Marriage changing, but still valuable

Hi RCofield,

Yes, I saw it a while back. I thought it was good.

Here is something that may seem a little extreme, but this Christian reacted with this parody to the most common atheist attacks and avoidance of the questions,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9eBmmZ7sK4&p=29A798396AD739CB

steve martin is very very funny.

rco, you said,

Well, aren’t you (and the scientific community) “philosophizing” when you speculate about the “Big Crunch,” “Steady State Theory,” “Multiple Universe Theory,” and “Matter/Anti-matter Theory,” etc?

for those things i would say maybe in some parts they ARE "philosophizing". big bang theory is not in that category. there's evidence for it. and big bang theory does not cover anything that came before it.

My point in introducing Occam’s Razor to compare our respective “cause of the universe” hypotheses was to simply demonstrate that it is not reasonable to rule out the “God-hypothesis.”....

this is debatable. but i think just about any responsible atheist says something like "there's no evidence for god" or "there's as much evidence that god created the universe as there is that the universe is eternal" - or similar.

I think I’m ready to apply Occam’s Razor, but before I do, how do you see it as requiring me to “trim ‘god’ of ALL other attributes besides ‘first cause’”?

well, as i've said, you MAY, conceivably say "there might be a god", but occam's razor would require you to trim attributes like "loving", "interested in our lives", "created the universe as per genesis 1", flooded the earth", "offers eternal salvation" etc....

Reminder

This thread may time-out sometime tomorrow. When it does, let's go here:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/john_mark_reynolds/2010/12/christ_welcomes_you_to_his_feast.html

PETER,

Check this out. Hilarious.

http://alastairstephens.com/?photo=atheists-dont-have-no-songs

Everyone must be busy so I will wish you all a Merry Christmas!

RCofield, Blessings in Christ Jesus!

We are away from the 23rd to the 27th but I will take my laptop and see if I can steal an hour late at night to check correspondence.

PETER,

Yes I read your three part lampooning that exposed the hypocrisy of GE with his own words coming back to bit him. He may have to discontinue his work in the astral planes and concentrate on the earthly regions again. Did you notice he addressed God as only Father instead of both Father and Mother? It must have been a mental slip from his preoccupation in nether regions.

Yeah, GE has a lot of "holes" and inconsistencies in his thinking. If he keeps showing up I am going to continue pointing them out, though it does seem that he is fading a bit here....Heeeeeere kitty, kitty, kitty....

Have a blessed Christmas, Peter.

WALTER,

The snow sculpting photos are remarkable, Walter! You got talent, dude. Must be the architectural artistry expressing itself.

sure, i guess we're free to guess... uh... philosophize about it.

Well, aren’t you (and the scientific community) “philosophizing” when you speculate about the “Big Crunch,” “Steady State Theory,” “Multiple Universe Theory,” and “Matter/Anti-matter Theory,” etc? When I “philosophize” about “God-Theory” I’m not guilty of doing anything you are not doing; and this establishes yet further common ground as to our respective hypotheses. Both are philosophically grounded--yours in naturalism, mine in theology. I think we are close to being able to make a comparison using Occam’s Razor.

if it makes you feel like you've scored a debating point or something in getting me to say, "it could be god" (since we DON'T KNOW), then, well, congrats.

My point in introducing Occam’s Razor to compare our respective “cause of the universe” hypotheses was to simply demonstrate that it is not reasonable to rule out the “God-hypothesis.” I think when we do get to the point of comparing you will see that my hypothesis is actually more reasonable than yours.

or, as i've said, you could say that whatever created god could just as easily have caused the universe. or, this makes you think "uncaused god", well, then, i say uncaused universe... so, really it's "universe of unknown cause".

As you will see when we apply Occam’s Razor, that dog won’t hunt. Besides, an “uncaused universe” is completely antithetical to your philosophy of naturalism. You've already indicated that you believe that when (if) science finds a "cause" for the "Big Bang" it will be a "natural cause."

but if you're seriously interested in applying occams's razor here, you've got to trim "god" of ALL other attributes besides "first cause".

I think I’m ready to apply Occam’s Razor, but before I do, how do you see it as requiring me to “trim ‘god’ of ALL other attributes besides ‘first cause’”? I don’t think that would cause me any problems at this point, but I would like to see how you would frame that.

will comment as possible. busy week.

It will be interesting to see how Walter can explain how something can create itself before it actually exists, therefore his only viable option, other than from a supernatural being - God, is mindless eternal energy matter.

He is really digging deep into philosophical naturalism now.

Hi RCofield,

Yeah, Peregrine is, well, Peregrine. GoldenEagles, on the other hand, may well be from a "parallel universe." Walter and I are now treading the uncommon ground of having found some common ground.

Parallel universes or possible universes, but definitely not the one GE is currently in. (^8
GE’s, I pick on you in the hopes that God will help you to adjust your doctrine to what is true.

Anyway, jump in with both feet. I am about to make things with GE very interesting,

Yes I read your three part lampooning that exposed the hypocrisy of GE with his own words coming back to bit him. He may have to discontinue his work in the astral planes and concentrate on the earthly regions again. Did you notice he addressed God as only Father instead of both Father and Mother? It must have been a mental slip from his preoccupation in nether regions.

i asked if you had evidence for the afterlife and you say, "jesus christ" and quote a few bible verses?!?!that's not proof of life after death. -Walter

The NT documents are historical documents that can be traced to the first century and the life of Jesus. These disciples were honest men and something extraordinary happened to change their lives.

As I asked, what proof will you accept as proof that you will believe? God is under no obligation to justify His deity to you, although He graciously has by His Word, by His Son and through His Spirit.

He does not owe anyone anything, yet He graciously gives because that is His nature. He does not have to prove Himself to anyone, but He graciously has.

Would you want to know Christ Jesus if His existence could be proved to you? That is the question you need to ask yourself because no proof will suffice if you refuse to believe it, no matter how good it is.

Hi Walter (December 9, 2010 7:51 AM)

i asked if you had evidence for the afterlife and you say, "jesus christ" and quote a few bible verses?!?!that's not proof of life after death. -Walter

Neither is the Steady State theory, multi-universe theory, the Big Bang theory, or spontaneous generation evidence/proof of what really happened/verifiable science. You take it by faith by interpreting the evidence to your world-view. Your faith is based on interpreting evidence.

There is evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. Something happened to these disciples that made then suffer extreme hardship for the gospel message and the spread of Christianity. Paul even places the resurrection of Jesus as central to the Christian faith (1 Corinthians 15:12-20).

Now I could present you with good scholarly evidence that proves that Jesus existed, the Bible is the Word of God, and that something extraordinary happened to spread Christianity. The question is, coming from the frame of mind/world-view that you do, what would you accept as proof?

You accept that the universe came into being 'naturally' or that life can arise from spontaneous generation with less proof than there is for the resurrection.

To believe that order and complexity can arise from chance is ludicrous. To believe macro-evolution is happening because we see similarities in living organisms because we all live and operate in the same world is ludicrous. Similarity does not necessarily equate to a common ancestor because animal husbandry and artificial selection have produced changes in kind.

No where do we see dogs changing into cats or other creatures. The boundaries of artificial breeding have genetic limits. A fruit fly is still a fruit fly, no matter how many generations it has been bombarded to try and alter its kind. And the funny thing is that it takes an intelligent being altering the conditions of a fruit fly in order to change it into a frightfully freakish fruit fly.

The genetic limits of birds is also evident with the finch. It may change its beak size to accommodate times of drought, but it is still a finch, and when the conditions become more favorable these changes are cyclical.

So, as I pointed out to Pam a long time ago, you mistake similarity in kinds for change of kinds. This just shows that you are extremely biased to where the information leads, because you can't demonstrate actual changes taking place. It is all speculation based on preordained conclusions and your magic ingredient - time.

we have exactly that kind of "evidence" for little green men in flying saucers from mars....higher than the "many" who supposedly saw the "risen jesus". there's this kind of evidence for yeti, the loch ness monster,..."he said/she said" - Walter

Other than Jesus, and possibly a few other cases it is not evidence based on history or historical facts. These are known myths

Hi Walter,

Great job as always with the snow! Did you read or see what happened in Sarnia, Ontario? Over five feet in one day. What a playground you could have up here in Canada.

my thought that "matter/energy" could be "uncreated" is more a response to the idea that god is uncreated. we just don't know what was before the big bang. and if there's a god, we don't know what created it.

Three thoughts, one being that you are still side-stepping the question the RCO is asking about the groundings of your faith in evolutionary science - that it is nothing more than natural philosophy rather than science.

Are you willing to admit that your belief is a philosophy rather than verifiable science, because at present you are the one who claims that evolution is science and all these theories of origins are science, and yet belief in God is faith?

Second, how can an eternal Being be caused and btw, God is not an 'it.'?

Third, you are philosophizing about origins with multi-verses or some kind of Steady State theory in the speculation of the eternity of energy and matter which seems to go against what many astrophysicists believe to be the most plausible explanation - the Big Bang, a definite beginning in which some have even credulously said that something came from nothing. So who is right? What is true?

The point being when scientists discuss origins of either life or the universe they are philosophizing. Empirical science studies the observable present, that is things that are regular and repeatable, that can be recreated, can be tested by repeated experiments. What you believe is something from the past that is not observable, not repeatable, cannot be re-created.

sure, i guess we're free to guess... uh... philosophize about it. if it makes you feel like you've scored a debating point or something in getting me to say, "it could be god" (since we DON'T KNOW), then, well, congrats. or, as i've said, you could say that whatever created god could just as easily have caused the universe. or, this makes you think "uncaused god", well, then, i say uncaused universe... so, really it's "universe of unknown cause".- Walter

Congratulations on admitting your faith rests on philosophical naturalistic starting points. Now are you willing to admit that this is the case for much of evolutionary science?

I do understand that to admitting God would undermine evolutionary science as your ultimate authority, and that is the bottom line, so this is something that you will probably avoid at all costs.

What you are doing by ruling out God and a supernatural cause to the universe and life is you are ruling out that anything is morally prohibited. When you look around the world at large, you do see that anything is possible as being passed off as good, but you have no way of justifying why it is good since your standard and measure is always shifting personal preference.

GE,
bwwaaahahahahaahaha

walter-in-fallschurch says, “you guys understand that people don't "choose" to be homosexual, right? just about every homosexual person will tell you that it's just "the way god made me". the scientific evidence is forming a consensus along those lines too.”

No, walter-in-fallschurch, the beginning of this condition of slavery to the homosexual lifestyle always begins with a series of free will choices. Either in the current lifetime. Or a previous lifetime.

These choices always begin with a decision to walk away from God, baby steps at first, giant steps later on, a path that takes them to the perimeter of the Sphere of Light, and beyond, and into the outer darkness, where the soul becomes prey to all manner of corrupting influences.

There is no scientific evidence that refutes this. In the same way there is no scientific evidence that there was ever a big bang. In the same way there is no scientific evidence that supports Darwinian mumbo-jumbo. These are just the pet theories of the materialists who fashion their arguments in support of a pre-existing emotional need to raise their middle finger in the face of God. Who was the most famous Atheist in history? That would be Karl Marx. And who did Karl Marx worship? Darwin. And that pre-existing emotional need to raise their middle finger in the face of God himself, would be an attribute of the character brought forward from a previous lifetime. Any person who has an emotional need to deny the existence of God, has had a war-like relationship with God for many lifetimes, perhaps dating back to the Great Rebellion itself.

GE, rco,
you guys understand that people don't "choose" to be homosexual, right? just about every homosexual person will tell you that it's just "the way god made me". the scientific evidence is forming a consensus along those lines too.

I have revised my prayer for the saving of the nation, taking into account RcoField’s input. Perhaps this will strike his ears with a sweeter tone.

A PRAYER FOR THE SAVING OF OUR NATION

O God, my Dear Heavenly Father, I Am That I Am, indeed, whose precious child I am, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, I want you to know that I am grateful for this deep understanding which you have given to me, regarding the origin of the homoerotic urge, that this comes from the black heart of a demonic presence on the astral plane which makes of the victim a sex slave of the demonic world, and moreover, that this controlling demonic presence follows the homosexual wherever he goes, and works to corrupt the integrity of the morals of everyone that he comes into contact with. Thank you for helping me to understand the danger that this black poisonous cloud of moral corruption poses to the very survival of America even as it relentlessly encroaches upon and consumes the minds of more and more Americans. To that end, O God, I ask you, again in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to please send Legions of Holy Angels now, Shining, Radiant, Noble and Pure, marching triumphantly throughout the nation, to cast out, in a manner most appropriate to your infinite love and mercy, all homosexuals from the U.S. Military, from all positions within our National Security Establishment, and from every position of responsibility in whatever department of American life they have entered in with this corrupting demonic spirit, especially throughout the educational institutions of our land, kindergartens, elementary and secondary schools, colleges and universities, in every department of the mass media, throughout all government institutions, local, state and federal, and throughout all legislative bodies at the local, state, and federal levels, and of course, from the ranks of the clergy throughout all the branches and denominations of the Christian Church. Deliver our nation O God from the horror of this dark shadow of moral insanity. Blaze forth the brilliance of your understanding, O God, into the minds of those who carry these two banners of national suicide, abortion rights in one hand, sodomic rights in the other, inspiring in them, finally, the desire to throw down, once and for all, these battle flags of the very hordes of hell, and to carry them no more. Fully accepting the promise of the Lord Jesus Christ, concerning those things which I ask of you, in his name, that you will do. I therefore accept it done right now with full power. Amen.

For those of you who understand that America stands, right at this moment, face to face with the fate of the City of Sodom, please add this prayer to your daily devotions. The survival of America requires it. Please raise up your voice to God as America teeters on the very edge of this abyss of moral insanity, trying to decide whether to step forward, or to step back.

rco, you said,

As I stated earlier, I am aware that when be begin discussing the cause of the universe we are beyond the current purview of science. But we are not beyond the purview of philosophy. We can (and do) form philosophical hypotheses about things like the cause of the universe.

my thought that "matter/energy" could be "uncreated" is more a response to the idea that god is uncreated. we just don't know what was before the big bang. and if there's a god, we don't know what created it.

sure, i guess we're free to guess... uh... philosophize about it. if it makes you feel like you've scored a debating point or something in getting me to say, "it could be god" (since we DON'T KNOW), then, well, congrats. or, as i've said, you could say that whatever created god could just as easily have caused the universe. or, this makes you think "uncaused god", well, then, i say uncaused universe... so, really it's "universe of unknown cause".

but if you're seriously interested in applying occams's razor here, you've got to trim "god" of ALL other attributes besides "first cause".

results of the recent snow:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/58171957@N00/
this represents my most efficient use of snow yet. this was made from less than 1.5" of snow.

GOLDENEAGLES,

Shall I presume that your oft-promised response to my "GoldenEagles' Got a Booger in His Belfry" posts is soon forthcoming?

GOLDENEAGLES,

Part 1 of 2

Tell me, Rcofield, don’t you think the story of the City of Sodom communicates this basic principle that the practice of homosexuality is a sin in a class all by itself, given the fact that God saw the sin to be so heinous, that he had to destroy the whole city?

Given that you have chosen to ignore virtually every direct question I have asked you since you arrived on these threads, I'll simply answer your question with a couple of my own:

On what biblical grounds do you “categorize” and “classify” sin, determining one or the other to be more “heinous?” In other words, is there any sin that God will simply overlook and refuse to judge? According to scripture (I'm not interested in your opinion) what is the ultimate penalty for all sin? Do you think God will turn a blind eye to your sin (or mine), giving it a wink and a nod, all the while judging the sin of homosexuals with absolute justice? If so, on what biblical grounds do you think such?

I will make this observation in relation to your question. You have arrived here with all the pompous trumpet blowing of the Pharisees that Christ so often rebuked in the Gospels. You have posited yourself as the ultimate arbiter of truth, showing utter contempt and disdain for the Words of God that contradict your beliefs. With much self-aggrandizement and chest-thumping, you have even claimed for yourself the status of a reincarnated Apostle, assuring all others here that you alone have grasped the “essence” of Christ's teachings and the rest of us are possessed of demons.

At the same time, while beating everyone else here over the head with Christ's commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves, you exempt yourself from the requirement of this commandment when it comes to homosexuals. Your blind, murderous hatred of homosexuals is evident for all to see in your desire to see them utterly banished. The absence of empathy, concern, and love on your part for those trapped in such a destructive pattern of sin is strikingly obvious.

GOLDENEAGLES,

Part 2 of 2

That is a double-standard which renders you a most hypocritical individual. Every time you post here I am reminded afresh of the words of Christ:

Luke 18:9 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 10 "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.' 13 But the tax collector, (who would have been viewed with much the same disdain by the Pharisees as you demonstrate toward homosexuals) standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."

Rcofield, given your sin-equivalency principle, which places homosexuality in the same category as other sins, I dare say, this sounds like you are in a state of denial when it comes to the importance of the story of the City of Sodom found in the Book of Genesis Chapters 18 and 19, which for all intents and purposes, places homosexuality in a sin class all by itself, being the basis upon which an entire city had to be destroyed.

Tell me, Rcofield, don’t you think the story of the City of Sodom communicates this basic principle that the practice of homosexuality is a sin in a class all by itself, given the fact that God saw the sin to be so heinous, that he had to destroy the whole city?

GOLDENEAGLES,

Rcofield, Given your sin-equivalency principle, I must ask you if you believe, then, that a homosexual would make just as good a minister or pastor in a Christian Church as anyone else, all else being equal?

That's the kind of question that comes only from an unapologetic legalist who thinks he can earn salvation by his good works. Such were known as Pharisees in scripture.

Given the nature of repentance, the basic evidences of genuine conversion, and the biblical qualifications of pastoral ministry, your question is self-contradicting within its own base presuppositions. Of course, you're no stranger to self-contradiction.

If you would like a more detailed answer, I would point out that I have a whole sack full of questions that I have asked you--to which you have never bothered to respond. If you want me to start responding to your questions you might consider responding to a few of mine.

Shall I presume that a response to my "GoldenEagles' Got a Booger in His Belfry" posts is soon forthcoming?

Rcofield, Given your sin-equivalency principle, I must ask you if you believe, then, that a homosexual would make just as good a minister or pastor in a Christian Church as anyone else, all else being equal?

GOLDENEAGLES,

Before responding to Mr. Vesuvius, who made love for homosexuality into the #1 issue of discussion....

Before getting the self-righteous butt-cheeks surrounding your "excrement cavity" settled too comfortably in the saddle of your unholy high-horse, it should be pointed out that I have nowhere advocated "love for homosexuality."

And as for your claim that EVERY HOMOSEXUAL ACT IS A HATE CRIME AGAINST GOD, it should be pointed out that every sin is an act of hatred and rebellion against God--including my sin and yours.

You and I are no more "deserving" of salvation and the forgiveness of our sins than the most prolifically homosexual person who has ever lived.

You might want want to "chew" on that for a bit before rising to podium to deliver yet another series of diatribes against homosexuals.

And that three-part post of mine was about your blatant and hypocritical double-standard, not about "making love for homosexuality into the #1 issue of discussion."

It appears that you no more understand the difference between the term "homosexual" as applied to in individual and the term "homosexuality" as an adjective describing behavior than you understand the difference between the term "Catholic" as applied to an individual and "Catholicism" used as an adjective describing a system of beliefs.

Before responding to Mr. Vesuvius, who made love for homosexuality into the #1 issue of discussion, I would like for everyone to chew a while on these ideas.

EVERY HOMOSEXUAL ACT IS
A HATE CRIME AGAINST GOD

Everybody knows this to be true if they would only STOP and THINK about it. Every homosexual act is a Slam against God.

What does it say about this obsession to EJACULATE the God-Given seed of life, by which populations are renewed, in which all hopes for the victory of mankind are invested, into the excrement cavity? The message is quite clear.

Homosexuals call it love. Common sense calls it HATE.

What does it say about this obsession to RECEIVE the God-Given seed of life, by which populations are renewed, in which all hopes for the victory of mankind are invested, into the excrement cavity? The message is quite clear.

Homosexuals call it love. Common sense calls it HATE.

Think about it. What is the message you send when you force the face of your enemy into a pile of excrement? This does not say, I love you. This does not say, I respect you. This does not say I adore you. It says, I Hate You, I Despise you, therefore eat [expletive deleted].

This is what the controlling demonic presence is saying to the Very Face of God in every homosexual act. Eat [expletive deleted].

All laws against sodomy were essentially our first form of hate crime legislation.

For any organization whose success depends on the intercession of Divine Providence, which is the case for the U.S. Military, it is wise to ban hate crimes against God within the ranks.

test

WALTER,

well, yes i would disagree. a closed system is dependent on nothing. if an "outside something" acts on, or causes something in, a system, then it is part of the system... it isn't "outside" it.

I think that may contradict a couple of other things that you have stated. Remember, we are talking about origin or first cause, not something "acting on" the existing universe or "causing something within" the existing universe.

But before we get into that, I posed several other questions and made several propositions in those last 3 posts. Could I get you to respond to them before we address this issue?

Thanks.

GOLDENEAGLES,

You sally out with a shoulder launched RPG and blast the delivery truck to smithereens. That was an historic explosion if I ever saw one......Oh the luscious irony of it! It was the wrong delivery truck! You blew up the wrong delivery truck!

Riiiight. And if you are not careful you are going to be too busy smugly licking yourself in self-righteous satisfaction to realize what I just did.

rco,

I guess I assumed that you would agree that a “closed system” is dependent upon something outside itself for its cause. Would you disagree with that?

well, yes i would disagree. a closed system is dependent on nothing. if an "outside something" acts on, or causes something in, a system, then it is part of the system... it isn't "outside" it.

The Reincarnation of Mt. Vesuvius

Rcofield, I give you a courteous warning of the arrival of a case of brand new light bulbs for your haunted house, and what do you do? You sally out with a shoulder launched RPG and blast the delivery truck to smithereens. That was an historic explosion if I ever saw one. Eye witnesses will forever after have a hard time telling the difference between those fireworks, and that of Mt. Vesuvius.

But no matter, your brand new case of light bulbs is OK. No harm done to those. How can that be? Oh the luscious irony of it! It was the wrong delivery truck! You blew up the wrong delivery truck! Of course the owner of that one isn’t happy, as you can well imagine. He expects you to pay for the damage. Couriers, both Shining and Radiant, will be dispatched forthwith to deliver the bill.

GoldenEagles' Hatred of Homosexuals Is, By His Own Measure of All Things, Evidence of a Demonic Presence Invading His Astral Body

Subtitle: GoldenEagles' Got a Booger in His Belfry

Part 1 of 3

In reading your PRAYER FOR THE SAVING OF OUR NATION I was struck by two glaring things, GoldenEagles.

First you use language concerning homosexuals such as “cast out all homosexuals from the U.S. Military” and cast them out “from all positions within our National Security Establishment,” and cast them out “ from every position of responsibility in whatever department of American life they have entered,” and cast them out “especially throughout the educational institutions of our land,” and cast them out from “every department of the mass media.” Your revulsion and hatred of homosexuals comes across so strong in you “prayer” that one is left to wonder if you would not be happiest if they were rendered utterly destitute and had to live under bridges and eat out of dumpsters.

Secondly, your “prayer” was markedly missing even a shred of compassion for homosexuals who are trapped in a lifestyle that will utterly destroy them if they do not repent. I read your “prayer” three times, and there is not even the slightest hint, not even a whisper of concern for their plight on your part. No expression of love for them whatsoever, no appeal to God to turn their hearts, no crying out to God to enable you to minister to them and help them turn from destruction.....only language of banishment.

When these two glaring elements of your “prayer” are taken in conjunction, it is evident that you are possessed by a blind hatred for homosexuals.

The extent to which this attitude of yours toward homosexuals fits the very framework of all of your sermonizing aimed at me about “love” and “hatred” and “demon possession” is indeed amazing.

So...strap yourself in, for I am about to give you a dose of your own medicine. I am going to use the same arguments, the same tactics, the same unbiblical principles, and yea, even the same words that you have used to try and castigate me.

Given the inferences and innuendo contained in your prayer and your numerous other rants against homosexuals, it is plain for all to see that you have a deep and abiding hatred for homosexuals.

According to your own thesis said hatred stands as clear disobedience of “The Master Jesus Christ's” teaching to love. “The darkside leans on the feeling world of those such as yourself who purport to follow the Teachings of the Master Jesus Christ, and produce in you contempt and disdain for homosexuals.” This manifests itself clearly, for all to see, in your rabid hatred of homosexuals.

GoldenEagles' Hatred of Homosexuals Is, By His Own Measure of All Things, Evidence of a Demonic Presence Invading His Astral Body

Subtitle: GoldenEagles' Got a Booger in His Belfry

Part 2 of 3

According to your own thesis your hatred for homosexuals “has its origin in the black heart of a demonic presence on the astral plane which presses its hatred against the feeling world of those (such as yourself) who have a taste for hatred, and thus, can steer (you), in this direction, or that direction, in opposition to the highest hopes and dreams of the Master Jesus Christ himself, with no less alacrity, than if they had both hands on the steering wheel.”

According to your own thesis “the time is now, (GoldenEagles), to read the signs, especially in your indulgence of various kinds of hatred, and to reach the proper conclusions as to the origin of that hatred, and to do the work necessary to break this alliance you have made with the forces of hatred, before the day comes, when this technology will expose the fact of this alliance to your very eyes.”

According to your own thesis “in that day will you praise God for those disciples who can do the works which Jesus Christ did, and greater works. It would be better for you to be, in that day, one of those disciples.”

But, according to your own thesis for you to be a disciple of Jesus Christ “and do the works which Christ did:

You have got to stop hating homosexuals.

You have got to stop fighting for the complete ostracism of homosexuals.

You have got to stop hating those who disagree with Catholic dogma on biblical grounds.

You have got to stop hating the words of Scripture that contradict your ideology.

You have got to stop hating the teachings of the Word of God that point to the central truth that Christ is the only means of your salvation.

You have got to stop loving this homosexual banishment ideology “that has its origin in the demonic realm.”

GoldenEagles' Hatred of Homosexuals Is, By His Own Measure of All Things, Evidence of a Demonic Presence Invading His Astral Body
Subtitle: GoldenEagles' Got a Booger in His Belfry

Part 3 of 3

According to your own thesis, you need a “Reality check. Isn’t it the demons themselves that refuse to come into alignment with the requirements of love (even for homosexuals)? Indeed. And can they be saved? No. Isn’t their refusal to bend the knee to love, reflected through you in your one-pointed need to hate (homosexuals to the point of wanting them utterly banished from society)?”

According to your own thesis “What difference is there, in all truth, between the force of hatred that moved against the feeling world of Adolf Hitler, that had him believing that all jews needed to be swept from the face the of the earth, and the force of hatred that presses so powerfully against you (GoldenEagles), that has you believing that (homosexuals should be banished and completely ostracized).” One can see that you hatred for homosexuals is to strong that you would have no qualms with throwing them into ovens to “deliver our nation...from the horror of this dark shadow of moral insanity.” I mean, for heaven's sake, GoldenEagles, you just prayed that “God will do the dirty work” in “casting out all homosexuals” from even their very means of feeding and clothing themselves.

According to your own thesis you need yet another “Reality check. What you desire for others, that is what you will receive for yourself.”

And to cap it all of, you conclude your “prayer” calling on God to utterly banish homosexuals with this: “Fully accepting the promise of the Lord Jesus Christ, that which I ask of you, in his name, that you will do.” You call on the name of the very Christ who supposedly taught you to love your neighbor (even the homosexual neighbor) to hear you prayer and banish all homosexuals. That is nothing less than a self-righteous attempt to cloak your own poisonous hatred in the name of Jesus Christ.

Of course, in the end, the true source of your murderous hatred of homosexuals is your own depraved heart...at least if the Words of Christ are of any significance

Mt. 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20 These are the things which defile a man.

The deceitfulness and depravity of your own heart is more than adequate explanation for your blind, vicious, murderous hatred of your homosexual neighbors. NO DEMONS NECESSARY.

peterhuff,

"I'm in hilarity reading the comments of PSolus..."

Glad that I could be of help; you're welcome.

"PSolus... keep[s] skirting the issues and never, ever (well, hardly ever) address[es] any of your relevant points. [He] talk[s] around them. The game is avoidance."

I didn't make him cry, did I?

Sounds to me like you don't think that RCofield is up to the challenge.

Do you two complain about every cross that you have to bear (heh, heh) for your imaginary three-in-one® god?

RCofield,

"Not at all. But it does seem to indicate confusion on your part."

Will it help you to believe that I am confused?

If so, feel free to do so.

"You seem to “see” lots of things nobody else sees."

Yes, some people are more observant than others.

"Are you clairvoyant, or did you just have more than the two drink minimum at the "club" last night?"

Will it help you to believe that I am clairvoyant?

If so, feel free to do so.

"Not at all. But is does stand in contradiction to your claim."

Will it help you to believe that it stands in contradiction to my claim?

If so, feel free to do so.

"I understand."

I think that you overestimate yourself.

"Your confusion is self-inflicted."

Will it help you to believe that I am confused, and that my confusion is self-inflicted?

If so, feel free to do so.

"I actually find your uncertainty amusing when contrasted with your derision."

I'm glad that I could be of help.

"It's like the Hindenburg disaster; one would rather not watch but the humanity of it is compelling."

So, you find the sight of people being burned alive compelling?

Good for you.

"Your admission that “that's probably another difficulty I have with believers.”"

Yes, you have demonstrated that logic is not your strong point.

"Your admission that “that's probably another difficulty I have with believers.” "

Once again, logic has failed you (or, perhaps, you have failed logic).

"You are aware that your cut-and-paste method of posting here only works if you actually keep track of the previous points made, aren't you?"

I don't "cut-and-paste"; I copy-and-paste.

"Why, your magnanimosity in allowing me to “feel free to believe that, or whatever else that you want,” Peregrine."

Your confusing me with the Constitution.

"That is just so remarkably generous of you."

No it isn't.

GoldenEagles,

"Perhaps in the mean time, you (RcoField), Peterhuff, Psolus, and Walter-in-Fallschurch will join me in giving this important prayer every morning for the next 20 to 30 years:"

[you know the drill - expurgated]

I'm not one for prayer, but I'll be more than happy to deflower a virgin every morning for the next 20 to 30 years for your lost cause.

GOLDENEAGLES,

Don't read anything into that Rcofield. Major developments on the DADT front have absorbed all of my free time for the moment.

Yeah, well that “victory” rings with all the empty hollowness of Clintonesque hypocrisy. “Don't tell me how depraved you are and I won't ask, but welcome to our ranks anyway” is hardly a banner to be unfurled with over-much chest-thumping.

As always, I will have a good answer for you in due course.

That statement presupposes prior “good” answers. As that has not been the case so far, a “good answer” from you would be your first.

Even a case of brand new light bulbs, that you can use to replace all of those in your house that have burned out.

Oh, wonderful! An early Christmas present. I am giddy with anticipation. :-)

No charge.

Well, now. Aren't I overwhelmed by your magnanimity?

Stay tuned for my upcoming series titled GoldenEagles Has A Booger in His Astral Plane later this afternoon.

Hey Peter,

Good to have you back.

PSolus and GoldenEagles keep skirting the issues and never, ever (well, hardly ever) address any of your relevant points. They talk around them. The game is avoidance. It seems GE is preparing another masterpiece, in between his battles in the astral plane.

Yeah, Peregrine is, well, Peregrine. GoldenEagles, on the other hand, may well be from a "parallel universe." Walter and I are now treading the uncommon ground of having found some common ground.

Anyway, jump in with both feet. I am about to make things with GE very interesting, and may well be on the verge of some pretty interesting exchanges with Walter. Mixed with Peregrine's input, this ought to be fun.

Hi RCofield,

I'm in hilarity reading the comments of PSolus and GoldenEagles. The only rational debate you are having is with Walter. Walter, kudos to you! That is why I have always enjoyed our conversations.

PSolus and GoldenEagles keep skirting the issues and never, ever (well, hardly ever) address any of your relevant points. They talk around them. The game is avoidance. It seems GE is preparing another masterpiece, in between his battles in the astral plane.

He never did refute the Scriptures that either of us posted in challenge to his position. I've notice this tactic with JW's too. When you bring up a Scripture that disagrees with their position they immediately switch to a new line of defense and throw up a smoke-screen by taking you to to a different passage of Scripture. In this way they are cleared from having to offer an interpretation from the text that refutes their position.

Take for instance John 14:6. These words are very plain. Now GE will deny the words of the Savior here by saying that other religions offer a way to God, yet he is hell bent on making John 14:12 the pivotal passage of Scripture in the Bible, that everything else hinges on.

The question is, if he does not get his authority from the Bible, the word of God, since he selects what he will and will not believe from it, seemingly by his own authority, or some yet undetermined authority, what does this tell us about where his ultimate authority comes from?

Perhaps in the mean time, you (RcoField), Peterhuff, Psolus, and Walter-in-Fallschurch will join me in giving this important prayer every morning for the next 20 to 30 years:

A PRAYER FOR THE SAVING OF OUR NATION

O God, my Dear Heavenly Father, I Am That I Am, indeed, whose precious child I am, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, I want you to know that I am grateful for this deeper understanding which you have given to me, regarding the origin of the homoerotic urge, that this comes from the black heart of a demonic presence on the astral plane which makes of the victim a sex-slave of the demonic world, and moreover, that this controlling demonic presence follows the homosexual wherever he goes, and works to corrupt the integrity of the morals of everyone that he comes in contact with. Thank you for helping me to understand the danger that this black poisonous cloud of moral corruption poses to the very survival of America even as it relentlessly encroaches upon and consumes the minds of more and more Americans. To that end, O God, I ask you, again in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to please send Legions of Holy Angels now, Shining, Radiant, Noble and Pure, marching triumphantly throughout the nation, to cast out all homosexuals from the U.S. Military, from all positions within our National Security Establishment, and from every position of responsibility in whatever department of American life they have entered in with this corrupting demonic spirit, especially throughout the educational institutions of our land, kindergartens, primary, secondary schools, colleges and universities, and in every department of the mass media, and throughout all government institutions, local, state and federal. Especially the cleaning out of all local, state, and federal legislative bodies is essential. Deliver our nation O God from the horror of this dark shadow of moral insanity. Fully accepting the promise of the Lord Jesus Christ, that which I ask of you, in his name, that you will do. I therefore accept it done right now with full power. Amen.

For those of you who understand that America stands, right at this moment, face to face with the fate of the City of Sodom, please add this prayer to your daily devotions. The survival of America requires it.

Don't read anything into that Rcofield. Major developments on the DADT front have absorbed all of my free time for the moment. As always, I will have a good answer for you in due course. Even a case of brand new light bulbs, that you can use to replace all of those in your house that have burned out. No charge.

Is it just me, or did anyone else notice that GoldenEagles seems to have "flown the coup" since I asked him about his personal ability to perform miracles and develop "technology" to detect "demonic presence in the astral plane?"

Heeeeere kitty, kitty, kitty........

PEREGRINE,

Does that confuse you?

Not at all. But it does seem to indicate confusion on your part.

Ah, I see that it does.

You seem to “see” lots of things nobody else sees. Are you clairvoyant, or did you just have more than the two drink minimum at the "club" last night?

Does that, also, confound you?

Not at all. But is does stand in contradiction to your claim.

Now that you mention it, yes.

I understand. Your confusion is self-inflicted.

Are you losing faith in that particular belief of yours? You seem to be quite anxious for my guidance in renouncing the belief. You know that if you try hard enough, you can simply choose not to believe it on your own, don't you?

I actually find your uncertainty amusing when contrasted with your derision.

You could try not watching.

It's like the Hindenburg disaster; one would rather not watch but the humanity of it is compelling.

What makes you believe that I am hyper-sensitive?

Your admission that “that's probably another difficulty I have with believers.”

What makes you believe that I am suspicious, or that anything forces me to dispense with reality?

Your admission that “that's probably another difficulty I have with believers.” You are aware that your cut-and-paste method of posting here only works if you actually keep track of the previous points made, aren't you?

What makes you believe that I possess any generosity of spirit?

Why, your magnanimosity in allowing me to “feel free to believe that, or whatever else that you want,” Peregrine. That is just so remarkably generous of you.

RCofield,

By the way, do you believe that early man co-existed with dinosaurs, as you probably learned while watching "The Flintstones"?

RCofield,

"Yet you spend a substantial amount of time reading and posting on a religious blog…"

Does that confuse you?

"...and the self-contradictions continue."

Ah, I see that it does.

"Yet you apparently read every post I address to you as well as some that I address to others…"

Does that, also, confound you?

"...and the self-contradictions continue."

Indeed, it does.

"The list is actually growing rather long."

Oh, the humanity.

"And you find my posts irrational?"

Now that you mention it, yes.

"So you are, in fact, not certain that the universe is more than 6,000 years old."

Are you losing faith in that particular belief of yours?

You seem to be quite anxious for my guidance in renouncing the belief.

You know that if you try hard enough, you can simply choose not to believe it on your own, don't you?

"Only to watch."

You could try not watching.

"So why, exactly, are you so hyper-sensitive when it comes to my posts as a “believer”..."

What makes you believe that I am hyper-sensitive?

"...that your suspicion forces you to dispense with reality?"

What makes you believe that I am suspicious, or that anything forces me to dispense with reality?

"Why, thank you, Peregrine."

Don't mention it.

"Should I attribute your generosity of spirit to the CHRISTmas season?"

What makes you believe that I possess any generosity of spirit?

PEREGRINE,

I do indeed generally find it exhausting to attempt to hold rational discussions with believers.

Yet you spend a substantial amount of time reading and posting on a religious blog…and the self-contradictions continue.

I also generally find it exhausting to attempt to read things written by believers.

Yet you apparently read every post I address to you as well as some that I address to others…and the self-contradictions continue. The list is actually growing rather long. And you find my posts irrational?

No, but all existing evidence that I am aware of points in that direction, so that's where my money is.

So you are, in fact, not certain that the universe is more than 6,000 years old.

No, was it painful for you?

Only to watch.

Perhaps, that's probably another difficulty I have with believers;

So why, exactly, are you so hyper-sensitive when it comes to my posts as a “believer” that your suspicion forces you to dispense with reality?

again, do feel free to believe that, or whatever else that you want.

Why, thank you, Peregrine. Should I attribute your generosity of spirit to the CHRISTmas season?

RCofield,

"Careful, Peregrine, you must be exhausted. You are dangerously close to participating in the discussion here."

I do indeed generally find it exhausting to attempt to hold rational discussions with believers.

"You might want to go back and read that post again. I was not referring to the Big Bang Theory being blown out of the water. You simply choose to erroneously think I believed the Big Bang Theory had been blown out of the water, which lead you to make several more erroneous assumptions in the posts following. I've noticed this pattern of confusion on your part on several occasions."

I also generally find it exhausting to attempt to read things written by believers.

"Are you certain that the universe is more than 6,000 years old?"

No, but all existing evidence that I am aware of points in that direction, so that's where my money is.

Do you believe that it isn't more than 6,000 years old?

"As you obviously read everything I post, your self-contradiction continues."

Actually, I don't obviously read everything that you post, but do feel free to believe that if you want.

"Was that contortion physically painful for you?"

No, was it painful for you?

"Then perhaps your hyper-sensitivity in this area forces you to suspiciously think I am telling you what to think when in reality I am merely telling you what I think."

Perhaps, that's probably another difficulty I have with believers; again, do feel free to believe that, or whatever else that you want.

WALTER,

Part 1 of 3

well, i don't know if i said caused by something "outside" itself. if i did, i didn't mean to.

I said:

I was not thinking of entropy in terms of evolution so much as I was referring to it in terms of degeneration--that the universe, as a closed system, is essentially "winding down" due to the randomization of energy. Would you say that is a fair representation of the Second Law? (emphasis added)

To which you responded:

YES! i agree too... what the hell is going on here?!

I guess I assumed that you would agree that a “closed system” is dependent upon something outside itself for its cause. Would you disagree with that?

it could be that the big bang was caused by a prior big crunch - we don't know what there was before the big bang.

But wouldn't a “big crunch” be a natural, and therefore a physical matter/energy cause? As such, wouldn't it require a first and moving cause itself?

so, in this sense those "steady-state, matter is eternal" guys may be right after all.

But if matter is “eternal,” doesn't that contradict your contention that you are “leaning toward natural causes because we keep finding natural causes for things...”? And wouldn't you then be appealing to an “uncaused” cause? :-) Think about it. You don't want to allow me to hypothesize that God is the “uncaused” cause, but you just hypothesized that matter may be an “uncaused” cause.

Is is possible that our respective hypotheses are even identical in the “causal” nature of their respective conclusions??!! :-)

WALTER,

Part 2 of 3

scientists now talk about other universes and multiverses and so on - which seems like semantics to me. i would just expand my definition of the universe to include all those other "verses" - should they exist.

Yeah, the multiple universes theory is pretty speculative stuff. But you do know that idea has been around for well over 100 years, don't you? It seemingly started out as a “parallel universes” hypothesis. There doesn't seem to be any evidence for them yet, but one could argue that our beloved GoldenEagles has come to us from a “parallel universe.” :-)

But more to the point, you seem somewhat open to such highly speculative hypotheses (for which there exists no evidence that I am aware of), yet you are completely closed to the “God hypothesis.” That seems inconsistent to me. How do you reconcile that inconsistency? Notice that you then go on to say:

theses day, scientists are also talking about matter/anti-matter imbalances and who knows what as theories for "why something instead of nothing?"

And then immediately say:

i think it's premature of theists to jump right to "god did it" whenever there's uncertainty.

But aren't you doing the same thing by saying “we don't know” and then jumping right to highly speculative scientific hypotheses that lack any supportive evidence?

so my answer to what "caused" the big bang remains "i don't know".

As I stated earlier, I am aware that when be begin discussing the cause of the universe we are beyond the current purview of science. But we are not beyond the purview of philosophy. We can (and do) form philosophical hypotheses about things like the cause of the universe. I can argue that the “multi-verse” hypothesis, “big crunch” hypothesis and “matter/anti-matter” hypothesis, etc. are every one philosophical in nature. And so is your “natural causes” hypothesis AND my “God hypothesis.”

We are not debating scientific theory here. We are debating philosophical theory. And as such, we can compare hypotheses to determine which is the more probable and thus the more reasonable and rational. Would you not agree with me on this?

Scientists do not simply stop proposing hypotheses when they get to the point of saying “we simply don't know.” To the contrary, that is the very starting point of all scientific inquiry! I would go even one step further and point out that every scientific hypothesis that has ever been proposed was, in its genesis, philosophical to some degree or other. And every single hypothesis ever proposed by a scientist found its impetus in the philosophy of its proposer.

Now, not every man is a scientist. But as the old saying goes “every man is a philosopher.” So, c'mon, Walter, stick your toe in the water! :-)

WALTER,

Part 3 of 3

again, occam's razor is not a hard-and-fast scientific rule. and, i'm not offering any hypothesis on what caused the big-bang/universe. that would be jumping to conclusions before the evidence warrants it.

Yes, I agreed with you that Occam's Razor is not a hard and fast scientific rule. It is, however, a pretty good philosophical rule, and it is a good way to measure the probability of competing hypotheses. And you don't have to form an irreversible conclusion. Every hypothesis, whether it be scientific or philosophical, forms a conclusion that can be measured and tested for veracity (remember, this is the very essence of scientific method). Hypotheses are made for testing. So why don't you state your hypothesis. I've stated mine. Let's put them side by side and test them! One or the other will, in the end, be more probable and therefore more reasonable and rational.

you may think i'm being weaselly or evasive or something, but i'm really not willing to go beyond where the evidence points.

......... :-)...... I didn't say that “weaselly” thing, Walter. And I'm sure glad scientists have for centuries been willing to form hypotheses that push the boundaries of “where the (then current) evidence pointed.” If they hadn't, we would still be living in the dark ages.

Why don't you join me and the rest of those brave souls? :-)

i'm not a GE literal fundamentalist. there's no "package deal". i allow myself the liberty of picking and choosing the good parts of what he says, and tossing out the crazy stuff. it's the same strategy i have for dealing with ancient religious texts...

Well framed. So could we strike a deal? If I give you a little latitude when you quote GoldenEagles, could you give me a little latitude when I quote Scripture? :-)

PEREGRINE,

Seriously?

Certainly

Now, now, don't be embarrassed.

Don't worry about me, I'll be OK.

What makes yo believe that I am certain? I am aware that most, if not all of the evidence that we currently have, points to a much older universe. I am not currently aware of any evidence that points to a 6,000 odd year-old universe. I am also aware that the estimated age of the universe has changed drastically over the years, as we have gained more scientific knowledge, developed different cosmological theories, and gathered additional physical evidence. And, I am aware that the current cosmological models make use of a lot of quantum mechanics, which is extremely difficult for non-scientists to understand.

Careful, Peregrine, you must be exhausted. You are dangerously close to participating in the discussion here.

Finally, I am aware that there is nothing that I, or anyone else, can write in this comment section that will blow the Big Bang Theory out of the water.

You might want to go back and read that post again. I was not referring to the Big Bang Theory being blown out of the water. You simply choose to erroneously think I believed the Big Bang Theory had been blown out of the water, which lead you to make several more erroneous assumptions in the posts following. I've noticed this pattern of confusion on your part on several occasions.

You simply have chosen to believe that I am certain; I never stated that I am certain of anything.

Are you certain that the universe is more than 6,000 years old?

Not to worry; I try to avoid reading things that attempt to tell me what to think or believe.

I said: "I do not recall telling you what to believe."

To which you responded:

I can't blame you for blocking that from your memory; I only wish that I could.

As you obviously read everything I post, your self-contradiction continues.

I will go ahead and answer your canned response that you offer when your contradictions are pointed out: The true enigma is characterized by paradox, not self-contradiction.

Why not?

Why?

So you believe that someone who is currently "not reading any of the cosmological theory “that the thousands of cosmologists who are actively researching cosmology all over the world” are producing" is not educating himself at all? Are other subjects simply not educational?

Was that contortion physically painful for you?

Doubtful; I believe nothing, and you appear to believe whatever you choose to believe.

Then perhaps your hyper-sensitivity in this area forces you to suspiciously think I am telling you what to think when in reality I am merely telling you what I think.

rco, you said,

The problem then arises that you are stuck with an infinite regress of “natural causes,” which does not seem reasonable. Remember, Occam’s Razor recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions/postulates/entities when the hypotheses be equal in other respects. To date, our respective hypotheses are more or less equal in all but conclusion.

again, occam's razor is not a hard-and-fast scientific rule. and, i'm not offering any hypothesis on what caused the big-bang/universe. that would be jumping to conclusions before the evidence warrants it.

So, do you want to stick with your “natural causes” hypothesis and move on to the next step, or do you want to revise your hypothesis?

as i've mentioned, I DON'T KNOW what "caused" the current incarnation of the universe, if indeed the "known" universe is the entire universe, to come into existence via the big bang. all scientists can say is that there was a big bang ~14 bya. i did say i was leaning toward natural causes because we keep finding natural causes for things we used to think were supernatural.

you may think i'm being weaselly or evasive or something, but i'm really not willing to go beyond where the evidence points.
---------------

i said, "GE made a good point back there about how god creates billions of people he know will be damned to hell, in your estimation. that's not an all-good all-powerful god."

and you said,

I don’t want to get bogged down in the point you are making there right now, but I am amused that you have now “quoted” GE three or four times. You do realize he is selling a package deal, don’t you? It includes human-performed miracles, demonic influence (lots and lots of demonic influence), exorcism, reincarnation, teleportation, technology to detect demon influence, and universal salvation by good works (eventually), just to name a few of the inane concepts he is promoting. You’re not signing up for all of that are you?? :-)

i'm not a GE literal fundamentalist. there's no "package deal". i allow myself the liberty of picking and choosing the good parts of what he says, and tossing out the crazy stuff. it's the same strategy i have for dealing with ancient religious texts...

RCofield,

"What I have learned is to work around your refusal to actually debate the issues."

Seriously?

"Thank you, Professor Peregrine. I'm sure the world is a better place as a result of your tutelage."

Now, now, don't be embarrassed.

"Do you, now?"

Yes.

"But you seem quite certain that you know it's not 6,000 years,..."

What makes yo believe that I am certain?

I am aware that most, if not all of the evidence that we currently have, points to a much older universe.

I am not currently aware of any evidence that points to a 6,000 odd year-old universe.

I am also aware that the estimated age of the universe has changed drastically over the years, as we have gained more scientific knowledge, developed different cosmological theories, and gathered additional physical evidence.

And, I am aware that the current cosmological models make use of a lot of quantum mechanics, which is extremely difficult for non-scientists to understand.

Finally, I am aware that there is nothing that I, or anyone else, can write in this comment section that will blow the Big Bang Theory out of the water.

"...which renders your certainty no more than a belief to which you were persuaded by someone else."

You simply have chosen to believe that I am certain; I never stated that I am certain of anything.

"That is, of course, unless you are one of "the thousands of cosmologists who are actively researching cosmology all over the world.""

What would make you choose to believe that?

"Careful with that reading thing. Wouldn't want someone telling you what to think through the printed word."

Not to worry; I try to avoid reading things that attempt to tell me what to think or believe.

"Which statement would characterize and all but define those who fancy themselves "freethinkers.""

I'll have to take your word on that.

"Why?"

Why not?

"Your response:"

So you believe that someone who is currently "not reading any of the cosmological theory “that the thousands of cosmologists who are actively researching cosmology all over the world” are producing" is not educating himself at all?

Are other subjects simply not educational?

"I do not recall telling you what to believe."

I can't blame you for blocking that from your memory; I only wish that I could.

"Perhaps your hyper-sensitivity in this area forces you to suspiciously believe I am telling you what to think when in reality I am merely telling you what I think.

Doubtful; I believe nothing, and you appear to believe whatever you choose to believe.

PEREGRINE,

You appear to be learning; I'm not sure that you would have stated that so boldly as recently as a few months ago.

What I have learned is to work around your refusal to actually debate the issues.

I'm also not sure that you would have been able to format the bold text as recently as a few months ago.

Thank you, Professor Peregrine. I'm sure the world is a better place as a result of your tutelage.

That said, I seem to remember you admitting to believing in the "young earth theory", or some such thing, which is based on your bible, and claims that the universe is 6,000 odd years old.

Do you, now?

* I know that I do not know the age of the universe.

* But you seem quite certain that you know it's not 6,000 years, which renders your certainty no more than a belief to which you were persuaded by someone else. That is, of course, unless you are one of "the thousands of cosmologists who are actively researching cosmology all over the world."

On what I * read, see, experience, and think about, among others.

* Careful with that reading thing. Wouldn't want someone telling you what to think through the printed word.

* No one has told me what to think about anything; some may well have tried, but I haven't actually bothered to document their attempts.

* Which statement would characterize and all but define those who fancy themselves "freethinkers."

Why not?

Why?

* What makes you believe that I am not educating myself?

Your response:

* No.

* Many people, including you, attempt to tell me what to believe.

* I do not recall telling you what to believe. Perhaps your hyper-sensitivity in this area forces you to suspiciously believe I am telling you what to think when in reality I am merely telling you what I think.

Really?

Certainly. See * above.

rco, you said,

Let’s compare our respective hypotheses on a more basic level, working gradually to the larger issues. We are, I think, in agreement that the universe was caused by “something” outside itself. I presume (correct me if I am wrong) that on that basis you would agree that matter and energy (the composition of the universe) cannot “cause” themselves. If that is the case, you can’t appeal to an “uncaused” universe.

well, i don't know if i said caused by something "outside" itself. if i did, i didn't mean to. it could be that the big bang was caused by a prior big crunch - we don't know what there was before the big bang. so, in this sense those "steady-state, matter is eternal" guys may be right after all. scientists now talk about other universes and multiverses and so on - which seems like semantics to me. i would just expand my definition of the universe to include all those other "verses" - should they exist.

theses day, scientists are also talking about matter/anti-matter imbalances and who knows what as theories for "why something instead of nothing?"

i think it's premature of theists to jump right to "god did it" whenever there's uncertainty. leads to "god of the (diminishing) gaps" theories. so my answer to what "caused" the big bang remains "i don't know".

i'll get to part2 as time permits.

RCofield,

"I do not know the age of the universe."

You appear to be learning; I'm not sure that you would have stated that so boldly as recently as a few months ago.

I'm also not sure that you would have been able to format the bold text as recently as a few months ago.

That said, I seem to remember you admitting to believing in the "young earth theory", or some such thing, which is based on your bible, and claims that the universe is 6,000 odd years old.

"Do you think you know the age of the universe?"

I know that I do not know the age of the universe.

"On what do you base your knowledge?"

On what I read, see, experience, and think about, among others.

"Please give references to those who have told you what to think about what you know concerning the age of the universe."

No one has told me what to think about anything; some may well have tried, but I haven't actually bothered to document their attempts.

"And if you have not read any current cosmology theory, why are you questioning me instead of educating yourself?"

Why not?

What makes you believe that I am not educating myself?

"Oh, I remember. Because nobody tells you what to think..."

Again, you appear to be learning.

"...(or believe, as you can't know the age of the universe)."

Many people, including you, attempt to tell me what to believe.

"Your posturing here is a case-study in self-contradiction."

Really?

PEREGRINE,

What do you believe is the age of the universe?

On what do you base your belief?

I do not know the age of the universe.

Do you think you know the age of the universe?

On what do you base your knowledge?

Please give references to those who have told you what to think about what you know concerning the age of the universe.

And if you have not read any current cosmology theory, why are you questioning me instead of educating yourself?

Oh, I remember. Because nobody tells you what to think (or believe, as you can't know the age of the universe).

Your posturing here is a case-study in self-contradiction.

RCofield,

"So it is you who has no idea what you are talking about."

What do you believe is the age of the universe?

On what do you base your belief?

PEREGRINE,

No.

So it is you who has no idea what you are talking about.

Our old thread:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/11/tony_blair_on_religion.html

RCofield,

"So you are a proponent of spontaneous generation. And you thought you had rejected all “superstitions.”"

What makes you believe that I am a proponent of spontaneous generation?

Do you believe that my disagreeing with your beliefs means that I am a proponent of spontaneous generation?

"When you are confused about the meaning of a word just google dictionary.com."

I doubt that dictionary.com is able to explain how you personally misuse words when you are discussing your beliefs about subjects that you don't understand.

"You can google that too."

I doubt that there is a Website that documents your beliefs about subjects that you do not understand.

"Hurry though, or you might fall even further behind in the discussion."

Yeah, right.

"Don’t think google can help you there. You may have to try a little deductive reasoning."

No, in this case, I would have to try a little ignorant believing; I don't think that I can do that.

"Nothing gets by you, does it?"

Many things get by me.

"Google “Big Bang Theory.” Hurry."

I doubt that there is a Website that explains your beliefs about your misunderstanding of the Big Bang Theory.

"You are unfamiliar with the Second Law of Thermodynamics?"

You believe that you understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics much more than you actually do.

"What makes you think the universe is eternal?"

What makes you believe that I think that the universe is eternal?

Do you believe that my disagreeing with your beliefs means that I think that the universe is eternal?

"Are you not reading any of the cosmological theory “that the thousands of cosmologists who are actively researching cosmology all over the world” are producing?"

No.

PEREGRINE,

Perhaps, but how do you explain your failure to provide supporting argumentation for what you believe?

Confusion often blinds its victim, causing him to ignore what is provided.

Wrong; I believe nothing, and if I were born somewhere else, I would probably still believe nothing.

See? You are special! If you don't think so, just ask yourself.

i can't read arabic. does anyone know if those parenthetical statements (like "beat them (lightly)) in the yusuf ali translation are in the original text? or if they're implied in the original text? or if he's added them to the text to try to make it sound not so horrible.

three translations of koran verse 004.034:

YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

islamic women can only hope that "islamic marriage" becomes obsolete. the koran is a throwback to the horrible treatment of women described in the ot...

Ms Parker pontificates thus:
“(Allah) also describes husbands and wives as protecting garments for one another (2:187), thus recognizing the emotional bonds that are solemnized and celebrated when a couple decides to marry.”

Allah allows Muslim men to marry four wives and unlimited number of concubines. Let us for the sake of the present argument forget about the concubines. For a man who marries 4 wives, each of his wives would have (1/4) of a man in that relation. Four to one fourth ratio is as 16:1. When we talk about a BOND the implications is EQUAL tension between equal partners which obviously is missing in this equation.

The retreat from marraige or the retreat from commitment and responsibility beyond for the self?

Can't have marraige being obselete. It is not just a bond, a contract, a commitment. Related to marraige is a whole range or social and economic activities.

There's the matchmakers to find suitable mates on behalf of, the wedding planners to help with wedding arrangements, the caterers to feed guests, the florists to brighten up venues, venues to be booked etc - a significant socio-economic activity.

Marraige is obselete for those seeking and are divorced. Until they have another marraige. Not everybody live happily ever after in a marraige, but those in economic activities related to marraige/weddings may certainly forge a coalition and lobby against making marraige obselete.

Marraige is the primary family unit for emotional and financial support. No better cohesive and responsible social unit for children as human dependents of unions than marraiges.

I have more dead friends than live friends. Still valuable and busier than ever. Rest is history. A nation of sleepy heads.