) as a New Age cult. In reality, Sufiism has historically been an established mystical movement within Islam, which has always existing in a state of tension with the more legalistic divisions within Islam. It has no connection with the New Age.

--Some conservative Christians believe that a massive, underground, highly coordinated New Age organization exists that is infiltrating government, media, schools and churches. No such entity exists.

--Some conservative Christians do not differentiate among the Occult, Satanism, Wicca, other Neopagan religions. Many seem to regard all as forms of Satanism who perform horrendous criminal acts on children. Others view The New Age, Neopagan religions, Tarot card reading, rune readings, channeling, work with crystal energy, etc. as merely recruiting programs for Satanism. In fact, the Occult, Satanism, Neo-pagan religions are very different phenomena, and essentially unrelated. Dr. Carl Raschke, professor of Religious Studies at the University of Denver describes New Age practices as the spiritual version of AIDS; it destroys the ability of people to cope and function." He describes it as "essentially, the marketing end of the political packaging of occultism...a breeding ground for a new American form of fascism."

25810. KuligintheHooligan - 11/22/2004 3:32:18 PM

"I believe his point, Ku, is that your use of the term "New Age" is so broad is to be pretty meaningless. For you, it appears to cover about any religious or mystical beliefs that fall outside the "traditional" religions."

alistair, it would be helpful if you actually knew what you were talking about first, before saying such nonsense. I do not use the term "new age" in the above way, not at all. Next time, why not ask first before jumping to ridiculous conclusions?

"what motivates a man like you to possess books such as these?"

A5, it is one of the courses I teach, along with World Religions in general.

25811. KuligintheHooligan - 11/22/2004 3:36:23 PM

"Your offenses aren't against me, merely against truth."

Nonsense. A5, when you thought the quote was from a Scientologist, you didn't say boo about it. But as soon as I said it was from a New Ager, you went through the roof. There is something exposed there that you simply do not want to reveal. Perhaps part of your love affair with Gaia and all that rot.

"I figure you probably just bought a few books by Christian crackpots about anti-Christian conspiracies and Satanic fronts."

Not at all, and your last posts about Christians who see "Satanism" everywhere certainly doesn't describe me. Satanism is a very specific group or class.

25812. angel-five - 11/22/2004 3:41:21 PM

A5, it is one of the courses I teach, along with World Religions in general.

Well, Kuligin, if you're not above being corrected, I suggest you begin teaching your students that Scientology is not Neo-Pagan. Neo-Paganism is, generally speaking, an umbrella term for nature-centered religions which hark back to ancient traditions, emphasise both the male and female halves of divinity in various guises, and generally believe in the efficacicy of magical practice. It covers Wicca (and general witchcraft), shamanism in its various forms, Druidic worship, Norse and Celtic worship, and the like. It hence covers a lot of different beliefs, but only in the same sense that there's an infinity of numbers between 1 and 2.

If you want to call Scientology 'new age' I don't find that to be an epistemologically useful definition of New Age, but the important thing to keep in mind is that as you build your case to include it, you weaken your case to say New Age is neo-pagan. Scientology is a yuppie religion, not a hippie one.

25813. KuligintheHooligan - 11/22/2004 3:41:52 PM

"He was once marginally involved in a "cult-like" church or what he thought to be one."

You have a very good memory, judith!! I'm really surprised you'd remember this, because I think I only mentioned it once before, and that was fairly long ago.

25814. KuligintheHooligan - 11/22/2004 3:44:09 PM

"I suggest you begin teaching your students that Scientology is not Neo-Pagan"

Actually, I don't cover Scientology at all in my courses here. Isn't worth it, it isn't remotely contextual here in Namibia.

Again, my original quotation came from someone in the New Age Movement, which I do cover.

We have the Moonies in Namibia, we have the Jehovah's Witnesses, we have the Mormons. I've never seen a Scientologist, though, so don't cover it.

25815. KuligintheHooligan - 11/22/2004 3:48:08 PM

Also, A5, are you saying the New Age and Neopaganism have nothing in common, in fact, great things in common? Are you implying that there are absolutely no substantive similarities between the two?

I disagree, of course, if you are saying the above.

25816. angel-five - 11/22/2004 3:49:34 PM

Nonsense. A5, when you thought the quote was from a Scientologist, you didn't say boo about it.

That's because I'd buythat it's from a Scientologist. In fact, it is! It's from Barbara Hubbard! I find Scientology creepy and this wouldn't be the first time I've heard eugenic language couched in Scientologist terms like 'universal species'. Grasp that.

But as soon as I said it was from a New Ager, you went through the roof. There is something exposed there that you simply do not want to reveal. Perhaps part of your love affair with Gaia and all that rot.

Suddenly and studiously you seem afraid to engage over your use of the term 'neo-pagan'. That's certainly what I went through the roof over, if that's in fact what I did. And you can imply as much as you like about whatever you like; I'm neither neo-pagan nor a New Ager. But the fact remains that I'm correcting you on your definitions, and the fact remains that you're using a quote from a Scientologist to suggest that 'neo-pagans' are bad, and I'm plastering you over that.

If you're going to teach these things you have somewhat of a responsibility to know about them.

Not at all, and your last posts about Christians who see "Satanism" everywhere certainly doesn't describe me. Satanism is a very specific group or class.

You'll have to forgive me, then. I remember the old days when you were going on from Namibia about the Satanists that gathered at night under the water tower and drew an appropriate conclusion. I'll also wait to hear you say, specifically, that you don't think neo-paganism is inspired by your Satan before I believe you think so.

25817. angel-five - 11/22/2004 3:54:50 PM

Also, A5, are you saying the New Age and Neopaganism have nothing in common, in fact, great things in common? Are you implying that there are absolutely no substantive similarities between the two?

I am saying that New Ageism is by far the larger definition, where you say that neo-paganism is. I am saying New Ageism isn't a subset of neo-paganism; you are insisting it is. I am saying that New Ageism and Neo-Paganism are different beasts altogether, more different than Islam and Lutheran Christianity. Would you like me to link where I discussed it earlier, so you can read it for the first time?

I mean, if you want to now move the point to 'are there any points of similarity at all' you can be my guest. I'll just point out that there's points of similarity between voudoun and Christianity.

25818. KuligintheHooligan - 11/22/2004 3:57:01 PM

"I remember the old days when you were going on from Namibia about the Satanists that gathered at night under the water tower and drew an appropriate conclusion."

Of course, satanists exist in Namibia. They've handed out literature in public schools here too, inviting people to their meetings. But I don't see what that has to do with the present discussion.

"I'll also wait to hear you say, specifically, that you don't think neo-paganism is inspired by your Satan before I believe you think so."

The Christian understanding that false religions constitute idolatry which is "inspired" by Satan is certainly true. But that doesn't mean that every non-Christian religion is "Satanism." Again, Satanism is a specific group. You can try all you want to to go to some wacky website and cut-and-paste stereotypical nonsense about Christians if you like, but it doesn't stick to me. "Satanism" as a religious movement is quite distinct.

And by the way, weren't you the one implying earlier that I was the one getting my info from some website I happened upon??

25819. KuligintheHooligan - 11/22/2004 3:59:32 PM

"I'll just point out that there's points of similarity between voudoun and Christianity."

Whatever. You can believe what you want to. Go ahead and try to paint me as some wacky Christian who thinks all non-Christian groups are "satanists." I really don't care.

Fact is, though, that Neo-paganism and the NAM have great things in common, draw from much of the same pool, and are intimately linked to each other. I've already pointed to scholarly publications which cover these things in great detail. Think what you want to.

25820. KuligintheHooligan - 11/22/2004 4:01:37 PM

"I am saying that New Ageism is by far the larger definition, where you say that neo-paganism is."

I suppose this may be just a problem of semantics, A5. It depends on how you approach the issues. "New Age" covers a whole hoard of sub-groups and movements, and borrows heavily from Neo-pagan ideas and principles.

25821. KuligintheHooligan - 11/22/2004 4:03:42 PM

Since you are fond of web searches, A5, here's a site from JewsforMorality:

http://www.jewsformorality.org/pagan_resurgence.htm

"The New Age Movement: Reversion to Paganism"

25822. KuligintheHooligan - 11/22/2004 4:17:27 PM

A5

I recalled seeing something very recently on New Age and Neo-paganism in my preparations for a course I'm going to teach up in Kenya next year. Then I remembered where it was, here:

Adherents.com

This is an incredibly helpful, scholarly website on world religions, statistics, demographics, and the like. For example, do you know that with all the major religions of the world, you can eliminate a major country or regional area (such as India wrt Hinduism) and cut down their size dramatically? The only truly global religion, then, is Christianity, in terms of its reach.

But I disgrees. Here is what I read about New Agers and how they classify themselves:

"New Age: New Age is an incredibly eclectic category, not a single religion. Although a large number of people hold beliefs which have been categorized as New Age, or participate in New Age practices, only a tiny percentage of people actually identify "New Age" as their religion. At this point "New Age" is more the umbrella term for a broad movement, rather than a religion. Some previous enthusiasts of New Age movements now prefer to be called pagans or Neo-Pagans."

25823. KuligintheHooligan - 11/22/2004 4:19:47 PM

There very clearly is an intimate connection between New Agers and Neo-pagans, and I don't think I misspoke in my initial comment in that regard. Further, Scientology is seen by many as one of those sub-groups which went into the formation of the "New Age Movement." So that there is a link between Scientology and NAM, and between NAM and Neo-paganism. Therefore, your chastisement of me that Scientology and Neo-paganism aren't anywhere near each other on the spectrum of religion is, I think, inaccurate.

25824. judithathome - 11/22/2004 4:33:11 PM

Some previous enthusiasts of New Age movements now prefer to be called pagans or Neo-Pagans."

Well, previous means they once were New Agers but now are somethng else. It's like Christians who stop believing and are now atheists.

25825. judithathome - 11/22/2004 4:33:41 PM

Sorry.

25826. judithathome - 11/22/2004 4:34:31 PM

The first "previous" is the only word I meant to be in bold print.

25827. KuligintheHooligan - 11/22/2004 4:41:14 PM

http://www.ethoschannel.com/personalgrowth/hubbard/bmh-bio.html

"That's because I'd buythat it's from a Scientologist. In fact, it is! It's from Barbara Hubbard!"

Here's a biographical excerpt concerning Hubbard. The book from which I quoted wasn't from Scientology, but from Nataraj Publishing and is part of the New Age Movement.

25828. KuligintheHooligan - 11/22/2004 4:42:07 PM

shoot

25829. KuligintheHooligan - 11/22/2004 4:42:57 PM

shoot again

25830. KuligintheHooligan - 11/22/2004 4:43:42 PM

how do I get rid of it!!

25831. KuligintheHooligan - 11/22/2004 4:44:44 PM

did that work?

25832. KuligintheHooligan - 11/22/2004 4:45:53 PM

"Well, previous means they once were New Agers but now are somethng else. It's like Christians who stop believing and are now atheists."

No its not judith. You'll have to go to the website and see it in context. It isn't signifying people who have changed religious preferences. Rather, it is signifying people who prefer a new term to describe what they still believe. Go check it out.

25833. PelleNilsson - 11/22/2004 4:47:53 PM

Gotten rid of?

25834. KuligintheHooligan - 11/22/2004 5:02:42 PM

Here's a quote from another New Ager, akin to the earlier Hubbard quote:

"Nature will soon enter her cleansing cycle. Those who reject the Earth changes with an attitude of "it can't happen here" will experience the greatest emotion of fear and panic, followed by rage and violent action. These individuals, with their lower vibratory rates, will be removed during the next two decades."

(the spirit "Ashur" speaking in the book, "Practical Spirituality")

25835. KuligintheHooligan - 11/22/2004 5:03:07 PM

Thanks, pelle, and sorry for the mess!

25836. KuligintheHooligan - 11/22/2004 5:05:12 PM

A5, I see that you are up to some of your old tricks, unfortunately. First, you try to disparage me by implying that I get my information from some sloppy website link I happened upon. Of course, I pointed out that the information comes from several separate and scholarly publications. You are then silent on that issue.

Then you attempt to disparage me by painting me in the wacko "Christians who label all non-Christian religions as 'Satanism'" light. I note that I very much understand the specific categorization of "Satanism," so you come back and still try to make it appear - given earlier comments I made about Satanists in Namibia - that I am one of those wacko Christians. Again, I note that one must make a distinction between "Satan is at the root of all false religions" and "Satanism" as a specific movement or group. Again, silence from you. And a red herring from you to boot.

Now you lamely try to disparage my original quotation which I said was from a New Ager, by pointing out the woman's last name is Hubbard, and, aaaaaaah, see, she must be a Scientologist. Are all people named Hubbard Scientologists in your little world, A5??!

Three strikes and you are out. Why is it that you find it so difficult to just stick to the issues and not immediately attempt to denegrate the other person, A5?

And all the while you imply I am being "disingenuous," when it seems clearly from the above that you are playing that game nicely yourself already.

25837. judithathome - 11/22/2004 5:18:55 PM

Obviously all people named Hubbard are not Scientologists (and I think A5 was making a joke on that one) or old Mother Hubbard would have not only been able to feed her dog, she'd have started a franchise business selling packaged bones to dog owners. ;-)

25838. angel-five - 11/22/2004 8:44:40 PM

"New Age: New Age is an incredibly eclectic category, not a single religion. Although a large number of people hold beliefs which have been categorized as New Age, or participate in New Age practices, only a tiny percentage of people actually identify "New Age" as their religion. At this point "New Age" is more the umbrella term for a broad movement, rather than a religion. Some previous enthusiasts of New Age movements now prefer to be called pagans or Neo-Pagans."

And from that, you get that Neo-Pagans are the larger group and New Ageists are the subset of it? No, you don't. You muffed that one and you'll feel much better after you admit it.

The sources you cited do not (not even one of them) suggest that the basic assertion 'New Agers are part of the Neo-Pagan group' of yours is true. In fact they assert quite the opposite -- that some people who were once called new agers now identify themselves as neo-pagan. I quote: At this point "New Age" is more the umbrella term for a broad movement, rather than a religion. Some previous enthusiasts of New Age movements now prefer to be called pagans or Neo-Pagans." I mean, did you even read that?!?

And that's the ball game. You can say I'm ignoring your sources if you want, but I've asked you for evidence that they support your argument about neo-paganism and new ageism, and you're the only one being strangely silent on that issue. I've repeatedly said that it's the other way around, and you even cite things which say the same thing -- and pretend that they're arguing in support of your statement!

Now, it is true that I was slamming you a little bit on Satanism. But I'm also the guy who's been linking data and making substantive arguments about what you've actually said, so, sorry, you don't get to pretend I'm just denigrating your character and that's all.

25839. angel-five - 11/22/2004 8:48:17 PM

And all the while you imply I am being "disingenuous," when it seems clearly from the above that you are playing that game nicely yourself already.

You are being disingenuous, you know.

And, for the record, yes, I thought this Hubbard woman was the daughter of Scientology's founder. If I'm wrong about that, then I'm wrong about that.

25840. angel-five - 11/23/2004 1:27:49 PM

I mean, come on, Kuligin. If you know anything at all about neo-paganism and Scientology you know that they aren't related. And if you read your own links, or mine, or for that matter a book or two, you'll see that new ageism isn't a subset of neo-paganism. I suspect you have done that, as you are now completely ignoring what you said earlier and instead talking about 'points of contact and similarity'. Well, like I said, voudoun honors St. John and the Virgin.

25841. Jenerator - 11/23/2004 11:39:02 PM

Resonance,

If you get a chance, pick up Brown's Angels and Demons; it's the prequel to The Da Vinci Code and it's really good. From Amazon:

It takes guts to write a novel that combines an ancient secret brotherhood, the Swiss Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire, a papal conclave, mysterious ambigrams, a plot against the Vatican, a mad scientist in a wheelchair, particles of antimatter, jets that can travel 15,000 miles per hour, crafty assassins, a beautiful Italian physicist, and a Harvard professor of religious iconology. It takes talent to make that novel anything but ridiculous. Kudos to Dan Brown (Digital Fortress) for achieving the nearly impossible. Angels & Demons is a no-holds-barred, pull-out-all-the-stops, breathless tangle of a thriller--think Katherine Neville's The Eight (but cleverer) or Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum (but more accessible).

Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon is shocked to find proof that the legendary secret society, the Illuminati--dedicated since the time of Galileo to promoting the interests of science and condemning the blind faith of Catholicism--is alive, well, and murderously active. Brilliant physicist Leonardo Vetra has been murdered, his eyes plucked out, and the society's ancient symbol branded upon his chest. His final discovery, antimatter, the most powerful and dangerous energy source known to man, has disappeared--only to be hidden somewhere beneath Vatican City on the eve of the election of a new pope...

25842. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/24/2004 12:28:52 AM

An online casino said it placed the winning 28,000-dollar bid for a 10-year-old partly eaten grilled cheese sandwich, seen here, said to bear the image of the Virgin Mary, and wants to take it on a world tour.

25843. wonkers2 - 11/24/2004 12:40:39 AM

I wonder why they think the cheese sandwich looks like the Virgin Mary? Who knows what the Virgin Mary looked like? She may have been a blonde with a hare lip.

25844. robertjayb - 11/24/2004 1:04:27 AM

25845. KuligintheHooligan - 11/24/2004 3:52:56 AM

"If you know anything at all about neo-paganism and Scientology you know that they aren't related."

Duh. Let me say it for the last time, because I'm not going to waste any more time running round and round with you, A5. There are numerous sources covering cults which say that Scientology is part of the stream which makes up the New Age Movement. And there are several sources - reputable, published, not wacked out websites from who knows who - which show clearly that NAM and Neo-paganism are intimately linked.

YOU my friend have made the jump from Scientology to Neo-paganism, not me. Do the circle thing, A5. Part of New Age has something to do with Scientology, and part of New Age has something to do with Neo-paganism. That doesn't necessarily mean that Scientology and Neo-paganism, though, overlap.

That's it from me. I'm done wasting time with your word games and insults. Have a nice day.

25846. judithathome - 11/24/2004 9:03:03 AM

That grilled cheese looks less like Mary and more like Marlene Dietrich to me.

25847. clydefo - 11/24/2004 12:13:27 PM

Fay Wray.

25848. alistairconnor - 11/24/2004 12:16:55 PM

Well spotted!

Hallelujah! I believe!

25849. angel-five - 11/24/2004 1:39:58 PM

There are numerous sources covering cults which say that Scientology is part of the stream which makes up the New Age Movement. And there are several sources - reputable, published, not wacked out websites from who knows who - which show clearly that NAM and Neo-paganism are intimately linked.

YOU my friend have made the jump from Scientology to Neo-paganism, not me.

Your own words:

As for that earlier quote, I forgot to give the final answer. It was from a New Ager, part of the Neopagan movement...

"Neopaganism" is a very broad term which covers, under its umbrella, the New Age movement.

Scientology is one of those streams which those associated with cult and cultic groups would link to the general "New Age Movement."

So tell me again about what jump I made and what you didn't say.

25850. angel-five - 11/24/2004 1:56:05 PM

So, yes, we have you saying two things: the first is that because someone is a New Ager, they're part of the Neo-Pagan movement because Neo-Pagan is the umbrella term under which New Age falls. The second is that Scientology, according to cult hounds, is part of the 'New Age Movement'.

You can talk about how your sources are good, if you want. I have sources too. If I had sources which said, once again, that Catholics were a subset of Lutherans and that Catholics are a part of the Buddhist movement and that because Bloody Mary was Catholic, we should view with a jaundiced eye most of the population of SE Asia, I'd expect to get laughed off stage.

I'd imagine you've done a whole lot of scouring of those books of yours, and links online, over the last two days. The fact that you didn't find anything in them to back up your assertion about neo-paganism and the New Age, however, does in fact suggest to me that you might want to read them again. If you'd found something you'd be in here trumpeting it right now.

25851. thoughtful - 11/24/2004 2:18:07 PM

I'm with judithah...it's marlene!

25852. angel-five - 11/24/2004 3:05:30 PM

Like there's some kinda credibility problem with Our Lady of the Grilled Cheese Sandwich that would lead you to believe that Mary wouldn't do the gig. So it's gotta be Fay Wray.

25853. angel-five - 11/24/2004 3:07:06 PM

What I want to know is, why's the Virgin eating an entire roast chicken?

25854. PelleNilsson - 11/24/2004 3:12:07 PM

A5 -- you are becoming as tedious as Kuligin. The badger syndrome at work.

25855. angel-five - 11/24/2004 3:26:22 PM

I take it you heard the bone snap then?

IAC you're probably right.

25856. PelleNilsson - 11/24/2004 3:33:35 PM

I heard a crunch, but whether is was the bone or the coal is difficult to say.

25857. Jenerator - 11/25/2004 11:08:49 AM

Aboslutely unbelievable:

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A California teacher has been barred by his school from giving students documents from American history that refer to God -- including the Declaration of Independence.

Steven Williams, a fifth-grade teacher at Stevens Creek School in the San Francisco Bay area suburb of Cupertino, sued for discrimination on Monday, claiming he had been singled out for censorship by principal Patricia Vidmar because he is a Christian.

"It's a fact of American history that our founders were religious men, and to hide this fact from young fifth-graders in the name of political correctness is outrageous and shameful," said Williams' attorney, Terry Thompson.

"Williams wants to teach his students the true history of our country," he said. "There is nothing in the Establishment Clause (of the U.S. Constitution) that prohibits a teacher from showing students the Declaration of Independence."

Williams asserts in the lawsuit that since May he has been required to submit all of his lesson plans and supplemental handouts to Vidmar for approval, and that the principal will not permit him to use any that contain references to God or Christianity.

Among the materials she has rejected, according to Williams, are excerpts from the Declaration of Independence, George Washington's journal, John Adams' diary, Samuel Adams' "The Rights of the Colonists" and William Penn's "The Frame of Government of Pennsylvania."

25858. Jenerator - 11/25/2004 11:09:54 AM

Resonance,

I wouldn't suppose your real name is Patricia?

25859. arkymalarky - 11/25/2004 12:38:55 PM

Well, that's (on the surface) a stupid one too, but at least he didn't have the FBI after him and get fired on the spot.

Why this one teacher? No one else is barred from using that material, apparently, even in that same school.

25860. PelleNilsson - 11/25/2004 12:48:32 PM

The same materials can be used for very different purposes. Extracts from the Bible, for example, could be used to teach atheism.

25861. Dubai Vol - 11/25/2004 12:48:46 PM

OK, I'm going to take a stab in the dark here and guess that this teacher was using selective quotes and pushing the "America is a Christian country" fallacy on his students. It wasn't because he was a Christian, and it wasn't becausse he was quoting the Declaration, it was because he was using these selective quotes to promote his own religious beliefs to his students.

Just one word of warning to those who want to argue that Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and/or Geaorge Washington were Christians. You're dead wrong and I have reams of evidence that prove it. Don't even go there. Get a cheese sandwich already.

25862. KuligintheHooligan - 11/25/2004 2:22:18 PM

"Just one word of warning to those who want to argue that Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and/or Geaorge Washington were Christians. You're dead wrong and I have reams of evidence that prove it."

Yeah, right. Why do I even continue to waste my time here? Were they "born again evangelicals?" Nope. Were they Christians? Of course they were. They certainly weren't Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, or even agnostics.

But please, produce the reams for us here nonetheless.

BTW, been to Dubai, and although I sweat to death, it was a decent place to visit.

25863. KuligintheHooligan - 11/25/2004 2:33:44 PM

“I'd imagine you've done a whole lot of scouring of those books of yours, and links online, over the last two days.”

Imagine what you like, Barney. You think far too highly of this present nonsense. It is end of school year here, with graduation on Sat. This brief discussion with you only merits the occasional glance, like now.

“The fact that you didn't find anything in them to back up your assertion about neo-paganism and the New Age, however, does in fact suggest to me that you might want to read them again.”

I’ve already produced several sources and specifics. That they aren’t good enough for you is your problem, not mine. And that you can jump to wild, errant conclusions based on nothing more than a person’s last name tells me you don’t really care to deal with facts in this matter.

Of course, I can walk over to my bookshelf and pick up any of a couple dozen books on cults, and while you insinuate that I get my info from crank websites, you are actually the one left to Googling for your data. Whatever. I’m tired of your repeated nonsense.

I enjoyed the discussion on quantum mechanics, mainly because you were able to control yourself. Already, though, in this brief discussion you have managed to purposefully insult me at least four times, question my integrity once again, and I just don’t have the patience for such nonsense anymore.

Believe what you want to, A5. I really don’t care. You can have the last word, because until you can control yourself, I’m not interacting with you anymore. Thanks but no thanks. I’ve got tons of better things to do with my time.

25864. PelleNilsson - 11/25/2004 4:55:48 PM

It was the bone.

25865. Jenerator - 11/25/2004 5:39:14 PM

The bone being a symbol for A5's personality?

25866. Dubai Vol - 11/25/2004 9:56:46 PM

"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.

"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803. ME 10:378

"Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine." --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:198

"It is... proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe, a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant, too, that this recommendation is to carry some authority and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription, perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed?... Civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428

25867. Dubai Vol - 11/25/2004 9:56:58 PM

"I do not know that it is a duty to disturb by missionaries the religion and peace of other countries, who may think themselves bound to extinguish by fire and fagot the heresies to which we give the name of conversions, and quote our own example for it. Were the Pope, or his holy allies, to send in mission to us some thousands of Jesuit priests to convert us to their orthodoxy, I suspect that we should deem and treat it as a national aggression on our peace and faith." --Thomas Jefferson to Michael Megear, 1823. ME 15:434

25868. Dubai Vol - 11/25/2004 9:58:30 PM

"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.

"[If] the nature of... government [were] a subordination of the civil to the ecclesiastical power, I [would] consider it as desperate for long years to come. Their steady habits [will] exclude the advances of information, and they [will] seem exactly where they [have always been]. And there [the] clergy will always keep them if they can. [They] will follow the bark of liberty only by the help of a tow-rope." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierrepont Edwards, July 1801

"The advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from [the clergy]." --Thomas Jefferson to Levi Lincoln, 1802.

25869. Dubai Vol - 11/25/2004 9:59:57 PM

"The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800.

25870. Dubai Vol - 11/25/2004 10:05:22 PM

So now I've bored everybody to death, but I want you to read that last one carefully. Jefferson spent a great deal of time and energy fighting tooth and nail against the Christian church. Franklin was even more hard line against Christianity, and Washington, while not as vocal, was clearly, by his actions NOT a Christian. I'm not going through all that evidence unless somebody begs.

25871. arkymalarky - 11/25/2004 10:44:57 PM

I knew for a fact Jefferson and Franklin were not, and I'm frankly stunned an educated American would argue that they were.

25872. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 4:34:37 AM

Don't be silly, arky, or at bare minimum, be more precise. Clearly, very, very clearly, Jefferson and Franklin were "Christians." Read very carefully the above quotations provided by Dubai. Not one of them portrays them as being non-Christians. What they do say is that they don't believe the gov't should interfere in an individual's religious convictions. That if far different than stating that they do not subscribe to Christian principles.

Let's put it this way. If Jefferson, et al, were not Christians, then what were they? Atheists? Agnostics?

The best answer, of course, is Deists, which makes them Christians. But arky, let me now steal your thunder. If not Christians, then what precisely?

25873. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 4:35:28 AM

"Washington . . . by his actions NOT a Christian."

Explain please.

25874. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 4:51:56 AM

Instead of reading quotations ripped out of their context, go and read this article. For someone who was not a Christian, Jefferson sure acted like one.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28006
While Jefferson has been lionized by those who seek to drive religion from public life, the true Thomas Jefferson is anything but their friend. He was anything but irreligious, anything but an enemy to Christian faith. Our nation's third president was, in fact, a student of Scripture who attended church regularly, and was an active member of the Anglican Church, where he served on his local vestry. He was married in church, sent his children and a nephew to a Christian school, and gave his money to support many different congregations and Christian causes."

"Jefferson's "Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted From the New Testament for the Use of the Indians" was a tool to evangelize and educate American Indians."

"But if the ACLU is right, why, just two days after he sent his letter to the Danbury Baptists did President Jefferson attend public worship services in the U.S. Capitol building, something he did throughout his two terms in office? And why did he authorize the use of the War Office and the Treasury building for church services in Washington, D.C.?"

"Jefferson's presidential acts would, if done today, send the ACLU marching into court. He signed legislation that gave land to Indian missionaries, put chaplains on the government payroll, and provided for the punishment of irreverent soldiers. He also sent Congress an Indian treaty that set aside money for a priest's salary and for the construction of a church."

25875. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 4:55:29 AM

However, if all you want are quotations from an individual showing his Christian faith, take a look at Ben Franklin here:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cdf/onug/franklin.html

Of course, I know he was a Deist, but that still makes him a Christian. Again, if not a Christian, then what religion arky?

Educated know better than to say Jefferson and Franklin were not "Christians," without at least attempting to properly qualify that statement. You should know that, assuming you are educated.

25876. Dubai Vol - 11/26/2004 10:00:02 AM

The real question, Kuligin, is why we are arguing about the religion of thses guys in the first place. For all I care they could be Frisbyterian like me. (We believe that when you die your soul goes up on the roof and you can't get it down.)

The religion of these fellows has become contentious because the religious right, the evangelicals, whatever you want to call them (the one I argue with most, I call her mom.) want to claim that "America is a Christian country," and by extension, that America should be governed by Christian beliefs. For example, abortion should be illegal because that's what the fundies tell us God personally told them. Or whatever.

My contention is that Americans should not have their rights trampled on by religious fanatics, which is what the fundies want. "Live according to my belief system, which is formed by my religious beliefs, because AMERICA IS A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY!"

Maybe we who fear the triumph of this religious zealotry overreact, but my point is that many of our founding fathers worked very hard to PREVENT exactly what the religious right/fundies/evangelicals, are trying to accomplish.

25877. christipeters - 11/26/2004 10:54:58 AM

I know he was a Deist, but that still makes him a Christian.

huh? Anyone who believes there is a God is a Christian? Am I misunderstanding the definitions of Deist? Are Jews really Christian then?

(BTW, I agree that the above quotes demonstrate clearly our Founding Fathers determination that there not be a State sponsered religion in the United States. I don't think the quotes say anything one way or the other about their personal religious convictions)

25878. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 11:05:25 AM

christi

Deism was a Christian movement. It isn't just Theism, as you seem to be understanding the term.

Jefferson, Franklin, et al, were big fans of the teaching of Jesus. They were CHRISTIANS. They attended CHRISTIAN churches. They underwent CHRISTIAN ceremonies. They gave their money to CHRISTIAN causes.

Anybody who says these guys weren't Christians need to have their heads examined.

Or, better yet, simply be more stringent in their definitions. They were DEISTS. Not born-again evangelicals. But Christians just the same.

As I already said, if they weren't Christians, then what were they? Im' still waiting for that answer.

25879. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 11:06:35 AM

"Maybe we who fear the triumph of this religious zealotry overreact"

Exactly. Our country will never become a theocracy. I certainly don't want it to be. "Over reaction" is understating the reaction, though.

25880. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 11:07:10 AM

"why we are arguing about the religion of thses guys in the first place"

I think, Dubai Vol, because you brought it up.

25881. Dubai Vol - 11/26/2004 11:57:36 AM

Hey, I'm down with the philosophy of Jesus myself, but I'm not a Christian. While I agree there are a lot of valid philosophical arguments attributed to Jesus, I don't think he was the son of God. I even doubt that there was an actual historical Jesus in the first place. But even if there was, he wasn't the son of God.

christi makes a good point. Belief in God does not require affiliation with any organised religion. Kuligin, you ask if someone believes in God but is not a Christian, what are they, intimating that any believer must acribe to some organised belief system. Rubbish. Lots of people are "conceited" enough to think they can decide for themselves what to believe without having to be told by some "authority."

As for your assertion that America wil never become a theocracy, I fervently hope you are right. But there is a strong faction that is trying to make a liar of you.

BTW, good discussion, I am enjoying it. Don't mistake my debating style for actual ire.

25882. arkymalarky - 11/26/2004 3:13:58 PM

Kuligin, where do you get this stuff? Being Deists absolutely does not make them Christians. Believing in a prime mover and not speculating beyond that is a far cry from believing Jesus is the Son of God.

Have you read Franklin's autobiography? Also, his letters include correspondence with a young minister who was concerned about his salvation due to his lack of professed belief in Christianity. He told the young man that whatever/whoever god may be, as well as he'd been treated in this life he had no reason to believe the afterlife would be any different and he wasn't worried about it.

25883. arkymalarky - 11/26/2004 3:15:55 PM

Kuligin, many people are perfectly satisfied not to subscribe to a religion at all, and not be athiests or agnostics either. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

25884. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 3:18:11 PM

"Kuligin, you ask if someone believes in God but is not a Christian, what are they, intimating that any believer must acribe to some organised belief system. Rubbish."

Let's not move from the specific to the general, Dubai. We were talking specifically about Jefferson, Franklin, and so on, not just a generalistic, "If a person believes in God, does that make him a Christian?" Rather, "Were Jefferson, Franklin, et al, Christians?" The answer to the latter is certainly yes, in every measurable way, yes. They subscribed to the teaching of Jesus. They were members of Christian churches. They gave money to Christian causes. They participated in Christian rituals.

Let's try it the other way. Were they Muslims? Nope. Buddhists? Hindus? Atheists? Agnostics? Nope, nope, nope, nope.

What were they then? The best way to describe them was as Christian Deists. There is simply no better religious designation for them than this one.

Therefore, to assert as you did from the outset (and as arky did later) that they were not Christians is just nuts, really.

25885. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 3:21:03 PM

"Also, his letters include correspondence with a young minister who was concerned about his salvation due to his lack of professed belief in Christianity."

arky, in that one link I provided concerning Franklin, you will note that that guy doesn't think Franklin was "saved" either. You guys are just painting with far too broad strokes here.

A person can be "Christian" and not believe in certain supernatural things, like the incarnation and the like. Of course, ask an evangelical if that person is saved, and they will say no usually.

Also, the original quotes from Jefferson by Dubai show that Ole Tom was a firm believer in the separation of Church and State, ie., the State has no right to dictate to the individual his religious preferences. But this is a far cry from saying that Jefferson had no religious preferences himself, and it certainly does not prove that Jeff wasn't a Christian.

25886. arkymalarky - 11/26/2004 3:25:10 PM

And I agree about the discussions. Some people find them angering, but Kuligin will dive in and get his mitts dirty while staying on topic and not flinching from his beliefs and I like that. I'm secure in my own religious beliefs and in my own knowledge when I post, so being called silly doesn't bother me. I'm sure Kuligin feels the same about being called a blinkered fundamentalist.

Personally, I'm a Christian but I don't one speck like the attempt at theocritizing this country and using the founding fathers to support the effort. Whatever their religion, they would be mortified at the current trends. But it's a cylclical thing. Religions always weaken themselves over the long term by trying to inject themselves into government. Power corrupts everything and when any religion tries to legislate its own moral values for the whole state it begins to focus on itself rather than God and that's what's happening now--it's not righteousness, it's self-righteousness, and most American Christians don't subscribe to it. Those who do will get bitten by the same hubris that eventually gets everyone (including Bush himself, who's eat up with it right now) who experiences a few gains followed by a lot of delusions.

25887. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 3:25:21 PM

"Being Deists absolutely does not make them Christians."

Sure it does, at least at that time. Who do you think all the Deists were than arky? Again, what religion were they?

"Kuligin, many people are perfectly satisfied not to subscribe to a religion at all, and not be athiests or agnostics either. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?"

Because we are not talking about "many people" here, we are talking SPECIFICALLY about the Founding Fathers. But you and Dubai have already made a subtle shift from talking about specific people to now a more general concept. But that is and errant approach, and I hope you see that.

If you want to talk in broad, general terms, fine. But that isn't what was originally addressed in this brief interchange. If memory serves, Dubai started this SPECIFICALLY concerned with certain Founding Fathers. Now you guys act like we are talking about general things like people who believe in prime mover and such.

There is no way on God's green earth that anybody can state that these Founding Fathers were not "Christians." No way. That is just nonsensical. But of course, arky, you said all "educated" believe actually believe they were not. I just think you are being far too sloppy with your terminology here, that's all.

25888. Redemption Song - 11/26/2004 3:25:59 PM

President Jefferson used to let religious ceremonies take place most Sundays in the Capitol. That's something the NEA and ACUL don't teach you daughters of Zion and Abraham sons.

25889. arkymalarky - 11/26/2004 3:26:25 PM

You're the one painting too broadly, Kuligin. A Deist is not a Christian. Franklin was not a Christian. A Christian believes Jesus is the Son of God. They didn't.

25890. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 3:27:58 PM

"I'm sure Kuligin feels the same about being called a blinkered fundamentalist."

Not to let you down arky...I'm not a fundamentalist. That's a wrong use of the term. Evangelical, yes. Fundamentalist, no.

"Whatever their religion, they would be mortified at the current trends."

I'm not so sure this is true, ark. For starters, there was literally tons of religious underpinnings in the early years of our country. It is really only in the last 50 or so years that we have begun to expunge many of those very things that existed at the founding of our land. Perhaps the founders would be happy about the current state?

25891. arkymalarky - 11/26/2004 3:30:24 PM

But you and Dubai have already made a subtle shift from talking about specific people to now a more general concept. But that is and errant approach, and I hope you see that.

Hahaha! The Kuligin Circle.

No, Kuligin. We're talking about them. They were not Christians. You're saying so doesn't make it so. I don't have to show they were anything else. Their own words show they were not Christians.

25892. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 3:30:27 PM

"A Deist is not a Christian. Franklin was not a Christian. A Christian believes Jesus is the Son of God."

Aaaaah, perhaps therein lies the problem. You could very well be a "Christian Deist," arky. These guys were. They expunged much of the supernatural stuff of Christianity.

In today's terminology, they would be considered "liberal Christians," but still Christians.

And then again, arky, you'd even have to define "Son of God," because many liberal Christians would agree with that, but still not believe what evangelicals or born agains believe.

These founders were - many of them - born again, and many more deists. But they were Christians too.

25893. arkymalarky - 11/26/2004 3:31:31 PM

Who do you think all the Deists were than arky? Again, what religion were they?

Buddhists are Christians. Hindus are Christians. Muslims are Christians. Jews are Christians.

If not, then what religions are they?

25894. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 3:32:56 PM

"Hahaha! The Kuligin Circle."

You can laugh all you want to, arky, but the fact still remains, I am not bothering with general concepts like "all people who believe in a prime mover must be Christians" and so on. You've made that shift. What I am arguing, though, is that these Founders were "Christians" and I've provided substantiation for that opinion. You, on the other hand, simply say they were not and say stuff like this:

"I don't have to show they were anything else."

But really you do. There isn't some neutral ground here, arky. What were these guys? Do you at least agree they were Deists? Let's start there.

25895. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 3:33:56 PM

And let's make it concrete. You say you are a Christian, arky. Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God? If so, please be precise and specific in how you characterize that phrase, "the Son of God."

25896. arkymalarky - 11/26/2004 3:34:06 PM

You could very well be a "Christian Deist," arky. These guys were. They expunged much of the supernatural stuff of Christianity.

That is bullfeathers. There is nothing in any of your argument to support that at all.

I am not a "Christian Deist," I'm a Christian. I'm not an Evangelical, but I am a Christian. They were not Christians. They were Deists.

Many non-Christians admire the teachings of Jesus, including subscribers to other major world religions. This does not make them Christians.

25897. arkymalarky - 11/26/2004 3:35:02 PM

Yes, I do, and I will not characterize it. I don't defend my faith to anyone but God.

25898. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 3:35:17 PM

"Buddhists are Christians. Hindus are Christians. Muslims are Christians. Jews are Christians.

If not, then what religions are they?"

Now you are being silly, arky. I am talking about 18th century DEISTS, and nothing else. The above only shows me that you really don't know what Deists were in that day and age.

Perhaps you could give me a brief description, in your own words, of Deism. I feel there is a disconnect here and want to divulge it.

25899. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 3:36:54 PM

"Many non-Christians admire the teachings of Jesus, including subscribers to other major world religions. This does not make them Christians."

Right, they are "subscribers to other religions." There you have it, in a nutshell.

So are you saying that Franklin and others were "admirers" of Jesus, Deists, but not Christians?

25900. arkymalarky - 11/26/2004 3:39:49 PM

The above only shows me that you really don't know what Deists were in that day and age.

Do elaborate, Kuligin (and from somewhere besides Netdaily--a primary source would be good). I already gave a brief explanation above.

25901. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 3:39:59 PM

"There is nothing in any of your argument to support that at all."

What part of my argument are you referring to? Again, I'm assuming you know what Deism is, it's historical roots, and what a Deist was in the 18th century.

"I am not a "Christian Deist," I'm a Christian. I'm not an Evangelical, but I am a Christian. They were not Christians. They were Deists."

Well, the other labels such as "evangelical" help to clarify what specific brand of Christian a person is, that's all. It is helpful in catagorization.

"Yes, I do, and I will not characterize it. I don't defend my faith to anyone but God."

Well, there is no need to feel hostility here, arky. I just think that once we determine what you mean by "the Son of God," we'll quickly see that many people fill that phrase with different meaning from others, yet all consider themselves to be Christians. The same with the founders.

And BTW, do you feel attacked by God? Then why the need to "defend" your faith to him? I don't understand.

25902. arkymalarky - 11/26/2004 3:40:40 PM

So are you saying that Franklin and others were "admirers" of Jesus, Deists, but not Christians?

Yes! On what basis do you disagree?

25903. PelleNilsson - 11/26/2004 3:41:34 PM

It's rather fun to watch Kuligin's mental acrobatics and contortions.

25904. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 3:42:16 PM

"Do elaborate, Kuligin (and from somewhere besides Netdaily--a primary source would be good). I already gave a brief explanation above."

Which dictionary of theology from my bookshelf would you like me to consult? I assume you can do the same from your office there, right?

You don't need to get snip, arky. Why are you getting so defensive?

The term "Christian Deism" is a perfectly good term to characterize the founders.

Now then, let's get to the nuts and bolts. What do you mean when you say you believe Jesus is the SOn of God? Was he God in the flesh, a preexistent being who came down to earth and became a man?

25905. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 3:43:04 PM

This is your comment, and position, where I perceive the problems between us exists:

"A Christian believes Jesus is the Son of God. They didn't."

25906. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 3:43:59 PM

You know, Rudolf Bultmann believes that Jesus was the "Son of God" too. And he believed that everything in the Bible that was supernatural was myth that needed to be expunged.

Is Rudolf Bultmann, given the above, arky, a "Christian" in your book?

25907. arkymalarky - 11/26/2004 3:45:29 PM

Well, there is no need to feel hostility here, arky. I just think that once we determine what you mean by "the Son of God," we'll quickly see that many people fill that phrase with different meaning from others, yet all consider themselves to be Christians. The same with the founders.

I'm not hostile, I just don't go there, with other Christians, agnostics, athiests, or other religious people. I'm satisfied with my faith and I work very hard (not as often as I should) on my own relationship with God and my own shortcomings. I don't have anything to prove nor do I feel my beliefs need proof or support of others to be valid. I study the Bible and try to stay aware of my own struggles as a fallible human who has often "fallen short of the glory of God." Not that I'm very successful in dealing with them, but at least I'm aware of them. I respect your belief in the importance of defending your faith objectively, but if you notice, I never do that myself.

25908. arkymalarky - 11/26/2004 3:48:08 PM

Kuligin, I'm not going to get into classifying everyone who crosses your mind as Christian or non-Christian. I figure God can determine who (whether Christian or otherwise) is worthy of entry into His afterlife and I don't spend time judging whether other people's beliefs meet my personal litmus test of Christianity. It's enough for me for them to say they're Christians. Franklin and Jefferson did not do that.

25909. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 3:48:51 PM

arky, perhaps I haven't been clear enough. I'm not asking you to "defend" YOUR faith. I'm asking for clarification on how you use the phrase, "the Son of God."

Because I am aware of many historical figures who would say they believe Jesus to be "the Son of God," but don't believe in any of the supernatural aspects of the Christian faith or Scripture.

You seem to use the phrase as a filter, and anybody who says they believe it must be "Christians." But then there are many people perfectly like Franklin, et al, who didn't believe all the supernatural stuff and yet considered themselves "Christians."

So, again, I'm not asking you to defend your faith. I'm asking you to clarify your usage of the phrase above. Do you believe Jesus was God incarnate, the preexistent second person of the Trinity, who took on flesh and became a man?

25910. arkymalarky - 11/26/2004 3:48:57 PM

Although politically, to my mind (not religiously), Jefferson was like Clinton in that he too often tried to have it several ways at once.

25911. arkymalarky - 11/26/2004 3:49:57 PM

Do you believe Jesus was God incarnate, the preexistent second person of the Trinity, who took on flesh and became a man?

Yes.

Franklin did not consider himself a Christian.

25912. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 3:50:24 PM

"Franklin and Jefferson did not do that."

Did you read any of those links from earlier? At least Jefferson was an elder in his church for crying out loud. But this isn't proof to you that the man was a Christian? He developed a Bible for use in evangelizing the Indians, but this isn't proof enough for you that he was a Christian?

Come on.

25913. arkymalarky - 11/26/2004 3:51:22 PM

Please show where Ben Franklin states unequivically that he is a Christian, regardless of his belief in a particular incarnation--spiritual or otherwise--of Jesus.

25914. judithathome - 11/26/2004 3:52:21 PM

It's rather fun to watch Kuligin's mental acrobatics and contortions

Clearly he is a devotee of mental yoga.

25915. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 3:52:31 PM

"Although politically, to my mind (not religiously), Jefferson was like Clinton in that he too often tried to have it several ways at once."

Are you implying that, perhaps, Jefferson just pretended to ascribe to Christian principles, he gave money to Christian causes, participated in Christian rituals, was an officer in a Christian church, and looked to evangelize others to the Christian faith, but wasn't really a Christian and was just pretending to be so as to gain votes?

That's novel, I'll admit, and certainly possible.

25916. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 3:54:05 PM

"Please show where Ben Franklin states unequivically that he is a Christian, regardless of his belief in a particular incarnation--spiritual or otherwise--of Jesus."

That's precisely the point arky. You've already laid the groundwork by stating that if one believes "Jesus is the Son of God," then that person is a "Christian." So it isn't "regardless of his belief in a particular incarnation" arky. You've already laid that groundwork. You can't now take it back.

25917. judithathome - 11/26/2004 3:54:54 PM

Kuligin also believes in the Teddy R theory of carrying a big stick...the better to beat one down, my dear!

(I'm done now with the metaphor.)

25918. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 3:55:57 PM

"Yes."

Okay, arky, so you believe that Jesus is God incarnate. Good.

Now then, given your earlier objection, you believe that ONLY people who believe the above can be "Christians," right?

You must. You've painted yourself in that corner. And I'm telling you that people can reject the above, and still be categorized as "Christians." They are, in fact, all over the place.

25919. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 4:01:34 PM

Here's an interesting quote from Franklin:

"Here is my creed. I believe in one God, creator of the universe. That he governs it by his providence. That he ought to be worshiped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life. ... As to Jesus of Nazareth, ... I think his system of morals and his religion, ... the best the world ever saw or is like to see; ... and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble."

Franklin to President Ezra Stiles of Yale University, 9 March 1790, just before Franklin's death.

25920. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 4:05:09 PM

"Just one word of warning to those who want to argue that Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and/or Geaorge Washington were Christians. You're dead wrong and I have reams of evidence that prove it. Don't even go there."

Dubai Vol, 25861

"I knew for a fact Jefferson and Franklin were not, and I'm frankly stunned an educated American would argue that they were."

arky, 25871

As I have endeavored to point out, it all depends on your use of the term "Christian." arky seems to use that term exclusively for people who believe in the supernatural incaration of God in the person of Jesus Christ, "the Son of God." That's why she can say the above. But very, very clearly, "Christian" isn't limited to just that, and in fact, we've had numerous people in this forum in the past who have said they were Christians and actually objected when some "thumper" said they were not, because they rejected the incarnation!

arky, are you thumper too? :-)

25921. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 4:09:15 PM

Let's move to the next one, GW.

"The first of the twelve volumes of The Writings of George Washington to be published (vol. II) appeared in 1834 and the last (vol. I, containing the biography) in 1837.
In Volume XII of these writings, Jared Sparks delved into the religious character of George Washington"

From that manuscript:

"To say that he [George Washington] was not a Christian would be to impeach his sincerity and honesty. Of all men in the world, Washington was certainly the last whom any one would charge with dissimulation or indirectness [hypocrisies and evasiveness]; and if he was so scrupulous in avoiding even a shadow of these faults in every known act of his life, [regardless of] however unimportant, is it likely, is it credible, that in a matter of the highest and most serious importance [his religious faith, that] he should practice through a long series of years a deliberate deception upon his friends and the public? It is neither credible nor possible."

25922. arkymalarky - 11/26/2004 4:12:13 PM

Now then, given your earlier objection, you believe that ONLY people who believe the above can be "Christians," right?

You must. You've painted yourself in that corner.

Hahahaha! Answers to your two questions: No, and no I didn't! You're trying to project my personal beliefs onto the population at large as a singular definition. That won't work. Franklin and Jefferson were not Christians.

25923. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 4:15:40 PM

"You're trying to project my personal beliefs onto the population at large as a singular definition."

No, I'm simply working from the definition you provided earlier for "Christian."

Let's try it this way, then, arky.

Do you believe a person can deny belief in the incarnation - as you expressed it earlier - and still be properly called a "Christian?"

25924. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 4:17:59 PM

Just to remind you, here is your refutation of my claim from earlier:

"A Christian believes Jesus is the Son of God. They didn't."

Ergo, a person who doesn't believe Jesus is the Son of God cannot be called a "Christian." Right? I'm mean, this is what you said not too long ago.

Perhaps you just need to clarify your statement, but from where I am sitting, this is your primary argument. Because Franklin, Jefferson, and so on, did not believe Jesus is "the Son of God," they couldn't possibly be Christians.

And I'm telling you right here right now that there are millions of people around the globe who consider themselves Christians yet do not believe the above.

25925. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 4:23:20 PM

I think the problem here is terminology and their definitions. The word "Christian" can be used as a label for a wide range of beliefs. However, when I find a person financially supporting churches, looking to evangelize non-Christians into the Christian faith, sitting as a church officer in his church, supporting the use of prayer in gov't meetings, and extolling the virtues of the teachings of Jesus Christ, I am led to believe that that person is, indeed, a "Christian."

However, you arky seem to be limiting the usage of the term to that very narrow definition that a person "must believe in Jesus is the Son of God," but then not entirely qualifying how that phrase is used. To be sure, you've said what YOU believe for YOURSELF, but I'm looking for how you use it to negate all the other Christian qualifications listed above, so that Jefferson, for example, could not be considered a "Christian."

25926. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 4:26:21 PM

"Franklin and Jefferson were not Christians."

Admittedly, Franklin is a more difficult nut to crack on this debate. I think very, very clearly, George Washington was a Christian, and from all the information from Jefferson about what he did in his life and how he lived it, I'd say he was too.

Franklin, on the other hand, is "Christian" in the sense that he believed in some of the major tenets of the Christian faith, and in his own words, believed the teachings of Jesus and religion that was founded on them to be the more superior existing.

Now then, as I've already said earlier, saying the above three men were "Christians" isn't a stetch at all. But attempting to imply they were evangelicals or born-again believers is a stretch, except for possibly Washington.

25927. christipeters - 11/26/2004 4:28:24 PM

OK, still trying to understand here. Not making points, truly asking questions.

1. What is the difference between a Theist and a Deist?

2. Is the Christian Deist thing like the chicken and a rooster thing? I mean, you can be Deist and you can be a Christian or you can be a Deist and also be a Christian?

25928. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 4:30:13 PM

However, I disagree with your characterization, arky, that only people who believe Jesus to be the incarnate second person of the Trinity can be rightly categorized as "Christians." Personally, of course, I don't think such a person is saved. But the label "Christian" can still be used on such a person.

That's why I argue for more qualifiers, like "evangelical" or "liberal" and so on.

Lastly, if you have a broader definition for "Son of God" than the incarnation one you gave earlier, then let's here it. Because then I think you and I would be in more agreement than we currently are. Again, there are tons of people who do NOT ascribe to supernatural incarnation yet still would agree with the following: "I believe Jesus was the Son of God." Of course, they define "Son of God" much differently than, say, an evangelical, or perhaps even you arky.

But if you allow for that (and you seem not to at this point), then you must allow for the possiblity that someone like Jefferson, with all those Christian trappings, was in fact a "Christian."

25929. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 4:32:43 PM

christi

"Theism" is a belief in the existence of God. It can encompass a wide range of beliefs, such as monotheism, pantheism, polytheism, and so on. Of course, "Atheism" is opposed to it.

"Deism" on the other hand, posits the existence of God, but God is no longer active in his creation. It is the classic watchmaker God, who winds up the watch and then walks away and lets it run. Therefore, deists normally reject supernatural activity of God, because, well, they posit he is no longer active in his creation.

You certainly can be a Christian deist, and my argument is that guys like Jefferson, et al, were.

25930. KuligintheHooligan - 11/26/2004 4:34:48 PM

arky, have a nice weekend. Perhaps I'll check back some time next week, if time allows. This was my last fling in the Mote, though, most likely until year's end if not beyond. Lots of traveling ahead through January.

25931. arkymalarky - 11/26/2004 5:11:16 PM

Thanks, Kuligin. You too.

In a nutshell, Jefferson and Franklin didn't believe Jesus was divine, ipso facto they were not Christians.

25932. justears - 11/26/2004 5:18:13 PM

Classically Christianity has been a creedal faith. But the Enlightenment has made many items in the creed a bit difficult to swallow. It seems to me that the term "Christian" can be interpreted more widely to mean anyone who identifies with the community and the gospel narrative, and endeavors to imitate Christ's ethical being is his or her own life. The whole tradition is greatly in need of reinterpretation in the light of reason.

25933. arkymalarky - 11/26/2004 5:24:13 PM

Not to let you down arky...I'm not a fundamentalist. That's a wrong use of the term. Evangelical, yes. Fundamentalist, no.

Missed this, but I didn't say you were one, I said you wouldn't be upset at being called one any more than I'm upset at being called silly. Can I infer from that post that you do cop to being blinkered? ;-)

25934. arkymalarky - 11/26/2004 5:27:29 PM

And I missed this:

And BTW, do you feel attacked by God? Then why the need to "defend" your faith to him? I don't understand.

I meant my only responsibility wrt my faith is to God. I don't have to justify it to anyone else. You Literalists! Sheesh.

25935. arkymalarky - 11/26/2004 5:34:36 PM

However, I disagree with your characterization, arky, that only people who believe Jesus to be the incarnate second person of the Trinity can be rightly categorized as "Christians."

I never said that. I said what I believe. I don't believe it's my duty or within my power to identify Christians. They can identify themselves, which was my point to begin with. I can determine whether I agree with them, but I'm not God so that's irrelevant to anything beyond this earth.

But if Christianity is a religion and religion is by definition belief in the divine, then the conclusions are obvious. Still, set all that aside, and Jefferson and Franklin's own clear statements sum it up.

25936. christipeters - 11/26/2004 10:13:02 PM

In a nutshell, Jefferson and Franklin didn't believe Jesus was divine

Really? Where does it say that?

(So very not good a history here)

25937. arkymalarky - 11/26/2004 11:16:40 PM

They have said that. In fact, Kuligin quoted Ben Franklin above in Message # 25919:
I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity;

25938. wonkers2 - 11/27/2004 12:21:50 PM

Being a Christian does not require believing in the divinity of Christ.

25939. arkymalarky - 11/27/2004 12:45:12 PM

Then what's the religious basis for it? A lot of agnostics and athiests and even people of other faiths think a lot of Christ's teachings and even subscribe to them, but do not consider themselves Christians because they do not see him as one to worship as more than a man. Christianity is a religion and for them the religious belief is not there.

25940. arkymalarky - 11/27/2004 12:48:40 PM

(to the room, not Wonk) And the larger point is that even if one concedes the Christianity of Jefferson and Franklin, which I don't, they strongly believed in separation of church and state, as did most of the otehr Founding Fathers, and established a Constitution to maintain a distinct separation. Nothing in our establishment is based on "Christian p

FWIW, I do not put Kuligin in that category, though I believe he's too subject to their historically wobbly arguments.

25941. arkymalarky - 11/27/2004 12:50:22 PM

Don't know what happened to my sentence, but here is the full one:

Nothing in our establishment is based on "Christian principles" as American theocratists would have us believe.

25942. wonkers2 - 11/27/2004 5:39:36 PM

One can subscribe to updated Judeo-Christian morality and consider oneself a Christian without accepting the supernatural aspects of the religion (heaven/hell, God, etc.).

25943. Dubai Vol - 11/27/2004 9:28:17 PM

Man, am I glad I live in a country that has freedom of religion, the United Arab Emirates, and not a de facto theocracy like America!

25944. pelty - 11/27/2004 10:54:37 PM

Might we be talking about the difference between a "cultural Christian" versus a "born-again" or "evangelical (both terms that are a tad anachronistic for the period of which we speak, I believe) Christian"?

25945. wonkers2 - 11/28/2004 2:05:50 AM

That may be the best term, but my impression is that many church-going, practicing Christians are skeptical or non-believers in heaven/hell, etc. I hope you are not saying that the only true Christians are evangelicals or born-agains or that anyone who is not a born-again Christian or evangelical is merely a "cultural Christian."

25946. angel-five - 11/28/2004 1:05:38 PM

Well, it's worth nailing down the definitions, I think.

If you asked most people to define Christianity they'd say something about believing in Christ as Lord. Some might allow for the more eclectic variations of Christianity but they'd be quick to clarify that they were, in fact, not mainstream. And it's beyond doubt that throughout history, people who have argued that Christ was a mortal man have been branded as heretics by the Catholic Church and disowned by Protestants. I'll admit I'm more than a bit surprised to see some normally vehement Christians now saying that you can be Christian and not believe in the divinity of Jesus, but perhaps I shouldn't be, as that argument is what allows them to say that many of our Founding Fathers were Christian.

The question on the table, properly framed, is whether our founding fathers believed that Christian morality ought to inform our governmental practices. One can say that men like Jefferson and Washington and Franklin were 'nominally Christian' in that, well, they weren't Jews or Muslims or Hindus, but that ignores the fundamental disconnects between Deism in general and Christianity as we understand it today. I think it's fair to say they were often Deists and that they had some religious beliefs which informed their philosophies, but you can't call them Christians without really nailing down precisely what you mean and how that differs from the Christianity practiced by people who commonly want to talk about the Christianity of the founders of our government.

25947. angel-five - 11/28/2004 1:25:07 PM

There are facts which we can bring to the table here.

Many see our revolution as a continuance of an ongoing struggle in English society. That struggle was partially characterizable, although not wholly so, by noting the religious conflicts of that era -- you have the Puritans and the Anglicans and the Scots Presbyterians and the Catholics and so on, monarchs getting deposed, others being restored, three wars ending in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. It is a mistake to characterize these conflicts as solely religious. They were cultural and economic and social. Yet religion was one of the defining characteristics of each warring camp.

It is also true and factual that these social groups, complete with their differing religions, came to the New World and remained largely discrete. Generally speaking, there was a Congregationalist New England, an Anglican south, Presbyterian Scots-Irish hill people, and an extremely heterogeneous center from New York to Maryland. And it is also true and factual to say that people usually went the way their churches went -- Congregationalist churches were hotbeds of revolutionary thought, for example. There were very many religious patriots.

However, it's precisely because of this fact that the men who forged our country were so extremely leery of letting Christianity in any specific form inform the nature of our government. They didn't want the conflict to continue. They didn't want to privilege any sort of religion over another sort and most of them went on the record expressing their fear of mixing organized religion with our nascent government. And this is why many of the most prominent American critics of the new government were profoundly religious men.

25948. angel-five - 11/28/2004 1:36:03 PM

What else is worth noting about our founding fathers and religion? Well, it's readily apparent that many of our founding fathers were Masons. Masonry is noted for an extremely heterodox approach to religion --that is, in fact, one of the most common criticisms of it throughout the ages. Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants -- so long as you were willing to express belief that a higher power exists, you can be accepted by Masonry with open arms, and Masonic philosophies have indeed incorporated non-Christian memes and practices throught history. This is one reason why they've been branded heretics and such by so many religious organizations.

(Also interestingly enough, they shared this Masonry with many of the English generals sent to wage war against them. British military lodges were the primary vehicle for Masonry reaching the New World. More than one historian has pointed to this shared philosophy, and the allegedly Masonic ideals which informed our government's birth, to suggest that these men were in fact sympathetic to the formation of American independence and hence to explain why the English failed to capitalize, so many times, on American weaknesses. But that's probably a topic for another thread.)

So, yes, American freemasonry is another factor which we must examine when we question the role that religious beliefs played in the planning of our Founding Fathers and whether or not today's Christians can rightfully claim kinship with their agenda.

25949. wonkers2 - 11/28/2004 2:45:17 PM

Interesting!

My impression is that many people today, aside from politicians, participate in and support their brand of organized religion for valid utilitarian reasons even though they don't believe in its supernatural tenets. Similarly, when parish fund raisers solicit annual pledges they don't inquire about the fervency of the parishoners' beliefs in the hereafter.

25950. iiibbb - 11/30/2004 10:56:29 AM

I don't know whether to put this in news, politics, or religion. My dad first allerted me to "Intelligent Design" when I was home about a month ago. I caught it in the news recently (and here).0

Let me just say... evolution is intelligent design. Why can't the people on the opposite sides of this creation/evolution "debate" realize that these concepts are not mutually exclusive. They do not require each other's existance, and one does not disprove the other.

25951. alistairconnor - 11/30/2004 11:49:52 AM

I certainly would have no objection to teaching the theory of intelligent design. It strikes me that, in order to teach that, you have to teach evolution first... after all, it's nothing other than the assertion that evolution was guided at some point(s) by outside forces.

iii, if you can outline a theory of "intelligent design" that excludes evolution, I'm all ears! Sounds like a nonsense to me. (even Kuligin recognises that "micro-evolution" occurs)

25952. alistairconnor - 11/30/2004 11:55:22 AM

As for schools eliminating textbooks which are "biased towards evolution"... that's a simple matter of eliminating the origins of life from the science syllabus.

I mean, what could an "intelligent design" textbook possibly look like? In order to introduce any moderately informed or plausible (but necessarily faith-based) speculation about it, one would have to give the palaeontological context, i.e. teach evolution.

25953. iiibbb - 11/30/2004 12:51:28 PM

I don't know why anyone wouldn't think that God wouldn't come up with as elegant a solution as evolution. It's a perfect mechanism for creation. Not only that, when extinctions take place, evolution allows the gaps to be filled.

Why would God do it the hard way?

25954. alistairconnor - 11/30/2004 12:53:38 PM

yeah, but what does it mean to teach that in the science syllabus?

25955. alistairconnor - 11/30/2004 12:54:37 PM

The people who talk about teaching "intelligent design" as if it were a free-standing alternative to evolution clearly haven't thought it through, or even understood the question.

25956. iiibbb - 11/30/2004 12:57:14 PM

I wouldn't... you might add some religion discussions for cotext, but it's a pretty simple matter to establish the mutual exclusivity. You just leave the religious discussion open ended and move on.

Science is primarily about the process of discovery... not about the "facts". Scientific knowlege is evolving all the time.

25957. angel-five - 11/30/2004 1:17:03 PM

Well, I'd say that in science education, the scientific process is usually one chapter in the text and the rest centers on 'fact' -- i.e. scientific data that has already been collated using the scientific method. It is crucial to instill in students the fundamental philosophies of the method -- i.e. to be open minded in the face of evidence -- but let's face it. You can't expect students to have that enlightened approach to learning anything, and for the bulk of them, science is more about memorizing facts than the process of discovery.

But I essentially agree with what's been said. I personally have no problem with intelligent design being taught as part of an origins curriculum which also includes other hypotheses and theories. Obviously, evolution, as the most scientifically proven process that could be admitted into an origins debate, would have a place as well. And I think it's crucial to compare and contrast the two.

iiibbb: Intelligent design theory is actually the opposite of evolution origins. We aren't talking about the process of evolution, but rather the notion that life as we know it could have arisen from the random processes of evolution. Intelligent design theory, in a nutshell, says that life is too complex and completely interconnected for it to have arisen that way -- that the math of it is just too unlikely. It doesn't, as I understand it, invalidate post-creation evolution, but it does insist that there had to have been a hand at work in the origin process.

25958. iiibbb - 11/30/2004 1:47:18 PM

I don't dispute creation because I look down and around and I see that we're here.

I don't dispute evolution because it's such an elegant solution.

Where people get into trouble is trying to disprove one theory with one that isn't mutually exclusive. I think some of the ID people are trying to inflate it's meaning into invalidating evolution.

Basically, my fall back position is that there is no way I can hope to understand how God pulled it all off. Why should I care. Physicists theorize that there are other dimensions. How can I even hope to understand it all whem my perception is so limited.

I'm here, life is happening... what more is there to know? My faith is that God caused it all to happen, and I don't particularly care how he managed it to the n-th degree.

What I do know is that evolution makes sense. It seems to me that God would be perfectly sensible in creating a system that is capable of developing itself, rather than have something he needs to constantly adjust or monitor. Sure, maybe he has adjurstments he can make... but I'm sure he lets a lot of it run itself.

25959. iiibbb - 11/30/2004 1:49:53 PM

Well, I'd say that in science education, the scientific process is usually one chapter in the text and the rest centers on 'fact' --

Probably a limitation of the messenger... rather than a fault of the science.

Just like there are fanatics that take religion to seriously... there are the same fanatics that take science too seriously.

25960. angel-five - 11/30/2004 4:17:37 PM

Probably a limitation of the messenger... rather than a fault of the science.

Just like there are fanatics that take religion to seriously... there are the same fanatics that take science too seriously.

I think you may have misunderstood me.

The scientific process is part and parcel of everything else science teaches, and is constantly reinforced through laboratory training. But there's simply quite a bit of data to impart as well. You teach the scientific method, and try to incorporate it into every unit you cover. But biology students need to learn about lots of backing data as well... like classification systems of taxonomy, the different kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders, down to sub-species, in order to apply the scientific method in a lab about some biological system. We can try to teach our children about cellular respiration -- the process in which our cells convert the chemicals we eat into the energy we need-- but it won't make much sense to them unless you can present the necessary data, like the stages of the Krebs cycle or the membrane proteins necessary for oxidative phosphorylation.

Chemistry students can titrate acids and bases, but they won't be able to make much sense of it until someone shows them the pH scale, explains hydronium and hydroxide ions, talks about electron affinity, oxidation, reduction, buffer compounds and indicators. That, in turn, requires logarithmic math, atomic theory, subatomic particles, and a few choice bits of organic chemistry. Every where you turn in science, you require data to teach it; data which you can sometimes derive experimentally, but data all the same.

This isn't a matter of fanatic scientists preaching their secular faith. It's about being able to teach science at all.

25961. alistairConnor - 11/30/2004 4:19:22 PM

The fundamental problem I have with ID, applied to evolution, is that it's a solution looking for a problem.

There is fundamentally nothing in evolution that requires explaining by a deus ex machina. So, Occam's razor applies...

When people start drawing lines in the sand, and declare, for example, "science cannot explain the explosion of life forms in the Cambrian", they tend to get proved wrong within a very few years.

On the other hand, why don't they apply ID to quantum physics? They might have better luck with that : this is intuitively mysterious stuff, and unlikely to be "explained" in a hurry.

25962. angel-five - 11/30/2004 4:26:06 PM

The science we teach in classrooms today is the result of thousands of years of experimentation and primitive science research, a few hundred years of research using more modern methods, and a few decades worth of truly modern science. It's difficult to estimate how many man-hours of research and experimentation have gone into the discovery of the knowledge imparted by just one grade-school scientific textbook. However, we're safe saying that it's a much larger number of hours than we can afford to allocate for our students to learn science. At some point you end up accepting that you have to clamber onto the shoulders of the giants who came before you, rather than reinvent the wheel with every new generation, in order for science to progress.

So, yes, you're going to have to teach data as well as experimentation. There's simply way too much knowledge for other methods to work.

25963. angel-five - 11/30/2004 4:43:29 PM

The fundamental problem I have with ID, applied to evolution, is that it's a solution looking for a problem.

Intelligent design is even worse than that -- it is a wedge issue masquerading as science. ID is a product of tactical Christian think-tank research, tasked with finding a way of fitting creation science into the requirements the State has ordained for all science education. It is far less provable (and far more questionable) than the evolution which it decries as questionable and unprovable. And it is, in essence, a fallacious appeal to the reader -- basically ID says that life is too complex and interconnected and wide-ranging to have arisen by chance. Try proving the data on that one. Hell, try proving the premises.

No, basically what's going on is that people often don't have enough mathematics or sense of how long 'billions of years' is, relative to the speed with which chemical interactions take place, in order to appreciate the argument about evolutionary origins. That is to say, it isn't that if you do the math you'll suddenly believe in evolution. But there's a common reaction when we look at the awe-inspiring complexity and precision with which life fits into itself -- that it's just too wonderful to have, you know, just happened -- and that reaction depends on not having an adequate grasp on the numbers. It's hard to have an adequate grasp on the numbers! Certainly hard for a grade schooler to do so.

25964. angel-five - 11/30/2004 4:43:41 PM

If you estimate that a spontaneous reaction has a one in a hundred billion chance of happening to a specific molecule at any given point, the student will go 'whoa, that's nearly impossible'. But if you multiply it by the number of similar molecules, and then multiply it by the number of seconds they've been on an Earth which is billions of years old, you start seeing that what seems nearly impossible is, in fact, going to happen all the time all over the place. But it's really tough to get into that sort of thing in a high school classroom, so the students are faced with the 'whoa'. And intelligent design simply agrees with the 'whoa'. That is its appeal, and it's dressed up with a few gimmicky equations of dubious provenance. No one but the religious right thinks it's worth squat.

Now, you may ask why I favor allowing it to be taught in an origins class. The answer is simple and twofold. I believe intelligent design isn't something that will stand up to close inquiry, and I believe that people have the right to have some say in their children's education. If they want to insist on including something like ID, they have the right, even if I think it's dumb.

25965. wonkers2 - 11/30/2004 9:24:40 PM

Any religion that's worth a damn should be able to incorporate all physical and social science insights. Fundamentalism is the only thing I can think of that appears to me to be completely static, unable to adapt to the simplest insights and discoveries.

25966. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 12/1/2004 2:01:11 AM

25967. thoughtful - 12/1/2004 10:45:11 AM

Just curious if david brooks has this right.

To paraphrase, he's saying Jerry Falwell is not representative of the evangelical xtian movement. That's why so many are misinformed about what the evangelical movement is all about. Rather the guy who should be interviewed is John Stott.

It is a voice that is friendly, courteous and natural. It is humble and self-critical, but also confident, joyful and optimistic. Stott's mission is to pierce through all the encrustations and share direct contact with Jesus. Stott says that the central message of the gospel is not the teachings of Jesus, but Jesus himself, the human/divine figure. He is always bringing people back to the concrete reality of Jesus' life and sacrifice....

Most important, he does not believe truth is plural. He does not believe in relativizing good and evil or that all faiths are independently valid, or that truth is something humans are working toward. Instead, Truth has been revealed. As he writes:

"It is not because we are ultra-conservative, or obscurantist, or reactionary or the other horrid things which we are sometimes said to be. It is rather because we love Jesus Christ, and because we are determined, God helping us, to bear witness to his unique glory and absolute sufficiency. In Christ and in the biblical witness to Christ God's revelation is complete; to add any words of our own to his finished work is derogatory to Christ."

comments anyone?

25968. wonkers2 - 12/1/2004 10:48:08 AM

A lot of words have been added over the years, most of them with detrimental results.

25969. Jenerator - 12/1/2004 1:16:31 PM

I like Stott quite a bit. He's a solid Christian.

25970. anomie - 12/1/2004 6:28:53 PM

The recent discussions of origins and intelligent design prompts me to comment on what I think are some unspoken and erroneous assumptions underlying some of the arguments, mostly Kuligin's. Having read A5's posts over the years, he suprised me by saying he believed the universe to be finite, but I think he modified that view later on by explaining he was talking about only some aspect of it or some such. Anyway, here are the assumptions or fallacies.

1. That there is a default condition of the universe that consists of something other than existence. That there was at one time, "nothing".

2. That such a a default condition is easier to understand, or is more acceptable to human intellect, or is less needful of yet another default position.

3. That a reduction in complexity correlates with an increase in understanding.

25971. anomie - 12/1/2004 6:30:08 PM

My comments on these three are...

1. The argument of creation implies that we can more easily understand the concept of "nothing". No space, no time, no matter, no energy. I don't think we can even concieve of such a thing, much less describe it or explain it, or pretend we have any knowledge or experience of it. This kind of relates to A5's comment that a PM only pushes the question back a notch, except that I think we need to leave open the possiblity that the question is devoid of meaning. It's possible that there's no such thing as nothing.

2. Our only experience is with "existance", so it would be impossible to understand "nothingness" without asking where did everything go, or when will it come to be. But even this interjects our psyche into our concept of "nothing" and destroys the construct. We have no experience whatsoever with creation. (This is probably derivative of deconstructionism or post-modernism, or existentialism or Descarte, or...take your pic.)

25972. anomie - 12/1/2004 6:31:00 PM

finally...3. A decrease in complexity makes something easier to describe, diagram, draw, or perhaps to use or to make functional. But it brings us no closer to the fundamental understanding of existance. I wonder sometimes about people who think higher forms of life and stopwatches are too complex for evolution. Not because they believe in God, but because they see the NEED for some other explanation for the increased complexity or beauty. Like they have the amoeba all figured out? The atom is sussed out? Got gravity sorted? Not to mention that these ID and creationists folks think they have our own intellect figured out -how we understand what we think we understand, etc. I think a certain arrogance underlies their basic view of the universe. I mean what good does it do to posit ID as the final answer? There's no value in it. If you ask me, evolution is pretty damn miraculous as it is, and not nearly as well understood as we'd like. But we continue to learn useful things along the way and scientists (real ones) don't go claiming final answers to hard questions.

25973. judithathome - 12/1/2004 7:00:21 PM

Ano, good to see you again.

25974. anomie - 12/1/2004 7:53:43 PM

Thanks, Judith.

I am looking in at work, and in fact I wrote all the above today for posting later. Not much time otherwise. But I'm glad you're doing well, and I'll pop in when I can.

25975. Ulgine Barrows - 12/3/2004 4:08:05 AM

And then there's the question of why something is pleasing to your eye, and it's horrid to mine.

25976. Ulgine Barrows - 12/3/2004 4:11:45 AM

Well, some posts didn't show up right away, I guess.

I thought I was posting a reply to 25962. angel-five

25977. Jenerator - 12/3/2004 10:01:39 AM

Pelle,

What's your opinion on what's happening in Malmo?

Swedes Reach Muslim Breaking Point

Swedish authorities in the southern city of Malmo have been busy with a sudden influx of Muslim immigrants — 90 percent of whom are unemployed and many who are angry and taking it out on the country that took them in.

Students arrive at age 10 or 12 from countries like Iraq, Iran and Lebanon with no knowledge of Swedish; some have never been to school at all and many classes require interpreters.

Still, more than half won't graduate.

"They are not a part of Swedish society, so to speak. It is difficult for them to get inside society," said Torsten Elofsson of the Malmo Police Department.

However, they are the most rapidly growing segment of Swedish society — outsiders who are already inside, posing a challenge to legendary Swedish tolerance that has now been stretched to the breaking point.

25978. PelleNilsson - 12/3/2004 11:08:23 AM

My opinion is that you shouldn't trust FoxNews.

25979. judithathome - 12/3/2004 11:51:13 AM

heh.

25980. jexster - 12/3/2004 12:51:46 PM

The Rev. John Thomas, who serves as general minister and president of the United Church of Christ (UCC), is having a hard time figuring out why the same broadcasters that profited so handsomely from airing the vicious and divisive attack advertisements during the recent presidential election are now refusing to air an advertisement from his denomination that celebrates respect for one another and inclusiveness.

"It's ironic that after a political season awash in commercials based on fear and deception by both parties seen on all the major networks, an ad with a message of welcome and inclusion would be deemed too controversial," said Thomas. "What's going on here?"

The ad in question is part of an ambitious new national campaign by the UCC to appeal to Americans who feel alienated from religion and churches, and to equip the denomination's 6,000 congregations across the U.S. to welcome newcomers. In an effort to break through the commercial clutter that clogs the arteries of broadcast and cable television, the UCC ad features an arresting image: a pair of muscle-bound bouncers standing in front of a church and telling some people they can attend while turning others away.

After people of color, a disabled man and a pair of men who might be gay are turned away, the image dissolves to a text statement that: "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we."

The United Church of Christ wants to spread a message of respect and inclusion for all. But the mainstream media won't let them. Watch the ad that that the networks found too "controversial" to air

25981. Jenerator - 12/3/2004 1:00:33 PM

Oh, so Pelle, are you claiming that what Fox is reporting isn't happening?

No tensions in Hermodsdal, Rosengård, Nydala and Møllevången?

No SMCCDI groups organizing Muslim protests? No Islamic sites even mentioning population or cultural tensions in Malmo?

25982. jexster - 12/3/2004 2:20:06 PM

[Lo! this Qur'an guideth unto that which is straightest, and giveth tidings unto the believers who do good works that theirs will be a great reward.] (Al-Israa’: 9)

25983. PelleNilsson - 12/3/2004 2:55:54 PM

Jen

The Fox piece is a hodgepodge of factoids, falsities and innuendo. I don't have the patience or the inclination to straighten it out, in particular not for a person deeply embedded in her own prejudicies.

25984. Jenerator - 12/3/2004 4:42:52 PM

What cowardice, Pelle.

I asked for your opinion because you live in Sweden, but if it's easier for you to chalk it all up to bad reporting, than go ahead. It certainly is easier to do that than actually share facts or your take on it.

25985. thoughtful - 12/3/2004 5:09:47 PM

apropos of pelle's fox comment, this from 'in the agora' via delong's blog:

Reverend Jerry Falwell, guest hosting on yesterday's Crossfire, said that the Iraq war "goes pretty well if you watch it on FOX." You can watch the video clip here. We report, you decide.

25986. angel-five - 12/4/2004 11:39:04 AM

Once again Jenerator takes the lead in the Unintentional Irony sweepstakes, with Jordanesque mastery of the sport.

25987. angel-five - 12/4/2004 1:17:35 PM

I've been musing a bit this morning about belief in religion.

It's got to be one of the most complex matters we deal with in our day to day lives. And we do grapple with it. Religious and quasi-religious matters are probably the most widely divergent sets of beliefs on the planet -- yet, although no rational data exist which logically substantiate any major religion's claims or even the general notions of religion as a whole, the majority of people do have religious beliefs of one stripe or another. And the simple fact is that most of them overlap in their appeal and the questions they seek to answer.

There is something which we get out of religion which people crave. Devout practitioners of different faiths often do seem to think it matters which faith you choose. Yet we have Christians and Buddhists and Muslims and so on, each seeming satisfied with their own religion, and each deriving the same sort of measurable benefits from their chosen path.

It is certainly obvious that there is no one religious belief which sends out an unequivocal, universal, evenly received message to all people. Choice of religion is usually pretty deterministic, being based on culture, locale, and peer orientation. Alternate religions, in order to appeal to someone, have to overcome these conditionings.

You can see the truth of this simply by observing that religious beliefs aren't evenly spread out across the globe, with each continent and country having roughly the same percentage of each major religion. Instead, we see different religions dominating different areas, and we see how closely linked the religion of one's parents is to one's own religion.

That's pretty straightforward, and I say it not to address any particular religion's claims of universality. It's just obvious that despite the fact that technology has long given every religion a global reach, no one religion has gotten a lock on the 'market'.

25988. PelleNilsson - 12/4/2004 1:50:24 PM

I guess most people from time to time mull over these questions

From where do we come?
What are we now?
What happens then?

The cold rational answers are

From some primordial organic soup.
A biological mechanism, in principle no different from slugs.
Nothing happens. We will be d-e-a-d.

These answers are emotionally unsatisfactory. Religion provides more uplifting ones.

25989. angel-five - 12/4/2004 1:54:41 PM

General religious questions don't need to get involved with specific deities, and are on the order of 'is there a God' and 'how'd the whole shebang come about' and 'are there universal morals' and 'do we really die when we die' and 'why is the world the way it is'. Another way to sum these up would be 'questions children ask' although many of us go on asking them our entire lives.

Specific religious questions center on one particular set of beliefs and require that one be invoked for a complete answer -- i.e. 'Does the Christian god exist' and 'If so which set or sets of Christians have the best understanding of that god'. Many people jump directly from the reasonings of the former to the latter (i.e. the fact that life is amazingly intricate is proof that the Christian god exists) but I find that fallacious.

I also find that these sets of questions tend to obey different rules. It's a primary tenet of logic that arguments about one component of a set do not necessarily apply to all members of a set, and it's blatantly obvious that you can believe that a supreme being exists, or is likely to exist, without believing in any specific one or while finding the existence of one or more specific deities to be improbable.

I also ultimately find it important to examine the roots of religious belief when considering a deity. Why do people believe certain things? What motivates them to do so? In a world where the data are uncertain (outside, of course, of the limited and opposing perspectives of true believers who each think their way is right and others wrong), we must be very careful when it comes to believing in the things we need to be true. We must, too, recognize the unfortunate likelihood that baseless beliefs which satisfy us arose not because they were true, but rather simply because they soothe our fears and satisfy our need for higher meaning.

25990. angel-five - 12/4/2004 1:58:20 PM

That's an interesting crosspost and highlights once again the battle between angelic prolixity and a taciturn Swedish economy with words.

But it also throws the question into relief -- is it more important to be logical, or more beneficial to adopt satisfying answers and work with them?

25991. angel-five - 12/4/2004 2:03:01 PM

On a sidebar, I would dispute that the logical answers Pelle notes need necessarily be cold and unsatisfying. I'd say, instead, that they are only cold and unsatisfying if you require your life to have a meaning ordained by something greater than yourself.

For me, for example, the idea that life could have evolved with no outside input, and that the universe came into being independent of any agency greater than its own nature, is nothing short of amazing and wonderful and suggests that we have a whole lot to learn about how cool the universe is.

25992. judithathome - 12/4/2004 2:17:12 PM

I agree...and I don't think there is necessarily "nothing" at the end. Rather, I prefer to think that everything I am is released into the universe and picked up by others, just as I have picked up what others were.

25993. PelleNilsson - 12/4/2004 2:18:58 PM

Well, angel, you certainly want to be recognized as an individual, you want to know where you come from, who your ancestors were, the family traditions that have helped shape your personality, and maybe you want to live on, in a sense, through the frighteningly bright little monsters you and woden may produce. Now, if you elevate these things to the metaphysical level you get those existentialist questions for which there are no good answers except for the fervent believer.

25994. KuligintheHooligan - 12/4/2004 2:50:14 PM

Let me disagree with A5 (surprise, surprise!). If you take away several countries from the Islam tally, you remove a very large portion of their adherents. If you take away India, for example, from Hinduism, you remove something like 80-90% of all Hindus. Buddhism is also in very large portion centered on a very select, few countries.

Really, the only religion which has to this date shown wide appeal in all continents and in large numbers, is Christianity. It simply is not concentrated in a select few countries, but is spread over many, many countries and does not show the sort of "cultural concentration" that the other major religions show.

And on a side note, as moderator of this thread, A5, it would be nice if every so often you were fair and balanced. I spead particularly about Jenerator's good questions of pelle, and his weasel attitude toward them. At bare minimum, as host of this thread you could keep quiet, but what you instead normally do is gang up on someone. That is right or fair, at least for a moderator of a thread.

pelle is a wuss. The same tough questions that Jenerator asked him of his home country could be asked about, say, Holland, especially in the wake of the shooting of Van Gogh. Europe has opened its arms wide to Islam, and the Muslims are showing a definitely propensity to not play by the rules. Ironically, the same rights the Muslims deny people of other faiths in their own countries, they exploit in more open countries such as Sweden and Holland.

As one Lebanese Christian said in a conference I attended, Islam has Europe in its back pocket.

25995. KuligintheHooligan - 12/4/2004 2:52:43 PM

"that is NOT right or fair..."

And with that short peek into this thread, I am off to South Africa.

Have a blessed Christmas, for all upon whom the favor of the Lord rests.

25996. KuligintheHooligan - 12/4/2004 2:53:49 PM

Shoot, one more thing. I've been to Malmo. Drove from Oslo over to Sweden and then down the coast. Really, quite a beautiful city.

25997. KuligintheHooligan - 12/4/2004 3:01:17 PM

Alright, I decided to post this for future discussions.

Go to this site and see the numbers for adherents of the world's religions.

http://www.wnrf.org/cms/statuswr.shtml

Christianity and Islam account for a little over half of the world's population. However, given current growth rates, Islam looks to take over Christianity as the most populace religion in the world by 2050, if memory serves. But this growth is not mainly by evangelism, but rather due to birth rates in main, Muslim countries, and the waning of Christianity in the West.

Another interesting fact: By 1900, 70% of the world's Christians were in the northern hemisphere. By 2000, that figure had shifted to now 70% are in the southern hemisphere.

I am trying to develop world maps which show the concentration of religious adherents. Unfortunately, though, I don't have the software to effectively do it. All I have done is to write in on paper. Clearly, Christianity has the greatest breadth of influence. If anyone knows of map software that I could use in this regard, I would greatly appreciate it.

25998. SnowOwl - 12/4/2004 3:05:51 PM

Really, the only religion which has to this date shown wide appeal in all continents and in large numbers, is Christianity. It simply is not concentrated in a select few countries, but is spread over many, many countries and does not show the sort of "cultural concentration" that the other major religions show.

But there are cultural reasons for this, that have absolutely nothing to do with the truth, or otherwise, of the belief.

25999. PelleNilsson - 12/4/2004 3:24:23 PM

The subject of this discussion is not which religions have their adherents in which countries.

Kuligin calls me a wuss and a weasel. If my refusal to discuss serious matters with Jenerator, a lady of very limited intellectual capacity, makes me so, then so be it.

26000. KuligintheHooligan - 12/4/2004 3:28:30 PM

Nor are you a gentleman as well, so it seems.

26001. iiibbb - 12/4/2004 3:28:58 PM

Pelle... you're a dick.

26002. PelleNilsson - 12/4/2004 3:32:05 PM

The epithets are piling up. Bring'em on!

26003. KuligintheHooligan - 12/4/2004 3:33:26 PM

Here are the two largest religions in the world, distributed by continent (Brittanica data, but unfortunately from mid-1995):

Christianity
Africa - 18.1%
Asia - 15.9%
Europe - 28.6%
Latin America - 23.2%
North America - 12.9%
Oceania - 1.2%

Islam
Africa - 27.3%
Asia - 69.1%
Europe - 2.9%
Latin America - .12%
North America - .5%
Oceania - .03%

26004. PelleNilsson - 12/4/2004 3:43:15 PM

Europe - 2.9%

Islam has Europe in its back pocket.

There seems to be a certain incongruity.

26005. KuligintheHooligan - 12/4/2004 3:49:43 PM

A good observation.

Let me give context to the Lebanese guy's comments. They were made about a year after 9/11. His point was that Islam was extremely antagonistic toward America, but when it came to Europe, "Europe was in its back pocket." Not that all of Europe was flocking to Islam, but rather, that Europe was lulled to complacency when it came to Islam. Islam could pretty much have its way with Europe.

Recent reports that I have seen concerning Sweden and Holland bear this out.

The waning of Christianity in Europe also plays a part here. At least from the Muslim perspective, America is still a Christian bastion, and it must fall, "submit" to Allah if you would. Europe is really no problem in this regard, and it is just a matter of time. So says the Lebanese dude.

26006. angel-five - 12/4/2004 4:02:22 PM

And on a side note, as moderator of this thread, A5, it would be nice if every so often you were fair and balanced. I spead particularly about Jenerator's good questions of pelle, and his weasel attitude toward them. At bare minimum, as host of this thread you could keep quiet, but what you instead normally do is gang up on someone. That is right or fair, at least for a moderator of a thread.

Well, here-but-not-here Kuligin, way back when I took over this thread I posted that I intended to do whatever I damn well pleased as thread host. Live with it, or don't, if you prefer. But I'll note I took over hosting duties from.... (drumroll) .... Jenerator, who certainly had no problem lashing out at people she didn't agree with. And still doesn't, for that matter. And she has absolutely no problem whatsoever making petty and personal attacks on me, here, in other threads, and in other forums. (Which suits me just fine, really, but that's besides the point.) And you were pretty silent about it all when she was hosting.

And still are, for that matter. In fact, the only time you voice complaints about alleged unfair behavior about anyone is when they are... a fundamentalist Christian with whom you mostly agree.

So you'll forgive me if I go ahead and state that your opinion this matter is unimportant bilge as far as I'm concerned.

In fact, since you raised the issue, let me just say that I wholeheartedly agree with Pelle's statement for two reasons. The one is that I think there's probably a better thread for it, and the second is, it isn't like arguing contrary to Jenerator's point of view has ever got her to look at things differently in the past.

26007. angel-five - 12/4/2004 4:04:18 PM

Not that all of Europe was flocking to Islam, but rather, that Europe was lulled to complacency when it came to Islam.

Another way to say that is 'tolerance'.

26008. angel-five - 12/4/2004 4:14:39 PM

I didn't even particularly want to be thread host, for that matter, and when Jay suggested that someone from the fundamentalist camp cohost with me I said that was fine. Poor maligned Jenerator, OTOH, announced that she didn't want to be thread host anymore, and then actually got miffed when someone else took her place, announced that Satan had taken hold, boldly predicted that within a short period of time all the Fundamentalists would have been run out of the place and we'd be sitting around talking secular stuff, and then ran off to recruit Bill Russell just to be a pain in the ass, and then gloated about it elsewhere.

(Who is, by the way, fervent atheist that he is, the only person whom I've ever intervened against as a thread host, and that only after prolonged abuse of the thread. Your good friend Jenerator has brought Bill-Russell-like political diatribes to this thread more than once --the same thing that got Russell banned -- yet here she is posting still, without so much as a warning. As Russell would have prolly said, Go figure!)

I mean, I guess I must be bored to answer this again, but maybe I'm just pointing out your selective vision in this matter. The two of you are free to post, as you have always been, and so am I, and the worst I do to either one of you is occasionally say what I think of you. Hardly throwing you to the lions, there, chief, and certainly not something you've abstained from doing yourself. So you might want to think a little bit more about this matter.

26009. PelleNilsson - 12/4/2004 4:52:49 PM

Very well, but back to the meaning of life ...

26010. justears - 12/4/2004 5:20:42 PM

Religion: Positioning vis a vis the transcendent; intution of the encompassing; sensing the world as a limited whole; seeing the world in a grain of sand; straight is the gate and narrow the way.

26011. uzmakk - 12/4/2004 7:48:05 PM

This question has no answer except in the history of how it came to be asked. There is no answer because words have meaning, not life or persons or the universe itself. Our search for certainty rests in our attempts at understanding the history of all individual selves and all civilizations. Beyond that, there is only awe.

26012. angel-five - 12/4/2004 8:14:07 PM

Now, if you elevate these things to the metaphysical level you get those existentialist questions for which there are no good answers except for the fervent believer.

Of course that's what happens; it's part and parcel of elevating them to the metaphysical level! You're saying that it gets religious when we get religious, Pelle.

The point I was making is that you don't have to dress up the question in vestments to engage it. You don't have to judge the value of these things in an external context.

26013. justears - 12/4/2004 8:18:35 PM

Amen! Uzmakk. Right there on the shimmering line between language/self and universe. To paraphrase Wittgenstein: what cannot be said must be circumabulated in sacred silence.

26014. angel-five - 12/4/2004 8:23:28 PM

I missed this.

Really, the only religion which has to this date shown wide appeal in all continents and in large numbers, is Christianity. It simply is not concentrated in a select few countries, but is spread over many, many countries and does not show the sort of "cultural concentration" that the other major religions show.

Your cavil that Christianity is the most widespread religion has got nothing to do with the fact that there are regions within which it is the norm and other regions in which it is the exception. Since I didn't say, nor did I imply, that Christianity is limited to one region or another, I don't know what you're disagreeing with me about.

Moreover, Christianity's foothold in other parts of the world required active missionary work and cultural imposition. That it has done so more than other religions is not in dispute, but that it is any better than other religions in terms of the receptability of the message (as opposed to the number of traveling broadcasters of it) is in dispute.

26015. judithathome - 12/5/2004 12:00:13 AM

Hardly throwing you to the lions, there, chief, and certainly not something you've abstained from doing yourself.

Amen, brother.

26016. wonkers2 - 12/5/2004 10:52:50 AM

THE BIBLE: A GOOD STORY FOR PRIMITIVE PEOPLE.

A brilliant slogan is a mighty thing.

One liberal Christian church has started using this one: "God is still speaking,"

No, that's not a typo. It's a comma. And it's intetional.

The slogan stands as a counterpoint to "God has spoken."

The difference is at the heart of what divides Christianity today.

The oddly punctuated slogan belongs to the United Church of Christ, a community of faith with 1.4 million members nationwide. In explanation, its Web site displays this quotation from lGracie Allen:

"Never place a period where God has placed a comma." ...Her words perfectly illuminate the difference between progressive, evolving Christianity and fundamentalist, unyielding Christianity.

Fundamentalist Christians tend to say, "Read the Bible. That's all you need to know."

Progressive Christians tend to say, "Read the bible, a good story written for primitive people. Then listen for new insights from God in your heart and your world."

Exerpted from a Detroit Free Press column by Susan Ager
12-5-04

26017. judithathome - 12/5/2004 11:30:36 AM

Expect to hear how truly awful that church is...it's not the TRUE church, you know. Because of thus and so, those people aren't really Christians. Yada yada yada they're going to hell.

26018. angel-five - 12/5/2004 12:39:22 PM

Maybe, but they can be solaced by the fact that their religion is sane and likeable.

26019. judithathome - 12/5/2004 12:49:09 PM

I agree...I was speaking as "someone else" from whom we will surely hear.

26020. wonkers2 - 12/5/2004 12:50:17 PM

"Sane and likeable??" Sane to and likeable by themselves, perhaps. To others, insane and cruel.

26021. angel-five - 12/5/2004 1:56:20 PM

Wonkers, you grabbed the wrong end of the stick again.

26022. wonkers2 - 12/5/2004 6:09:04 PM

A5, please explain. This time and the "again." Please draw me a picture.

26023. wonkers2 - 12/5/2004 6:11:15 PM

Your comment was tongue in cheek, perhaps?

26024. angel-five - 12/5/2004 6:36:25 PM

I meant the progressives were sane and likeable.

26025. wonkers2 - 12/5/2004 6:58:39 PM

Okay, we agree!

26026. alistairConnor - 12/5/2004 8:02:50 PM

There is no answer because words have meaning, not life or persons or the universe itself.

In the beginning was the Word.

Wait a minute... words were invented by people.

In the beginning was the Comma.

26027. Wombat - 12/5/2004 11:31:49 PM

In the beginning was an upper-case letter.

26028. Wombat - 12/5/2004 11:32:32 PM

In the beginning was an upper-case letter.

26029. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 12/6/2004 5:45:54 PM

Christ Didn't Turn People Away! [Quicktime movie with sound]

26030. thoughtful - 12/6/2004 6:37:17 PM

hard to believe the big 3 networks banned that ad as being too controversial.

26031. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 12/6/2004 7:21:06 PM

It's insanely unjust – especially when you consider that it's the people who supposedly own the air waves and allow these corporations the use of them.

26032. thoughtful - 12/7/2004 9:11:52 AM

it's also insane when you consider their message is one of inclusiveness.

of course, i'm flummoxed by a lot of things going on these days, including why bob vila's home again gets a PG rating...afraid someone will hit their thumb with a hammer and let loose an expletive?

26033. iiibbb - 12/8/2004 11:31:03 PM

So... I've been having discussions with my gf about the nature of my Christian beliefs and upbringing... she's Jewish. Much like my family, it's really hard for me to articulate strong feelings for them, as well as for God.

I strongly feel that there is a God... but as I've looked at the various denominations of Christianity I kind of came to a point where I don't really consider myself part of any particular denomination (although I was raised Presbyterian).

26034. iiibbb - 12/8/2004 11:31:24 PM

My feelings for Jesus are even harder for me to describe. When I meet people who say they've taken him into their heart and they're born again and all... they get very emmotional about it. I can only be described as stoic. It took my gf a while to get used to how undemonstrative (that's her nice way of putting it) I am.

So anyway... things are progressing and you bring up children and one wonders how to raise children in a jewish/christian home (many have done it). So I've been doing a bit of reading and trying to absorb ideas... the predominant opinion of these households is that you raise the children with a dominant religion. My inclination at the moment is that they'd be raised Jewish... because Christianity remains an option when they become old enough to really decide for themselves anyway.

I guess the one fear I had is what is the fate of non-christians (well Jews). I've been reading a few things about it. There is a lot of debate amongst prodestants about the nature of hell. I've always had a hard time with the concept of hell (at least Dante's hell). Some believe Christ is the only path and that all who fail to accept him will be tortured for eternity, others take a universalist approach.

I was comforted to read that the last offical Presbyterian position (1974) on the matter took a pretty strong universalist stand... particularly noting the paradox of God, who has an infinite capacity for grace and fogiveness, would torture his creations for eternity.

26035. iiibbb - 12/8/2004 11:31:35 PM

The only official Presbyterian statement that includes any comment on hell since the 1930s is a 1974 paper on universalism adopted by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States. It warns of judgment and promises hope, acknowledging that these two ideas seem to be "in tension or even in paradox." In the end, the statement concedes, how God works redemption and judgment is a mystery.

The Bible does not give clear and detailed answers to our questions about what happens after death. What we can know for certain is that God's grace is as real as God's judgment--and just as incomprehensible. If we can say at least this much with conviction, then maybe scared little girls who wonder about hell won't have to look just to Dante for help.

I don't think this necessarily gives us all a bye... because I think God expects us to struggle with our sins.

I dunno... There is a lot of carryover dogma from the dark ages and all the translations of the bible that seem to contradict the message of sacrifice, fogiveness, redemption that are what God sending Jesus is all about.

26036. iiibbb - 12/8/2004 11:58:25 PM

The debate, but no concrete statement either way.

26037. Ulgine Barrows - 12/9/2004 6:13:29 AM

Presbyterian is such a strange word.

It rolls off the tongue, but oddly.

26038. iiibbb - 12/9/2004 9:49:14 AM

A presbyter is a church elder. Presbyterian governance is by the election of the elders of the church to the session, and they (and the deacons) handle most of the governence of the church... including selecting the minister, deciding the mission of the church, etc.

Deacons handle the money.

26039. Jenerator - 12/9/2004 10:21:37 AM

So I've been doing a bit of reading and trying to absorb ideas... the predominant opinion of these households is that you raise the children with a dominant religion. My inclination at the moment is that they'd be raised Jewish...

Good luck iiibbb. Personally, I don't see how one can be a Christian and raise his/her kids in a faith that dismisses Christ... Also, it is extremely difficult being unequally yoked in a marriage. Sure, other people have "done it", but if faith is important to you and it influences the way you raise your children, it is imperative that you and your significant other are on the same page.

I never fully understood just how important it was and is to have the same faith/understanding as my spouse until we had our son. Our faith is the basis for how we live and if we don't agree on that, it's hell. I mean, what we believe determines what we show our children, what we shelter our children from, what we emphasize as important, how we fit into society, and how we live on a day to day basis.

26040. Jenerator - 12/9/2004 10:26:25 AM

How does a Christian and a Jew reconcile the meaning of Christmas for the kids if they both have sincere faiths that have opposite truths?

If the Christian passively goes along and doesn't celebra