The Most Predictable Story Ever Told

Timmy2: "I would shudder at the thought of somebody thinking that I am not sure whether or not God with a capital "G" exists."

TC: People will think what they will, regardless of how careful you think you are. Those who matter will ask, those who don't ask.... And again, if someone starts with a misunderstanding which allows room for a civil conversation, its a good thing.

PAMSM:"Some claim to *know* there is a god, but they don't, because they can't. We are all agnostic."

TC: I agree completely with atheist and agnostic meaning different things. In religious discussions, however, atheists and agnostics end up on the same side most of the time, and so get lumped together by many. My experience is that many atheists, yourself included, tend to lump us together and declare that all agnostics are really atheists, then they offer some rationalization of that assertion to make it appear to apply, and usually do it in a condescending way.

Ms. Jacoby did it with her 'conviction' argument, Hitchens did it with a parsing of meanings, you did it by claiming that everyone is agnostic, implying that 'agnostic' has no utility, using your (unproven) epistemological argument along the way.

Well, I can play that ridiculous game too: All we have to do is take the quote below (*) and apply it to everyone. Voila! Everyone is an atheist, therefore 'atheist' is a useless word. Anyone claiming to be an atheist must be too uneducated, too timid, or lack the integrity (forthrightness) to admit their error in using such a useless word, and should just admit that they are really agnostic.

Words have multiple meanings and nuances, not just the ones you may want us to use. Call yourself 'atheist' if you want, it doesn't suit me. And don't presume that you know me, or the language I choose better than I do myself.

--Thor's Child

********************************
* "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer God than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
--Stephen F. Roberts

"You will always have the poor with you"- Woman with Ointment: (1a) Mark 14:3-9 = Matt 26:6-13, (2a) Luke 7:36-50, (1b/2b) John 12:1-8, (3) Ign. Eph. 17:2;

authentic Jesus?? Yes according to many experts but

Not according to:

"Lüdemann [Jesus, 94] comments on the Mark passage:

The historical yield of the tradition is nil. But it does reflect the closeness of Jesus to a probably notorious woman of Galilee (cf. on Luke 7:36-50).

In his comments on the Lucan version, Luedemann suggests that Luke knew the Mark story yet deviated from his usual practice of following Mark closely in the passion account in order to bring this story (in an amended form) to an earlier location in his Gospel. He notes the addition of explicit mention of the sinner status of the woman in vss 37 and 39 (and the forgiveness of her many sins in vss 47, 48, 49). He then concludes:

If the story of the woman who was a sinner must be regarded as a mere development of Mark 14:3-9 it is unhistorical. But as the encounter of Jesus with a prostitute comes from the Lucan special tradition, this may be historical. For the contact of Jesus with shady people is a fact. The historicity of the encounter of Jesus with a prostitute is supported by the criterion of offensiveness. (p. 308)"

Onofrio said "A god from below and within, like a flame that won't go out, or an ineradicable vine".

God as kudzu - I like it!

My computer is no longer handling this thread well, so I will move on to Susan's latest. I hope you will answer me there, Peter.

Also, to Timmy and Thorschild, for the third time on this thread, "atheist" and "agnostic" are not variants of the same idea. They are two separate spheres - one to do with what you believe, one to do with what you *know*.

Some claim to *know* there is a god, but they don't, because they can't. We are all agnostic.

What we *believe* is something else again. For purposes of religious discussion, I am an atheist. I don't *believe* there is a god, and I base this on the evidence.

Thorschild,

"As to agnostic/atheist being a conviction: Conviction means 'fixed or firm belief' (dictionary.com). Susan was trying to describe non-belief as a belief, (doublethink at its finest). It has been posted many times on these blogs: If not believing in God is a religion then not stamp-collecting is a hobby. (Imagine that conversation: A:"So what do you do for a hobby?" B:"I don't collect stamps." A:"That's nice, I don't do needlework in my spare time.)"

Than you for the most sensible post I've seen on this thread. Like you I hate being put into a position of having to describe myself as an atheist or an agnostic. It is absurd as you say. I have never felt the need to point out that I am an a-voodooist.

Atheist does not describe one thing about me. Rationalist does? But it only describes one thing about me and so I don't care for it either. But to use the word "atheist" to define myself, that only describes my reaction to one particular ridiculous posit, is silly.

When forced to use one of these words, however, I have concerns about the misleading nature of the term "agnostic" even though it is more intellectually honest. I would shutter at the thought of somebody thinking that I am not sure whether or not God with a capital "G" exists. I don't need to know where matter came from to discount this fairy tale, so obviously invented by primitive man. To God with a capital "G", I do most certainly believe that he does not exist, except in the hallucinations of people like Thomas Baum, and the imagination of people like Arminius.

Thomas,

You wrote: "You seem to look at Love as a manipulative tool to change other people's behaviour. If anything, it should change one's own behaviour, no matter what the other may or may not do"

You seem to be judgmental, and entirely wrong about this. I most certainly do not look at love as a manipulation tool. Your words, not mine. Slander. Does Jesus endorse slander?

I have said that love is a tool of transformation however. For both parties.

BTW, we did not kill Hitler out of revenge or to try and serve God's justice. It was simple self defense. A base instinct that God gave us for survival.

YOU: This is not a perfect world and until God exerts His Authority, it will never be one.

200,000 years and counting. As I have always noted: Great plan.

YOU: When Jesus said, "You will always have the poor with you", He was not saying that we should not do what we can for each and every human being on this planet considering that they are our brothers and sisters, He was just stating a fact.

Agreed. Did I ever say anything to counter this? Why are you saying this to me?

My "job" is to let the world know that God's Victory is Total and that His Plan is for ALL OF HUMANITY to be in His Kingdom"

God's victory? Over who? Over what? I'm confused. Why does God need a victory?

YOU: We have free will and we are responsible for what we do whether or not we accept that responsibility.

Agreed. Have I ever said anything to counter this? Why are you saying this to me? Do you just have stock lines that you use indiscriminately?

YOU: Jesus won the keys to both hell and spiritual death and He will use them in due time.

Won? From who? Or from What? Won???? Does this have something to do with God's victory that you mentioned earlier?

YOU: As you should know physical death is just part of life.

I think it is the end of life. I have no reason to believe otherwise. Live for today. We have no evidence of an afterlife. This I think is very important.

Farnaz2:
" ... But, on God, the matter of pronouncing belief/disbelief is unique, isn't it? As a Heathen Atheist/Agnostic Jew (Infidel), for instance, I'd have no trouble saying Santa Claus does not exist. Nor would anyone else. But Jacoby didn't say God does not exist. She can't, you see, because the matter is so hotly contested. Can anyone? People generally, "I don't believe there's a God." Not, "there is no God.""

Thor's Child: As to the existence of SC, I'll let you take that up with a few million children and those who see him as the spirit or personification of generosity and good will.

You say that SC does not exist, but you do not go around describing yourself as one who disbelieves in Santa; you did not include in your list 'aclausist.' I am confident when I say the earth is not flat, but I do not describe myself as 'aflatearthist.' The flat-earth idea is not important enough to me to describe myself by it, and I do not see references to the Judeo-Christian God as being important enough to me to warrant a place in my self description either.

In fact, the only time I even use the word 'agnostic' is in the context of a religious discussion; outside of that it carries no utility either. Inside that context it more accurately describes my position than 'atheist' would: I have no factual knowledge of heaven, hell, the afterlife, reincarnation, demons, gnomes, frost-giants, spaghetti monsters, yggsdrasil, or any other claim of supernatural beings/areas/worlds/concepts. That is in addition to having no belief in God, gods, or goddesses which to me is what 'atheist' suggests. In my opinion, 'agnostic' suits me better than 'atheist,' and I am the only one qualified to make that judgment.

My irritation with Ms. Jacoby, Mr. Hitchens, and some other atheists I've known/read is not in the definition of words they use; it is in the implication that I, and other agnostics are somehow dishonest or incompetent if we do not choose to describe ourselves the same way they would describe us. That condescension is baseless, arrogant and completely unnecessary.

As to agnostic/atheist being a conviction: Conviction means 'fixed or firm belief' (dictionary.com). Susan was trying to describe non-belief as a belief, (doublethink at its finest). It has been posted many times on these blogs: If not believing in God is a religion then not stamp-collecting is a hobby. (Imagine that conversation: A:"So what do you do for a hobby?" B:"I don't collect stamps." A:"That's nice, I don't do needlework in my spare time.)
TC

FARNAZ2

Nice post on the 6th at 12:34 AM. Thank You.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hmmm, we see the local bible thumpers i.e. Baum "the Hallucinator" and "One Book" Huff are at it again with their "thumptations".

As per most contemporary NT and historic Jesus exegetes, are these "thumptations" authentic?

"Come follow me" The Rich Man: (1a) Mark 10:17-22 = Matt 19:16-22= Luke 18:18-23,

Not authentic - http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/253_The_Rich_Man

"/11/ He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him. /12/ But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of GodIn the Beginning: (1) John 1:11-12

Not authentic- a single attestation published in 120-150 CE

http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb488.html

http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/Works_Cited

Peter Huff,

You've been catching a lot of flak here, perhaps unjustly. Not that I agree very much with you; I am Christian, but much closer to Thomas Baum. He is not a prophet, and will undoubtedly take issue with you for suggesting that he is one. Anyway, I would like to commend you on your sincerity and general politeness. Do remember, though, that we are quite different in our views - suffice it to say that I am very progressive.

TIMMY2

You wrote, " The German people maybe could have loved Hitler out of what he was doing, but they did not, or could not, and so we had no choice but to stop him with force."

You seem to look at Love as a manipulative tool to change other people's behaviour. If anything, it should change one's own behaviour, no matter what the other may or may not do.

Sometimes, at least part of God's Justice is realized this side of the grave but as I have said Divine Justice and Divine Mercy go hand in hand.

This is not a perfect world and until God exerts His Authority, it will never be one.

When Jesus said, "You will always have the poor with you", He was not saying that we should not do what we can for each and every human being on this planet considering that they are our brothers and sisters, He was just stating a fact.

My "job" is to let the world know that God's Victory is Total and that His Plan is for ALL OF HUMANITY to be in His Kingdom, which is the new heavens and the new earth, which will arrive on the seventh day and that we are presently in the sixth day and like Our Brother told us, night is coming.

My "job" is not to pass out rose-colored glasses or to pull people's heads out of the sand but it is to speak.

As I have said many times, God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and it is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows. SIMPLE AND DIRECT.

We have free will and we are responsible for what we do whether or not we accept that responsiblity.

Jesus won the keys to both hell and spiritual death and He will use them in due time. As you should know physical death is just part of life.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

ONOFRIO

You wrote, "If the Christian god be real as you believe, I hope he's more like yours than Peterhuff's."

Don't worry, He Is.

You also wrote, "Ain't it bad enough for that perfect triplicate self-assassin in the heavenlies?"

I suppose here you are referring to how some accuse God of filicide, when in actuality it was people that killed Jesus, not the Father, and as I have written before, anyone who considers themself a Christian should also consider themself as complicit in His death.

Jesus then asked His followers to "Come follow Me" and told them, "Remember how I have been treated".

I have mentioned this before but I will repeat it here: I am Catholic and I cherish my Catholic Faith and one of the things that I say is, if one is going to be Catholic then they should also be catholic.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

onofrio :

You wrote, "PS Your mispelling of my name reads like a recent gob of dental work :)".

Woops, nice comment, sorry about that, sometimes that little symbol gets in the way, kind of shows you that God doesn't pick the perfect people to be His spokesperson. Sometimes I cut and paste a name such as I did this time and sometimes I don't and get it wrong.

You also wrote, "Although I'm of the devil's party, as it were,".

It seems that some of the people that try to shove the bible down other people's throat conveniently either ignore or tear out page one, "Let Us make man in Our Image", man as in mankind, which is ALL-EMCOMPASSING, pretty simple and direct I would say.

You also wrote, "Thomas Baum, I don't want God to be a crudball loser either. This we share."

So does God, after all it is His Plan.

Thank you for the post, we are all in this together.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Peter Huff,

I'm getting the strong impression from you that Heaven is worthless unless someone's burning in Hell.

Thomas, Part 2,

"All that the Father gives to Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do My will but to do the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I will lose NONE OF ALL THAT HE HAS GIVEN ME, but raise them up on the last day....No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:37-39, 44)

ME: "You also wrote, "What is done "in the name of Christ" does not necessarily reflect what He instructed and taught, although it should. That is where atheists so often get entangled, by Christians or professors of the Word who live contrary to it."

THOMAS: "Also what is said "in the name of God" by some who have not been called to speak for Him is meaningless."

True. The question is Thomas, how do you check to see if what someone says about the God of the Bible is true to the God of the Bible?

You make a lot of statements with the innuendo that I and others are false teachers of Scripture. From what I have seen I feel your understanding of Scripture is very limited.

Thomas, why don't your back up your statements by Scripture. Why would God need to send another "Moses" when Hebrews makes it very plain that Jesus is all that is needed,

"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but IN THESE LAST DAYS HE HAS SPOKEN TO US BY HIS SON... The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the EXACT REPRESENTATION OF HIS BEING, sustaining all things by His powerful word." (Hebrews 1:1-3)

God has already given us everything we need in His Son and in His Word. Why do we need another prophet like Moses, Thomas "Moses" Baum?

Well Thomas Baum (January 5, 2009 4:05 PM), I would like to respond to your post first, but since I am working the next couple of days, please be patient.

Pam, Onofrio, Farnaz, Timmy, there is a lot to answer for apparently. I wish I could type faster.

For starters Thomas,

ME: "in which because of your peoples disobedience to His will, He included all the peoples of the earth in this New Covenant"

THOMAS: "Do you really think that it wasn't already in God's Plan to include ALL OF HUMANITY which God has had since before creation?"

It was in His plan all along, but He first made Himself know to the peoples of the earth by the Israelites; He made them His people, and when they continually disobeyed and broke the covenant He made with them He then focused His attention of the Gentiles directly.

"He Came to that which was His own, but His own did not receive Him. Yet to all who received Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God..." (John 1:11-12)

THOMAS: "God does not change His Plan in mid-stream, so to speak, His Plan is unfolding before our very eyes and it is God's Will that ALL BE SAVED, maybe we should, at the least, pray for God's Will just like Jesus, God-Incarnate, taught us in the Lord's Prayer or the Our Father whichever you wish to call it."

First of all, what do you mean by ALL BE SAVED? Do you mean every man, woman and child on the face of the earth? Second, if it is God's will that all will be saved then why are there so many that are lost?

ME: "the perfect sacrifice achieving what the sacrifice of bulls and goats could never do - satisfy the justice of God for sin. Since sin entered the world through one man, it was by man, the Second Adam, that sin would have to be atoned for."

THOMAS: "I think you might have a typo or something near the end of this..."

Please be specific.

THOMAS: "but my question is: Is Jesus the Saviour of the world or not?"

Yes, He is, but what does the world mean in this context? Does it mean every single man woman and child without distinction, or does it mean every kind of human, such as people from every tribe and tongue and race and gender, rich and poor, etc., like in Revelation 5:9?

If you have a Savior who came to save every single man, woman and child and yet some are lost what does this tell you of His ability to save?

No, the Scriptures are clear,

"He will save His people from their sin." (Matthew 1:21)

ONOFRIO:

"If your god is absolutely sovereign, as your creeds and canons hold, then all that occurs is as he has directed, in accordance with his inscrutable, irresistible will. Good and evil alike are the work of his hand, are they not? To talk of shoulds and oughts under such awesome puppet-mastery is just daft."

What kind of God is this you discuss?

Is he the God of Sunday School,
Endlessly loving and always cool?

The marionette with all the strings,
On whom we blame all bad things?

Or the God who measured the world's foundation
And seeketh not the approval of his creations?

The God who created the heavens and earth
Vast and beautiful beyond our scale and measure

Or the clock maker God of the enlightenment
Who wound up the world and vacated then?

Or the God who created Man with free will
A the choice to do both good and evil

The God who let Joseph sell all
His Chosen People to Pharoah's thrall?

The God who sent his Only Son to call
For redemption from our great fall?

The God who created infinities
Then gave us all the minds to see?

A God to perplex both wise and fool.

Peterhuff,

You:
"What is done "in the name of Christ" does not necessarily reflect what He instructed and taught, although it should."

If your god is absolutely sovereign, as your creeds and canons hold, then all that occurs is as he has directed, in accordance with his inscrutable, irresistible will. Good and evil alike are the work of his hand, are they not? To talk of shoulds and oughts under such awesome puppet-mastery is just daft.

Or are there limits to his sovereignty, such as that betrayed by the apparent necessity of evil in his creation? Perhaps god actually contends with a prior chaos to which even he is genuinely vulnerable - cf. the light shone in the darkness, and the darkness has not understood it.

Perhaps rather than your top-down sovereign, god is more, shall we say, IRREPRESSIBLE - in epic contention, sometimes apparently beaten, but never quite extinguished, and likely to break out again in unlikely places. A god from below and within, like a flame that won't go out, or an ineradicable vine.

Light in darkness; wind blowing where it will...

Might even be a she-god - fancy that!

Pretty good for a mere lack-god slacker, eh?

Farnaz,

CCNL to you:
"Ahh, Farnaz, the Jewish Infidel is fond of old Jesus jokes. WWJ Say?? Nothing as he lies rotting in the ground near Jerusalem."

This, after all your largesse of sagesse? A dart of sameold invective for you merriment; a Corpus Christi for your wise rabbi...

Long weaning of this child from his diet of bile will make of you a Kuan Yin.

Yours,
An on/off dharmapala

Thomas Baum

You to me:
"I have met God and God is not the crudball, vile loser piece of garbage that some think and what is even worse, that some want Him to be."

You know, Thomas Baum, what I most respect in you is your Take Care, Be Ready consistency. No matter what rhetorical missiles are fanging around, you keep on keeping on, sailing through on a cloud of serene, irenic Romanity - curse you/bless you.

Although I'm of the devil's party, as it were, I do appreciate your comfort-ye gist. I rave, I badly belly-dance, I carp captiously; Spideys and CCNLs wax splenetic; Reasonmongers and Christmongers duel for god-honours; icy blasts huff from presuppositional wind-machines; and there you are holding steady with your Thomas-Tallis-motet of a worldview.

Of all the Imperial Christs, yours is perhaps the Antoninus Pius - still a legion-wielder, but as kindly as can be managed in the circumstances.

Thomas Baum, I don't want God to be a crudball loser either. This we share.

Pax.

PS Your mispelling of my name reads like a recent gob of dental work :)

Ahh, Farnaz, the Jewish Infidel is fond of old Jesus jokes. WWJ Say?? Nothing as he lies rotting in the ground near Jerusalem.

For Peter - a few examples (among very many) of God's "goodness":

I Samuel 6 - Five farmers of Bethshemesh rejoice to see the ark of the Lord being carried cross country. They open the box and make a burnt offering to the Lord. For the temerity of looking into the box (even though they were never told it was wrong to do so) he smites them (yes, that means "kills") - but that doesn't satisify his blood lust - he also kills fifty thousand and threescore and ten of their countrymen. "...and the people lamented, because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter".

Jeez, all they were doing was trying to worship him.

And how about the little children who teased Elisha about his bald head in II Kings 2:23-24? Elisha cursed them in the name of the Lord, and two she-bears came out of the woods and tore 42 children to pieces.

He condones slavery (Exodus 21 - right after the Ten Commandments), giving rules for dealing with them - "bore his ear through with an aul...". And they're sexist rules - the men are freed after 6 years, but not the women.

But none of this offends Peter's sensibilities...

Peter,
The start of this discussion had to do with whether it was possible to discern right and wrong without the absolute moral standards of God. For you, the answer is apparently “no.” Unless, that is, you aren’t being honest, which I suspect is nearer the truth.

If someone told you that he had killed his brother’s children in front of their father, to test his brother’s love and loyalty, I think you’d be with me in thinking that he should be put away forever – maybe put to death himself, if you’re a capital punishment supporter.

Yet when God does something that you’d find repugnant and reprehensible in a human, that’s OK with you. You won’t judge him.

But you *do* judge him, Peter. When you say that he’s “good”, or “perfect”, or worthy of worship – or any of the other words of praise that you use, you *are* judging him.

And when you say that he is the giver of “absolute” standards of morality, how can that be true if he doesn’t follow them himself? That either means that the standards aren’t absolute, or it means that God is not good. It has to be one or the other.

What you seem to be telling me is that might makes right and there are no actual standards. Like little children, we’re to do what Daddy says “because I say so”, and “do as I say, not as I do.”

Sorry, Peter, but the standards of behavior that are built right into my brain are a much better yardstick than yours. If I see someone beating a 2-year-old bloody and senseless because the child said “no” when told to pick up his toys, I *know* that’s wrong. I don’t have to go look for guidance in a book, or pray to an imaginary invisible being to give me the wisdom to know whether it’s good or bad.

A sad commentary on the state of our world. But, alas, it is true. Thank you, Susan for your bravery and honesty over all these years.

Farnaz,

You still up, then? Thanks for the sageliness.

CCNL,

This is so that you can contribute to the world's welfare.

Rabbi Tarfon: “It is not incumbent upon you to finish the task, but neither are you free to neglect it."

CCNL,

This is so that you can contribute to the world's welfare.

Rabbi Tarfon: “It is not incumbent upon you to finish the task, but neither are you free to neglect it."

Peterhuff,

You to me:
"I pray to the One who has answered my prayer for mercy and given me eyes to see, ears to hear, a heart to believe. He has taken the veil of unbelief from me. And I content that you never really knew Him for if you had you would not have denied or deserted Him."

Hey, saint, glad you can confirm my unelection there. And glad too that it enables you to feel the precious "content" that is worth 95% human wastage.

Just don't forget that, Peterhuff. The presupposition of your "content" is that all the non-Calvinists here, there, and everywhere will be tortured forever. Happy heaven!

You would rather see me burn than lose your peace of mind. Let's not kick it upstairs, Peter. For all your pious proof-texting and each cheery "Hi", you personally believe it's right and good that I be worse-than-tortured.

You do...

Guess what, Peterhuff. In my unjust, topsy-turvy, universe, in which I usurp the throne of the Most High simply by saying "Hmm, not today thanks" to Paul and Calvin, you will be admitted to heaven. That's right, despite all your psychic terrorism, I will forgive you, and set you at my right hand. Of course, you do deserve a little chastening for your harshness, but nothing too severe. I reckon a year in an empty McDonalds, being force-fed pig-fat sundaes while being treated to orations of the Collected Posts of CCNL and Spidermean ought to be sufficient penance...

Sorry, there I go not taking you seriously again.

CCNL:

This is so that you can become wise:

Rabbi Ashi said, "He who hardens his heart with pride, softens his brains with the same."

I do believe I just now posted 666, which makes me the full Megatherion, having already been half a one at 333. Clearly, my anti-Calvin raps have been noticed infernally, Peterhuff.

"Pleased to meet you..."

Peterhuff,

You:
"I do not see a way for those who deny God to explain anything."

So you think that your VanTil six-shooters will shoot 'em down every time, eh Clint?

Perhaps there are ways and means you know nothing of, Peterhoratio.

Your own failure of imagination is not the last word on God.

The Calvin franchise you've bought into is a psychic Camorra, Peterhuff. Where are YOU? Why screw your mind up into a mere tight fist of dead-certainties? Why beg a hardened god for mercies he will never grant?

"I have longed to move away
From the hissing of the spent lie
And the old terrors' continual cry
Growing more terrible as the day
Goes over the hill into the deep sea..."

Dylan Thomas

CCNL,

This is to help you not to take it all so seriously, to deepen your compassion, your humanity.

Who Was Jesus?

THREE PROOFS THAT JESUS WAS MEXICAN

1. His first name was Jesus.

2. He was bilingual.

3. He was always being harassed by the authorities.

But then there were equally good arguments that...

JESUS WAS BLACK

1. He called everybody "brother."

2. He liked Gospel music.

3. He couldn't get a fair trial.

But then there were equally good arguments that...

JESUS WAS JEWISH

1. He went to His Father's business.

2. He lived at home until he was 30.

3. He was sure his Mother was a virgin and his Mother was sure he was God.

But then there were equally good arguments that...

JESUS WAS ITALIAN

1. He talked with his hands.

2. He had wine with every meal.

3. He used olive oil.

But then there were equally good arguments that...

JESUS WAS CALIFORNIAN

1. He never cut his hair.

2. He walked around barefoot.

3. He started a new religion.

But then there were equally good arguments that...

JESUS WAS IRISH

1. He never got married.

2. He was always telling stories.

3. He loved green pastures.

But then there were equally good arguments that...

JESUS WAS A WOMAN

1. He had to feed a crowd at a moment's notice when there was no food.

2. He kept trying to get the message across to a bunch of men who just didn't get it.

3. Even when He was dead, He had to get up because there was more work to do.

-Maynard Clark

Abraham

The rivulet-loving mythical Abraham
Through waterless wastes tracing his ghosts of pasture
Led his dream herds and cloudy flocks
With the meandering hollow of wavering water
That seeks and finds, yet does not know its way.
His apparition came, rested and prospered, and went on,
Scattering behind spectral little pastoral kingdoms,
And over each one its own spirit sky.

With special thanks to Edwin Muir

Thomas Baum,

If the Christian god be real as you believe, I hope he's more like yours than Peterhuff's. If the latter, I'm sure there will be an extra salting of fire for Onofrio.

Seriously, why would anyone want to augment hell-on-earth (cf. Shoah, Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur, Congo) with eternal hell? Ain't it bad enough for that perfect triplicate self-assassin in the heavenlies?

Farnaz,

"Did you say you lived in Australia?"

Yep, of the Austral Fundament, me. A problem for timely post-answering. Canada's Timmy's neck of the hemispheres. I realise it might be easy to confuse us, so entangled in tit-for-tat we've been betimes. I daresay it's cold where he be. Where I am it's 41 C right now.

Hi Peter,

YOU TO ME: As I have said in the past, and you continue to skim past it, God made Adam and Eve limited.

Peter you are blind. I most certainly did not skip past it. I addressed it directly.
If the limitation is responsible for the creation not being able to serve it's intended purpose, it is a flaw.

YOU: "That relationship was disrupted when man, with perfect freedom of will, chose to know what evil is also"
Peter, how can you chose to know something if you are unaware of it's existence. It's impossible.

YOU: "The act is what caused the perfect but limited creature to be flawed"

No, the decision precedes the act. The decision was caused by the flaw in the decision making faculties.

YOU: "Will is a choice between two desires"

According to you they only knew of one desire. "Good"

YOU: "Do you not see the measures He went through to meet His justice"

I thought he was all powerful. Seems to me he should not have to go to great measures for anything. Being all powerful should be easy as pie? No?

Farnaz,

Have a bit of a cold. Time for sleep. Too many words to read here right now.

Be well.

Pseudo,

"By the way, if you haven't read "The War Prayer" you should look it up."

Wonder if Bushie's read it yet. It should be required of all elected and appointed officials.

Pseudo,

Sorry for the double Pseudo.

Pseudo:
Pseudo,

Findin' stuff that's well clipped
but discourse ebbs

Ebbing discourse is no laughing matter. Might you, therefore, help it flow?

A dialogue religious is underway with Thomas, Peter, Onofrio in a pseudo fray. (But, alas, without Pseudo.) Pam & Spiderman2 have had a say. Won't you join this net soiree?

Thomas Baum,

Re: we should love Hitler.

I have compassion for him, and have love for all human beings. He was mentally disturbed and led a tortured life. I love bears. But if one attacked me, I would have to kill it. (If I could) I don't think Jesus meant that we should not defend our lives from peril.

I just have a different interpretation than you, Thomas, of the "love thy enemy" ideal that Jesus taught. I always felt that he was talking about individual adversaries and how you treat them in your every day dealings. In these cases, I find it to be a very powerful heart changing tool. The German people maybe could have loved Hitler out of what he was doing, but they did not, or could not, and so we had no choice but to stop him with force.

By your interpretation, the human race would never have survived to even see Hitler. My interpretation has helped me a great deal in my life.

Thomas, there are the words of Jesus, and then there are the thousands and thousands of interpretations of the words of Jesus. Did God specifically give you his interpretation of that particular teaching, or tell you which one of the hundreds of trinity based interpretations is the right one? Was your experience with God that detailed and specific?

Watching how the shell script
drags the web

Findin' stuff that's well clipped
but discourse ebbs

Hi Pseudo,

"With twenty questions and google you could identify anyone very quickly."

Not necessarily. For instance, if I asked whether you had won the 2008 Nobel Prize for economics, and received a negative reply, I'd be no nearer, even with shirlock google, to solving the Pseudo mystery.

Farnaz :-)

Daniel,

One more thing. Be careful when talking about the world coming together as one brotherhood of man. It really bothers Arminius the Christian. he knows for a fact that humans are incapable of such a thing. He can list you many reasons why it is a pipe dream. It's just not in our nature. Get a grip. ;)

HI Daniel,

Thanks for the post. I'm glad your getting some through now. It's really all about length. You haven't been breaking your posts up into paragraphs and so they are quite condensed word wise. Other posts mat look longer but they have more white space. It's just a word count issue and I'm pretty sure it's the same everyone.

YOU SAID" We should hope the scientific method spreads uniformally and all people truly become considered equal and without any racial superiority or inferiority complexes because if the scientific method does not spread and all people do not become economically and politically equal it will cut into dreams of all humans gradually melding into one race and one world people"

I have a great deal of optimism here because of the internet. It will be the great equalizer. I think one of the most important philanthropic programs out there right now is the "every child a laptop" campaign who's goal is to put a virtually indestructable wireless internet ready lap top in the hands of every child in 3rd world countries. My wife an I donated two because we think our money could not be better spent. You are correct that economic and racial equality are paramount. I strongly believe that the internet will help.

The sum total of all human wisdom is now available on line. It will soon be all available for free. And eventually it will all be available for free in well structured tutorial form. Free education for all.

We're moving in the right direction. The question is, is this snails pace at which we are moving going to be fast enough? This is why I push for people to realize the needless divisiveness caused by religions, and nationalism, and race labels. One of the most grotesque sounds to my ears is the chant USA USA USA USA! Not because I have a hate on for the US. But because it is the epitome of divisive nationalism.

People talk about the American spirit, American ingenuity. There is no such thing. There is only the human spirit, and human ingenuity. IMHO

Farnaz:

"Can you be more specific about your work?"

No. Anonymity has its place. Just for example, in the MLK poem I spoke of a sister who still lives. It is not my right to publish what she had every right to think would remain private. With twenty questions and google you could identify anyone very quickly, so the other nineteen questions will have to go unanswered.

As Mark Twain said of his great prose poem "The War Prayer":

"I have told the whole truth... and only dead men can tell the truth in this world. It can be published after I am dead."

While I make no imputation that I am the possessor of "the whole truth" the truth may be served by anonymity.

By the way, if you haven't read "The War Prayer" you should look it up. It is a short trenchant masterpiece of prose poetry. Seems like important reading for people with a theological bent.

Hmmm, and the "thumptations" continue.

So lets see: The referenced OT passages are so mythical/fictional in nature, one winces at their publication i.e. Jewish scribes/priests and prophets/fortune tellers writing to impress the Jewish peasants and to keep them giving at the temple.

And then there is John 3: 17-18

As per Father Raymond Brown, NT and RCC approved exegete:

" [The Gospel according to John. Anchor Bible 20. pp. 135-37] provides a typically cautious introduction to these issues in general and this case in particular:

Historicity
When we try to think of this scene occurring in the ministry of Jesus, there are many problems that must be faced, not the least of which is setting.

Matt 1:23

Bruce Chilton

"In Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography (2000), Chilton develops the idea of Jesus as a mamzer; someone whose irregular birth circumstances result in their exclusion from full participation in the life of the community. He argues for the natural paternity of Joseph and finds no need for a miraculous conception. In his subsequent reconstruction of Jesus' life, Chilton suggests that this sustained personal experience of exclusion played a major role in Jesus' self-identity, his concept of God and his spiritual quest."

Gerd Lüdemann

"Lüdemann [Jesus, 122-24] presents four (4) reasons for regarding the miraculous conception of Jesus as unhistorical: (1) Numerous parallels in the history of religion; (2) it represents a rare and late NT tradition; (3) Synoptic descriptions of Jesus' relations with his family are inconsistent with such an event; and (4) scientific considerations.

Lüdemann [Jesus, 261-63] discounts Luke's account as a legend deriving from Jewish Hellenistic circles that were concerned to hold together the procreation of the Spirit, the authentic sonship of the Messiah and the virginal conception.

John P.Meier

"Meier [Marginal Jew I,220-22] discusses the virginal conception as part of his larger chapter on Jesus' origins. He earlier notes that both infancy narratives "seem to be largely the product of Christian reflection on the salvific meaning of Jesus Christ in the light of OT prophecies (p. 213). "

Peter wrote to Farnaz: "the perfect sacrifice achieving what the sacrifice of bulls and goats could never do - satisfy the justice of God for sin".

How does sacrificing yourself to yourself atone for the sins of man? That's no sacrifice at all for them.

When a man sacrificed his livestock, he was depriving himself and his family of the meat and the possible genetic contribution to his herd, of those "unblemished" animals. It was an actual *sacrifice*. But Jesus dying on the cross? Most of the population wouldn't have even *known* about that. No skin off their noses. Where's the sacrifice?

Was it that *God* was supposed to be more impressed with his own sacrifice than he was with the sacrifice of the lambs? Why? Many people have undergone far worse torture than what Jesus is supposed to have suffered. And they stayed dead. Big deal, when you only have to be dead for three days, and then you're hale and hearty again.

Peter,
ME: What about the example of Job, which you didn't address. Job was a good and pious man. The word "perfect" is even used. He didn't deserve to have his life destroyed and his nine children killed. And why did God do it? It was to settle a bet with Satan, that no matter how he mistreated Job, Job would not curse him. A BET!!

PETER: "You are trying to charge God with wrongdoing".

Damn straight. Only because that's what it is.

"What right do you have to charge your Maker with wrongdoing?"

He's not my maker, he's a fictional character. I was made by my parents, and all of the ancestors that preceded them, back to the first living cell. And the right I have comes from my ability to know right from wrong, as conferred on me by those of the aforementioned ancestors that lived socially.

PETER: "You nor I know whether Job's family members were believers (but Job being a righteous man, I'm betting they were) and therefore saved from the ultimate death by God's mercy in granting eternal life. That is grace. If not then it is God's right to punish evil for ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. That is justice".

And all this is supposed to make Job feel better?? Have you ever lost someone close to you, Peter? Do you know how it feels?? And how would it feel if you were to find out that your wife and children were killed by a house collapsing on them, so that God could win a bet that it wouldn't make you dislike him? Would it make it all better if he then gave you a replacement wife, and she had replacement children?

Not to mention that you have God meting out justice on Earth, by killing. Do you think that's what happens? And if so, why do good people die young and under horrible circumstances, too? Innocent children?

PETER: "Every one of us is going to die, but for the Christian there is no sting in death. To die is to be with the Lord".

Funny, I see Christians clinging just as fiercely to life as any others - and crying just as hard over the deaths of loved ones.

PETER: "God is teaching us a lesson on whom to ultimately trust, even when faced with trials and death and the worst of circumstances".

But God is the one who deliberately *caused* these deaths and terrible circumstances - to win a BET. You should then TRUST him??

Peter, to the extent that you believe this utter horror, you are as monstrous as your god.

SPIDERMAN2

You wrote, "onofre, there are things that we can't answer. I myself wish there exist no hell but it's there. What do you think is a wise thing to do? Rebel against the rules and fry?"

First off, you are confusing hell and the lake of fire.

Hell is not some kind of monolithic place where God slings people, if one were to die and wake up in hell they would realize that they built it themself and they would also realize that they have no one else to blame but themself.

Jesus won the keys and He will use them in due time.

As I have said so many times: God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.

There is no brown nosing God, He is not the ego-maniac that some think that He is.

You said, "Rebel against the rules and fry", you honestly do not have a clue about Jesus and what He said or did, do you?

After I met God, I noticed the phrase "Fear of the Lord" quite often in referring to many things and since I wondered why anyone should be afraid of God, I looked up that phrase and the meaning is "Reverence and awe of God" not to be afraid of Him.

God has a Plan which is for ALL OF HUMANITY to be in His Kingdom and if God was even remotely like you think that He is, then I would not want to have anything to do with Him but He is not the scumball that you think that He is.

God is a BEING OF PURE LOVE.

You know God's Name but from what you write, that is all that you know about God.

I guess that one could say that the lake of fire is God's ultimate cleaning apparatus.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

To Timmy, continuing with my last post about your love of reason, the scientific method, John Dewey, whether or not there is a method which can be taught to students which will lead to original thought. While no doubt intuition, emotion, gifts and talents not easily able to be reduced to simple, understandable reason have played and still play a major part in human advance, with the introduction of the scientific method it seems man has not only established a foundation for sound reason, he has jumped forward in capacity for original thought.

The scientific method was born in the West and did not arise anywhere else--not even China for all her introduction of gunpowder, paper, etc. (China for all her brilliance has obviously remained quite static over all those centuries following major inventions such as gunpowder and paper). The scientific method has enabled the West to leap forward dramatically--the fastest and most thorough rise in all of history. I suppose racialists might counter and say that it was not so much the scientific method which has caused the West to leap forward, but rather that the West is more genetically, racially advanced than all other peoples. But if the racialists were correct it should be difficult to export the scientific method to other peoples. But then again for all the universality of the scientific method it seems that exporting to other peoples cannot simply be characterized as easy. Japan took to the scientific method rapidly, but many parts of the world seem not able to apply it even after having it explained to them thoroughly. We should hope the scientific method spreads uniformally and all people truly become considered equal and without any racial superiority or inferiority complexes because if the scientific method does not spread and all people do not become economically and politically equal it will cut into dreams of all humans gradually melding into one race and one world people.

I have to go now, the post is getting long. Let us see if it will get through. I have no idea why so many other people are allowed to get long posts through on this site. This site cuts me off after a certain limit of words and I have to feel for the cutoff point.

Farnaz:

"I'm quite surprised to hear that you just started writing poetry for this blog. Do you mean to say you never wrote it before?"

Yes. I did start writing poetry for his blog, and no, I did not write much of it before. Other than a couple of rather colorful limericks that cannot be published here because of the filters, and the bounds of good taste. %-}

Farnaz,

Agreed, I hope this conversation continues. To witness two very polite and very sincere Christians, with very different viewpoints, discussing, is a treat. And Onofrio's contributions just make it better. I am, of course, much more in agreement with Thomas Baum.

Hi to Timmy and Pam from Daniel.

Pam first--ladies first. Yes Pam on your last post to me I was talking about genetic engineering, the possibility of augmenting certain senses far beyond what we have today and arriving at something like actual eagle eyes, dog ears, dog noses. As for whether or not it will be ethical, I suspect if man is able to do it he will do it whether it can be ethically achieved or not. Most countries in the world are not of the ethics of the U.S.

To Timmy. Timmy, you will be glad to know that by sheer coincidence I am reading a writer who argues soundly for your point of view--the exaltation of reason. Furthermore he argues persuasively that there is a method which can be taught in school which will lead to original thought (countering in my arguments with you my assertion that there is no such method and that we still largely move by intuition and chance and emotion, etc.). The writer is John Dewey and the book education and democracy. Dewey points out what I obviously should have thought about if I were not so rash: That with the introduction of scientific thought--the scientific method--man's capacity for original invention and discovery has taken a major leap forward...Dewey also points out that for all the value of artistic invention artistic invention is too much based on personal characteristics which cannot be taught to people unlike the scientific method. The scientific method is the method above all others which allows for widespread ability toward original thought--where scientific thought goes culture not only advances but transforms out of superstitiousness and the sheer accidents of life.

Have to go now. Hope this post goes through....

Pseudo,

Sorry! Wrote Pseud, meant to write Pseudo.

Farnaz

pseud:

"Farnaz:

As to what I write for my day job, some abstruse scientific papers that perhaps a hundred people will ever read, and if I am lucky maybe six will understand and find really useful. Also some absolutely stultifying documentation for numerically intensive computer algorithms to go with the scientific papers.

That is why I learned to write poetry on this blog for a goof. Just a different and less confining form of expression, and a good medium for theological discussions."

I'm quite surprised to hear that you just started writing poetry for this blog. Do you mean to say you never wrote it before?

Throughout my career, and in my readings, I have been continually impressed by the ability of scientists to write. IMHO, it has something to do with their highly developed observational skills, denotative use of language, visual skills.

Some year ago, I taught in a coordinated college program in which some of the entering students invariably declared themselves to be pre-med. I made a bet with our bio. instructor that I could identify these students strictly on the basis of their required placement essays (essays they wrote on site to evaluate their overall writing skills). We generally had fewer than 100 applicants so the task of attempting to identify the pre-meds wasn't so difficult. We "played this game," she and I, for six semester.

My score was near 100%. Some of these former pre-meds are currently publishing articles in popular magazines on all kinds of topics.
_____________________________

Can you be more specific about your work?

Farnaz

OROFRIO

At the end of your reply to Peter Huff you wrote, "You say all this is serious, no laughing matter, and that anyway, have I got any better presuppositions. I don't need some sort of competing Correct Worldview to know that your system of belief, and formerly my own, is very ugly. And Hell - hideous as it is - is only part of that ugliness.

Peter, you pray to a monster that makes Molech seem mild."

What Peter Huff seems to believe and what you say that you used to believe is sad to say, what quite a few "Christians" seem to believe.

I have met God and God is not the crudball, vile loser piece of garbage that some think and what is even worse, that some want Him to be.

We will all be judged, knowing God's Name is not some kind of "get out of jail free card" as some liken it to be.

It is beyond me how anyone could think of God the way that some do and call this a God of Love and Mercy, what a crock?

Divine Justice and Divine Mercy go hand in hand, two sides of the same coin so to speak.

Just because some know God's Name does not mean that they speak for Him.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Onofrio,

Re: Film works of great literature, also not so great.

Have you seen Julie Taymor's "Titus" (1999)? Apologies to the bard, but it was far better than the play, was a masterpiece. Rentable and purchasable.

Did you say you lived in Australia? I seem to recall your having said you live in the UK. Canada?

At all events, there is a Blockbusters UK as you know, Amazon UK. Here's a link that includes the latter.

http://danny.oz.au/books/amazon.html

I watched this film the way I sometimes read great works of literature, unconsciously holding my breath, literally not breathing for periods of time--It was so magnificent, visionary in some ways. Almost unbearable for what it says about language, consciousness, etc.

Thomas Baum, Peter Huff, Onofrio,

I find these posts on the place, the understanding, the construction of Jews in Christianity very enlightening. I thank you for them and hope you will continue discussion on this topic for awhile.

Thanks!

Farnaz :)

PETERHUFF

You wrote, "in which because of your peoples disobedience to His will, He included all the peoples of the earth in this New Covenant"

Do you really think that it wasn't already in God's Plan to include ALL OF HUMANITY which God has had since before creation? God does not change His Plan in mid-stream, so to speak, His Plan is unfolding before our very eyes and it is God's Will that ALL BE SAVED, maybe we should, at the least, pray for God's Will just like Jesus, God-Incarnate, taught us in the Lord's Prayer or the Our Father whichever you wish to call it.

Also you referred to the Jews as "your peoples", it just so happens that the Jews were and are the Chosen People considering that the Jews were chosen and formed by God, God did not throw the Jews away, quite the contrary it is written down, even if quite a few "Christians" thru the ages have been, shall we say, not even close to being Christian.

Then you wrote, " the perfect sacrifice achieving what the sacrifice of bulls and goats could never do - satisfy the justice of God for sin. Since sin entered the world through one man, it was by man, the Second Adam, that sin would have to be atoned for."

I think you might have a typo or something near the end of this but my question is: Is Jesus the Saviour of the world or not?

You also wrote, "What is done "in the name of Christ" does not necessarily reflect what He instructed and taught, although it should. That is where atheists so often get entangled, by Christians or professors of the Word who live contrary to it."

Also what is said "in the name of God" by some who have not been called to speak for Him is meaningless.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hi DMZ1 (January 5, 2009 8:19 AM),

DMZ1: "I am very glad to hear that you are not a reconstructionist or dominionist. I was also impressed by your open response to Onofrio's direct question. Your recommendation of Greg Bahnsen was what got me started - he is a reconstructionist."

I like the presuppositional argument that Van Til and Bahnsen presented. I do not see a way for those who deny God to explain anything. I think their teaching on this is more effective in speaking to the unbeliever, for the Evidential or Classical argument is a matter of he says/she says. Although the Evidential argument does not contradict God's Word when presented correctly, it still is a source of debate that will not bring the unbeliever to question their basic presuppostions of why things are the way they are, how they know they are and what difference it make.

Part 3

ONOFRIO: " You're begging your god to save people from...himself, on the basis of his own torture of an aspect of his own being - the "son". That amounts to: God tortured himself, so that he could be justified in torturing most of us, and giving the rest the opportunity to adore him forever for his self-torture. And anyway, how does a weekend excursion into death by the Second Person of the Trinity compare to the myriad agonies of the damned he was supposed to have "paid" for?"

He [the Son] paid for those who would believe in the substitutionary atonement and propitiation. God the Son became human for the purpose of meeting God's justice for His creatures and revealing to mankind more of His nature. "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form. (Colossians 2:9; see also Hebrews 1:1-3 and Philippians 2:6-11 or John 1:14 if you are at all interested in the Biblical explanation) But it was the Man who died for God is eternal life and He cannot die.

ONOFRIO: "You say all this is serious, no laughing matter, and that anyway, have I got any better presuppositions. I don't need some sort of competing Correct Worldview to know that your system of belief, and formerly my own, is very ugly. And Hell - hideous as it is - is only part of that ugliness."

It is ugly to you because you are hiding from God in your unrighteousness (Romans 1:18; 8:7)

ONOFRIO: "Peter, you pray to a monster that makes Molech seem mild."

No I don't. I pray to the One who holds the power of life and death in His hands! I pray to the One who has answered my prayer for mercy and given me eyes to see, ears to hear, a heart to believe. He has taken the veil of unbelief from me. And I content that you never really knew Him for if you had you would not have denied or deserted Him.

Part Two,

ONOFRIO: "And how could a being of infinite power and perfection be so offended by sin anyway, as if it could harm him? It's his universe....What he's planning to do, in his infinite mercy and power, to billions of finite creatures of his own devising, simply to express a character trait - holiness, righteousness, whatever - is obscene."

He is offended because His nature is pure and good, without evil. He KNOWS what is best. You do not always know or you don't care. He does. His mercy is infinite to those He saves. To the rest, they receive the just punishment for the wrongs. That is justice, in that the offense is punished either in His Son or in you.

ONOFRIO: "It's worse than any torment inflicted by any human on any other human at any time for any reason. And it's eternal."

Sin and wrongdoing will be separated from what is right and good, otherwise you will have more of what you have today - man's inhumanity to man.

ONOFRIO: "You say you pray to your god that he opens people to his mercy, to save them from the eternal consequences of their sin through the gospel. But in a universe in which this god is sovereign, the consequences, the very potential for sin itself, must also be his own work."

God does not sin. The creature sins when it, of its own volition does what is contrary to good. Please see my latest four part response to Timmy on the previous forum,

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/2008/12/obamas_religious_inaugural_blu/all_comments.html

Hi Onofrio (January 5, 2009 8:08 AM),

ONOFRIO: "I am happy to learn of your revulsion, Peterhuff, though I did expect it. Let's be frank, over 95% of humanity - the non-elect - will probably be consigned to this place you want no one to go, since relatively few people find (or are elected to) your narrow path. C S Lewis had a rather charming take on the whole thing in 'The Great Divorce', showing that people in the vast, boring suburb of Hell all actually want to be there, and God simply gives them what they demand. Sort of humane and amusing. But that's more fanciful than NT biblical, ain't it?"

The revulsion is over sin, both in me and in others. I agree with C.S. Lewis. Your natural self does not want to submit to God and His goodness. You want to call your own shots, to be the master of your own fate, decide what you will accept as good as you determine it. So unless God reaches to you through His Word and by His Spirit, you will get what you sort after all your life - separation from God with all other unbelievers. (Romans 8:5-8) You need a new nature, a nature that is open to God.

What you want is a judge who will excuse your wrongs without concern for justice. Let's look at it from a human perspective. If a human judge does not punish criminal activity but let's the criminal go free without exerting justice, the criminal is free to continue doing what is wrong and harmful to others. He may be merciful to the criminal, but is he just? Is he loving if he let's someone continue to harm others without consequence?

That is not the kind of Person God is. But in His mercy He meets His justice in His Son and provides the criminal with a new nature and righteousness so that the penalty and power of sin is looked after for eternity. That is why those who believe "in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." (John 3:17-18)

ONOFRIO: "Why worship a god who finds it necessary to treat other people in a way you hate? (Strange that God should be bound by such necessities in the first place) You say he's fulfilling both perfect love and perfect justice."

I don't hate justice. I hate the sin I do and others do. It is what is harmful to love and goodness. But I have a Representative and Substitute who has paid the penalty on my behalf. As it stands right now do you, or will you pay the penalty yourself? This Savior also saves me from the power of sin. It does no longer have its death grip over me.

Wow, the "bible thumpers" are out in force today!! Too bad the "thumpers" don't spend more time determining the validity of their "thumptations"!!!

Hi Onofrio and Farnaz2 (January 5, 2009 6:49 AM),

FARNAZ2: "Hence, I could convert to Christianity tomorrow and to every Christian, I would still be a Jew."

As were the apostles and early disciples for the Messiah's human lineage was Jewish and to those He came.

"Christians racialized Jews, in a way that they have racialized no other group."

"He was in the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him. He came to His OWN, but His own did not receive Him. Yet to all who received Him, to those who believed in His name, [Jesus, for He WILL save His people from their sin - Matthew 1:23] He gave the right to become children of God - children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husbands will, but born of God."

"I speak the truth in Christ - I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit - I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the HUMAN ANCESTRY OF CHRIST, who is God over all, forever praised!" Amen. It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, 'It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.' In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring." (Romans 9:1-8)

As a Jew Farnaz, you do not recognize the promised Messiah is Jesus Christ (a descendant of Abraham by His human lineage), your hope of salvation, the ONE Mediator between man and God (Isaiah 53; Psalm 22 and especially Hebrews 7:13-10:18).

Your entire Hebrew Scriptures are a progressive revelation of this Messiah from God's first dealing with mankind, when He created man, to the covenants He made with Adam, Abraham, Moses and Israel up until the New Testament, in which because of your peoples disobedience to His will, He included all the peoples of the earth in this New Covenant - the perfect sacrifice achieving what the sacrifice of bulls and goats could never do - satisfy the justice of God for sin. Since sin entered the world through one man, it was by man, the Second Adam, that sin would have to be atoned for.

ONOFRIO: "In response - An undisciplined rap on a mindset/heartset that is still endemic, or, how demonisation of the Jews has proven inevitable for Christendom."

What is done "in the name of Christ" does not necessarily reflect what He instructed and taught, although it should. That is where atheists so often get entangled, by Christians or professors of the Word who live contrary to it.

SPIDERMAN2

Jesus, God-Incarnate, said, "My Kingdom is not of this world".

The seventh day will come and it is God's Will that ALL BE SAVED.

God's Plan is unfolding before our very eyes and God is on "our" side. By the way "our" means HUMANITY, not just some but ALL.

The new heavens and the new earth, God's Kingdom, which will arrive on the seventh day, of course, night is coming, but the dawning of the seventh day will just as surely arrive. The captives shall be freed and the dead shall rise.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

The president and majority of the people of the most powerful nation on earth are Christians. The U.S will continue to rule and inherit this world for a very long time as the prophecy foretold.

It may dim its light for a moment because of the stupidity (evolution and atheism) within it but it would be only temporary.

Paul's prophecy is accurate. Who would have thought that his prophecy would be fulfilled when in his time, they were being hunted and persecuted?

What an accurate book. THINK AND PONDER.

TIMMY2

You wrote, "Hi Pam,

YOU: As for "love your enemies" and "love your neighbor as yourself", I'm with Hitchens - these are simply impossible (oh, you can *pretend* to...)

Here we disagree. You can more than pretend to. You can reason your way clear to it being in your best interest. Not with Hitler."

Jesus said, "Love your enemies", He did not say pick some of your enemies and love them.

So it seems by your own admission that you agree with Pam and Hitchens, watering down what Jesus clearly said, does not change what Jesus said.

And also by your own admission, you are saying that reason alone will not take you to apply what Jesus said, not the watered-down version, to your life.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

God will forgive everything we've done if we just say sorry. Is taht a hard thing to do? Is that a mean God? Of course not. He loves the humble but punishes the proud.

Just say sorry. It is not that hard.

c ya later guys.

Spidermean,

"Paul said that true Christians will inherit this world. Is it not already happening?

THINK AND PONDER about it."

I thought, pondered even.

World as Saddleback...the desire of ages! Ready to receive the divine behind, leather amply warmed by Rick Warren.

Giddyup.

"The Apostles said about many things that Jesus said, "These are hard sayings", did they not? "

Actually they did not!!! (unless you are using some strange NT)

Spidermean,

You to me:
"You have no idea what you're dealing with."

O Mean Spider, I have a pretty good idea. I met plenty such bullies in elementary school.

You're clearly frightened and bitter. Why would a bully god care for you? He destroys a million hapless universes merely to heat up his barbecue of souls. Do you think he'll even notice your "humility", in his epic, sovereign nonchalance?

It's ironic that you guys are articulate but don't have the mindset to absorb knowledge and truth.

Just think about it. What is the odds of a person saying something today and would actually happen 2,000 years later? Even Nostradamus is not that accurate.

Israel would be the center of the coming world upheaval. Aint that in the prophecy?

Paul said that true Christians will inherit this world. Is it not already happening?

THINK AND PONDER about it.

Frederic,

Thank you for your punctuated admiration. Coming from you, sir, that's high praise indeed.

Personally, I'm not as averse to the ceremonial bells-and-smells as you are. Nought awry with a devout rite qua rite. It's the ideology behind, beneath, and around that draws my evil eye. In the case of Christianity, there are stains that seem well nigh indelible.

Part of the reason why I find eternal Hell so objectionable is its potential for actualisation on this earth. It's no accident that the worst-ever wars and ideologies have been waged and spawned in Europe, where non-negotiable Hellfire has burned in minds and - sometimes on stakes - for centuries. And of course the clearest evidence that implacable Hells do not just stay in imaginations is that of the Shoah.

I don't think Peterhuff would ever be tempted to enact his calmly-held nightmare beliefs, but the potential is always there if ever a critical mass of such believers obtains significant political power - i.e. the outgoing Bush administration.

If Huff only knew: nothing incubates and hatches trenchant atheism quite so effectively as the Calvinism he champions.

You have no idea what you're dealing with.

"But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!

Onofrio, there are no answers to your questions but let me give you my two cents worth. God is mean to those who are mean to him and very gracious to those who are humble before him.

Just say sorry and he'll forget everything. If not, he's the meanest you can find.

Farnaz:

As to what I write for my day job, some abstruse scientific papers that perhaps a hundred people will ever read, and if I am lucky maybe six will understand and find really useful. Also some absolutely stultifying documentation for numerically intensive computer algorithms to go with the scientific papers.

That is why I learned to write poetry on this blog for a goof. Just a different and less confining form of expression, and a good medium for theological discussions.

PAMSM

You wrote, "As for "love your enemies" and "love your neighbor as yourself", I'm with Hitchens - these are simply impossible (oh, you can *pretend* to...) -"

The Apostles said about many things that Jesus said, "These are hard sayings", did they not?

And you continued, "and if you believe that God asked this of you, then you have to believe that he set you up to fail."

What may seem to be failure in the eyes of the world is not necessarily failure in the eyes of God. Something to think about.

God has a Plan and has had His Plan since before creation and His Plan is unfolding before our very eyes.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

True Christians believe in this Bible verse :

"I will bless them who bless you, and curse them who curse you"

It is stupidity on the part of Jews who think that true Christians hates Jews.

Catholicsim is NOT Christianity, just in case you don't know.

Spidermean, Spleen Aerator and Font of Bile,

Mean Spider, your god is a Mean Spider. If he can't take a few wayward rants on a message board, in his glorious aseity, then he has forsaken grace and magnanimity and screwed himself up into a pathetic wee mouse-squeak - no god at all. Now why would he go and do that?

Frederick2, the Bible is a very intelligent book. If one undertands its prophecies, he/she would be awed by how accurate it is as we see how world events unfold.

Israel would be the center of world upheaval. Aint that in the prophecy?

What did evolution teach you about the future. Idiocy?

Farnaz:

As for "Pseudo, Pseudo, Pseudo", think of Cary Grant's "Judy, Judy, Judy" to get the intended intonation. %-}

onofre, there are things that we can't answer. I myself wish there exist no hell but it's there. What do you think is a wise thing to do? Rebel against the rules and fry?

Like in any society, it is much easier to obey the rules than break it. You are making yourself a fool by complaining against the One who can offer you gifts or wrath. It's your choice.

Don't you think it is wiser to obey first and then ask later? Especially if there is no second chance if one chooses to rebel first.

Onofrio, I checked out for a while. I "admire" your seriousness in the discussion with Peter Huff. Personally I can't stand it. The unctuous, self-referential bible-quoting prayer mill sermons of the creationist Peter Huff, defying, scorning even the slightest shade of probability, is another good example corroborating your point re Farnaz' statement about "racialization".

Such world views don't even pretend to have any similarity with reality. Strangely, the hatred (symbolized by "hell") distilled from these idiosyncrasies, however, is an all too tangible reality!

Once such a mindset is established, the desperate attempt is obvious to save it from any draft of fresh air, doubt, common sense, and yes, again, reason. (Luther: Reason=Satan, q.e.d.)

All the theater, the circus-like rituals such as priests' dresses, holy smoke, the sensuous wrap-up using luxury, pictures, music, smell, even body movement intends to engulf the unwary "believer". The trinity fable, forced belief in the unbelievable, transubstantiation etc. and worst, a pseudo-historical "rationalization" of Jew hatred in the context Farnaz describes - it all boils down to a Freudian "projection" of the strongly felt doubt, that the whole religious setup might in reality be a debunked scam, in view of todays available thinking and observing possibilities, galaxies away from what was available when the myths were created by the ignorant priest castes of yore.

Spidermean,

You:
"onofrio, has it occurred to you that there are things God cannot change"

Oh indeed it has, Mean Spider! I hope so, or otherwise he's in big trouble from me for not doing more to help around the house. If he's simply divinely incapacitated, then I forgive him.

Seriously now, if god is thus constrained, then the whole notion of his omnipotence comes into question, which prompts copious theological pants-wetting among classical theists, and prompts Calvinists to pose augustly with their Institutes and uphold some "high view" or other.

Seems like your god is a desperado madly warning people of the wrath to come. A lot like you really. But hold on there - didn't he MAKE the wrath to come? So why's he warning about it?

Hi Farnaz,

Re your post to me, way back before creole, jews with horns, and hot rooms:

"I haven't seen Veldt. Fairly recent?"
I must have mispelled the name; it's te Velde, publ. Brill, Leiden 1977. Especially germane to this thread thus far are pp.32-46. It has been a while since I read the book in detail, but it's pretty much the definitive study of Seth.

"Somewhere, I have what must be a disintegrated copy of Griffithes, "The conflict of Horus and Seth from Egyptian and Classical Sources." "
All your formidable erudition, and there's even room for a little egyptology (if disintegrated)! I salute!

Btw., "The Contending" is actually on the web.(Did you know?)
Aye

Re Beowulf et al:
I deliberately avoided the recent cartoon, knowing I just wouldn't enjoy it. Very jaded these days, me. I have a sort of teenage nostalgia for Beowulf and his monstrous foes. The Wanderer is the more moving poem, I agree. I did thrill-and-cathart to Branagh's Hamlet, indeed, I like all his Bard films. I'm currently trawling through old BBC Shakespeare on DVD, sampling such unfamiliar Bard (to me) as Cymbeline and As You Like It. Haven't seen the Titus you cite, but have heard rumour of its splendour. If you praise, then I'll mark it for future view.

"Are you a writer, Onofrio? A poet? A teacher?"
None fully, though I hack at each. First two are strictly bottom drawer, perhaps forever. Latter - mostly loitering on the margins of academe, a hieroglyphic privateer, knowing Middle Egyptian well enough to be let loose on postgrads. That's it, linguistically - a one-trick pony. For crust - dull catalogue keyboardery a la bookshop. All told, a mere flaneur.

Am an attendant lord...full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse...Thanks for even venturing that I might be something more substantial :)

onofrio, has it occurred to you that there are things God cannot change and that the best way to warn the people of the coming eternal damnation is to send Himself in person even at the cost of Himself hanging at the cross?

Peter Huff:

I am very glad to hear that you are not a reconstructionist or dominionist. I was also impressed by your open response to Onofrio's direct question. Your recommendation of Greg Bahnsen was what got me started - he is a reconstructionist.

Peterhuff,

You to me:
"I hate the idea of people being thrown into the Lake of Fire and separated from God for all eternity. It is a place I would not want anyone to visit, let alone stay. That is why the gospel message is so important."

I am happy to learn of your revulsion, Peterhuff, though I did expect it. Let's be frank, over 95% of humanity - the non-elect - will probably be consigned to this place you want no one to go, since relatively few people find (or are elected to) your narrow path. C S Lewis had a rather charming take on the whole thing in 'The Great Divorce', showing that people in the vast, boring suburb of Hell all actually want to be there, and God simply gives them what they demand. Sort of humane and amusing. But that's more fanciful than NT biblical, ain't it?

Why worship a god who finds it necessary to treat other people in a way you hate? (Strange that God should be bound by such necessities in the first place) You say he's fulfilling both perfect love and perfect justice. But how is 95% wastage just, or loving? Is that really the best an all-perfect kosmokrator can do? And how could a being of infinite power and perfection be so offended by sin anyway, as if it could harm him? It's his universe. Why order things so that 95% of his own image-bearers end up ETERNALLY revolting to him? (Must hate himself) To me, that god's a hyperpsychopath. What he's planning to do, in his infinite mercy and power, to billions of finite creatures of his own devising, simply to express a character trait - holiness, righteousness, whatever - is obscene. It's worse than any torment inflicted by any human on any other human at any time for any reason. And it's eternal.

You say you pray to your god that he opens people to his mercy, to save them from the eternal consequences of their sin through the gospel. But in a universe in which this god is sovereign, the consequences, the very potential for sin itself, must also be his own work. You're begging your god to save people from...himself, on the basis of his own torture of an aspect of his own being - the "son". That amounts to: God tortured himself, so that he could be justified in torturing most of us, and giving the rest the opportunity to adore him forever for his self-torture. And anyway, how does a weekend excursion into death by the Second Person of the Trinity compare to the myriad agonies of the damned he was supposed to have "paid" for?

You say all this is serious, no laughing matter, and that anyway, have I got any better presuppositions. I don't need some sort of competing Correct Worldview to know that your system of belief, and formerly my own, is very ugly. And Hell - hideous as it is - is only part of that ugliness.

Peter, you pray to a monster that makes Molech seem mild.

Re Farnaz'

"Hence, I could convert to Christianity tomorrow and to every Christian, I would still be a Jew.

Christians racialized Jews, in a way that they have racialized no other group."

In response - An undisciplined rap on a mindset/heartset that is still endemic, or, how demonisation of the Jews has proven inevitable for Christendom.

In the psychic matrix of Christendom, Jews become embodied refutations of Christian core beliefs, i.e. resurrection and parousia. The eternal, spiritualised, approved Jewish victim (because tortured to death) Jesus Christ, is trumped by all these living, breathing Jews who are indifferent to his supposedly irresistable charisma, and remain independent of the dogmas and institutions representing him. The great angst of Christendom - doubt/loss of "faith" - is stirred up by the continued vitality of so many "Pharisees", who have survived Jesus' reputedly definitive refutation and Roman obliterations. Culpable non-Pauls. Their presence becomes a reminder, a shadow, of Christ's absence, his long-time-coming; it disturbs the settled sediment-sentiment that he will eventually make all things right. The angst - a matter of eternal life and death - is absolutised and projected onto the inadvertent catalysts.

Since whole systematic theologies can be built on a text here, a text there, it is no wonder that abomination can subsist on a few shreds of Greek. There are enough references to Jewish culpability in the tale of Christ's demise to feed the most virulent Judeophobia, a lean beast that can flourish on a very meagre diet indeed.

The spectre of Christendom's collective psyche - the duty to avenge the victim, Faith, embodied in the Crucified.

Yes, Christendom treats its Faith like a sick waif which can subsist only by means of the life support system of impregnable dogmas. The mere existence of the Jews - alternative, non-divine Christs - renders potentially counterfeit the vast edifices around that tender naif, simply by raising a doubt that cannot be theologised away. For it is not an idea; it is living bodies.

Christendom's problem: How to refute lives?

The angst of fatal doubt, its projection onto the Jews, the ideological demonisation of the Jews - all these have been so gouged into Christendom that they have even survived the modern demise of Christ.

Got to go to bed now. Tomorrow's going to be a powder day.

To be continued.

Can you weigh in on my question about the "one race" thing?

Farnaz,

"They did not construct sex between men as consensual. It was rape by definition, rape in our sense.

Exactly why we have nothing to learn from the men who wrote those words. How does that verse teach anything of value? Why is it not in the trash bin with Mine Kampf?

YOU: "Further, nothing is clear."

YOU: "IT WAS NOT ABOUT CONSENSUAL SEX"

So which is it. Are you clear or not?

YOU: Suffice it to say, that when you read an ancient text, you are not reading The New York Times.

Suffice it to say, I knew that already.

Farnaz,

"Do you see? So how then can you find an ancient text clear, which you are reading in modern translation! I do not find it clear, and I'm reading it in Hebrew.

Really? You seemed pretty clear when you wrote "IT'S NOT ABOUT CONSENSUAL SEX" in caps.
Why use caps on a statement you are unclear about?

Which is it. Are you clear, or not?

Timmy,

Farnaz,

"I Still need more context. "
Of course you need more context. Good! That's the point. I could mean, "Please open the window."

Do you see? So how then can you find an ancient text clear, which you are reading in modern translation! I do not find it clear, and I'm reading it in Hebrew. Time, place, context, writer, intended reader, reader, etc. all work together to make meaning.

t's pretty easy to make rape a sin punishable by death. But the verse says nothing about rape. It's about consensual sex."

You can see "The Contendings of Horus and Seth," which Onofrio mentions. Use google. It's on the web.

They did not construct sex between men as consensual. It was rape by definition, rape in our sense. Hence, it would be confusing for them to have called it rape. They would have read it as a prohibition against "rape, rape." REdundant.

Further, nothing is clear. The Bible was not published in its totality and distributed evenly at various times across a unified body of land. Further, much of Leviticus is judged from other texts to have been exhortation. Get it?

Nothing is clear. Prohibitions about seeing this or that person in their nakedness are in dispute, even today. Many people, I among them, interpret them to refer to sex. The reasons concern phrases around them.

But, this isn't something I want to spend a lot of time on. Suffice it to say, that when you read an ancient text, you are not reading The New York Times.

Farnaz,

I Still need more context.

If you say "It's hot in here" out of the blue, and I notice that the room temperature seems a little high for human comfort, I will assume you were referring to that.

However if this comment follows an uncomfortable moment between some of the people in the room, and you tug on your collar as you say it, I would assume you were referring to the uncomfortable air in the room.

If the other people in the room are sexy babes, I might assume you were referring to their "hotness".

FARNAZ2: "Suppose, I say to you, "It's hot in here."
What am I communicating?"

It depends on the context, but if that was the extent of your conversation and you were trying to communicate effectively then it would be a comment on the temperature in relation to you and the room.

Good night!

PeterHuff:

Here's the Wikipedia link for the Vulgate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate

Farnaz

Timmy,

Forget the joke. You and I, and perhaps a couple of other people are sitting in a living room.

Suppose, I say to you, "It's hot in here."

What am I communicating?

Hi Farnaz2,

FARNAZ@: "As a result of Jerome's Vulgate, Jews were depicted as having horns and still are, as devils, in other words. This led to progroms, the largest recorded beginning with the first crusade."

Let me look into it.

FARNAZ2: "Jerome's rendering, the notion of horns spread throughout Europe, all the way to Russia. It led to mass murder."

When are we talking, WWII or before?

Farnaz,

"NO, IT ISN'T ABOUT CONSENSUAL SEX"

Caps don't work on me. Prove it.
It sure sounds like it's about consensual sex. "Lie with another man as with a woman".

How the hell do you read rape into that?
How do you know it was not about consensual sex?
Why not just say "rape", or "Forced"?
Why not make it clear?

I think they did make it clear. Gay sex = stoned to death because God says so.

YOU: Timmy, suppose, I say to you, "It's hot in here." What am I communicating?

Hot in where? In what context are you saying this to me?

And no, I'm not scrolling through 500 posts to find a flying saucer reference. Enjoy your joke. I don't care what it means.

Hi Pamsm,

PAM: "Let me ask you something - are there not things that God does in the Bible that offend your sense of right and wrong?"

ME: "Not when you understand that God is the Creator of all life and has the 'right' to do with it as He pleases and that every man has violated what is right and good by sinning against God".

PAMSM: "That's not what I asked you. Of course, if he were real, he would have the "right", because of holding all the power. Similarly, a totalitarian dictator has the "right", conferred by power, to have his subjects snuffed. I asked whether this offended *your* sense of right and wrong. It does mine."

He is real. That "right" comes from His justice and purity of Being. A good judge would not let injustice go unpunished and since He is loving He has provided a means for us being justified before Him, even though you have broken His laws and precepts. His Son has met all of His requirements on the behalf of those who will believe. That means both sins penalty and sins power over us. The Son became a man because of the rebellion of the first Adam.

A man sinned before God that brought God's judgment on mankind, just as a man, the second Adam, restored justice by offering Himself, His life as a human as our punishment, the Just for the guilty. (Romans 3:21-31)

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life IN Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23)

PAM: "What about the example of Job, which you didn't address. Job was a good and pious man. The word "perfect" is even used. He didn't deserve to have his life destroyed and his nine children killed. And why did God do it? It was to settle a bet with Satan, that no matter how he mistreated Job, Job would not curse him. A BET!!"

You are trying to charge God with wrongdoing. What right do you have to charge your Maker with wrongdoing? You nor I know whether Job's family members were believers (but Job being a righteous man, I'm betting they were) and therefore saved from the ultimate death by God's mercy in granting eternal life. That is grace. If not then it is God's right to punish evil for ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. That is justice.

Every one of us is going to die, but for the Christian there is no sting in death. To die is to be with the Lord. God is teaching us a lesson on whom to ultimately trust, even when faced with trials and death and the worst of circumstances. As a non-believer I can understand you concern for justice, but God is just. We will all answer before Him one day for all we have done, either in His Son or on our own merits.

"And we [Christians] know that in all things God works for the GOOD of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose." (Romans 8:28)

CCNL,

This is so that you can be elevated and joyous.

From Richard Rolle, "The Fire of Love"

"I call it song when already in the soul, burning fervour abounding, the smoothness of eternal praise is taken up and meditation is transformed into song and the mind lingers in honey-flowing melody."

Farnaz
Heathen, Atheist, Jew, Uni-horn (Infidel)

Is my assertion that we will all be one race one day a pipe dream, as Arminius says, or fact?

We now have a president who is a mix of 4 ethnicities.
How long before it is common for people to be a mix of 6 ethnicities, and then 9, and then 12 and then most of them, and then all of them?

Or will this trend stop at some point?
I suggest it will have to be stopped at the point of a gun. Otherwise, we will eventually be all one race. One ethnicity. One culture. I see this as an inevitability that is just waiting for time to pass.

Boring pipe dream? Or future reality?

Timmy,

Here again is the question. If you're not going to answer, fine. It's just that I want to be sure CCNL sees my Richard Rolle post, which is intended to contribute to his salvation. Therefore, I shall have to post it again.

So, I'll wait a few minutes to see if you reply:

Timmy, suppose, I say to you, "It's hot in here."

What am I communicating?

Timmy,

I already clarified it, but really, it was just a joke. Scroll down. Can you answer the question in my last post?

Farnaz,

"Timmy, may I suggest that if you wish to debate on your terms, you define said terms for the Greater Virtualities?"

Debate on my terms? What do you mean? I'm just debating. What terms? Can you describe these terms I supposedly present?

And I still don't know what the flying saucer reference was all about. If you don't care if I answer your question about it, neither do I. But if you want an answer I'll need clarification.

Timmy,

t's pretty easy to make rape a sin punishable by death. But the verse says nothing about rape. It's about consensual sex.

NO, IT ISN'T ABOUT CONSENSUAL SEX.

Timmy, suppose, I say to you, "It's hot in here."

What am I communicating?

Counterww,

"He is just too smart to believe."

To be sure.

Arminius,

You to me: "You really are frightfully boring"

Anything but sir. But nice avoidance and baseless distraction.
I definitely see the Christian in you, Arminius.
But I don't see the Jesus.

Farnaz,

"Homosexuality as a discrete "pathology" didn't exist until the twentieth century. They (Bible writers) also didn't have the internet, books, libraries, journals, etc. Perhaps, worst of all, Timmy, you had not yet been born to edify them. They had to make do.

Moral relativism. It was never moral to kill men for being gay, whether you knew what gay was or not. Even if you just thought it was a disgusting humiliating act. It was never moral to kill disobedient children. It was never moral to own slaves. Even if you thought it was. But to then attribute these horrors of ignorance to the commands of the almighty creator of the universe, is beyond immoral. It is diabolical.

YOU: Morons though they all were, technologically illiterate, dysfunctional, etc., they happened to notice that men raped men during wars, raped young boys, etc.

It's pretty easy to make rape a sin punishable by death. But the verse says nothing about rape. It's about consensual sex. The wording could have easily implied force. But it did not. "lie with a man". I do not buy this rape garbage one bit. Reaching reconstructionism to the extreme. I have no doubt that the rape you are talking about went on. But the book could have said rape. It did not. They new of the concept of rape right? Why could they not convey it if that's what they were talking about?

While there may be something to learn from the men who wrote other parts of the book, there is nothing to learn from the men who wrote these verses. Don't reach and stretch to try and justify and reconstruct them. Just throw them on the trash heap and keep the good stuff. Why not? What is to be learned from them? They have caused so much horror. Why do we have to have them with our proverbs?

CCNL,

This is so that you can be elevated and joyous.

From Richard Rolle, "The Fire of Love"

"I call it song when already in the soul, burning fervour abounding, the smoothness of eternal praise is taken up and meditation is transformed into song and the mind lingers in honey-flowing melody."

Farnaz
Heathen, Atheist, Jew, Uni-horn (Infidel)

PeterHuff,

Last on this: The nazis had drawings of Jews with horns. There are contemporary drawings in the US, Europe, the Middle East.

All due to Jerome. How does inerrancy in the scriptures figure in this?

Farnaz
Heathen Atheist Jew (Infidel) Unicornal

PeterHuff:

I've gotten a second wind. As a result of Jerome's Vulgate, Jews were depicted as having horns and still are, as devils, in other words. This led to progroms, the largest recorded beginning with the first crusade.

Jerome's rendering, the notion of horns spread throughout Europe, all the way to Russia. It led to mass murder.

FARNAZ OF THE UNICORN: "I haven't spoken directly to Holm, had contact with him in many years. You're tempting me to take this course, and email Holm.

It could mean WAR."

That would be interesting! And no - no problems to solve in the courses - just the pure fun of learning about exactly what interests you, at your own pace, with no stress.

Can't stay up any later tonight...

Pam,

And how come he let Jerome translate the word meaning "halo" (roughly) as "horns"? With dire consequences for the last two thousand years? I'm not kidding. I mean mass murder.

But scroll down for the context.

Hi Onofrio,

ONOFRIO: "I have already stated my emotional objections to Hell....
What I'm interested in knowing is your emotional response to Hell. I don't promise to respect it, or to refrain from attacking it. But if you aren't merely a theo-machinist, you might consider a making a heartfelt case for the necessity of "conscious unending torment" for non-Calvinists."

I hate the idea of people being thrown into the Lake of Fire and separated from God for all eternity. It is a place I would not want anyone to visit, let alone stay. That is why the gospel message is so important. It is either your merit or the merit of the Lord Jesus Christ that will determine your final abode, so this is not a joking matter. I wouldn't be spending hours a week in conversation if I didn't care where you spend eternity, in the hope that God will have mercy on someone here in giving them ears to hear. My prayer to the Father is that He will use something of what I have said to change someones life, just as the atheist wants to see the Christian come to believe his worldview that offers no hope of life after death or any ultimate meaning or purpose.

And I'm not trying to be mean in what I say, just trying to shake you out of your complacency and get you to think about how you can substantiate your worldview if you are not a Christian.

PETERHUFF: "So, even though we do not have the original inerrant autographa (the manuscripts written by the apostles and prophets as they were led by the verbal inspiration of the Holy Spirit) and even though God did not grant the scribes and copyists the same inerrancy as the originals (they made mistakes), these copies are sufficiently accurate not to led us astray, or else Gods provision in preserving His Word would not have come about and we could not trust the Bible".

Indeed. Now why, if he bothered to have them inspired in the first place, do you suppose that he didn't A) make sure that those originals were preserved, or B) inspire the scribes as well?

Don't you think it's pretty important to get his word to us intact?

PETERHUFF: "No, great care was taken in copying Scripture and the variants in the over 5000 copied manuscripts and over 24000 partial manuscripts are mainly grammatical and spelling errors and do not change one of the essential doctrines of the Bible".

Unfortunately, just not true. I recommend Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus". Read about Ehrman: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030401369.html

PETERHUFF: "PS. I read some of the article from the website you posted and will try and reply when I get some time, either on this post or the next over the course of the week or so".

Only "some"? It's not that long. I hope you'll finish it before replying.

PeterHuff,

Sorry, for the serial posting--I'm spacing out. Jerome could/should have translated the word as "halo," nor "horn." Today, people struggle with the translation, but do not use "horn." Again, he knew what he was doing.

People are always disappointed when they find I'm uni-hornal. (I have no halo, either, but, then, I'm not Moses.)

Michelangelo followed the Vulgate. Therefore his statue of Moses has horns. Hence the pervasive believe that we have them, though, as I mentioned, I've got but the one. I'm uni-hornal.

Peter,

God didn't err. But he let Jerome err. Hence Jews have horns. Except for me. I have only one. :)

Hi Peter,

Jerome mistranslated the Bible. He knew what he was doing.

Hi Farnaz2

FARNAZ2: "Inerrancy, eh? However, God gave man free will. Jerome knew that the word he translated as "horn" meant "halo," but went ahead with "horn" anyway. Michelangelo believed, I guess, as you do."

I'm not really following your point. You are talking past me. What does Jerome or Michelangelo have to do with inerrancy?

Peterhuff, glad to see that you're back. Still waiting for this:

Me: I've never argued for such a thing. The human sense of right and wrong is innate - put there by millions of years of evolution among social animals. Did you look at the Frans de Waal link that I gave Timmy? Here it is again.

YOU: "I'm going to think about this more before I reply to you. There is a lot to unpack in the article".

And a reply to my post of Jan 2, 4:14 PM.

Hi Counterww (January 5, 2009 12:59 AM),

COUNTERWW: "Arminius- I find it interesting that you just disgard the letters of paul. Paul explained how the gospel worked in detail, especially in romans."

I don't find it odd when you look at the influence of German Higher Criticism, liberal theology and the Jesus Seminar, but I do find it a shame that people pick and choose what they will and will not accept of God's Word.

Counterww, I agree with you totally on your other comments!

CCNL, AT SOME POINT IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, COULD YOU SOMEHOW INDICATE WHETHER OR NOT YOU SAW MY MOST RECENT POSTING EFFORT DIRECTED AT YOUR SALVATION--RICHARD ROLLE?

I ASK BECAUSE I THING IT MIGHT IRRITATE OTHER BLOGGERS IF I WERE TO KEEP REPOSTING IT.

FARNAZ
HEATHEN ATHEIST JEW (INFIDEL)

peterhuff:

Inerrancy, eh? However, God gave man free will. Jerome knew that the word he translated as "horn" meant "halo," but went ahead with "horn" anyway. Michelangelo believed, I guess, as you do.

And even, today, many of your co-religionists, in the US and around the world, still believe Jews have horns.

I only have one, myself.

Farnaz

Pam,

"Lerer for sure"

I haven't spoken directly to Holm, had contact with him in many years. You're tempting me to take this course, and email Holm.

It could mean WAR.

Hi Pamsm,

In your reply to Ruby,

(Rubytues63 says:
"If you are concerned about the possibility of the Bible containing translation errors, I encourage you to get a copy of the NIV (New International Version) Bible. The New Testament of the NIV was translated directly from Greek originals dating from the first and second century. The Old Testament was translated from the original Hebrew. There is a section in the front of most NIV Bibles that talks about the steps and safeguards that these committees of scholars took to make the most accurate translation possible".)

I think (hope) she means the original Greek, Arimaic and Hebrew languages, not the original documents that the apostles wrote. You said,

PAMSM: "Are you aware, Ruby, that there are not any actual originals? That all the scripture used to piece together the gospels consists of copies of copies...many times over? That there are more inconsistencies between the various copies than there are words in the new testament?

So, even though we do not have the original inerrant autographa (the manuscripts written by the apostles and prophets as they were led by the verbal inspiration of the Holy Spirit) and even though God did not grant the scribes and copyists the same inerrancy as the originals (they made mistakes), these copies are sufficiently accurate not to led us astray, or else Gods provision in preserving His Word would not have come about and we could not trust the Bible. No, great care was taken in copying Scripture and the variants in the over 5000 copied manuscripts and over 24000 partial manuscripts are mainly grammatical and spelling errors and do not change one of the essential doctrines of the Bible. Along with this, the time span of the copies is useful in comparisons from one generation to the next in determining how accurate the transmission has been.

A point in question was also how accurate the Jews had been in copying the Hebrew Scriptures down through the centuries. The Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed that the Book of Isaiah was almost 100% intact with the Hebrew documents we have in our possession today.

There is lots of reason to be confident that the texts we have are anything but marred and corrupted beyond recovery so that it is impossible to say what the original autographs were, or restore them. This is not the case. Neither is it the case that there is not a correct interpretation of the Word. (2 Timothy 2:15; 3:16)

PS. I read some of the article from the website you posted and will try and reply when I get some time, either on this post or the next over the course of the week or so.

FARNAZ: "MacWhorter said this? Or the other fellow?"

Both, I think, but don't hold me to that. Lerer for sure.

Pam,

If you really want to pursue this, you will want to look up Leonard Bloomfield. Then given your background in anthropology, you should see Joshua Fishman, The Sociology of Language (should be available in most libraries). Also, see Peter Trudgill, any introductory text. They deal with language in its social context.

I don't know how much MacWhorter got into. Did he talk about sociolinguistic competence vs. performance, for example?

Pam,

"MacWhorter taught me well about those – but I don’t see how either applies to English, which began as a fully-developed language (or pair of dialects) from Jutland, and just incorporated a few bits of the conquered Celtic languages. A whole new language didn’t grow from their interface, as with a pidgin turning into a creole."

MacWhorter said this? Or the other fellow?

Pam,

"Yes, and not to say that you're "stuffed" after a big dinner, or ask for a napkin... :D "

I once said I was "full" (piene) after dinner, in Italy. Men were on either side of me. Fortunately, I was very young, so I didn't die immediately.

Oh, well.

Pam,

"Yes, but I think this refers to the official language of a country ( as in the “Queen’s English”). I need a word that refers to the totality of a language, encompassing all of its dialects, without political implications. Is there such?"

I think for everyday speech "language" is fine. But in linguistics there is no distinction at the working level. Theoretical linguistics is different. If you're really interested, you could look at Saussure's book, Course in General Linguistics, or you might look in Wikipedia or google langue vs. parole.

Then, maybe Chomskey, performance vs. competence. But google should make it all clear. Did you have actual problems to solve in this course?
--------------
As for Observer12, I don't mean to come to his defense. What I was trying say before he came on board is that to make claims about one language being "richer" than another isn't only a facutal error. Do you see? (Observer12 is a polyglot. He grew up bilingual, then learned other languages.) Did I mention that statistics have shown for many years that, on average, bilinguals test higher on IQ tests?

Language is extremely sensitive. Wars have been fought over it. Pakistan and Bangladesh. Surely, language rights played a huge part in that struggle.

John Holm. I think I can find some stuff for you.
I'll have to look though. Hopefully, I'll find it tomorrow.

FARNAZ: "Class, stratification, etc., are fascinating. We have to warn American students going to England to say 'Firstly,' rather than 'First,' or the Brits will think they're illiterate. Same with maths vs. math, etc."

Yes, and not to say that you're "stuffed" after a big dinner, or ask for a napkin... :D

Hi Timmy,

I answered your post questions on the last forum concerning God making Adam and Eve perfect, yet limited.

TIMMY: "But I do love how an atheist is talking about peace and harmony and the whole world coming together as one brotherhood of man, and the Christian is saying "yeah nice pipe dream pal. People will always fight, get used to it!"

The Christian understands the problem of original sin and man trying to live in peace with his neighbor and yet disagreeing over what is good and just and right. Mankind needs a change of nature before peace will ever come. That happens in Christ.

TIMMY: "Very odd indeed. Someone just tuning in would probably get it backwards which one of us is the Christian and which is the atheist?"

A Christian does not deny his Lord and Savior, whereas you, on the other hand do, and think that Jesus was a good man if He ever existed, but you do not see Him as He really is.

C.S. Lewis pointed out the silliness of such a view. Jesus never gave us the option of thinking of Him as just a good man with good teachings. As Lewis said, Jesus Christ is either liar, lunatic or Lord of all creation. With what He taught about Himself He would not be "good" if He was deceiving others nor if He was deranged or psychotic for He taught that He was equal with God the Father.

FARNAZ: “On English as a creole, see John Holm. He's in a battle to the death with another linguist on this, but right now he's ahead”.

Where do I find this? In one of his books? Which one? I find it a little difficult to believe, knowing what I do of the origins of English, but it depends on what period he’s talking about – Celtic to Anglo-Saxon? Anglo-Saxon under the Normans?

FARNAZ: “My only point, which is getting worried to death, was that it is, as Observer12 put it rather directly, "absurd to say that English is the richest language in the world," as a result of its borrowings”.

Obsrerver12 actually put it quite rudely, let’s not soft-pedal it.

It wasn’t just because of it’s borrowings, but they were part of it. Since I can’t speak every language in the world, I don’t feel qualified to make this judgment for myself. Having the largest vocabulary, though, has got to count for something…

FARNAZ: “Also, I feel reasonably certain that unless MacWhorter were speaking under the influence of alcohol, he did not say English was the ‘richest language in the world.’ Of course, he could have been having a psychotic episode, but that, too, is doubtful. I know who he is”.

No, it was Lerer. MacWhorter was a lecture series on the development of human language, Lerer on the history of English. It would be better for him to make his own case – I’ve probably butchered it.

FARNAZ: “I don't know where my own MacWhorter stuff is, or any of my intro books, for that matter, so here is something I wrote:
In everyday speech, a language refers to a dialect that has become a regional or national standard for historical (geopolitical) reasons.
I hope this helps!”

Yes, but I think this refers to the official language of a country ( as in the “Queen’s English”). I need a word that refers to the totality of a language, encompassing all of its dialects, without political implications. Is there such?

FARNAZ: “A creole btw. can be though of as a pigin that has developed to the point at which it is a speaker's first language. (At that point, it is a fully functioning language.) These distinctions have enormous political implications.
Haitians, today, frequently say they speak three languages: Haitian (or Creole), French, and English.
In the past, they said they would say they speak French, perhaps, adding, a little sheepishly, ‘creole, it's a pigin.’ It wasn't, of course. (A pigin is a bare-bones means of communication that begins when two language groups come into contact for the purposes of trade.)

I understand creoles and pidgins – MacWhorter taught me well about those – but I don’t see how either applies to English, which began as a fully-developed language (or pair of dialects) from Jutland, and just incorporated a few bits of the conquered Celtic languages. A whole new language didn’t grow from their interface, as with a pidgin turning into a creole.

CCNL,

This is so that you can be elevated and joyous.

From Richard Rolle, "The Fire of Love"

"I call it song when already in the soul, burning fervour abounding, the smoothness of eternal praise is taken up and meditation is transformed into song and the mind lingers in honey-flowing melody."

Farnaz
Heathen, Atheist, Jew (Infidel)

Pam,

Another thought about changing American attitudes toward BE. In New York City, where I live, I noticed a distinct change in attitudes after the 7/7 bombings. There was immediate skepticism in my circle about the Brazilian man they killed. The concealing of information, the reporting by some official, describing their communication as "Houston we've got a problem," etc., tainted great compassion with revulsion.

Then, there is the small world phenomena, the constant communication among people like me, Indians and Pakistanis living in England, Jews living in England. England and women, England and Caribbeans. Some of the luster has worn off. And I haven't even mentioned England and the Irish.

I suspect that with it, some Americans' sense of language inferiority has warn off as well.

Pam,

"Yes, a little sarcastic. Sorry. You listed your credentials and then asked why you should need to consult a thesaurus. It came across a bit pompous."

Sorry, I didn't mean it to be. I felt that somehow I couldn't communicate to you. I didn't understand all the thesaurus business, which seemed condescending to me! Surely, we've all looked in one.:-)

I understand what you mean about comprehensibility. Yes, of course, there is mutual comprehensibility among the Englishes you mention. But none with Gullah, for instance. And then there are always idioms that need explaining.

Class, stratification, etc., are fascinating. We have to warn American students going to England to say "Firstly," rather than "First," or the Brits will think they're illiterate. Same with maths vs. math, etc.

Of course, they warn English students coming to study here to write "First," etc. British English "pressurized" vs. "pressure" in the sense of "pressuring" someone
(American English), drives American profs. insane.

The funny thing is that although "pressurize" breeds contempt, Americans still seem to have something of an inferiority complex where BE is concerned, RP, I suppose. That seems to be changing though, no?

Farnaz

Arminius- I find it interesting that you just disgard the letters of paul. Paul explained how the gospel worked in detail, especially in romans.

As far as Timmy is concerned, he is a elitist that thinks that every conclusion and his definition of "reason" are right concerning God's existence. Most of the atheists like him(not all are like him) are just so full of themselves. He is just too smart to believe.

I was on this site and watching a Hitchens interview with Sally. The guy is obviously self-deceiving. He calls himself anti-god- he says he is glad that God can't listen to our thoughts because that would be the thought police.

I think it is interesting and kind of dovetails into what Warren has said about atheists. They simply don't want a "boss " telling them what to do.

Hi Onfrio,

I haven't seen Veldt. Fairly recent? Somewhere, I have what must be a disintegrated copy of Griffithes, "The conflict of Horus and Seth from Egyptian and Classical Sources." Btw., "The Contending" is actually on the web. ( Did you know?)

Even thinking about "The Wanderer" gives me heartache. "Beowulf," no. Beowulf lives the way Hamlet does. I had the perfect Hamlet film in mind for years, but Kenneth Branagh stole much of my mental. As for Beowulf, I was still working out the film adaptation(!) when the Angelina Jolie as Grendel version was released, and I saw a screaming blond lunatic Beowulf in an ad.
I suspended (mental) operations.

Have you seen Julie Taymor's "Titus" (1999). Absolutely brilliant, magnificent, better than the play, by far. (May I not be struck by lightening for so saying.)

Are you a writer, Onofrio? A poet? A teacher?

Farnaz: “I never said this. Are you suggesting I learn them all? Whatever for? Or are you being sarcastic?”

Yes, a little sarcastic. Sorry. You listed your credentials and then asked why you should need to consult a thesaurus. It came across a bit pompous.

Farnaz: “The term "language" has various significations having to do with prestige, politics, nation status, etc. If you have anything of MacWhorter, I'm sure you can find a definition along the lines I'm suggesting. (…) Ask what constitutes a dialect, instead of what constitutes a language. A dialect is not an offshoot of a Language, a deviant variety of an abstract entity. Language is a political term".

Yes, I understand what you’re saying. When I speak of “English”, I’m including all the variations – I know that it’s a collection of dialects, but if I meant just one, I would characterize it that way (“Midwestern American English”). I thought that you meant the English language as a whole was a dialect of some other language.
____________
Farnaz: “It is interesting that you have no trouble conversing with any of the people you mention. That could be because you're conversing with them here, or because they can adapt to American speech.
If you've ever lived in England, if you have ever heard a celebrity speak of the communication problems s/he encountered attempting to live there, you would know what I mean”.

No, I mean in speaking to actual people, who are not adapting to American English. Do you really think that we’re all so provincial? I’ve traveled to a lot of English-speaking countries – Australia, England, Scotland, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, Kenya, Liberia, Canada, Bermuda, the Bahamas, India (not sure that one really qualifies)…and have not had a problem. I have quite a few Canadian, Australian, English, Irish, Scottish and Indian friends. I’ve also dated guys from Canada, and two from England – one from Yorkshire, one from London who spoke Cockney.

All these dialects are different, but not so different as to be incomprehensible. It’s easy enough to pick up the differences. I also grew up reading novels written by non-American writers, often in dialect. Lassie Come Home was probably the first one, when I was eight. Most Americans probably have. For people who haven’t traveled, I think accents present more of a problem than the actual dialectic differences.

Timmy,

Way back when I last posted to you, I was actually trying to be complimentary. I know - hard to believe - but true.

When I ventured that the principle of reason you defend was not diminished, I was trying to say that your admission of an error to me did not in any way detract from your debating stature. It was fair of you, and I respect that. As we say in my benighted homeland, you "copped it sweet".

Given my track record of "semantic belly dancing", I don't blame you for taking it the wrong way.

Respect.

Arminius,

Hail, and well met, you claymore classicist! No further sign of Peterhuff. Perhaps he's thinking about how he feels about Hell. Or more likely, he has a life to attend to.

Farnaz,

This fool bin catching up on the thread.

Somewhat awed at everyone's (well nearly everyone's) erudition.

Just wanted to add a 'yea verily' to your comments about homosexuality and Leviticus, to wit:

You:
"The contemporary notion of homosexuality was of course nonexistent in the period of Lev. Sex with men by men was an act of humiliation, primarily in war."

Being a hieroglyphic hack, I can say that ancient Egyptian armies were known to rape defeated enemies exactly as you describe. There are mythic treatments of male-to-male sex and rape in The Contendings of Horus and Seth and in the figure of Seth in general (cf. H T.Velde 'Seth: God of Confusion').

On the matter of the richness of English: I undergrad majored in Old Eng, and IMHO, the language was well rich back with Beowulf, and The Wanderer.

Lots ain't wealth, eh?

CCNL,

This is so that you can be elevated and joyous.

From Richard Rolle, "The Fire of Love"

"I call it song when already in the soul, burning fervour abounding, the smoothness of eternal praise is taken up and meditation is transformed into song and the mind lingers in honey-flowing melody."

Farnaz
Heathen, Atheist, Jew (Infidel)

Timmy, may I suggest that if you wish to debate on your terms, you define said terms for the Greater Virtualities?

Hi all,

Got to go to work now. Back in a couple of hours to address your posts.

But I do love how an atheist is talking about peace and harmony and the whole world coming together as one brotherhood of man, and the Christian is saying "yeah nice pipe dream pal. People will always fight, get used to it!"

Very odd indeed. Someone just tuning in would probably get it backwards which one of us is the Christian and which is the atheist?

Timmy,

You really are frightfully boring.

Farnaz,

The Byrds released a famous version of Tambourine Man, but Dylan is usually credited with writing it. Dylan may have released first, I could not find a reference.

Dear Pseudo,

"O, I guess you would have thought the MLK poem a bit odd if you thought I was much younger. I was sixteen the day that Martin died. It was an autobiographical Witness to History. A minor vignette in some unknown lives. You are welcome to love it or to hate it. I really don't much care which, but it is forever part of my path."

I love the poem. When I read it, I realized you were much older than I'd thought. I have sudden flashes of wonder, expressed unselfconsciously, that startle people. It is the child in me, and I've tried variously to keep it under control, put it up for adoption, send it to Florida.

People look at me as if I'm strange. They do that for other reasons, as well, of course.

The youth that comes across to me in you is a beautiful thing, I think.

Good night, Sweet Pseudo.

Arminius,

YOU: Timmy, you blathered,

That's a good Christian. Faith serves you well I see.
Have I ever spoken to you like that? No. I just express my ideas.

YOU: Wild-eyed, pie-in-the-sky, new age idealism.

You may say, I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you will join us, and the world will live as one.

Many would say that Jesus was wide-eyed pie in the sky idealism. I really don't know where you are coming from on this? Certainly not from a Christian point of view.

YOU: Mankind will always find differences, be it rich or poor

Individually, perhaps. But as groups, separated by unnecessary differences? There is no need for that to continue.

YOU: "race"

I just told you. The president of the United States is a mix of 4 different ethnicities. How do you think this will continue to play out as the races continue to interbreed? One race. One ethnicity. Nothing pie eyed about it. It's happening as we speak. This will take a very long time of course. But it will happen. It is happening. Unless you get out there with your placard to put an end to it, because you will be bored to death when it finally happens.

YOU: Remember that your starry-eyed vision does not do away with the lust for money and power, which are the true roots of all conflict.

These are Individual conflicts which are manageable by laws. It is our group conflicts that cause the most horror.

YOU: Get a grip. Grow up.

That's a good Christian. Your faith serves you well I see.
Jesus would be saying the very same thing to me as you, right?
He would have called John Lennon and I naive dreamers for thinking that the world could all come together as one. He's probably say something like "Get a grip. Grow up".

I don't get you sir.

But peace, brother.

CCNL,

This is so that you can be elevated and joyous.

From Richard Rolle, "The Fire of Love"

"I call it song when already in the soul, burning fervour abounding, the smoothness of eternal praise is taken up and meditation is transformed into song and the mind lingers in honey-flowing melody."

Farnaz
Heathen, Atheist, Jew (Infidel)

Time to sign off now. Tomorrow beckons.

O, I guess you would have thought the MLK poem a bit odd if you thought I was much younger. I was sixteen the day that Martin died. It was an autobiographical Witness to History. A minor vignette in some unknown lives. You are welcome to love it or to hate it. I really don't much care which, but it is forever part of my path.

By now a distant memory of a flashing lightening bolt.
Spawned in freedom's striving, and turmoil of revolt

It remains as sharp-edged as a knife
A pivotal moment in a now long lasting life.

That was in my springtime made vivid by by the fires
Of the burning city buildings and by slowly crashing spires

The spires that fell that year still lay upon the ground
A future archaeologist's Classical ruins mound

Now I'm in my Autumn with bright natural colors abounding
A different vivid riot for my mind's delighted astounding

Arminius,

I am off to the store for to get food for the troops. I leave with this thought. Timmy is fun. Still, I worry about CCNL, upon whose salvation I am working.

Farnaz

Me And Julio Down By The Schoolyard Lyrics

The mama pajama rolled out of bed, and she ran to the police station
When the papa found out, he began to shout, and he started the investigation
It's against the law, it was against the law
What the mama saw, it was against the law.
The mama looked down and spit on the ground ev'ry time my name gets mentioned
The papa say "Oy, if I get that boy
I'm gonna stick him in the house of detention."
I'm on my way, I don't know where I'm goin',
I'm on my way, I'm takin' my time, but I don't know where.

Goodbye to Rosie, the Queen of Corona
See you, me and Julio down by the schoolyard
See you, me and Julio down by the schoolyard

In a couple of days they come and take me away
But the press let the story leak
And when the radical priest come to get me released
We's all on the cover of Newsweek
Well, I'm on my way, I don't know where I'm goin'
I'm on my way, I'm takin' my time, but I don't know where

Goodbye to Rosie, the Queen of Corona
See you, me and Julio down by the schoolyard
See you, me and Julio down by the schoolyard
See you, me and Julio down by the schoolyard

-Paul Simon

Call it a foreign perspective, but IMO, one of the great musical disasters of the twentieth century was the breakup of Simon and Garfunkel.

Favorite Simon songs. Where to begin. Homeward Bound, Sounds of Silence, the Boxer

Arminius,

Who first recorded "Mr. Tambourine Man," made it famous, I mean? Was it the Byrds? What happened to them?

Farnaz,

My favorite Bob Dylan is 'Mr. Tambourine Man'. Ever since I heard that, so long ago in the 60's, I have been entranced with it. Outside of being a drug trip, it seems to me to be an invocation of the Muse.

Timmy,

Re: Your contemplation of Leviticus

Homosexuality as a discrete "pathology" didn't exist until the twentieth century.

They (Bible writers) also didn't have the internet, books, libraries, journals, etc. Perhaps, worst of all, Timmy, you had not yet been born to edify them. They had to make do.

Morons though they all were, technologically illiterate, dysfunctional, etc., they happened to notice that men raped men during wars, raped young boys, etc.

Call it a Jewish thing, but they took exception to it. Go figure, as some Askenazim would say.

Farnaz,

The contemporary notion of homosexuality was of course nonexistent in the period of Lev. Sex with men by men was an act of humiliation, primarily in war.

Well I understand that they treated it as such, but they were wrong. Weren't they?

YOU: This is the standard Religious Studies explanation, to which Jewish Studies (secular) subscribes.

I don't get it. They were ignorant? This is the conclusion?
I already knew they were ignorant. And they wrote down words indicating that their God has condemned this behavior and that these people should be put to death. Why would anyone want to base a religion, secular or otherwise, on this book of ignorance?

Timmy, you blathered,
"Yes how awful it would be if we started to get rid of differences that have no useful function other than to separate us, like language, religion, etc."

Wild-eyed, pie-in-the-sky, new age idealism. Mankind will always find differences, be it rich or poor, race, political beliefs, etc., and with these, find grounds for violence. Remember that your starry-eyed vision does not do away with the lust for money and power, which are the true roots of all conflict. Do you really believe that the armies in the 30 Year's War fought mainly for religion? Are you aware that France, a very Catholic nation, was allied with the Protestant forces?

Get a grip. Grow up.

Like a Rolling Stone

Once upon a time you dressed so fine
You threw the bums a dime in your prime, didnt you?
Peopled call, say, beware doll, youre bound to fall
You thought they were all kiddin you
You used to laugh about
Everybody that was hangin out
Now you dont talk so loud
Now you dont seem so proud
About having to be scrounging for your next meal.

How does it feel
How does it feel
To be without a home
Like a complete unknown
Like a rolling stone?

Youve gone to the finest school all right, miss lonely
But you know you only used to get juiced in it
And nobody has ever taught you how to live on the street
And now you find out youre gonna have to get used to it
You said youd never compromise
With the mystery tramp, but now you realize
Hes not selling any alibis
As you stare into the vacuum of his eyes
And ask him do you want to make a deal?

How does it feel
How does it feel
To be on your own
With no direction home
Like a complete unknown
Like a rolling stone?

You never turned around to see the frowns on the jugglers and the clowns
When they all come down and did tricks for you
You never understood that it aint no good
You shouldnt let other people get your kicks for you
You used to ride on the chrome horse with your diplomat
Who carried on his shoulder a siamese cat
Aint it hard when you discover that
He really wasnt where its at
After he took from you everything he could steal.

How does it feel
How does it feel
To be on your own
With no direction home
Like a complete unknown
Like a rolling stone?

Princess on the steeple and all the pretty people
Theyre drinkin, thinkin that they got it made
Exchanging all kinds of precious gifts and things
But youd better lift your diamond ring, youd better pawn it babe
You used to be so amused
At napoleon in rags and the language that he used
Go to him now, he calls you, you cant refuse
When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose
Youre invisible now, you got no secrets to conceal.

How does it feel
How does it feel
To be on your own
With no direction home
Like a complete unknown
Like a rolling stone?

-Bob Dylan

BTW, TIMMY,

I'M GUESSING YOU'VE LOST INTEREST IN LEVITICUS AND GAYNESS.

Timmy,

Do you speak languages other than English?

If we're all going to have to speak the same language, I vote for ancient Greek. This way, I could read the Oresteia as it was written.

Arminius,

" A homogenized world would be a hell of boredom"

Yes how awful it would be if we started to get rid of differences that have no useful function other than to separate us, like language, religion, etc.

This goes to my point about why religion is supposedly good for some people, but not so much for others. What is fundamentally different about the people it is good for, vs the people it is not good for?

I see all humans as fundamentally the same. Cultural differences arose due to separation of human societies. Language, religion. As for food it was obviously geographically contingent, and same goes for clothing. But we are all the same. There is no need for different languages, they just separate us. There is no need for religion, it just separates us for no real reason.

Arminius, did you vote for Barack Oama? Note that he is a mix of several ethnicities. Guess what. The whole world is going that way and it's a good thing not a bad thing. We are inter breeding like crazy these days. There is no doubt that we will be one race one day. One ethnicity. One culture. (that is a mix of the best of all)

I just don't see how anyone can not see this inevitable future, and certainly I can't see why some would find the coming together of all humans into one culture a "scary" thing?

Melting pot over mosaic. It's the better way. IMHO
It's inevitable. (not IMHO but reality)

TIMMY:

Did you see this?
________________
Timmy,
Btw., I've finally decided to explain in secular terms the Lev. passage on "homosexuality."

The contemporary notion of homosexuality was of course nonexistent in the period of Lev. Sex with men by men was an act of humiliation, primarily in war. This is the standard Religious Studies explanation, to which Jewish Studies (secular) subscribes.

January 4, 2009 8:36 PM

PSEUDO,

I remember Elvis Costello. Isn't he still around?

Timmy,

Scroll down here for the reference's starting point, and then scroll up and skim:

Timmy2
Pseudo writes: "If early Christians were really Jews?"

They were Jewish re-constructionists, weren't they?

January 4, 2009 8:28 PM |

Pseudo,

I remember once when you were in an exchange with CCNL, upon whose salvation I am currently focused.

You posted as Pseudo, Pseudo, Pseudo. I thought that was so brilliant, so young. I still remember it.

Are you ever going to tell us the kind of writing you do?

Pseudo,

You know I thought you were so very young, maybe in your early-to-mid twenties. How wonderful!

Elvis Costello was a deranged singer lyric poet. ... Well, actually, he still is. For some reason I thought that he no longer flourishes.

Farnaz,

"Timmy, did you meet a Jew when you were on a flying saucer?"

Sorry I don't get this reference?

Pseudo,

My son composes. Maybe he will lend me a tune...

What kind of music does he write?

Timmy,

Very interesting points. But you didn't answer my question: Did you meet a Jew when you were on a flying saucer?

And what about my Leviticus post?

Farnaz,

YOU: But think of all the homogenization of thought, the loss to art, music, etc.

No one speaks Latin any more in the streets but we still have all the art and ideas that were created by latin speaking people. one can still learn the language and get into it if they like. It's not gone. Just not spoken anymore in every day life.

Think of the absence of language barriers. Think of the coming together. Think of the efficiency of trade and relations. Think of the removal of some of the "us vs them" mentality.

Beyond religion, cultural differences are really just food language and clothing. Nothing to fight over. Religion however, now there's something to fight over. There is something that really says "us vs them" in a strong way.

YOU: You know it's not by accident that Italian became the language of opera.

Opera? Big deal. Welcome to the 21st century. There are more contemporary ways of expressing all of these same emotions and thoughts. I don't know who still listens to opera, but remind me never to accept a dinner invitation from them.

YOU: "It would as if everywhere in the world all you could eat was fast food"

I don't think this is a proper analogy, unless your point is that the english is the fast food of languages. Is that what you are saying? It would also suck if all you could eat were falafels.

Haven't tried it yet. Elvis Costello was a deranged singer lyric poet. After an exploration of madness and murder earlier in the album, he sings this. It was an epiphany by the time he got to it. Always stayed with me.

Maybe I'll give it a go. My son composes. Maybe he will lend me a tune...

Arminius,

On another note, I believe Timmy met a Jew when he was on a flying saucer. Scroll down.

Arminius,

I agree totally about English becoming the universal language. After my hurried post, I recalled some other domains it was trying to conquer. Terrifying if it wins. But what other than the loss of American hegemony would stop it?

I mean you and I can't do it by ourselves.

Arminius,

It must really have been something to be able to read the "Oresteia" in Greek. You know I once picked it up about ten years after I'd graduated from college, and, I tell you, I remembered it almost as if I had just read it.

Farnaz,

English is, at this time, the most important language in the world - business, diplomacy, science, etc. But may God forbid that it, or any other language, become the only language. A homogenized world would be a hell of boredom.

Great lyrics, Pseudo!

Have you ever written song lyrics?

I usually don't post other people's poetry, but since we are doing old song lyrics like Locomotive Breath...

As I walk through
This wicked world
Searchin for light in the darkness of insanity.

I ask myself
Is all hope lost?
Is there only pain and hatred, and misery?

And each time I feel like this inside,
Theres one thing I wanna know:
Whats so funny bout peace love & understanding? ohhhh
Whats so funny bout peace love & understanding?

And as I walked on
Through troubled times
My spirit gets so downhearted sometimes
So where are the strong
And who are the trusted?
And where is the harmony?
Sweet harmony.

cause each time I feel it slippin away, just makes me wanna cry.
Whats so funny bout peace love & understanding? ohhhh
Whats so funny bout peace love & understanding?

So where are the strong?
And who are the trusted?
And where is the harmony?
Sweet harmony.

cause each time I feel it slippin away, just makes me wanna cry.
Whats so funny bout peace love & understanding? ohhhh
Whats so funny bout peace love & understanding? ohhhh
Whats so funny bout peace love & understanding?

--- Elvis Costello

Pseudo writes to Timmy:

"Is that about the flying saucers again?"

Timmy, did you meet a Jew when you were on a flying saucer?

Timmy,

Btw., I've finally decided to explain in secular terms the Lev. passage on "homosexuality."

The contemporary notion of homosexuality was of course nonexistent in the period of Lev. Sex with men by men was an act of humiliation, primarily in war. This is the standard Religious Studies explanation, to which Jewish Studies (secular) subscribes.

Timmy,

"They were Jewish re-constructionists, weren't they?"

Is that about the flying saucers again?

Some were probably Jews, Timmy, to be accurate.

Timmy,

But think of all the homogenization of thought, the loss to art, music, etc. You know it's not by accident that Italian became the language of opera.

It would as if everywhere in the world all you could eat was fast food.

Speaking of which, a friend of mine was in Egypt about a year ago, driving through the desert, when finally she and her companion found a gas station. They pulled up and saw a KFC on the site.

This happened. There are MacDonalds everywhere, in Islamabad, for instance.

Pseudo writes: "If early Christians were really Jews?"

They were Jewish re-constructionists, weren't they?

Pseudo,

Would anyone here be really amused
If early Christians were really Jews?
--------------

I know. Don't take it all to heart. It wasn't your fault!!

Omeni,

"There will be a religious reawakening"

I believe we have been witnessing another Great Awakening for some time. I tend to thing of it as A Great Regression, though. Sounds like we might be on the same page.

HI Arminius,

I was wrong about the "little Latin less Greek" source, or, at least, partially wrong. Ben Jonson said it, but he said it in his elegy.

http://www.eliteskills.com/analysis_poetry/To_The_Memory_Of_My_Beloved_The_Author_Mr_William_Shakespeare_And_What_He_Hath_Left_Us_by_Ben_Jonson_analysis.php

Farnaz,

"Timmy, this has long been my great fear. English is the lingua franca of certain disciplines, is the medium of instruction in international schools for the privileged. Scary"

Why scary? Does english suck as a language? I know it does when I type, but that is not the fault of english.

In my book, A Dragon This Way Comes, has some comments about religion for the upcoming timeframe. There will be a religious reawakening and or upheavel during these bad economic times.
The book has gotten a few good reviews.

There is nothing more pious than a prostitute who has just found religion;
there is nothing more bitter than someone who has nothing left in their life except religion;
and there is nothing more evil than a religious fanatic.

Religion will play a role in the political and economic decisions Obama has to make the first few days in office. I thought Bush would leave Obama a plate full of manure when he leaves office. I have changed my mind...the whole banquet table is piled high with dung. Also, the candidates and a few preachers knew the results of the findings of the "?commission?" on the US economic problems. Bush and the candidates and preachers knew about the commission's findings in the early campaign. Yet, NONE of them mentioned it during the campaign. They agreed to stay quiet until after the election. When corrupt politicians, corrupt preachers, and corrupt bankers (Wall Streeters) agree on something and nobody spills the beans, something is up...and it is not for the average person's benefit.

Farnaz:

Was Christ Charismatic?

Would anyone here be really amused
If early Christians were really Jews?

Timmy
On the english language,

I heard someone on the Charlie Rose show (can't remember who, might have been Thomas Friedman) say that many linguists predict that the world will eventually settle on one language. And that english is most likely to be the winner.
-----------------
Timmy, this has long been my great fear. English is the lingua franca of certain disciplines, is the medium of instruction in international schools for the privileged. Scary.

Pseudo,

"Actually, I Luke Timothy Johnson lectures that the Greeks had a pretty good anti-semitic thing going long before there were Christians. There were some murderous riots and subsequent creation of a "Jewish Quarter" in Alexandria circa 38 B.C.E. that are recorded. Some guy named Apion seems to have fomented some of that. That incident caused Johnson's quip that I posted earlier."
______________________
I know. There were other manifestations, but these were typical of hostility toward foreigners. They were not the unique expressions that anti-semitism has come to be. That is why historians of antisemitism discount them. They contributed nothing to the phenomena we've seen since Constantine.

Farnaz,

At one time I could deal with Homer - difficult, but beautiful stuff. I've read some Eurypides - Sophocles is impossible, and Aeschylus is even worse. Plato was not difficult, and Xenophon was almost easy.

As to the song: Charlie is God, see 3rd verse. Gideon's bible, at least until recently, was recognized by most.

What is meant by Pax vobiscum in the RCC service is probably 'Go in peace'.

Farnaz:

Actually, I Luke Timothy Johnson lectures that the Greeks had a pretty good anti-semitic thing going long before there were Christians. There were some murderous riots and subsequent creation of a "Jewish Quarter" in Alexandria circa 38 B.C.E. that are recorded. Some guy named Apion seems to have fomented some of that. That incident caused Johnson's quip that I posted earlier.

On the english language,

I heard someone on the Charlie Rose show (can't remember who, might have been Thomas Friedman) say that many linguists predict that the world will eventually settle on one language. And that english is most likely to be the winner.

Any comments? I tend to give conditional credibility to most things I hear on Charlie Rose. Always with a grain of salt of course. But less salt for Charlie guests than most.

Daniel,

YOU: The way you constructed the sentence makes one want to say "of course there is nothing in the bible that is not equally valuable to the atheist, the bible is open to all."

We agree. But if this is true, this makes deity belief useless. And that's my point. We should all see these words as human wisdom, not commands from a deity. The patter poisons the former.

YOU: I believe what you meant to say is that there is nothing valuable in the bible that could not have been dreamt up by an atheist.

This is entirely true. Not only "could have been" but "would have been".

YOU: But even here you run into problems because religious man came before atheist man historically and we cannot know what you assert.

This is true with the term "atheist" because it is a reaction to a posit. You can't have the reaction before the posit is put to you.
But man created religion. Before that, there was just man, and no religion.

YOU: He mentioned the iliad as part of his proof.

Man preceded the iliad by hundreds of thousands of years.

YOU: Again though, there seems to be no evidence that man could have jumped evolutionarily to atheist man and bypass religious man. Religious man had to come first.

Yes. Believers in Thor had to come first. But now we know better. Thank God.

Pam,

YOU Are you considering this neighbor an enemy? I don't think he qualifies.

Of course he does. We had a dispute, and we were at odds. Enemies don't last forever. They come and they go. There is no such thing as a permanent enemy.

YOU: If you're using him as an example of the "love your neighbor as yourself" then I don't think you can do it. Really *love* him? Care every bit as much for his welfare as your own?

That last line is not a requirement for love. And of course you can really love him. I've done it. I've felt love for people right in the middle of an argument or even a heated fight. These words attributed to Jesus resonated with an incredible number of people and it wasn't God that made them get all choked up thinking about some of his teachings. It's because it touched their hearts deeply. People know that it is possible to love strangers and even an enemy. Because we are all human. We are all in this thing together. This was not evident in our tribal days. But Global Warming shows us that it is the case today.

YOU: I know only what you tell me, Timmy. And a little about dogs, having bred them for 30+ years. I did guess right that she was a herding breed, no?

Then you should know how important it is to keep her active and how much she would live for chasing me on my skateboard. I show her love by going out of my way to help her get her herding ya yas out of her wired system. And you should know that "normal walks" as you suggested just don't cut it with herders.

ARminius,

Two questions:

1. Why did Charlie steal the handle?

2. How come, in songs, it's always Gideon's Bible, not just the Bible, or say, the Revised Standard Version?

Hi Arminius:

Pax vobiscum is of course right. I can't spell even in English, but the checkers help me out with that. The mid-twentieth century RC priests gave the translation as: Peace go with you.

By all means: Pax vobiscum.

Thors Child:

"In addition, describing anyone's lack of belief in the Christian God as a 'conviction' for rhetorical convenience (as you did in your post) makes about as much sense as calling atheism a faith; you should know better."

Interesting point. But, on God, the matter of pronouncing belief/disbelief is unique, isn't it? As a Heathen Atheist/Agnostic Jew (Infidel), for instance, I'd have no trouble saying Santa Claus does not exist. Nor would anyone else. But Jacoby didn't say God does not exist. She can't, you see, because the matter is so hotly contested.

Can anyone? People generally, "I don't believe there's a God." Not, "there is no God."

As long as we're doing depressing poetry/song:

Locomotive Breath

In the shuffling madness
Of the locomotive breath
Runs the all-time loser
Headlong to his death
He feels the pistons screaming
Steam breaking on his brow
Old Charlie stole the handle
And the train it won't slow down
No he couldn't slow down

He sees his children jump off
At stations one by one
His woman and his best friend
In bed and having fun
He's crawling down the corridor
On his hands and knees
Old Charlie stole the handle
And the train it won't slow down
No he couldn't slow down

He hears the silence howling
Catches angels as they fall
And the all-time winner
Has got him by the balls
He picks up Gideon's bible
Open at page one
It says God, He stole the handle
Old Charlie stole the handle
And the train it won't slow down
No he couldn't slow down
No way to slow down

- Jethro Tull (Aqualung album)

Hi Arminius,

"Was it Shakespeare that knew little Latin and less Greek?"

That was one of Ben Jonson's testy criticisms of the bard, but then BJ wrote a beautiful elegy for Will.

I envy you your Latin and Greek. Can you get through the Odyssey in Greek, the three tragedians?

Death Fugue

Black milk of daybreak we drink it at evening
we drink it at midday and morning we drink it at night
we drink and we drink
we shovel a grave in the air there you won't lie too cramped
A man lives in the house he plays with his vipers he writes
he writes when it grows dark to Deutschland your golden hair Marguerite
he writes it and steps out of doors and the stars are all sparkling
he whistles his hounds to come close
he whistles his Jews into rows has them shovel a grave in the ground
he orders us strike up and play for the dance

Black milk of daybreak we drink you at night
we drink you at morning and midday we drink you at evening
we drink and we drink
A man lives in the house he plays with his vipers he writes
he writes when it grows dark to Deutschland your golden hair Margeurite
your ashen hair Shulamith we shovel a grave in the air there you won't lie too cramped
He shouts jab this earth deeper you lot there you others sing up and play
he grabs for the rod in his belt he swings it his eyes are blue
jab your spades deeper you lot there you others play on for the dancing

Black milk of daybreak we drink you at night
we drink you at midday and morning we drink you at evening
we drink and we drink
a man lives in the house your goldenes Haar Margeurite
your aschenes Haar Shulamith he plays with his vipers
He shouts play death more sweetly Death is a master from Deutschland
he shouts scrape your strings darker you'll rise then in smoke to the sky
you'll have a grave then in the clouds there you won't lie too cramped

Black milk of daybreak we drink you at night
we drink you at midday Death is a master aus Deutschland
we drink you at evening and morning we drink and we drink
this Death is ein Meister aus Deutschland his eye it is blue
he shoots you with shot made of lead shoots you level and true
a man lives in the house your goldenes Haar Margarete
he looses his hounds on us grants us a grave in the air
he plays with his vipers and daydreams
der Tod is ein Meister aus Deutschland
dein goldenes Haar Margarete
dein aschenes Haar Shulamith

-Paul Celan
(Translated by John Felstiner)

On Jan. 2 Susan Jacoby posted:
"No, agnostic is not a more accurate and precise term than atheist. It is simply less forthright. [...] What differentiates atheists from so-called agnostics is a willingness to call their conviction by its real name."

Susan, as one of those "so-called" agnostics, I object to the tone of your post. How is it that you (and other atheists, like Mr. Hitchens in his "On Faith" interview) feel qualified to judge the honesty, integrity and/or forthrightness of my description of myself, or the self-description of anyone else?

It would be fairly easy to craft a response, laced with the appropriate bit of condescension, which characterized all so-called atheists as closet agnostics with insufficient creativity to define themselves, except in the absence of other people's beliefs, but what would be the point? That would only make my post just as irritating as yours.

Instead, I'll state that I choose the term 'agnostic' because it accurately describes the state of my knowledge (and yours, apparently), of the super-natural. I have no problem with people saying that atheists and agnostics are similar, but the term 'atheist' does nothing for me; it adds no meaningful content to my description of myself. I have no interest in describing myself by using the mirror of other people's beliefs. In addition, describing anyone's lack of belief in the Christian God as a 'conviction' for rhetorical convenience (as you did in your post) makes about as much sense as calling atheism a faith; you should know better.

As a practical matter, in order to foster a tolerant society, honest, open conversations must happen between as many of us as possible across the spectrum of religious thought. My experience has been that using the term 'atheist' only serves to slam doors in some other people's minds that 'agnostic' sometimes doesn't close. That means a conversation can sometimes happen which would not otherwise. I see that as a good thing.

Please, Ms. Jacoby, define yourself however you want, but don't pretend to be qualified to define me, I'll take care of that myself. Thanks.

Hi, Farnaz,

More Latin than Greek. Was it Shakespeare that knew little Latin and less Greek? Anyway, one of my goals this year is to regain some of that lost knowledge.

Hi Arminius,

So you do remember Latin! How about Greek?

If I might intrude on the rather erudite conversation here, I would like to make a small correction:

Pax Vubiscum is wrong.

Pax vobiscum = Peace to you (plural)
Pax tecum = Peace to you (singular)

Written in Pencil in a Sealed Boxcar

here in this transport
I am Eve
with Abel my son
if you see my older son
Cain son of Adam
tell him that I

-Dan Pagis (Tr. John Felstiner)

Dear Pseudo,

Christians invented antisemitism as it evolved in the west. What existed before was very different and it irrelevant. If you're interested, I'll find some titles on this.

As for "Jewishness," your experiences, what you see, may be different. It sounds as if they are, and in a good way.

Farnaz :)

Pam, last post on this, I hope

Writing about this is too tempting! But to continue about the significance of terms, after the overthrow of Baby Doc, French was no longer the national language of Haiti. Creole was the medium of instruction. Government business started to be conducted in Creole, etc. Nothing less than racism, colorism, national identity, classism, etc., were at issue.

In the US, one still occasionally here's the phrase, "Brooklyn accent." Actually, the accentual patterns developed in the Bronx. (See William Labov, "The Social Stratification of English in New York City.) But, in any event, the phrase "Brooklyn accent" is used pejoratively, although there is nothing objectively negative about it.

Yiddish (or Yiddishes) is a language that also had and has low prestige for reasons having to do with racism, class, etc. The great Uriel Weinreich, Labov's teacher created the first Yiddish dictionary. In the meantime, poets wrote in Yiddish, the Nobel Prize Winning American writer, I.B. Singer wrote exclusively in Yiddish.

Of course there were and are psychological consequences of "language contempt." On the consequences of the low prestige of Yiddish for Askenazic Jews see Sander Gilman, "Anti-Semitism in Times of Crisis," "Jewish Self-hatred."

Again, on Caribbean Creoles, see John Holm.

Farnaz:

"Hence, I could convert to Christianity tomorrow and to every Christian, I would still be a Jew."

I don't know. I have friends at a Church that has a number of "Jews for Jesus". My Christian friends have no problem with being a Christian and still being a Jew. If you became, say, a Methodist I doubt anyone would bat an eyelash at your adoptive Methodist Church about you having been Jewish before. Neither would they bat an eyelash about you saying that you were both Jewish and Christian at the same time. Jesus was, you know.

"Christians racialized Jews, in a way that they have racialized no other group."

As Luke Timothy Johnson, a noted Christian Scholar, put it in a lecture: "Though Christians did not invent anti-semitism, they did perfect it." These days, though, the evangelical Christians are highly supportive of Israel. There are exceptions, of course, but anti-semitism just ain't respectable like it used to be.

Pam,

I don't know where my own MacWhorter stuff is, or any of my intro books, for that matter, so here is something I wrote:

In everyday speech, a language refers to a dialect that has become a regional or national standard for historical (geopolitical) reasons.

I hope this helps!

A creole btw. can be though of as a pigin that has developed to the point at which it is a speaker's first language. (At that point, it is a fully functioning language.) These distinctions have enormous political implications.

Haitians, today, frequently say they speak three languages: Haitian (or Creole), French, and English.

In the past, they said they would say they speak French, perhaps, adding, a little sheepishly, "creole, it's a pigin." It wasn't, of course. (A pigin is a bare-bones means of communication that begins when two language groups come into contact for the purposes of trade.)

Farnaz

Pam,

"You know every synonym in a thesaurus without looking? That is impressive, I must say!"

I never said this. Are you suggesting I learn them all? Whatever for? Or are you being sarcastic?

The term "language" has various significations having to do with prestige, politics, nation status, etc. If you have anything of MacWhorter, I'm sure you can find a definition along the lines I'm suggesting. But, for example, "Italian" is a dialect of what was once Florentine Italian. It is, from the point of view of linguistics, a dialect, just as Sicilian is a dialect, or Friuli is a dialect, etc. When you work with them, when you do synchronic analyses, you work with them in the same way. However, because Italian is the national language, the prestige dialect, Sicilians will think of their language as a "dialect," in the sense in which you are questioning the word.

You could also think of it in another way. Ask what constitutes a dialect, instead of what constitutes a language. A dialect is not an offshoot of a Language, a deviant variety of an abstract entity. Language is a political term.
____________
It is interesting that you have no trouble conversing with any of the people you mention. That could be because you're conversing with them here, or because they can adapt to American speech.

If you've ever lived in England, if you have ever heard a celebrity speak of the communication problems s/he encountered attempting to live there, you would know what I mean.

On English as a creole, see John Holm. He's in a battle to the death with another linguist on this, but right now he's ahead.

My only point, which is getting worried to death, was that it is, as Observer12 put it rather directly, "absurd to say that English is the richest language in the world," as a result of its borrowings.

Also, I feel reasonably certain that unless MacWhorter were speaking under the influence of alcohol, he did not say English was the "richest language in the world." Of course, he could have been having a psychotic episode, but that, too, is doubtful. I know who he is.

FARNAZ: "No offense, but I taught anthropological linguistics, sociolinguistics, linguistics, etc., etc.. at the graduate school level. What is the point of my looking in a thesaurus?"

You know every synonym in a thesaurus without looking? That is impressive, I must say!

FARNAZ: "All I really would like to know is if he actually said English is 'the richest language in the world,' which would be an insane statement for someone in his position to make. But anything is possible".

That is my recollection, but I can't swear to the exact words. Having listened to him, I feel relatively certain thet he is not insane. Here is how the Teaching Company selects its lecturers: http://www.teach12.com/ttcInq/great_professors.aspx
They aren't lightweights, and these are not "pop" courses. Perhaps someone should suggest you to replace him?

FARNAZ: "Neither lexis nor morphology nor syntax nor phonology are identical in the various Englishes".

Not entirely, of course, but I have no trouble conversing with Canadians, Englishmen, or Indians. The lecture was about the development of the language, and considered all of its outgrowths.

There are many dialects that comprise English, of course, but I've never heard it suggested that English itself is a dialect. Of what? And developed from a creole?? At what point? I've also listened to Dr. John McWhorter's lectures on the development of human language, and I don't recall him suggesting this. (These are sincere questions, please reply.)

Pseudo,

Btw., antisemitism has nothing to do with Judaism, as a religion, since most Christians, generically speaking, know anything at all about the religion.

It does of course have to do with Christianity. As every theorist has said though, including practicing Catholics, Protestants, even Christian Orthodox: Christianity was necessary. Necessary, but not sufficient.

Hence, I could convert to Christianity tomorrow and to every Christian, I would still be a Jew.

Christians racialized Jews, in a way that they have racialized no other group.

For Jews, if anyone converts s/he is a Jew. End of discussion. It is prohibited to speak of the person as a convert.

For Islam, if I converted tomorrow, I would no longer be a Jew.

Interesting, and the consequences have been horrific. What we went through in Iran, what so many Jews went through there was fueled by EuroChristian antisemitic propaganda. That is a simple fact.

Europeans like to speak in terms of nationalities and Jews, e.g., "the French and the Jews," "the Ukrainians and the Jews." Those days, however, are over. WE say, the French Catholics and the French Jews, etc.

They don't like that of course. But after two thousand years, it's clear that "explaining" doesn't do much good.

We have to give up the notion that faith has anything to do with people's lifestyle preferences. Religion is about moral Truth ... thus, it demands tolerance, but not compromise.

Pseudo,

MLK is not relevant to the point. The point is simply that antisemitism is a social problem. It is not a problem that affects me exclusively.

You: Not all of us bear you ill will"

Me: Peace to you as well. Please do not personalize. The issue is not me. I am one of millions. The issue is racism.

The point is there has never been a discourse between Jews and Christians, observant or practicing, that paralleled the Black Civil Rights Movement, in all its dimensions.

And I believe we need one. But first, I think we need to get into the conversion business. It would be hard for me as a Heathen, Atheist, Infidel, but what the hay. A lot is at stake.

Farnaz:

What would you like me to say? That I would I say Pax Vubiscum to Martin Luther King today is implicit in my use of the term "St. Martin" in the poem. MKL was a hero who gave his life to reform his nation. I think without King and Lyndon Johnson and his 1964 Civil rights act, we could easily have seen highly destructive race war in the US rather than the localized riots that really concentrated on property rather than large scale killing. It was a dangerous time.

Would I have said it in 1967? No. In that year I was assaulted and mugged repeatedly by a gang of African American kids who were being bussed to my school. There were minor race riots with many individual fights there as well. The situation was very tense and physically threatening. All this had nothing to do with Christianity, because most of the African American kids in question were most likely Christian too. Were my assailants violent racists? Of course they were. Was I racist, too? Yes, albeit a non-violent one.

Pam cont'd

All you have to do is a simple kinship analysis, starting with ego to see the nonsense in a statement about relative linguistic richness in creoles or dialects such as English. (And, yes, technically, it is a dialect, and probably it originated as a creole.) See my post below on kinship structure as reflected in language, if you're interested. See Robins Burling, his intro to anthrolinguistics.

Btw., re: "all of them"

Neither lexis nor morphology nor syntax nor phonology are identical in the various Englishes.

Pam:

Re: your post,

Thanks so much, but really, you needn't take so much time with this. I know. Believe me.

If you read my posts, you see the issues go far beyond borrowings, beyond lexis. It would be absurd for me to listen to this lecture, akin to suggesting you hear a talk on at the level of pre-college anthropology.

No offense, but I taught anthropological linguistics, sociolinguistics, linguistics, etc., etc.. at the graduate school level. What is the point of my looking in a thesaurus?

All I really would like to know is if he actually said English is "the richest language in the world," which would be an insane statement for someone in his position to make. But anything is possible.

DANIEL12"...we humans are going to have to start comparing ourselves with animals more and more as the genetic sciences evolve and we are going to have to see if we can alter ourselves and take on some of the animals superior senses and actions".

Not possible. Once something is genetically lost, it virtually never returns. Humans lost their acute sense of smell when sight became their dominant sense. There isn't any evolutionary pressure that would be necessary to regain it. We can't begin to imagine the world that a dog perceives.

There are exceptions. Many of the earliest lifeforms (fish, reptiles, insects) have not only the three-color vision that we have, but four or five color vision. Again, we can't imagine their world. Mammals lost most of the color perception inherited from their reptile ancestors, because the earliest mammals, living during the time of dinosaurs, could only survive by becoming nocturnal, and at night, color vision is useless (all cats are black in the dark). As a result of this, most mammals today have only two-color vision. We reacquired a third color because one of our antecedents made the return to diurnal life.

But the reacquistion of any part of a lost characteristic is rare, because usually the pathways are lost along with it.

And if you meant by genetic engineering, I don't think that will ever be considered ethically viable.

Pseudo cont'd

And then you had that Mexican man murdered by three of his co-religionists. These are hateful things.
My own daughter and her mother brutalized by Catholic thugs.

But you see, these are not personal problems. They say nothing about the victims, speak volumes about the perpetrators. Social problems...claiming individual lives.

Pseudo,

Btw., my mother was a student at Columbia, and was in New York, when MLK was killed. Between the anti-black racism here and the anti-Jewish racism here, she was adamant about going to Israel, not the US, when we left Iran. After Ismael's murder, however, time was of the essence, and arrangements to come here were easier to make. She'd made many friends here, who were able to advocate for us.

Even so, none of us really believed the racism(s) could be that bad, not after what we had seen. And by the time we came, it wasn't. It was, though, and still is horrible. Blacks have been murdered by white Christians, as have gays. Pretty damned bad.

FARNAZ: "When we speak of English, moreover, which English are we referring to? American, British, Canadian, Indian, etc.?"

All of it. It would be better if you could listen to the Lerer lectures, as I'm afraid of doing him an injustice by trying to explain his points myself - particularly when it has been several years since I listened to them, but I realize that this requires consderable investment of time and treasure...

Arminius touched on it when he pointed out the size of the English vocabulary. Many languages have far smaller ones. Yes, this was acquired by borrowing, or, rather, usurping words from other languages, but by then giving them subtly different meanings from your original word, you make possible great nuance and texture of meaning that can only be gleaned in sparer languages through context.

Take the word "love". There are languages that have only one word for this concept. But in English, there's adulation, affection, allegiance, amity, amorousness, amour, appreciation, ardency, ardor, attachment, cherishing, delight, devotedness, devotion, emotion, enchantment, enjoyment, fervor, fidelity, flame, fondness, friendship, hankering, idolatry, inclination, infatuation, like, lust, partiality, passion, piety, rapture, regard, relish, respect, sentiment, taste, tenderness, weakness, worship, yearning, zeal - just some of the synonyms.

I wouldn't use these interchangeably. I "love" my mother, but I don't feel "amorous" toward her, even though the latter comes directly from the Latin "amor", which simply means "love."

I'm sure that Lerer had better examples, but this is the gist of it. If you have say, three words for the same thing, one native, two acquired, you can assign shades of meaning to your two superfluous words that enrich your expression.

I think the French make a big mistake in trying to preserve the "purity" of their language by excluding outside influence - they stifle expression. That the public resists by continuing to use expressions like "le drugstore", is to their credit.

Pseudo,

I'm guessing you don't want to get to the central issue here, which I address again in the comment below yours.

It's quite all right if you don't. I'd just like to know, that's all.

Farnaz

Yes, the part about "backwards" printing was a joke.

The death of MLK profoundly effected my family. That poem was a memoir of that.

Farnaz:

"Please tell me which edition, translation this comes from."

The first one was swiped up from the web, Bible Gateway or some such for convenience. I don't wish to defend it. I used it because it was there, and was also consistent enough with memory of my desk references.

The Oxford and Jerusalem versions are even stronger upon this point about Joseph. The Jerusalem seems air tight, though the Oxford Annotated is a bit more ambiguous. I don't read Hebrew, but this Jerusalem version is clearly not a "Christian" translation.

The Jerusalem Bible is copyright 2000 Koren Publishers Jerusalem Ltd. (Printed in Israel) English text revised and edited by Harold Fisch.

To me, the most amazing thing about the bible is how unflattering it is to its protagonists. Joseph included. I am always left asking: Why would they make that up?

Pseudo cont'd:

I've pasted my original post, deleting the MLK analogy, which may have been distracting. I, too, thought I couldn't be clearer. Antisemitism isn't a personal problem. It's a societal problem. It says nothing about the target, everything about the racist. That's how racism operates, as you know. I was and am asking you not to personalize this problem with me:

Farnaz2 Author Profile Page:
Dearest Pseudo,

"Pax Vubiscum, friend Farnaz
Not all of us bear you ill will"

Peace to you as well. Please do not personalize. The issue is not me. I am one of millions. The issue is racism.

One must will oneself into seeing.

January 3, 2009 12:34 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Pseudo,

I'm going to skip over what is evidently intended to be sarcasm. I read Hebrew; hence, I know how it looks on the page.

I also have the Oxford Study Bible in front of me and it reads differently--as does the Hebrew. That is not the point. It's somewhat more accurate, at least.

I'm not going to get into a debate with you on this. It does not refer to Joseph's people as is evident from the text and as is evident from Exodus.

I'm writing in English, you know, the language that reads left to right. :)
----------------------
MOST IMPORTANT: The matter at hand is antisemitism. I asked you not to personalize it with me. The analogy holds for every other kind of racism, anti-black, anti-brown, etc.

It also holds for anti-Jewish racism. Now, dear me, from where did that come, historically?
_______________________
If you can't address the point (first paragraph) my original post, let's just drop it, shall we?

Farnaz:

As far as translations go I have and use the Oxford Annotated Bible of 1991 and have read it multiple times. I also have and use the King James, The Jerusalem Bible (Bought for me in Jerusalem by an Israeli friend to aid my studies. You know the one that is printed backwards and has facing pages in Hebrew and English?), The Good News Bible, and the Bible and Oxford New RSV with Apocrypha, a couple other more minor editions.

The New Jerusalem Bible translation below is indeed clearer than the one I clipped off the Web. Note the parts saying “And Yosef made it a law over the land of Mizrayim to this day, ... And Yisa'el dwelt in the land of Mizrayim in the country of Goshen...”? It could not be clearer that Joseph included the people of Yisra'el as residents of Mizrayim in this tenant farmer bondage. So clearly, Joseph reduced all Egypt (excepting the priests) to tenant farmer bond slaves to the Pharaoh during the famine.

Genesis 47:23-28 (New Jerusalem Bible)

"Then Yosef said to the people, Behold I have bought you this day and your land for Par'o: lo, here is grain for you, and you shall sow the land. And it shall come to pass at harvest times, that you shall give the fifth part to Par'o, and four parts shall be your own, for seed of the field, and for your food, and for them of your households, and for food for your little ones. And they said, Thou hast saved our lives: let us find favour in the sight of my lord, and we will be Par'o's servants. And Yosef made it a law over the land of Mizrayim to this day, that Par'o should have the fifth part: except the land of the priests only, which became not Paro's. And Yisra'el dwelt in the land of Mizrayim in the country of Goshen and they took possession of it and grew and multiplied exceedingly."

And Susan Jacoby: The most predictable columnist ever published. This is sophmoric drivel that refuses to acknowledge the complexity of the world and its inhabitants. Religion sins, so do atheists (cf. the gulags of Commumism)--so what else is new. When religion becomes ideology --and violates basic tenets of love, service, forgiveness, etc.--it becomes the enemy of true religion. Much of John Paul II's Jubilee Year (2000) apology for the wrongs of his church focused on just that. The inability of Jacoby, et al. to understand that and to lump it all together sets the stage for further intolerance. There is nothing humanistic about that.

Emptiness is not an abstraction, even in the material sense. This is a fabulous website - see here the quantum physics of David Bohm .... wholeness and the implicate order.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-David-Bohm-Holographic-Universe.htm

CCNL - had you referred to the Taoist idea of 'wu wei' I might have taken your comment seriously - even considered the possibility that you had suddenly and spontaneously broken through the considerable psychic blockade that obstructs your world view.......but now, we must await your defininion of 'wii'. Sense or nonsense?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei

Persiflage,

Thanks for the clarification and the link.

Farnaz

Pseudo,

Right now, I'm reading both the Tanakh in Hebrew and the Oxford Study Bible (in English)

This is alarming, not only because it is completely incorrect, inaccurate, not in the text:

20 So Joseph bought all the land in Egypt for Pharaoh. The Egyptians, one and all, sold their fields, because the famine was too severe for them. The land became Pharaoh's, 21 and Joseph reduced the people to servitude, from one end of Egypt to the other.
------------------------

Please tell me which edition, translation this comes from.
____________________

Again, this is a PS to our original discussion, but it does go to work I'm doing.

The reality of Wii trumps all religions to include the abstractions of Buddhism and Dzogchen!!

Farnaz - emptiness and awareness together are inseparable and are considered to comprise the fundamental nature of the Absolute in the Buddhist view - this is the true matrix of all sensory/cognitive experience.

We (and all living things) are of this nature and can have intuitive insight into the truth of our own essense. Emptiness and awareness are specific terms that can only point to the actual and ineffable reality to be discovered.

If we accept this postulate (which ideally becomes actual empirical truth with deep meditation) then we understand that there is a primal and boundless intelligence, although transpersonal in nature.

Fabricating and extrapolating religion from this ancient realization is clearly where all the trouble starts! For greater elaboration, I recommend that you also look into the Dzogchen view - The Great Perfection.

See the link below:

http://www.awakeningthedragon.com/emptiness.htm

Pseudo,

I'm not a Christian. I read the Bible in Hebrew. What you say is inaccurate. If you can't read Hebrew, and would like to see secular scholarly translation, see the "Oxford Study Bible," put out by Oxford University Press. It's also annotated, and makes clear the population Joseph was dealing with. As well, it's very reasonably priced and a good reference book.

The problem, of course, is that it doesn't deal with the myth from a Jewish perspective. Tanakh is a Judaic text written by Jews for Jews. All texts are interpretive by definition.

All this, however, is too much for a peripheral point. The central issue is/was identity. The point I'm making is that antisemitism is not a personal problem; it's a social problem, hence, the MLK analogy. I could just as easily have used the Women's Movement.

I'm not sure which sociologist first made this point, but it's an important one to keep in mind: a great deal of human (victim) misery has come from people confusing oppression with personal problems.

Hi Persiflage,

Can we get back to meditation? As an aside, I was wondering about awareness with emptiness. Awareness is consciousness, yes? Are there, then, implications for the monism/dualism divide?

Farnaz:

"PS. And, no, Joseph didn't sell his people into slavery during the great famine or at nay other time, neither they nor another."

The Bible is another thing you need to read again, dear. The following passage does not explicitly say that the Jews were included in this famine driven transition to bondage, but we next see them as slaves in the land of Goshen. Pretty clear that Joseph did sell them into bondage, with mostly everyone else in Egypt.

Genesis 47:20-47:25

20 So Joseph bought all the land in Egypt for Pharaoh. The Egyptians, one and all, sold their fields, because the famine was too severe for them. The land became Pharaoh's, 21 and Joseph reduced the people to servitude, from one end of Egypt to the other.

22 However, he did not buy the land of the priests, because they received a regular allotment from Pharaoh and had food enough from the allotment Pharaoh gave them. That is why they did not sell their land.

23 Joseph said to the people, "Now that I have bought you and your land today for Pharaoh, here is seed for you so you can plant the ground. 24 But when the crop comes in, give a fifth of it to Pharaoh. The other four-fifths you may keep as seed for the fields and as food for yourselves and your households and your children."

25 "You have saved our lives," they said. "May we find favor in the eyes of our lord; we will be in bondage to Pharaoh."

Sorry, I submitted that entry pre-maturely by accient!

See Pinker's thoughts on cognitive processes just below:

http://www.cognitivebehavior.com/theory/languageandthinking.html

Finally, much symbolism designed to communicate specific ideas and concepts is non-verbal in nature (other than mathematics) but often has a more profound impact than language itself.

Examples are legion - I'm thinking of the elaborate sand painting created by Tibetan monks that takes many days to create (these mandalas are real art) - only to be immediately destroyed upon completion in order to convey the fact of the transience of life and the inevitability of change and eventual death.

Here's a link particularly for Farnaz, as she expressed interest in the Kaballah quite a while back.....this is a big website with many interesting links toward the end. The geometric symbolism is strikingly beautiful, in my opinion.

http://home.dmv.com/~vincent/

Frederic writes:

"About the "richness" question: As we have seen in the "Reason" discussion, the lack of identical meaning within the multiple semantic fields of a single word is the other side of the "richness" coin. The fact that there are more words in a language does not touch this ambiguity problem, which actually multiplies the "number of meanings" close to infinity in any language."

True. At the lexical level, this is one reason why it's impossible to discuss degrees of "richness," even if we were able to define the term. However, even at that level the problems are both simpler and more complicated. There are often no one-to-one correspondences among languages. One may or may not be able to express roughly the same meanings via locutions.

Still, at the lexical level, we get to the problem of idioms.

When we speak of English, moreover, which English are we referring to? American, British, Canadian, Indian, etc.?

Grammatically, the "I" problem is particularly interesting for sociolinguists, among others. In literature it has no meaning, neither linguistic nor pragmatic. It is a fiction. Grammatically, then, are languages without logical subjects more transparent, closer to reality?

I too was inspired by the ongoing conversation between Farnaz and PamSM, and in particular the aside referring to Helen Keller. When I went into the field of blindness and rehabilitaton many years ago, she was held up as an example of what blind and deaf/blind people could accomplish - and rightly so.

Losing either sense is hard to comprehend, but losing both imprisions a person in unimaginable ways. Some believe that losing the hearing is actually the most devastating of the two losses.
Being born deaf and/or blind is very different in effect, from losing one or both of these sensory systems later in life.

The Helen Keller Institute in NYC is world famous. She was so vastly accomplished despite her deficits (including speech) that one can only wonder what she might have accomplished with the cochlear implant of today (restoring hearing to many recipients). Was she a true genius, only waiting to emerge through the mastery of the symbolic system of signing? Some would think so.

Getting back to Timmy's preoccupation with the processes of reason and logic, I was taken back to
BF Skinner's theory of operant conditioning, where cognition and ratiocination is a behavioral non sequitur. He has had plenty of critics over the years, including lovers of thought and language....and in particular linguist Noam Chomsky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.F._Skinner

On the other hand, see Steven Pinker's take on non-rational cognitive processes here below:

Farnaz,

"No offense, Dear Pseudo, and I mean that sincerely, but if you could write such verse as you did to me, four decades after Martin, then my question to you was apt."

I am going to suggest you read it again, slowly this time, 'cause you missed it completely.
It is about the costs of building a better world.
My father went to his grave nursing his prejudice.
My sister and I chose a different way.
We never reconciled with him.

Arminius said: One can say anything in any language, although words may have to be borrowed.

I think there are limits to this "anything".
An example of "language uncertainty" (Heisenberg, lol!): I was asked by a music editor to do an English translation of a German book I wrote by the title of "Mut zum Lampenfieber" (literally: "Courage to stage fright", which grammatically quite obviously doesn't make much sense in English). It is untranslatable. The preposition "zum" can mean: "Courage ADDED TO stage fright", but also: "Courage TO ENDURE stage fright", and even evokes an idiomatic expression like "sugar TO your coffee".

Thus, the intended triple ambiguity of the title gets lost in translation. "Fighting stage fright" would actually destroy the points made in the book, which is about enduring it, dealing with it, and "Facing stage fright" is completely trite and way off the German title.

About the "richness" question: As we have seen in the "Reason" discussion, the lack of identical meaning within the multiple semantic fields of a single word is the other side of the "richness" coin. The fact that there are more words in a language does not touch this ambiguity problem, which actually multiplies the "number of meanings" close to infinity in any language.

Hi Arminius, Observer,

I don't think I am in a sleepable state. Arminius, Observer is right. Past and present are, morphologically, the only tenses in English. Everything else is constructed periphrastically, that is, with auxiliaries. And, then, we lack the ability to express certain rime references even with them.

Frederic's description of the "I" problem is even more interesting, though, since this is a pronoun that has now linguistic referent. Pragmatics enables it. This was somewhat politicized by Benveniste.

It can also go to the cogito. Descartes has been taken to task for confusing consciousness with experience. IMHO he did. Then we can move further into "language games."

Did he prove we exist, or did he prove confusion about experience and language?

IMHO, the most important word for much in life is still "doubt." For this much, I'm grateful to him.

Hi, Observer,

Agreed that there is no 'richest' language. One can say anything in any language, although words may have to be borrowed.

My list of tenses is the result of learning, and at one time teaching, Greek and Latin. It works for learning. I still disagree about two tenses - IMHO there are three basic tenses: present, past, and future. I am being completely and pedantically practical here.

Hi Arminius,

I know about the borrowing--thanks. I had to scroll down, reread Pam and Farnaz's posts to see what the disagreement was about. It concerns the words "richest in the world," means of expression, etc. Gets complicated, but it's interesting. Scroll down.

About tenses. Rereread her post about tenses. She's right. I know this because I'm something of a polyglot. The two tenses are past and present. Everything else is expressed by means of "periphrasis" like she says and which I had to look up. (She uses the adjective form, "periphrastic.") Anyway, I lost the link, and now can't find it.

I think it's absurd to say any language is the "richest in the world." I'm not a linguist, but I can see her point.

Observer12,

I'm not sure what 'richest language' means, but English has by far the largest volumes of words available. This is because English shamelessly borrows from any available source. This is the bane of the French, who try, hopelessly, to keep at least the core of their language static. There was a national crisis as to allowing 'drugstore' into the language, some decades back.

Farnaz,

"English has only two tenses..."

Huh? Say what? It actually has seven: present, imperfect, aorist, future, perfect, past perfect, future perfect.

Again, we should discern:

1. All perceptible and even imaginable phenomena are open to scientific, "reasoning" scrutiny.
2. The perceptible phenomena THEMSELVES do not depend on reason applied to them.

When I say or feel "I", I include the billions of bacteria within the system of "I" which make it even possible to say "I".

When I say "I", I actually refer to "we": My consciousness, built on a huge system of unconscious interacting cybernetic processes plus the billions of bacteria which enable this consciousness
of "I".

Our metabolism is open to scientific exploration, and we know quite a lot about it meanwhile, a lot more pending. But it certainly does not depend on "reason" or scientific exploration in order to work.

Reason is secondary, life is primary. Reason belongs to the OBSERVATION of the phenomena: Its application is not a condition for the existence of the phenomena.

Pam:

Last post. Haveta get sleep. I mention "ego" since you said you have a degree in physical anthropology. I'm referring, of course, to kinship structure. That is, in a sense, at the lowest, the foundational level of sociolinguistic differentiation.

Try doing a kinship analysis of one of the more studied American Indian languages, or better, see Robins Burling.

Then consider an easy linguistic/sociolinguistic problem. English has only two tenses, having to rely on a clumsy periphrastic structure that doesn't allow for certain time references. It is one of many things that makes Russian/English translation so difficult.

Here, I am dealing only at the level of grammar. Consider that grammatical and lexical structures interact, that together they interact with phonology, which also allows for certain nuances.

And then there is lexis. And then their is context. Natalia Guinsberg refused publication of "If This Is a Man" (Survival in Auschwitz) because she literally couldn't comprehend it. Could not comprehend it at the surface level.

It was written in Italian....? And she was not alone. It took years for this classic to get published. The reasons, for the most part, had naught to do with politics. They had to do with language comprehension, in the sense of discourse. This brings us to yet another level or dimension.

Aaah, jeez, I'll never get to bed...

Timmy wrote (please note the phrase I emphasized with asterisks):

"Why did you just call me cruel? Do you know anything about my dog or my relationship with her? Obviously not. It is her greatest Joy in life. She is a herding breed. And herding me on my skateboard is all she lives for. I do it for her not for me. I went through great lengths to teach her not to hurt herself doing it. *It didn't take long*, but it took concentrated training. Now she gets to do it every day, twice a day, danger free, pain free, and it is her favorite thing in the world. Cruel would be not taking her skateboarding every day".

Having previously written this:

"I go skateboarding with my dog every day. Every day she lunges at the nose of my board and tries to stop the wheels with her paws. Every time she does this the wheels roll over her paw and she yelps in pain. Every single time. I have to yell at her to make her stop. Then the next day, she does it again. Shoots her paws right under the wheels, in exactly the same manner as the day before. She yelps in pain every time. Once she got cut and bled all over the place. And yet next time we go out, same thing again. Perhaps if she could reason better she would not do this. But her reflex does not seem to be conditioning her away from hurting herself in the same manner *every day*".

I know only what you tell me, Timmy. And a little about dogs, having bred them for 30+ years. I did guess right that she was a herding breed, no?

Farnaz,

We all have such odd schedules, no? And then some of us are in different countries. Do get some sleep.

Is it really possible that someone said English is the "richest language in the world"? A linguist? An American?

Answer later, after you get some sleep!

Observer

Pam:

At least one did - Dr. Seth Lerer http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=2250
And I agree. It doesn't have to do with translation of human experience, but with the number of words available to express something - and those borrowings are the reason why.

Look at a thesaurus sometime, and see how many words have dozens of synonyms. Then think about those synonyms - many originate from other languages - and see if they really all have *exactly* the same meanings, or if there are subtle differences in the way they're used.

I'm too tired to look up examples right now, but a quick f'rinstance is the way we use one word for an animal in the barnyard, and another for that same animal on the table. Pig and pork, cow and beef, sheep and mutton. The first ones are derived from anglo-saxon, the second from French (porc, boeuf, mouton).

When the Normans conquered England, and brought their language with them, it became the language of the royal court, whereas the peasants continued with their anglo-saxon. So the "rude" terms were those of the peasants, and the "genteel" terms were those of the conquering heroes. Yet the words actually meant the same thing in their respective languages.
__________________

I don't see the part about English being the "richest language in the world." I surely hope he didn't say this. No one else with any credibility has since the nineteenth century.

I am an anthropological linguist, by profession. I moved from their to sociolinguistics, from there to translation, and finally back to literature.

This isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement. It's a matter of many things, primarily lexis, and lexical expression, but even grammar figures in this. There are languages without a "logical subject" (a topic term). There are languages, eg. Vietnamese, which has no equivalent of the active voice.

Start from ego and branch out anthroplinguistically from one language to another.

There is no way to have a brief discussion on this. Anyone linguist who would call English, or any other language the "richest language in the world" is ignorant of linguistics, living in the mineteenth century, or a bigot.

Got up to finish a paper...Gotta go back to sleep.

Timmy, I believe you constructed a sentence the opposite of what you wanted to say. You said something to the effect that there is nothing valuable in religious texts which is not equally useful and available to the atheist...The way you constructed the sentence makes one want to say "of course there is nothing in the bible that is not equally valuable to the atheist, the bible is open to all." I believe what you meant to say is that there is nothing valuable in the bible that could not have been dreamt up by an atheist. But even here you run into problems because religious man came before atheist man historically and we cannot know what you assert. I suppose we could construct an experiment and have children taught there is no god and then place them on a desert island and see if they come up with all that is valuable in religious texts, but then again we might have the lord of the flies. Of secondary note but of no less importance is the observation made by julian jaynes that ancient man thought differently than modern man and routinely heard voices in his head--voices he called gods--which would tell him what and what not to do. He mentioned the iliad as part of his proof.

And about whether or not music gets us in touch with feelings we have never had, I say if it did not there would be no such thing as musical originality, in fact we probably would not be able to have our emotional horizons broadened at all. I have to go now, this is actually a truncated post of still another of my posts that did not go through.

Again though, there seems to be no evidence that man could have jumped evolutionarily to atheist man and bypass religious man. Religious man had to come first.

OK one more partial one. Daniel12 - see this forum for some discussion on how Helen Keller thought:http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-80659.html

Most cogent point: that the brain doesn't store information in words. We can think without words, but not so easily communicate those thoughts...

Too tired for more.

As much as I would like to go answering posts, I have to get some sleep at some point. Big mistake to come in late from a party and decide to check this forum! So just this last one tonight:

Me: "Because of this polyglot heritage, English is the richest language in the world, simply because we have so many words with the same meaning, borrowed from other languages, that we can assign them slightly different *shades* of meaning, giving us the ability to convey so much more than languages with only one word."

Farnaz: "No linguist worth anything would agree with this. English as far as we know has the most borrowings. That is all. It does not have words, phrases that other cultures do and vice versa. Partly as a result certain phenomena in the spectrum of human experience are very difficult to translated".

At least one did - Dr. Seth Lerer http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=2250
And I agree. It doesn't have to do with translation of human experience, but with the number of words available to express something - and those borrowings are the reason why.

Look at a thesaurus sometime, and see how many words have dozens of synonyms. Then think about those synonyms - many originate from other languages - and see if they really all have *exactly* the same meanings, or if there are subtle differences in the way they're used.

I'm too tired to look up examples right now, but a quick f'rinstance is the way we use one word for an animal in the barnyard, and another for that same animal on the table. Pig and pork, cow and beef, sheep and mutton. The first ones are derived from anglo-saxon, the second from French (porc, boeuf, mouton).

When the Normans conquered England, and brought their language with them, it became the language of the royal court, whereas the peasants continued with their anglo-saxon. So the "rude" terms were those of the peasants, and the "genteel" terms were those of the conquering heroes. Yet the words actually meant the same thing in their respective languages.

Farnaz,

"Hard to put all the Yeatses together, isn't it?"

What a task it would be to count them all. Luck for us the problem never bothered him much.

Observer,

Hard to put all the Yeatses together, isn't it?

Farnaz,

"And then Yeats, he forgot all his Hebrew!!!"

Me, too. :)

Cher Observer,

Happy new year to you, too! I was thinking about some earlier posts on language and Flaubert came to mind. It took so many years to get a decent English translation--Stiegmueller, I think.

And then look what happened! Would, could we have had Joyce without him. Of course, Joyce read him in French :), and read Ibsen in Norweigan, which he taught himself. :) And then Yeats, he forgot all his Hebrew!!!

F

TIMMY: "I think you missed a post of mine where I asked you a bunch of questions about reason, as I was a little confused by one of your posts to me. I'm hoping you are going to answer those questions. "

I did. At 4:57.

Last one (I hope) to Timmy:

ME: As for "love your enemies" and "love your neighbor as yourself", I'm with Hitchens - these are simply impossible (oh, you can *pretend* to...)

TIMMY: "Here we disagree. You can more than pretend to. You can reason your way clear to it being in your best interest. Not with Hitler. But with your neighbor, who you are having a disagreement over a fence line with. You can find love for him as a fellow human being...etc."

Are you considering this neighbor an enemy? I don't think he qualifies. If you're using him as an example of the "love your neighbor as yourself" then I don't think you can do it. Really *love* him? Care every bit as much for his welfare as your own?

I think we can love *some* people that way - even that much. Family, really good friends - but to apply it to *everyone*? Nahhh.

Pam,

I think you missed a post of mine where I asked you a bunch of questions about reason, as I was a little confused by one of your posts to me. I'm hoping you are going to answer those questions.

Hi Farnaz,

"The child is father to the man." But fragments of child awareness, consciousness, wonder remain, no?
__________
And so, we have great writers and artists and lovers...:)

Bonne année!

Observer12

Pam,

Without reasoning? Of course we can. Don’t conflate thinking with reasoning.

Most thinking is reasoning. And no we cant. If I asked you to try. The very first thing you would do is reason how you will avoid it.

YOU: But it’s not. Many other animals live just fine without reasoning. Some people do (witness Spidey).

Funny but not true.
And I didn't say that animals couldn't survive without it. I didn't even say that humans could not survive without it. I said we couldn't function without it. Meaning "in society" not "biologically".

Try it. Before you start, you'll have to reason out how you will avoid it.

TIMMY: “Is there such a thing as "reasoned behavior"? Can reason affect your behavior?
Is ‘behavior’ in general something that is passed down?”

“Reasoned behavior” was your construct, but yes, behavior that is based on reasoning would qualify. Of course reason can affect your behavior. No, behavior in general is not inherited, but some behavioral *tendencies* are. Screaming in fear when you see lions, for instance.

TIMMY: If you do not inherit ‘reason’ or ‘reasoned behavior’, does this mean that everyone has the same ‘reason’ or ‘reason capacity’ or ‘reason capability’? (I'm not sure what the correct term here is).

Of course not. Some people reason better than others. This should be obvious. The ability to reason is inherited. Not the reasoning itself.

TIMMY: “If not. If our ‘reason’ is different individual to individual, is it not because it is passed down genetically?
And if our ‘reason’ is all the same are the same, why are we arguing?”

As above, yes. And we are arguing because you ascribe to reasoning some things that are entirely innate.

ME: After all, altruism exists in other species as well, and is inherited.

TIMMY: “Inherited all the way back to the first organism?”
Or was it learned behavior somewhere along the way?
Which came first. Chicken or the egg?”

No, not back to the first organism. Only social animals are altruistic. It wasn’t learned, it resulted from natural selection acting upon a behavior that resulted from a random mutation that caused a difference in the hard-wired behavior of some social animal, somewhere along the way.

The egg came first. Every chicken hatched from an egg, but the bird that laid the egg that produced the first chicken, wasn’t *quite* a chicken herself. (Yes, I know you didn't mean that question literally.)

ME: Reasoning would, in fact, work against the inheritance of altruism, because it endangers the life of the altruistic one, and is therefore against his individual self-interest.

TIMMY: What is the origin of altruism then?

I told you. Remember the baboons and the lions? If the baboon had *reasoned* that giving his life would probably result in the propagating of his genes by his relatives, I’m sure he would have said (metaphorically) “Scr*w passing on genes, I want to live!"

Timmy, I have no problem with reason. Perhaps we are at odds because of varying definitions of reason. What I mean is something of a step by step sequential process which ideally leads to original thought and the whole process can be laid out for others to examine and see how one arrived at original thought. My contention is that even in math, the most reasonable of fields, not only does intuition reign in the greatest discoveries but that mathematicians do all their great work before the age of forty and then the gift just peters out. Not something of an identity with reasoning here, but a mode which allows a Ramanujan to just jump to conclusions and not even care about providing proofs for people, or has Descartes somewhat asphyxiated by smoke in a hut he was sleeping in and dreaming the discourse on method. I am well aware that reason is evident in humans, but...temperament, talents, gifts exist--and we call them such because they are so particular and not easily defined by what most every person has, namely basic sense and reason. You said I reason. Actually Timmy I am not aware of any process which can be laid out. Thoughts not only come to me piecemeal, they come in toto--gestalt--intuition. Often I wake with a total piece of writing in my mind and then write. Often when awake I just sense the urge to write, that it is now time, and my mind is identical and flowing along with what comes out on the page. My mind is page and page is mind. Not to mention that I am absolutely ignorant of grammar. I have been writing for years and know only what verbs, nouns and adjectives are. I am not aware of my writing process--it just happens and I am thankful for it. But to give you just do, I have a high I.Q. and from what I have read about I.Q. tests, they test precisaly ability to...reason. So maybe you do have the last word. I just wish the reasoning processes of the great thinkers would take with the general public--we might have not nearly the heartbreak that we have now. I am so down on education, so upset about it I do not know what to say. I would go so far as to say there is no such thing as education and that a person learns only what he is genetically allowed to do. Notice that the higher I.Q. people can teach themselves much more easily and better than the lower I.Q. people. In the future we might have education at a minimum and instead genetically engineer people that can start teaching themselves at a young age and grow rapidly and really not need education as we know it at all....That is all for now. Time to see if another small post goes through. You guys seem right that you have to make the posts short here.

Pam,

YOU: I have to equivocate a bit here. Reason helps, but wisdom can also be taught"

Wisdom taught already exists as wisdom, it is just finding a new receptor. It was originally derived with the employment of reason, among other things of course, but reason played a major roll. In all cases. I feel you really reaching to counter a simple fact. Reason is always involved in the creation, or discovery, of wisdom. Why is it so difficult for you to say, "yes it is". Why are you fighting this assertion?

YOU: I’m not going to scroll down to find out, but I believe Daniel12 was talking about things that *lead to* wisdom, not things that *constitute* wisdom"

Daniel was countering my assertion that wisdom can not come about without reason. Things leading to wisdom involve reason. And this was a side point that Daniel picked up on barging in half way through a conversation with Onofrio, where my original challenge was to name one bit of actual wisdom in any religious text that is not equally available and useful to an atheist, as it is to a deity believer. Thus making deity belief entirely useless. That is the actual point I am arguing.

YOU: That said, why are you so cruel as to take her skateboarding every day?? Can’t you just walk her?

Why did you just call me cruel? Do you know anything about my dog or my relationship with her? Obviously not. It is her greatest Joy in life. She is a herding breed. And herding me on my skateboard is all she lives for. I do it for her not for me. I went through great lengths to teach her not to hurt herself doing it. It didn't take long, but it took concentrated training. Now she gets to do it every day, twice a day, danger free, pain free, and it is her favorite thing in the world. Cruel would be not taking her skateboarding every day.

"Wonderful give and take between personality and environment in the future. wonderful see saw, to be perpetually alive and fresh and eager to learn as a kid...."

Yes. I think imagination can do this too. Also, meditation.

"The child is father to the man." But fragments of child awareness, consciousness, wonder remain, no?

"Don't stop believin', hold on to your dreams"...San Francisco based band Journey.

Wisdom of pain...Wisdom of this experience and that--pleasure and pain. The right degree finally estimated in the future for each person and applied just as we now are working to tailor drugs for each patient...Imagine each person having to a large degree precisely those experiences necessary to bringing forth his total being....Then we would know experience. We would alter ourselves to be equal to the environment and more and we would also alter the environment to drive us toward precisely the experiences we need to grow further and further. Wonderful give and take between personality and environment in the future. wonderful see saw, to be perpetually alive and fresh and eager to learn as a kid....

TIMMY:“ It doesn't affect my argument one bit, that wisdom can not be gained without the use of reason. Heck we cannot function for five minutes without it.

Without reasoning? Of course we can. Don’t conflate thinking with reasoning.

TIMMY: “ I have only ever made the point that we can not function without it, or acquire wisdom without it. If I say we can not function without breathing, I am not saying that breathing is the be all and end all of our survival. There are other things we need to survive ass well as breathing of course, but just try tossing breathing aside for a while and see where that gets you. All I am saying about reason is the same thing”

But it’s not. Many other animals live just fine without reasoning. Some people do (witness Spidey).

TIMMY: “I'm Curious, since you decided to get into the middle of the argument between Daniel and I, that you did not show impartiality by taking him to task for the many things in his faulty yet self assured assertions Like pain generates wisdom. Love generates wisdom. Poetry generates wisdom. Drug abuse generates wisdom. The entire prison system is designed to give convicts wisdom”.

As I said, I took his post to mean that such things can *lead* to wisdom. And they can. I do disagree that that is the primary (or even tertiary) reason for the existence of the penal system. You made that point – no need for me to pile on.

TIMMY: “Why are you not an equal opportunity post basher? Got a thing for Timmy do ya?”

Nope. But when you say something that I think needs a rebuttal, I will rebut. You’re not the only person I reply to.

Language--Also see Ferguson for diglossia, and Bernstein for register.

NB: Bilinguals invariably score significantly higher on IQ tests than monolinguals.

"Wisdom of the arts, temperament is everything as more than one person has said. See Daniel Goleman's book "emotional intelligence" which explains why high I.Q. does not necessarily guarantee success. He said some people just have the right temperament. The wisdom of emotions. See observations such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt having a second rate mind but a first class temperament...Someone said that but I cannot remember who..."

E.Q. Yes, also temperament. Also mindfulness. Also self-reflection. Einstein and Yeats, very different, both keen observers of their own thought processes.

Time for Persiflage to wake up.

The wisdom of love. Don Quixotes love of Dulcinea...Dantes Beatrice...Socrates love of beautiful forms leading to a contemplation of the good...the unknown man to whom Shakespeare dedicated his sonnets. The love I felt as an eighteen year old man for a certain blue-eyed woman carrying me higher and higher until the day I took LSD and understood what Socrates wrote in the symposium before I read the book. Yes I have been blessed with experiences....

Wisdom of the arts, temperament is everything as more than one person has said. See Daniel Goleman's book "emotional intelligence" which explains why high I.Q. does not necessarily guarantee success. He said some people just have the right temperament. The wisdom of emotions. See observations such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt having a second rate mind but a first class temperament...Someone said that but I cannot remember who...

Daniel,

Part two,

YOU: I have to admit though Timmy that you are an original figure. You are exactly like the Christian fundamentalist but instead of saying god god god you say reason reason reason.

No sir. I say, reason, logic, observation, emotion, intuition, science, experience, hard wiring, biology, environment etc.

I simply argue that reason always play a part, just as all of those other things do. I make this point against those who think that reason gets in the way of certain things and needs to be tossed aside in order to discover certain important truths. You've bought into onofrio's straw man that I take reason as a god, or the be all end all. I don't. It is just one of many faculties that we have. But you can not function for five minutes without it. (except sleeping) And you can not derive wisdom without it. That is not to say it is the only tool for gaining wisdom, but is always plays a part. It never needs to be set aside because it gets in the way of discovery.

YOU: What weak ego structure you must have to be desperately trying to make all of existence conform to your paltry reason. I suggest you take a psychedelic and get back to us about what you learned"

Here you are regurgitating.

PS. I love the adjective "paltry" for reason. And referring to it as mine. It's yours to Daniel. You could not have formed you arguments to me without it. That's why it is anything but "paltry".

Daniel,

YOU: You must be machine or something if you do not think pain, suffering, leads to wisdom.

It does. It LEADS to wisdom. But it is not the SOURCE of wisdom.
The pain and suffering causes you to contemplate. This contemplation uses reason to weigh the circumstances, with your experience and emotions and intuition, and knowledge, and this process leads to the wisdom. The suffering was the catalyst that began the process. So you are right that pain and suffering leads to wisdom. But reason is always in play between suffering and production of wisdom. (pending further review by Pam)

YOU: You must be a fool not to think love leads to wisdom.

Same thing. What wisdom does love lead to that does not involve reasoning? Give me an example here.

YOU: You must have the greatest emotional life of all to think that music does not often get us in touch with feelings that we have never had.

I used to be a professional musician, and I still am a passionate musician. Some people think I look possessed when I play guitar because of the emotion on my face. Music does put me in touch with my emotions and feelings. But I've had them all before, and I put them into my music. But most importantly, Daniel, feelings are not wisdom. They are two completely different things.

YOU: And it is plain silly to think that poetic inspiration has not lead to wisdom.

Poetic inspiration is observation meets emotion meets intellect. Observation and emotion are not enough to write a poem. One also requires intellect to convey some sort of wisdom. As for finding wisdom by being inspired by a poem, of course this happens all the time. Reason is involved in the process. It is not magic revelation.

YOU: I mentioned merely the psychedelics expanding the mind in one abrupt trip, a fact verified by plenty of psychiatrists.

Expanding? can you define "expanding the mind"?

YOU: Lately it has been determined that ecstasy helps cure post traumatic stress.

And this is wisdom how?

And, by all means, see Sapir, especially, but also Whorf, independent of the hypothesis.

Any decent historical linguist is also helpful here.

I like you Pam, you're a good woman. In the end I have to admit not being certain about what we have been discussing. But I can see where much of this discussion is going: we humans are going to have to start comparing ourselves with animals more and more as the genetic sciences evolve and we are going to have to see if we can alter ourselves and take on some of the animals superior senses and actions. At the very least we have to admit the wisdom of music: music not only sends back to us the feelings we have had, it often gives us feelings we have never had and thus enriches us emotionally further. WE HAVE TO START IMAGINING HOW FUTURE MAN SHOULD FEEL TO HAVE A TRULY BROAD BASE ON WHICH TO STRAP NOT ONLY THE TALENTS WE NOW KNOW OF SUCH AS THE LARGELY INHERITED GIFT OF MATH, WE NEED THIS BROAD BASE FOR A PLATFORM TOWARD FEELING AND SENSING THE BEST THAT OTHER SPECIES FEEL AND SENSE....It would be amazing if you are right and languages evolve because it might be one day we can write and think, communicate through language not only what we now know of only through music, but what all other species sense and feel. THEN WE WOULD FINALLY BE A TOTALLY EARTHLY ANIMAL INSTEAD OF JUST MERELY "THE MOST INTELLIGENT" SPECIES AMONG MANY, AND WE WOULD REALLY BE READY TO LEAVE THIS PLANET AND ENGAGE OTHER WORLDS.

"Because of this polyglot heritage, English is the richest language in the world, simply because we have so many words with the same meaning, borrowed from other languages, that we can assign them slightly different *shades* of meaning, giving us the ability to convey so much more than languages with only one word."

No linguist worth anything would agree with this. English as far as we know has the most borrowings. That is all. It does not have words, phrases that other cultures do and vice versa. Partly as a result certain phenomena in the spectrum of human experience are very difficult to translated.

See Fisher, Dell Hymes, Peter Trudgill, et al.

To Pam again from Dan...I should have been clearer when I said the English language as we know it is founded on Shakespeare and the King James Bible. I meant modern English (Shakespeare as the English writer which simultaneously gets us in touch with genius and almost a foreign language--Chaucer too to a degree. I believe all the famous attempts to create English dictionaries too had a major part in our modern English.

I have to take issue with you though about languages evolving. It seems all too often they parallel the rise and fall of civilizations and as we all know we humans have by no means solved the problem of civilizations rising and falling. That is something of the holy grail of political science (from Plato's republic to Augustines city of God to Machiavelli to Hobbes leviathon, etc.). It seems we can say languages evolve only over the truly macro view--in other words language does seem to have gotten better than it was millenia ago. But the forward process is more like a sideways and often backward process what with this and that civilization failing. If evolution it sure is ugly--like a ship of old having to have all hands on deck and trim sails this way and that and going back and forward in constantly changing winds. Whoops--I better stop writing now lest this not go through.

TIMMY: “Scientific data would convince me more than putting NONSENSE in caps, but the most important thing you need to know is, I don't care. As long as you agree that it does not constitute wisdom…”

Timmy, there is plenty of scientific data out there. I’m not going to do the leg work for you – look it up. Pain avoidance experiments are quite numerous.

I’m not going to scroll down to find out, but I believe Daniel12 was talking about things that *lead to* wisdom, not things that *constitute* wisdom.

Wisdom
(wĭz'dəm)
1. The ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight.
2. Common sense; good judgment: “It is a characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things” (Henry David Thoreau).
3.
a. The sum of learning through the ages; knowledge: “In those homely sayings was couched the collective wisdom of generations” (Maya Angelou).
b. Wise teachings of the ancient sages.
4. A wise outlook, plan, or course of action.

If so, I don’t disagree.

TIMMY: “Remember, this is all about my argument that wisdom can not be gained without using reason, which you don't seem to disagree with”.

I have to equivocate a bit here. Reason helps, but wisdom can also be taught.

Yes, you can learn (usually as child, and from another child) that you can pass your hand quickly through a flame without being burned. You might also reason this out, but only by knowing a fair amount about thermodynamics. However, when you do it slowly enough to burn yourself, no amount of reasoning will keep you from jerking your hand away.

Your dog’s instinct to chase and catch moving objects (is she a herding breed?) is overcoming her fear of pain – it is the stronger instinct. A wolf that gave up the chase because the deer kicked him would be a very hungry wolf – and eventually a dead one.

That said, why are you so cruel as to take her skateboarding every day?? Can’t you just walk her?

To Pam from Daniel. You impress me. Good rebuttals. But what were the thoughts of Helen Keller before she learned to sign? I vaguely recollect that she had something like pure sensation only (famous moment when she realizes what she feels on her hand is called water).

Animals of course do demonstrate a type of thinking--in fact many types that we humans do not have. Animals use tools and they have a vast variety of senses that if we humans would have them would totally alter our way of thinking. But they lack the peculiarity of language and it is worth noting that for all the marvelous senses they have, and rudimentary tool skills (I like corvids) they seem not to translate into what we call culture. But then again to contradict myself, they often demonstrate a cultural understanding we can only dream about. Many types of insect I believe are all too willing to die for the sake of their species (army ants forming a bridge over fire so their fellows can walk across their backs to safety, male spiders willing to be eaten by the female to breed--same with mantis'. I better stop writing now and start a new post because it seems I am never allowed a long post on this site. Perhaps I am too ardent a lover and Jacoby prefers a slow and certain hand....

Onofrio,

"Fleshly janglers, open praisers and blamers of themselves or of any other, tellers of trifles, ronners and tattlers of tales, and all manner of pinchers, cared I never that they saw this book."

Yes! Taken together, quite stunning, especially, given the abstraction surrounding. Uninvited, la vita imaginativa joins the vita contemplativa!

And, O, those "[f]leshly janglers": I daily await a conversational opening to call them by their name, unobtrusively, that is! :)

Onofrio,

YOU: "...and nor is the principle of reason that you defend."

Do you never defend the principle of reason? Is reason just hogwash? Is it never worth defending?

YOU: "And regarding your poor dog. Perhaps if you used your own reason a bit more, you could work out how to skateboard without repeatedly injuring her"

I have.
This only went on for a short time before I managed to get her under control with it. But I still have to force her with stern commands not to lunge at the wheels with her paws.

As usual you waste bandwidth fussing about things that have no bearing on the discussion and don't detract from my point at all. But they do distract. And I see why you want to do as much of that as possible. Maybe no one will notice you can't answer any of my questions.

Daniel12, you said:
"Furthermore as Whorf pointed out, we can think only what our language allows".

I disagree with Whorf. Helen Keller had no language to think in, but she did think, even before Anne Sullivan gave her language. Animals think, but they don't have language. Autistic people report that they think in pictures. Before we developed language, we had first to develop the thinking brain to use it.

"Are we largely reasoning beings if our languages still drift this way and that?"

Our languages don't "drift", they evolve. And we are the impetus for this evolution, so how would that have any negative effect on the ability to reason?

"Additional observation: the English language largely based on Shakespeare and the King James bible--poetry and belief."

These may be some of our best examples of Early Modern English, but they are not what the English language is "based on." Before them, there was Middle English (Chaucer) and Early English, which was based on Germanic languages, and along the way the Normans brought in a good bit of French influence. Not to mention that the Germanic languages grew out of the basic Indo-European group, ultimately. The British empire also picked up bits from all the far-flung countries under its heel, and even America has added new words.

Because of this polyglot heritage, English is the richest language in the world, simply because we have so many words with the same meaning, borrowed from other languages, that we can assign them slightly different *shades* of meaning, giving us the ability to convey so much more than languages with only one word.

The Teaching Company has at least two excellent lecture series on language - one on the development of language in general, one on the development of English. Fascinating - I highly recommend them.

Dearest Pseudo,

Ah, I trust your MLK poem was a reply to my earlier question arising from lines of yours to me.

I wasn't referring to MLk's assassination. At that point, it wouldn't have mattered much what you said to him, would it?

However, to go along with your testimony for a moment, by the time MLK died, he had become, for many. a Christ figure, particularly in light of his ability to hang on to his message as the Black Power movement was well underway. However, it was to that movement, that many young black and some white people turned, to Malcolm, and then, to H. Rap Brown, to Stokely, et al.

There had been a wide open national discussion of race for years. Take it back ten or more years, when MLK appealed all over the US for a (white) house of worship in which to speak. Only one in the US, ONE, invited him, honored at the prospect of hearing him. It was a synagogue.

By the time of MLk's murder, many people, particularly young people outside of the south, but even there, had gotten the message. Tears weren't that hard to come by.

NOw let's get back to the matter at hand. Let's get closer to the matter at hand; scroll back more years. Say you were of age to comprehend King in the 1950s when he was young and very much alive.

Would you have said to him, had you been of age, what you said to me:

Pax Vubiscum, friend [Martin].
Not all of us bear you ill will

Here, again, is my reply to you upon reading those lines when they were addressed to me. I bracket the lines on King.

Peace to you as well. Please do not personalize. The issue is not me. I am one of millions. The issue is racism. (Would you have said the same to MLK? I believe you would have, as did many other good people.)

One must will oneself into seeing.

January 3, 2009 12:34 AM
----------------------
Do you see, Pseudo? The issue isn't MLK. It has been forty years since that horrible night. The issue is perceiving a social malady as a personal problem.

No offense, Dear Pseudo, and I mean that sincerely, but if you could write such verse as you did to me, four decades after Martin, then my question to you was apt. Four decades after Martin is time enough for people to understand that those who reject bigotry and racism do not need help with a personal problem.

Hope this doesn't sound harsh, dear Great Poet, Pseudo. I do not mean it to be.

Peace,
Farnaz

PS. And, no, Joseph didn't sell his people into slavery during the great famine or at nay other time, neither they nor another. The people who came to him again and again for food were not "his." The money went to Pharaoh, not him. In the end, when they had nothing, he enabled them to stay alive as they, quite understandably wanted, and they "flourished."

The deal was they kept four fifths of what they grew and gave the other fifth to Pharaoh. They flourished. See Genesis.

But this is all at the most literal possible level, and, I'm afraid, also beside the (another) point.

Peace

Wisdom achieved through the general experience of evil. Sad fact of life that not only could we not know the good without contrast and comparison to evil, for all human attempts to arrive at the good the good eludes us--stasis in the good is a logical impossibility unless you believe in a god which can render this impossibility null. Recent atheist attempt to arrive at stasis in the good without a belief in God: communist society which of course will remain an ideal. Just like John Lennon's song imagine. Change is the order of existence (see Heraclitus). We might overcome this or that evil but change is the evil which can never be overcome. Wisdom born of this pressure which no matter how we strive at the good it remains out of our control. Tragic sense of life (see Unamuno). Timmy, what books have you read? I detect only a smattering of science made popular for the layman. I on the other hand have read all the writers I mention and many more. I am always reading one book at work and one at home. Right now my work book is democracy and education by John Dewey. My home book is the cyberiad by Polish science fiction writer Stanislaw Lem. I recommend the later. Very witty. Two engineers who design advanced machines for personal pleasure and reward from others. One machine keeps saying two plus two is five and attacks our intrepid engineers when they call it stupid. Another machine made for a king who wants a robot that he can hunt--one that really gives him a challenge--turns into policemen who abduct the king and then all his police of state start arresting each other in the attempt to locate the king. Very funny. Give me some books to read so I can be equal to your reason....

Timmy, honestly I do not know what to make of you. When I have been able to get a post through I provide loads of authorities for what you call "my assertions". You must be machine or something if you do not think pain, suffering, leads to wisdom. You must be a fool not to think love leads to wisdom. You must have the greatest emotional life of all to think that music does not often get us in touch with feelings that we have never had. And it is plain silly to think that poetic inspiration has not led to wisdom. And you must not even be able to read if you think I said drug abuse leads to wisdom (although now to think of it, it does). I mentioned merely the psychedelics expanding the mind in one abrupt trip, a fact verified by plenty of psychiatrists. Lately it has been determined that ecstasy helps cure post traumatic stress. I have to admit though Timmy that you are an original figure. You are exactly like the Christian fundamentalist but instead of saying god god god you say reason reason reason. What weak ego structure you must have to be desperately trying to make all of existence conform to your paltry reason. I suggest you take a psychedelic and get back to us about what you learned.

Pseudo - Cro-magnon had plenty of cave poetry - but it happened to be pictographic.....and great art it was!

Our ancient forebearers clearly had great artistic sensibilities, perhaps wrought by a long-lost identity with their fellow creatures - and fit for the Louvre.

Do great artists rely on reason to render their truths? A question better answered by Timmy, I would think.........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascaux

Hi Pam,

YOU: As for "love your enemies" and "love your neighbor as yourself", I'm with Hitchens - these are simply impossible (oh, you can *pretend* to...)

Here we disagree. You can more than pretend to. You can reason your way clear to it being in your best interest. Not with Hitler. But with your neighbor, who you are having a disagreement over a fence line with. You can find love for him as a fellow human being. And you can walk a mile in his shoes. And you can imagine that there are things about his life that you can not know about, that may be having an effect on his behavior, and causing him to be adversarial. And you can show him your love and understanding. And you will change his heart. By not meeting adversarial with adversarial, you will surprise him, disarm him, and change his heart. Ever seen The Grinch Who Stole Christmas? I have done this. It works. Jesus was brilliant on this one. And it makes sense. It is very reasonable. No voices from another room necessary. It was those words that made me give it a go. And it worked. And I have no doubt that someone, most likely many people, reasoned this out over thousands of years. I probably never would have figured it out on my own. Thank goodness for wisdom from our ancestors.

Now if I could just be Jesus like more often, or dare I say, all the time, but it is an extremely hard ideal to live up to. You have to use your reason to outsmart your natural instinct to tell your grumpy neighbor to go to hell. It is altruism combined with reason. IMMHO. One thing is for sure, Christians are no better at it than I. So I know that believing it is a command from a deity doesn't help.

YOU: and if you believe that God asked this of you, then you have to believe that he set you up to fail.

Hear hear.

Pamsm,

I will assume you know more about this that I. So these are not pointed questions to follow. I am keen learn from you. I can always be talked down by science. It is far more my God than "reason". If my perception of reason is wrong, I want to fix it. Help me get it.

YOU: NO, again. You don't inherit reasoned behavior. Reason comes from the workings of your own brain.

Is there such a thing as "reasoned behavior"? Can reason affect your behavior?
Is "behavior" in general something that is passed down?
If you do not inherit "reason" or "reasoned behavior", does this mean that everyone has the same "reason" or "reason capacity" or "reason capability"? (I'm not sure what the correct term here is)
If not. If our "reason" is different individual to individual, is it not because it is passed down genetically?
And if our "reason" is all the same are the same, why are we arguing?

YOU: After all, altruism exists in other species as well, and is inherited.

Inherited all the way back to the first organism?
Or was it learned behavior somewhere along the way?
Which came first. Chicken or the egg?

YOU: Reasoning would, in fact, work against the inheritance of altruism, because it endangers the life of the altruistic one, and is therefore against his individual self-interest"

What is the origin of altruism then?

PAMSM:

"But Cro Magnons and all that went before them, didn't write much. Alas, no cave poetry!"

Alas Cro Magnons did not write poetry upon their caves
But yes they taught technology and how their children could be brave

Farnaz:

"Would you have said the same to MLK?"

In the springtime of my life on the day St. Martin died
I sat there with my sister to give comfort as she cried

My parents were amazed at us across that opening divide
For they you see had raised us to exalt fierce ethnic pride

They even called us N-word-lovers among their criticisms
But that just served to split more wide the growing family schism

My sister said that they were wrong to teach us racial hatred
When the one who Had a Dream died to heal his wounded nation

Next year we listened to a song of mind's true liberation
While cities burned on summer's nights in anger's conflagrations

And so I learned the price of prejudice' bitter games
That hate consumes all those who fan its spreading flames

In my time I saw I too learned it at my father's nee
And that I too would have to fight to set my own life free

Timmy,

PS to last,

...and nor is the principle of reason that you defend.

Timmy,

You to me:
"But I will concede. Scientific was too strong. Experimentation was entirely correct however. We all do such social behavoir experiments every day all day, 24/7. But you are right. It's not technically science."

Thank you, Timmy. Respect. You are not diminished.

Timmy,

You to Pam:
"Why are you not an equal opportunity post basher?"

I can understand you levelling this at me, but Pam? Her posts to you are just robust debate. No bashing there. Unless you construe someone who questions your rhetoric cogently and directly as a "basher".

Daniel has been having trouble even getting his posts up. A little of your "love" in action might not go astray.

And regarding your poor dog. Perhaps if you used your own reason a bit more, you could work out how to skateboard without repeatedly injuring her. Knowing her non-reasoning nature, you might consider...contingencies? You're the master.

Oh no, Frio,

"So show YOUR evidence. Of SCIENTIFIC experiments that verify loving your enemy changes their hearts"

I used the term "scientific" meaning, experimentation, observation and theory. You know how people say things like "I experimented with marijuana" or "she experimented with bisexuality". Should they not say this if they are not using beakers and test tubes?

Tell you what Ono. I suppose I used the term "scienctific" very loosely there. My bad. It won't happen again. My intention was to demonstrate that experimentation, trial and error, mental recording of results, and reasoning all play a part in the development of ideals like, "love thy enemy". As opposed to this being wisdom from a Daimon of some sort.

But I will concede. Scientific was too strong. Experimentation was entirely correct however. We all do such social behavoir experiments every day all day, 24/7. But you are right. It's not technically science. Consider yourself right on this technicality that has no bearing on my point that social behavior experimentation produces much of our wisdom in social behavior. Wise words from our ancestors are mainly the result of thousands of years of social experimentation and observation of the results.

Timmy,

"Loving one's enemies changes their hearts."

Those conclusive scientific experiments, please!

No straw man, there, tiger!

Pamsm,

Part two,

BTW, I am more than happy to be proven wrong by you on this. I am not arguing from certainty on this specific point. Just from my limited knowledge of science, and common sense. I suspect you are doing the same. But unless it's important to you, don't waste your time digging out quotes. It doesn't affect my argument one bit, that wisdom can not be gained without the use of reason. Heck we cannot function for five minutes without it.

YOU: You lay too much at the door of reason. Reason is a great and wonderful thing, and something that we do better than most other animals, but it is NOT the be-all-and-end-all of every bit of our behavior.

Never said that it was. Not even close. You are thrashing at the same straw man as Onofrio now. I have only ever made the point that we can not function without it, or acquire wisdom without it. If I say we can not function without breathing, I am not saying that breathing is the be all and end all of our survival. There are other things we need to survive ass well as breathing of course, but just try tossing breathing aside for a while and see where that gets you. All I am saying about reason is the same thing.

I'm Curious, since you decided to get into the middle of the argument between Daniel and I, that you did not show impartiality by taking him to task for the many things in his faulty yet self assured assertions Like pain generates wisdom. Love generates wisdom. Poetry generates wisdom. Drug abuse generates wisdom. The entire prison system is designed to give convicts wisdom.

Why are you not an equal opportunity post basher? Got a thing for Timmy do ya?

Pamsm,

Pam,

YOU: NO, Timmy. What I was disagreeing with was your assertion that sticking our hand in the fire only tells us that it's hot, that it's the "reasoning" that it will cause injury that keeps us from doing it again. NONSENSE. It is pure conditioned reflex (conditioned by pain, which seldom takes more than one repetition).

Scientific data would convince me more than putting NONSENSE in caps, but the most important thing you need to know is, I don't care. As long as you agree that it does not constitute wisdom, that was my argument to Daniel, to whom the original post was actually addressed. Whether or not reason is involved in such a thing does not matter to me. It seems to me that it would be, but I could care less if the truth is that it does not. Remember, this is all about my argument that wisdom can not be gained without using reason, which you don't seem to disagree with.

Having said that, I will continue to debate this with you, because you have offered no data on the specific question of whether or not reason plays a part in the decision not to stick your hand back into a flame. I do not dispute that reflex plays a role, but what is your data that shows reason plays no roll at all in this specific decision? Can you quote me something specific?

As I type this I have just sparked up my Bic lighter. Now I am running my fingers through the flame. Right through the flame. I'm doing it as slow as I can without getting burned, which is quite slow. Why does my powerful conditioned reflex not stop me from doing this? Have I overruled it with my reason? Have I not reasoned through experimentation that I can actually touch flame for a short period of time without getting burned. The reflex does not kick in until I actually feel the pain. Then only, does my hand jerk back in reflex. Before that, my reason is controlling my actions not my reflex.

One more point. I go skateboarding with my dog every day. Every day she lunges at the nose of my board and tries to stop the wheels with her paws. Every time she does this the wheels roll over her paw and she yelps in pain. Every single time. I have to yell at her to make her stop. Then the next day, she does it again. Shoots her paws right under the wheels, in exactly the same manner as the day before. She yelps in pain every time. Once she got cut and bled all over the place. And yet next time we go out, same thing again. Perhaps if she could reason better she would not do this. But her reflex does not seem to be conditioning her away from hurting herself in the same manner every day.

The fact that human languages show no known development toward greater reason. Languages drift and often collapse paralling the collapse of civilizations. Furthermore as Whorf pointed out, we can think only what our language allows. Are we largely reasoning beings if our languages still drift this way and that? Additional observation: the English language largely based on Shakespeare and the King James bible--poetry and belief. See Alfred North Whitehead, Bertrand Russell, Wittgenstein as attempts to make language more reasonable.

The theory of evolution which has no known reason at its basis. Evolution an often accidental and cruel and arbitrary process. Does a child with cancer make sense? Does a homosexual make sense? Does a Christian fundamentalist make sense? Do I make sense? How to be certain...What direction toward superior human development? How to stop just drifting with evolution and to take our evolution into our own hands?

The fact that for all mathematicians and physicists ability to reason they do all their best work before the age of forty. Math a largely inherited gift, a mode of mind with its own laws of logic and longevity.

If music only got us in touch with feelings we already have there would be no such thing as musical originality. No one felt Beethoven before Beethoven, No one felt Hendrix before Hendrix.

This site is not allowing me to reply to you Timmy. I am allowed only maybe two sentences to go through. My posts all go to Jacoby and apparently she does not want to post them. I might post something for you to read on the main on faith site where they have the question of the month. I have to think about it.

Farnaz,

You, quoting that anon mediaeval Englander:
"Fleshly janglers, open praisers and blamers of themselves or of any other, tellers of trifles, ronners and tattlers of tales, and all manner of pinchers, cared I never that they saw this book."

It may not reach Crossan's scion, but this is just precious.

Fleshly janglers... :)

Just letting you know also that I have kept enjoying the flashes and tracts of poesy. I particularly like the Swinburne one.

Appealing, apt, apposite as usual.

You:
"I am. The Jewish Problem."

So slow on uptakes,
I didn't mark the diff'rance
a period makes.

Still pondering the at-first-non-obvious (to me) but now dawning implications...

Folks are dumb where I come from.

Onofrio and Frederic,

Agreed about keeping discourse about reason within reasonable (pun intended) bounds.

Somehow I doubt, though, that Timmy is going to listen.

Frederic

You:

"I think we are wasting some "brain calories" with this reason business.

We should stick to the proposition of "reason" where it belongs: To thinking, to the conscious attempt to EXPLAIN a phenomenon directly perceived by our senses or imagined by our fantasy, to questions of causality, origin, to philosophical concepts.

Please, let us NOT talk about "reason" in the context of emotion, sensual perception, senses in general, memory, urges, biological functions in our body, instincts, drives etc."

AMEN to all that!

Timmy,

You to me:
"Forget "turn the other cheek", I used it as just one example of many, and of course, you found yourself hung up on it. Stick with "love thy enemy"."

No, you quite clearly stated that both were scientifically verifiable. You referred to a plethora of experiments.

You cannot cite an actual experiment, only vague, subjective anecdote from your own life, and vast generalisations featuring some fantasy, atemporal - thus mythic - tribal something-or-other. No names, no dates, no documentation.

You are always demanding that people show their "evidence", and you crow loudly that they never do.

So show YOUR evidence. Of SCIENTIFIC experiments that verify loving your enemy changes their hearts.

I'd love to see what the scientific terms are for "changes their hearts"...

You know, if you just exemplified your own convictions and standards, I might reasonably believe you. Imagine that.

Sorry, the comments on which I'm commenting are Timmy's.

"We all run scientific experiments every day all day long."

No we don't. You have confused SCIENTIFIC experiments with empirical observation and life experience - all quite distinct ways of knowing/testing knowledge.

To claim all of human life is a scientific experiment is a distortion of both life and science.

"Scientific simply means scientific methodology, which means experimentation, observation, and theory derived from it."

Not all experimentation and observation is "scientific", Timmy. As with "Reason", you are stretching a favoured term too far in your reach for absolutes.

CCNL,

This is for you to help you develop a sense of humor.

The Purple Cow's Projected Feast: Reflections on a Mythic Beast, Who's Quite Remarkable, at Least.

I never saw a purple cow,
I never hope to see one;
But I can tell you anyhow,
I'd rather see than be one.

-Ogden Nash 1895

Dear CCNL,

Here is the link for "The Cloud of Unknowing" (full text):

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/cou/cou04.htm

Farnaz
Atheistic Heathen Jew (Infidel)

Dear CCNL,

This is for you so you can be more contemplative.
From "The Cloud of the Unknowing."

Here Beginneth the Prologue
IN the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost! I charge thee and I beseech thee, with as much power and virtue as the bond of charity is sufficient to suffer, whatsoever thou be that this book shalt have in possession, either by property, either by keeping, by bearing as messenger, or else by borrowing, that in as much as in thee is by will and advisement, neither thou read it, nor write it, nor speak it, nor yet suffer it be read, written, or spoken, of any or to any but if it be of such one, or to such one, that hath by thy supposing in a true will and by an whole intent purposed him to be a perfect follower of Christ not only in active living, but in the p. 46 sovereignest point of contemplative living the which is possible by grace for to be come to in this present life of a perfect soul yet abiding in this deadly body; and thereto that doth that in him is, and by thy supposing hath done long time before, for to able him to contemplative living by the virtuous means of active living. For else it accordeth nothing to him. And over this I charge thee and I beseech thee by the authority of charity, that if any such shall read it, write it, or speak it, or else hear it be read or spoken, that thou charge him as I do thee, for to take him time to read it, speak it, write it, or hear it, all over. For peradventure there is some matter therein in the beginning or in the middle, the which is hanging, and not fully declared where it standeth: and if it be not there, it is soon after, or else in the end. Wherefore if a man saw one matter and not another, peradventure he might lightly be led into error; and therefore in eschewing of p. 47 this error, both in thyself and in all other, I pray thee for charity do as I say thee.

Fleshly janglers, open praisers and blamers of themselves or of any other, tellers of trifles, ronners and tattlers of tales, and all manner of pinchers, cared I never that they saw this book. For mine intent was never to write such thing unto them, and therefore I would that they meddle not therewith; neither they, nor any of these curious, lettered, or unlearned men. Yea, although that they be full good men of active living, yet this matter accordeth nothing to them. But if it be to those men, the which although they stand in activity by outward form of living, nevertheless yet by inward stirring after the privy spirit of God, whose dooms be hid, they be full graciously disposed, not continually as it is proper to very contemplatives, but now and then to be perceivers in the highest point of this contemplative act; if such men might see it, they p. 48 should by the grace of God be greatly comforted thereby.

Stupidity has ruled over sanity for ages, just think of Bruno and Galilei.

But since I don't think Spidey rules over anything, there might be hope for evolution!

Spidey:
"Intelligence can produce (dumb and smart) objects but NO dumb object/s can produce intelligence."

Spidey: Intelligence is a quality, a property of a person. A quality cannot produce anything.

An the other hand, your are right about "dumb objects": You might call a person an object, and then you are correct: "NO dumb object/s can produce intelligence". Q.e.d.

To the articles re evolution, very worthwhile reading, now take a deep breath and have a laugh and not be so absolutely serious about everything in relation to evolution, it is of couse a new year.

Evolution is a lost cause. Not only it is a doomed doctrine but its followers will also be doomed soon.

That is the prophecy and that is how Intelligence works. It doesn't allow room for stupidity to rule over sanity.

It's NOT "survival of the fittest" but it is "elimination of the idiots". That's how nature works. That's how Intelligence works.

If you ever have kids, spidey2, you may hopefully refute your own statement.

Frederick2 wrote "and the anti-evolutionists never read any article, let alone book, about evolution"

I do and I find them very idiotic.

They run counter to this SCIENTIFIC FACT :

Intelligence can produce (dumb and smart) objects but NO dumb object/s can produce intelligence.

In other words, if we try to rewind creation and and look for the beginning of things, we would end up finding INTELLIGENCE as the MAIN SOURCE of creation.

I think we are wasting some "brain calories" with this reason business.

We should stick to the proposition of "reason" where it belongs: To thinking, to the conscious attempt to EXPLAIN a phenomenon directly perceived by our senses or imagined by our fantasy, to questions of causality, origin, to philosophical concepts.

Please, let us NOT talk about "reason" in the context of emotion, sensual perception, senses in general, memory, urges, biological functions in our body, instincts, drives etc.. The vast majority of events in our body happens outside of consciousness, fortunately, and therefore cannot be brought into any connection with reason. Reason presupposes consciousness.

It simply doesn't belong there and forces us (especially Timmy) to perform all sorts of mental somersaults to posit an all-pervasive concept of reason out of adequate context. We jeopardize the wonderful concept of reason by bringing it into a fallacious context!

I am all in favor of reason when trying to explain natural processes, including evolution big and small, cosmic and biological!

Pam, thanks for your shot at enlightening Judy, it appeared just as I took a deep breath, lol!

We've had this discussion ad nauseam, and the anti-evolutionists never read any article, let alone book, about evolution, just like the religionists believe in an object they are completely unable to define; they are usually completely disinterested in the origin and history of their ever so "fervent" belief.

Judyterry,
Of course Susan's articles are about "anti-faith", she's an atheist. Duh.

You are making a common mistake in using the word "theory". Here is the dictionary definition - you're using the sixth definiton, one that laymen commonly use. Scientists use the other 5, and mainly, in this case, the first two.

Dictionary:
theory
(thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē)
n., pl. -ries.

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

We are all continuing to evolve, but evolution is neither linear nor predictable. Apes do not continually evolve into humans. Humans were never the "goal" of evolution - it has no goals. If apes are successful in their current circumstances, they will go on with little change for so long as that remains true. Changes occur in response to circumstances that put pressure on a species, such as climate, or other environmental changes.

There are many excellent books that could further your understanding of evolution, but I won't bother typing their titles, because I know that people with your mindset won't read them. Keep that head firmly in the sand.

Your articles on faith seem to me, to be more about anti faith and the mocking of it.
By the way evolution is a theory not a fact, I'm still waiting to see other apes and monkeys on the planet changing shape to resemble humans.Will we as you suppose evolve into something else maybe have shorter legs and longer arms, I mean with all the transport we have these days will the need for walking and legs disapear.Have a lovely new year Sue.

Sorry, I gave you the link to the second page, rather than the first one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030401369.html

I totally agree with you, Susan. It's nice to see someone post a realistic point of view on this subject.

Happy New Year!

Rubytues63 says:
"If you are concerned about the possibility of the Bible containing translation errors, I encourage you to get a copy of the NIV (New International Version) Bible. The New Testament of the NIV was translated directly from Greek originals dating from the first and second century. The Old Testament was translated from the original Hebrew. There is a section in the front of most NIV Bibles that talks about the steps and safeguards that these committees of scholars took to make the most accurate translation possible".

Are you aware, Ruby, that there are not any actual originals? That all the scripture used to piece together the gospels consists of copies of copies...many times over? That there are more inconsistencies between the various copies than there are words in the new testament? Read about it here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030401369_2.html

PART 2

TIMMY: "You said that we inherit altruistic behavior through evolution. This is true, because altruism is actually reasoned selfish behavior".

NO, again. You don't inherit reasoned behavior. Reason comes from the workings of your own brain. This is not encoded in your genes, and cannot be passed on by inheritance. It *can* be passed on through language - a significant advantage to our species - but I doubt that anyone could mount a convincing enough linguistic argument to make you sacrifice yourself for your brethren, if you didn't already have that propensity built in. After all, altruism exists in other species as well, and is inherited. Here's how:

Let's postulate a troop of baboons foraging in a low spot. One has moved somewhat away from the group, on higher ground. He sees a pride of hunting lionesses approaching, and hunkers down, making himself small and silent. The lionesses smell the troop, crest the ridge, and swoop down on them, killing them all except the one who observed them. They eat, move on, and he lives. But no other troop will accept him, he has no one to mate with, so his genes die out.

Now - same scenario - the baboon sees the lionesses and screams loudly, alerting the troop, which runs to the safety of the trees. But he's called attention to himself, so the lionesses catch and eat him before he can get away. However, most of the troop consists of his close relatives - father, mother, siblings, and many of them carry most of the same genes he did, including the one(s) that make them likely to scream a warning when danger approaches. No reasoning involved.

Reasoning would, in fact, work against the inheritance of altruism, because it endangers the life of the altruistic one, and is therefore against his individual self-interest.

As for "love your enemies" and "love your neighbor as yourself", I'm with Hitchens - these are simply impossible (oh, you can *pretend* to...) - and if you believe that God asked this of you, then you have to believe that he set you up to fail.

ME: Sorry, Timmy, I just can't agree with this. If one of my cats jumps onto the stove and encounters a still-hot burner, she will avoid it ever after. This is just pain, and the memory of same, connected to the place where it happened.

TIMMY: "Exactly. It is base. Not wisdom.
You are correct that a cat can not reason much in the way of wisdom about that, but we can".

NO, Timmy. What I was disagreeing with was your assertion that sticking our hand in the fire only tells us that it's hot, that it's the "reasoning" that it will cause injury that keeps us from doing it again. NONSENSE. It is pure conditioned reflex (conditioned by pain, which seldom takes more than one repetition).

You lay too much at the door of reason. Reason is a great and wonderful thing, and something that we do better than most other animals, but it is NOT the be-all-and-end-all of every bit of our behavior.

An example I've used before: when you're listening to music through headphones, really concentrating on it, and someone taps you on the shoulder, don't you jump? This startle reflex is just that - a reflex, inherited from ancestors who avoided danger by reacting this way. You don't stop to "reason" that it might be an enemy, and think about what to do about it. Those who jumped without thinking, survived.

Evolution works with traits that succeed, for whatever reason. Nervous, jumpy animals were less likely to be someone else's lunch.

Pain avoidence is one of the oldest reflexes in the book - no reasoning required.

Frederic2:

The Bible reference to ‘being like children’ does not refer to a child’s ignorance or stupidity.

Children know Right and Wrong even though they apply this knowledge imperfectly. Adults are constantly trying to validate themselves by changing Right and Wrong to mirror their feelings or imperfections.

Children, especially young children, understand that life is all about relationships. For adults, the values of materialism, status and money compete with relationships in how they live their lives. Many adults would rather make a buck than make a new friend. It is not until we are very old that we realize that we were wiser as children than we became as adults – we rediscover that life really is all about relationships.

If you are concerned about the possibility of the Bible containing translation errors, I encourage you to get a copy of the NIV (New International Version) Bible. The New Testament of the NIV was translated directly from Greek originals dating from the first and second century. The Old Testament was translated from the original Hebrew. There is a section in the front of most NIV Bibles that talks about the steps and safeguards that these committees of scholars took to make the most accurate translation possible.

None of the NIV linguistic or religious scholars seem to have found the ‘translation error’ that Lapide did. Now I am not against Biblical scholarship (just the opposite) but the NIV is not the only modern translation to use the original source documents, and no other expert in religion or languages seems to have found this “gross translation error” that you use as an example.

You misspoke when you said that ‘religionists’ want anyone to “stay stupid and defy intelligence and reason”. That charge is made by secular non-believers, people whose only faith is that the cup is continually half empty and whose jihad is to mold the world to their own atheistic values.

I have to admit, I am actually surprised to hear you link Biblical study to any form of scholarship, since so many atheists seem to liken any display of Biblical faith to a bunch of nerds attending a Star Trek convention. Good for you. Perhaps there is hope for the cup-half-empty crowd yet.

ARMINIUS

You wrote, " My mother always said, 'Be reverent, not pious', and, after many years, I realized that she was right."

I am not sure what pious or humble means even after looking up the words but sometimes false humility sticks out like a sore thumb.

I do not consider myself spiritual or religious, just a messenger.

Just an observation, some people that seem so spiritual also seem so dead even tho they are still breathing, some people are so religious that they squeeze God right out of their religion, like I said only an observation, only God can look into someone's heart.

When I write: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows, I wonder if people actually read and think about what is written.

By some of the comments, it is quite obvious some don't, but some do. It is one thing to comment on something but it is quite another to react to something.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

FREDERIC2

You wrote concerning Pinchas Lapide's interpretation of Jesus's "turning the other cheek", "Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality."

Two of the things that I was taught in second grade were: God is Love and We are all equal in God's Eyes.

After meeting God, I knew that the statement "God is Love" is literal, and Pinchas Lapide's interpretation seems to go hand in hand with the "We are all equal in God's Eyes", but to think that there is one and only one thing that Jesus, God-Incarnate, could have meant when He spoke of "turning the other cheek" is not within one's "expertize" to know.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Oh no, Frio,

We all run scientific experiments every day all day long. Scientific simply means scientific methodology, which means experimentation, observation, and theory derived from it. Forget "turn the other cheek", I used it as just one example of many, and of course, you found yourself hung up on it. Stick with "love thy enemy". We lean such wisdom through reason. If not. Then how? God? Daimons? I have experimented with Jesus' theory "love thy enemy" and discovered that it works on an ingenious level. It disarms them. Changes their heart.

I noticed you could not answer that "if not reason then how", and thus became a cornered animal again. If this kind of wisdom did not come through reason, then how diid it come about? Can you provide some insight here? No? Didn't think so.

Is love wisdom?
Is pain wisdom?
Is poetry wisdom, or does it just contain wisdom?
Is dug abuse wisdom?

Have you come up with another way of gaining wisdom without reason?

CCNL, Son of Crossan

"Farnaz, Farnaz, Farnaz, the Atheist, Infidel Member of Judaism,

But you do go to the synagogue as per your previous description of your lesbian rabbi. So how do you then rectify being an infidel??"
-------------------------
We go to a synagogue OCCASIONALLY, not once a week, sometimes not even in a month.

All Jews are infidels, I especially.

Jews are not Christians.
------------------------------

I can't save you if you continue to see the world only as fodder to feed your "arguments."
-----------------------------
Check with Crossan, the Father, to see if you may read Pinchas Lapide.

The Reality of the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost/Spirit:

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made the "Holy" Spirit into an adulterer and god the padre into god the "filicider".

Hi, Thomas Baum,

You replied to Spidey, "You are wrong, you would find LOVE as not the "MAIN SOURCE" of creation but the only source of creation since God is a BEING OF PURE LOVE."

ME: Absolutely correct! Also, as to 'fear of God', of course it is reverence and awe. I have felt just that, and it is profoundly moving. My mother always said, 'Be reverent, not pious', and, after many years, I realized that she was right.

FREDERIC2

You wrote, "or, Thomas, number four, most important: It is a challenge and a chance for us humans to put meaning into it!

Some do it by inserting the static ("eternal") god joker, some by the feeling of awe about its incomprehensible, evolving greatness, admitting the limits of our knowledge."

I never said that the world could not be appreciated and looked on with awe but taken to its "logical" conclusion which some have done on these posts and by their own admissions, it is ultimately meaningless.

Logically speaking, if physical death is the end of existence for each and every person than wouldn't it be the logical end of the physical world and universe?

Do you know that the term "Fear of the Lord" means reverence and awe of God?

There are many people that know God's Name that seem to think that "Fear of the Lord" means that we are to be afraid of God, not even close to what it means.

If God was even remotely like what some, that know His Name, think that He Is, I can not see how any one would want to have anything to do with Him.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

SPIDERMAN2

You wrote, "In other words, if we try to rewind creation and and look for the beginning of things, we would end up finding INTELLIGENCE as the MAIN SOURCE of creation."

You are wrong, you would find LOVE as not the "MAIN SOURCE" of creation but the only source of creation since God is a BEING OF PURE LOVE.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

It's early/late here. Good morning/night...

Frederic:

You to me:
"I don't regard this discussion as a contest of the most brilliant arguments; I just voiced my opinion on the subject of the "other cheek", which in some important points contradicts Timmy's."

Since it has been mainly myself posting during America's pre-dawn, ranting at my own shadow, there's hasn't been much brilliance. Your posts are among the clear exceptions.

Sorry for jumping down your throat, Frederic. Actually, quite independently of any arguments underway, I really appreciated your input from Lapide - more examples of the shaky foundations of so much hardline Christmongering rhetoric, as you point out.

I am actually not that bothered by Timmy's gist. I agree with it substantially, not unlike you. What enflames me is his unfairness - he does not conform to the evidential and debating standards he demands - quite imperiously sometimes - of others. You seem to minimise this; I won't.

The current debate crystallises all that bothers me about Timmy. He extols an ill-founded, largely North American Christian notion of the "other cheek" ethic as some scientific (!) fact that has become an axiom of reasonable behaviour (!) - indeed an instance of pure Reason - due to centuries of trial and error by humans at large (!). It's ignorant, ethnocentric, and undemonstrable, in terms of the standard Timmy routinely demands of others - "just one example" - which then becomes more stringent once the example is given.

That's why I'm given to "semantic belly dancing" - out of frustration at the absolutism. Sorry you copped a bit of my frustration.

One of the great and unique things about the Jacoby thread is an apparently inherent tendency to diverge into a multiplicity of themes (subtle and otherwise).

I've noted Timmy's continuing pre-occupation with the advocacy of 'logic and reason' as preeminent goals in our cognitive and experential domains, and wonder if there's a place for 'intuition' somewhere in the mix.

Intuition as a way of pre-cognitively 'knowing and predicting future events' by definition trancends the known laws of time and space as they apply to the material world - or at this mysterious faculty seems to do just that. Here are a couple of links that pertain to that very topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-local

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

I was charmed by what Karen posted to Arminius regarding her son’s spontaneous view of the Holy Spirit, here below:

‘Also, I think that you would appreciate my (then) 7 year old son's explanation of who the Holy Spirit is. When we were discussing the Trinity one day, I asked him if he understood who the Holy Spirit is and he said: Oh Yes, I understand. It is as if God split Himself up into billions of little pieces and put one of those pieces in each one of us, that is the Holy Spirit.’

In the strictest sense, this is not much different from various Pantheistic views or concepts of Spirit that we find in Advaita Vedanta or Kabbalah (see divine sparks).

To my mind, dualism vs monism is something of a red herring in the realm of religion (typically defined by contrasting religions of the East and religions of the West). And in the end, humans simply can’t help but anthropomorphize their concepts of divinity. What other role models do we have?

And speaking of Lamarkism, take a look at wikipedia and the idea of cultural Lamarkism – while the idea has long been debunked in favor of the Darwinian/Mendelian view of evolution, the thinking has not disappeared altogether!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Baptiste_Lamarck

And as PamSM pointed out back down the road aways, our particular life forms are unique to this planet, due to time, place, circumstances and physical laws controlling evolutionary processes (much like the physics that specifiy the initial conditions and physical constants associated with the unfolding of the cosmos itself).

It’s axiomatic that other galactic locations would evolve completely different and unique life forms – contrary to the impressions generated by the ever-entertainining science fiction genre.

Beyond pure speculation, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever occurring in the ‘known’ universe that happens outside the realm of human consciousness – and in a sense, this very fact involves the paradox highlighted by Cartesian dualism as contrasted with the monistic idea that ‘the one are many, and the many are one’.

or, Thomas, number four, most important: It is a challenge and a chance for us humans to put meaning into it!

Some do it by inserting the static ("eternal") god joker, some by the feeling of awe about its incomprehensible, evolving greatness, admitting the limits of our knowledge.

ARMINIUS

You wrote, "A faith doubted is not a faith, it is a brainwashing."

I happen to believe that God looks on an honest doubt very kindly, remember Thomas, his doubt, which was honest, was rewarded by Jesus, Who Is God-Incarnate.

Sometimes, a leap of faith, is jumping into the unknown, even tho I have met God and have met satan, I know that I do not know everything but I do know some things.

It seems as if there are three ways of thinking about this world and they are: It is a God-forsaken world, It is a God-Redeemed world or it is ultimately utterly meaningless.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Onofrio,

I don't regard this discussion as a contest of the most brilliant arguments; I just voiced my opinion on the subject of the "other cheek", which in some important points contradicts Timmy's.

"Reason" is a proposition with many meanings, as is "god". In an earlier post I tried to define "god" as a code for the vacuum of knowledge; I was surprised that nobody picked it up. The mere sound of the word "god" already seems to put human neurons (of both believers and atheists) into a prefixed pattern.

Reason can be understood as a mental tool which can be used for better or worse. One has to use "reason" (lower case) to put up a good lie. Here, I can understand the reason scorners.

But "Reason" (upper case) can also be understood as a principle of natural necessity, which we either accept (open end) or willfully ignore (eternal truth). Here, I am more with Timmy.

Frederic,

You to Timmy, regarding other cheekism:
"For me, the solution lies in mutual empathy, which is very difficult, but not impossible. Maybe, Timmy, we can find more stringent examples along this line?"

Strigent examples, eh? You wouldn't be trying to help Timmy shift his own ill-defined terms of reference would you Frederic? If he wants to make grand axioms out of them, he should defend them by the same standards he demands of others.

He has dished out plenty of triumphalist crowing in his Apostleship of Reason. I realise you like the cut of his jib, but I think he should stand up for himself on this one.

In view of today's scientific psychological findings about mirror neurons, empathy, the pervasive mechanics of projection etc. etc., I think we cannot sustain the old mis-translated "other cheek" thing. There may be a bit of truth still lingering there, as far as surprise reactions and their consequences are concerned, but in reality things are not so simple.

We cannot simply discard the bio-necessity to defend individual and group identity, and demand, instead, a social romantic behavior, which according to Lapide, wasn't even meant that way. For me, the solution lies in mutual empathy, which is very difficult, but not impossible. Maybe, Timmy, we can find more stringent examples along this line?

We are always embedded in a multi-layered, multi-cybernetic system, and we can, of course, try to keep this system moving in order to find solutions to our problems (Near East, e.g.).

Hi Arminius,

"I saw Peter Huff's post, my claymore is sheathed."

Rest ye, and respect, Eucharistos, but I will be be twirling my pitchfork with this one. When it comes to Genevamachines like Huff, it's personal.

Cut to that scene in Lean's "Lawrence of Arabia", just before "No prisoners!". Anthony Quinn's Aouda abu-Taiy says "this was Talal's village", as a lone rider charges at the rapine-wearied Turks.

Huff and his proof texts are them Turks. Talal is me.

Just mental fight, I know. But that Calvinian Hell deserves...Hell.

Timmy, Other Cheekist, and Jesus Fan,

And when you have presented the experiments verifying that turning the other cheek actually changes enemies' hearts (what would science make of that usage of "heart", I wonder), I want to see the results regarding "love your enemy". I imagine you will have to harness a bit of Greek exegesis to ascertain what the word "love" in that saying actually implies, and after that undertake a comparative linguistic study to reconstruct the original Jesus logia in Aramaic. Could strike some snags there, Timmy, but forge on.

Once you've worked out what "love" actually meant in the original context, as it came from Jesus' mouth (oh so much can be lost or added in translation), then you'll be able to offer even more compelling support for the conclusions of all those experiments you refer to.

Just think, you'll be able to introduce the great audience of this thread to the conclusive proofs that "love your enemies" is a thoroughly scientific ethic!

And just think, you'll be able to aid and abet the historic trajectory of that totally reasonable exorcist, thaumaturge, and last days preacher man you're such a fan of - Jesus.

It may be a little bit off topic, but once we are at it:

In this memorable discussion Lapide also debunked one of the favorite Christian memes, the "unless you become like children..." thing, which is touted by the religionists in a sense that "unless you willingly stay stupid and defy intelligence and reason", which Luther so eagerly grasped.

Lapide, who was expert not only, of course, in Latin, Greek and Hebrew, but also in Aramaic, explained to us that it was a gross translation error. The "Children" thing originally was meant the opposite: "Unless you become SCHOLARS, EXPERTS, WISE MEN" etc.

Of course, I cannot trace the translation path, but we might get an idea of such translation errors when we use the word "disciples", meaning "learners", but also "young ignorant (yet) students, children".

So here is Christianity with its "eternal truth" illusion, stumbling already at its base. They don't even know the object of their faith, but their "fundamentalist" part is ready to kill anyone who doesn't believe "it"(??).

Mornin', Onofrio,

I saw Peter Huff's post, my claymore is sheathed. Somebody who likes C S Lewis can't be all bad.....

Timmy,

Were you aware of this Lapide interpretation - which Frederic has so kindly provided - when you made your own quite definite assertions about other cheekism? I suspect not. In fact your version of the ethic in question has a decidedly Christian stamp.

Remember when you asked Farnaz:
"What is an atheist Christian conversionist?"

Now you know...look in the mirror.

I look forward to finding out about those "other cheek" experiments.

Frederic,

Thanks for the learned Lapide interpretation of "turning the other cheek". Offers us all fascinating insights into the culture of 1st century Palestinian Judaism. I doubt it's what Timmy had in mind, though. He refers to an experimentally verified ethic, that has actually been proven to change the attitudes of one's enemies. Did you turn up any of those experiments in Google?

Here is a different interpretation about "the other cheek", turning all the "soft stuff" on its head. I have heard this version years ago from a great Jewish bible experts, Pinchas Lapide, whose expertise of the Christian bible outsmarted every Christian theologian present in the discussion.

Here is his take, as can also be found in Google:

"A figurative interpretation relies on historical and other factors. At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality.

Huzzah!

Post 333!

That would make me a demitherion, or thereabouts.

Arminius,

Good morning to you goodsir,

If you scroll down, you will find a very comprehensive post from Peterhuff in which he disavows all Rushlooney connections, and gives an honest, transparent list of his influences, which are standard reformed plus C S Lewis.

So you can sheathe your claymore, O Celt.

Thanks, Karen, and God Bless.

Timmy,
Fan of the Alleged Supreme Ratiocinator, Jesus,

On these threads you have been tenacious, sometimes clever and engaging, and often trenchantly bloody-minded in your quest to be Correct. But you have not exemplified "turning the other cheek" - that supremely clever, ingenious gem of rational behaviour.

Nor do I, but neither have I - in all my persiflage - paraded it as a mega-virtue and paid gratuitous lip service to it as you have.

I haven't forgotten...ou la mort.

More proof needed from you, or it's time to, as Pam has said, call BS.

TIME TO TAKE THOSE CAPTURED 'SUICIDE BOMBERS' AND PUT THEM ON TV ++++ WITH MAJOR COVERAGE ++++ SAYING THEY'D BEEN 'TRICKED.'

BY ANALOGY TO VIETNAM, UNTIL THOSE IN POWER STARTED HAVING THEIR SONS & DAUGHTERS SERVE AS SUICIDE BOMBERS [IN VIETNAM, IT WAS THE DRAFT] THOSE IN POSITIONS OF POWER IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD WILL CONTINUE TO USE ++++ CHEAP LABOR ++++ I.E., SOMEONE ELSE'S SON OR DAUGHTER ++++ TO DO THE DIRTY WORK. AND THEY WILL SEEK OUT VICTIMS TO CARRY THEIR SUICIDE ATTACKS AMONGST THE INJURED.

DERANGED INDIVIDUALS, ESPECIALLY DUE TO DRUG OR ALCOHOL ABUSE, OR OTHER MAJOR LIFE TRAUMAS ALWAYS RESERVE SUICIDE AS THEIR 'LAST ESCAPE' FROM REALITY -- UNTIL THEY REALIZE THAT SUICIDE IS NO ESCAPE, OR THEY, ONCE AGAIN CHOOSE LIFE.
--------------------
GIVING UP ONE'S LIFE FOR ANOTHER IS PERHAPS NOBLE, BUT IT IS NOT AS NOBLE AS LEARNING HOW TO FORGIVE AND THEN MOVE ON.

FORGIVENESS IS THE GREATEST HUMAN ATTRIBUTE, FOR IN A WORLD OF PERFECT JUSTICE, OR PERFECT KARMA, DESTRUCTION IS THE RESULT.

PERHAPS THIS IS WHY THE SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF THE SAME GOD, HAVE FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS NOT LIVED IN PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND AS RADICAL FORMS OF ISLAM WERE EXPORTED TO THE REST OF THE WORLD, THEREIN CONFLICT HAS BEEN BREWED ANEW.

Timmy,

You to Pamsm:
"It takes cunning reason based on experience and experimentation to discover that "turn the other cheek" is not as foolish as it seems on the surface. That it is in fact ingenious. "Love your enemies, it will change their hearts" is a scientific conclusion, after a multitude of experiments."

You to me:
"How else did "turn the other cheek" and "love thy enemy" come about other than thousands of years of human experimentation?"

An actual scientific experiment please, not some imagined piece of atemporal anthropology. Where is the evidence of one of this "multitude" of "experiments" that scientifically proves "turning the other cheek" changes enemies' hearts. Not vague, epic references to "thousands of years". One actual, definite experiment. According to you, there should be hundreds to choose from. Unless your use of "scientific conclusion" and "experiment" are, in fact, less than scientifically exact.

Cunning and ingenuity are not scientific proof.

And asking rhetorically "how else" is begging the question.

Prove your own method.

Oh no, Frio,

"Could you give "one example" of this multitude of scientific experiments?"

Sure.

Leader of tribe meets with leader of other tribe. Tells them that his tribe will anahilate them.
War happens. Lives are lost. There is much misery.
This pattern repeats many many times.

After a while Leader 1 notices that friendly gestures can sometimes avert war. Life is more peaceful. Passes on wisdom to next generation orally. Next generation leader adds more gestures of friendship, and experiments with going beyond friendly gestures. Notices fewer wars. Happier people. Eventually keeps pushing the friendly gesture envelope until it becomes true acts of love. Notices change in hearts of enemies. Fewer wars still. Peace.

This is of course a slow process over many many generations passed down orally so that the next generation can learn from, and build on, an on going experiment over the course of thousands of years.

The same experimentation goes on with one on one personal relationships as well. People run tests. We're always running tests and noting results. We are always reasoning. try stopping for five minutes.

How else did "turn the other cheek" and "love thy enemy" come about other than thousands of years of human experimentation? Oh right. Jesus was God.

off to the corner now.

Oh no, Frio,

"I don't agree, but if you believe these things are wisdom, whoop de doo."

Do you think any of those things Daniel mentioned are wisdom?

Can you stop reasoning for five minutes?

I can stop breathing for five minutes.

Now stop thrashing the straw men or I'll send you to the corner. Without dinner.

Timmy, "Jesus Fan"

You to Pamsm:
"It takes cunning reason based on experience and experimentation to discover that "turn the other cheek" is not as foolish as it seems on the surface. That it is in fact ingenious. "Love your enemies, it will change their hearts" is a scientific conclusion, after a multitude of experiments."

Could you give "one example" of this multitude of scientific experiments?

I dissent. After all that cunning, ratiocinated love you've shown me and other interclocutors, my heart toward you remains the same.

Farnaz, Farnaz, Farnaz, the Atheist, Infidel Member of Judaism,

But you do go to the synagogue as per your previous description of your lesbian rabbi. So how do you then rectify being an infidel??

Hollywood's biggest lie presently , in the sense of planting a commonly repeated phrase, is its continual punch line, “there are no accidents”. Accept that and you deny your experience of the world and instead enter the science fiction kingdom of Philip K. Dick's Minority Report. Here the world accepts the the infallibility of Dasher, Agatha and Arthur's precognitive vision of a future predetermined from which all is as they see it (the mere thought of killing becomes a real crime) and this infallibility will govern us—even when this infallibility proves false. To comprehend the absurdity of such a world it is perhaps wise to read Frank Herbert's Dune and how Paul Atreides becomes a prisoner of his own precognitive ability to see the outcome of all possible outcomes and consequently, the inability to control the outcome that his Messiah following unleashes on the universe—the mass murder his religion imposes on all other faiths—to which he must say, “The religion of Muab'Dib is not Maub'Dib.” That is the outcome of his visionary capacity is not a world of peace but one of war—that is the truth of the all seeing eye of the Kwisatz Haderach or if you prefer—God's law.

The biggest accident to occur in this universe is that it exists or why is there anything and not rather nothing—being is ultimately to inquire into the meaning of accidental being and when accidents are no longer possible there is nothing. Nothing has no accidents because there are no events and should one occur—like say the big bang then it represents the biggest accident of all—the accident of all accidents.

Daniel,

You feel the same way about breathing as I do about reason.

Try functioning without it. Even for five minutes. The first thing you will do is decide how you will go about avoiding reason. "I know" you will think. "I'll just meditate for five minutes. Empty my mind". congratulations, you just reasoned. You can't even stop for five minutes. You need reason to decide how to do that.

I think reason is a god like I think breathing is a god.

Actually, I can stop breathing for five minutes. And I can even do a math problem while I'm not breathing. But I can not do any of those things without reasoning.

Pam,

Wisdom without the use of reason.

I'm not really buying into Daniel's examples. Do you have any?
Did you already give me some? I can't remember? Sorry if you have to repeat.

Hi Arminius,

First you said this: "as you have perceived, I am not the usual Christian"

And then you said this: "So get it straight, I don't buy into the entire bible"

I did get it straight. I assumed you did not believe in any of those terrible things. I was correct.

YOU: I call myself Christian because of a guy by the name of Jesus, whose teachings I try to follow.

Then you should call yourself something with "Jesus" in it.

I also try to follow his teachings. But I don't believe in any of those horrible things that I listed, that you don't either, but 90% of all Christians do. So I call myself a jesus freak, or a fan of Jesus. Because I don't want to give one ounce of support to those horrible dangerous ideas that most Christians believe.

I'll let it go now. I've made my suggestion ,and given good reason for it. That's all I can do. Live and let live.

Peace

Timmy the Jesus freak

Farnaz,

"Atheist Christian conversionists speak to atheist Jews in much the same way that Christian conversionists do."

What is an atheist Christian conversionist?

I give up on this site. Whenever I try to develop a piece it goes a page where it says Jacoby will look it over to see if it meets her approval.

Pamsm,

I see that you too, like Daniel, are well awry in your assertions, naturalistic as they are. I counsel you solemnly, as I have already counselled Daniel: Beware! Unless you attribute all instincts to the sole god Reason, you too will be subject to..."whoop de doo".

Take care, be ready.

Daniel12,

Timmy2 to thee:
"I don't agree, but if you believe these things are wisdom, whoop de doo."

Hear, O Daniel. You must attribute all that you value, all that enthralls, inspires, and edifies you, to the sole god, Reason. Anything else is heresy. And you know what that means...yes, that's right, "whoop de doo". You have been warned...

To the strains of Ennio Morricone, Clint Huff snakes into a god-forsaken, tumbleweed town, stroking the smooth stocks of his gleaming VanTil six-shooters, his gimlet eye scanning the dust-devils for sudden atheist posses. As he fondly recalls, for a moment, the tobacco addictions of his shootist mentors, Huff's sardonic lips wrap round a dying cigar-stub, and suck... Out of the dust stalk a swaggering pack of atheists, armed to the teeth, or so they think. But Huff knows what they don't yet - they're all dead MEAT, because the god of the universe has foreordered time, consequence, the very dust itself, to leave them devoid of firearms. Huff counts them slowly, leisure-like...one to four...and notes with satisfaction that he has three presuppositional slugs for each for the goddamn, predestined, depraved SOBs...As they slouch into range he beams round the moist smouldering stub between his teeth and hisses "Best Wishes"...

Pamsm,

YOU: Sorry, Timmy, I just can't agree with this. If one of my cats jumps onto the stove and encounters a still-hot burner, she will avoid it ever after. This is just pain, and the memory of same, connected to the place where it happened.

Exactly. It is base. Not wisdom.
You are correct that a cat can not reason much in the way of wisdom about that, but we can.

YOU: Of course, I'd also quibble with Daniel12's assertion that it constitutes wisdom in the first place - in humans, or anything else. It's one of the very earliest behaviors that evolution selected for.

This is my only point. It's not wisdom. Thank you.

YOU: Our ancestors' reasoning can't be inherited - just their ability to do so. You don't inherit aquired characteristics - that's Lamarckianism"

You said that we inherit altruistic behavior through evolution. This is true, because altruism is actually reasoned selfish behavior. It takes cunning reason based on experience and experimentation to discover that "turn the other cheek" is not as foolish as it seems on the surface. That it is in fact ingenious. "Love your enemies, it will change their hearts" is a scientific conclusion, after a multitude of experiments.

Daniel,

Continuing,

YOU: 3) Wisdom arrived at through love--morality also. When we are about to take up with our future wife we do not tell we reasoned it was best rather than we love her--no--we tell her that we love her.

Yes I understand that loving someone is not through reason. But knowing that they love you is.
But what is the wisdom? That you love her? Again, I don't consider this wisdom, it's just emotion. Her love. Fire hot. I do not dispute that you know these things without reason. But they are not wisdom. And you don't have to believe in God to know those things.

YOU: 4) Wisdom arrived at through poetry--inspiration. See professor Harold Bloom who listed the wisdom writers of Western civilization as Homer; Plato; Augustine; Shakespeare, etc. Most of them are poets that he listed

This is ridiculous, Daniel. They put the wisdom into the poetry, the poetry does not put the wisdom into them. They are not inspired by the poem they are inspired by life, nature, people, dreams, experiences. They make wise observations about these things combining reason and imagination. An imaginative artistic way of dispensing deeply reasoned wisdom.

YOU: 5) Wisdom arrived through music. Music not only gives shape to our feelings, it gives us feelings that we have never had.

Okay I se what's happening here. You think that feelings are wisdom.
And no, music does not give us feelings we never had. It connects us to feelings that we have experienced and allows us to experience them again. That's why it is so special.

YOU: 6) Wisdom through psychedelic drugs. See Huxley. See native Americans curing themselves of alcoholism through peyote.

The wisdom part is to use the drug for a purpose. The drug didn't tell them to use it for a purpose, their reasoning did after experimentation.

I am tired. This is silly. You are calling feelings and the senses, wisdom. And now you think drugs can provide wisdom. I don't agree, but if you believe these things are wisdom, whoop de doo. It's moot to any argument I am making.

My argument is that none of the good in any of the religions requires deity belief. Remove all of the deity belief related stuff, and you have human wisdom, and secular philosophy. The deity belief part is not only useless, but harmful to boot. And without it, religion is just secular philosophy and human wisdom.

Peterhuff:
"The presuppositional view cuts to the chase in asking the meaty questions of life, of which the atheist is left without his six-shooters."

Who would have thought that the salty parables of a Galilean thaumaturge could, at the turning of two millennia, be defendable by something so pompously phrased as "presuppositional apologetics". The knowledge that puffeth up, indeed.

And who would have thought that a disciple of the so-called Prince of Peace would see sharing his "good news" as akin to a shoot-out between gunslingers. Careful with your metaphors, Peterhuff. They tell far more about you than your proof-texting and fake "Best Wishes". If you win your figurative duel, does that mean you've shot your atheist DEAD? Rather unsporting, yes, since the PRESUPPOSITION on which you base hostilities is that your opponent is UNARMED.

Yea, it all BOILS DOWN to eliminating the opposition, in the end, don't it Peter. How...human.

Of course, it's all just figures of speech...figures of speech. And I am just twirling my pitchfork again. You've nothing to fear. We all know where my twirling leads. To YOUR TRIUMPH. Just ask Timmy...

CCNL,

Go to sleep now.

Farnaz,
Heathen Atheist Jew (Infidel)

CCNL,

This is a parody of Longfellow's "Hiawatha." You need to read it so that you can develop a sense of humor.

THE MODERN HIAWATHA
Rev. George A. Strong (1832–1912)

He killed the noble Mudjokivis.
Of the skin he made him mittens,
Made them with the fur side inside,
Made them with the skin side outside.
He, to get the warm side inside,
Put the inside skin side outside.
He, to get the cold side outside,
Put the warm side fur side inside.
That's why he put the fur side inside,
Why he put the skin side outside,
Why he turned them inside outside.

CCCNL:

This is for you. You need to get out more.

To a Mouse
On Turning her up in her Nest with the Plough

Wee, sleekit, cow'rin', tim'rous beastie,
O what a panic's in thy breastie!
Thou need na start awa sae hasty,
Wi' bickering brattle!
I wad be laith to rin an' chase thee
Wi' murd'ring pattle!

I'm truly sorry man's dominion
Has broken nature's social union,
An' justifies that ill opinion
Which makes thee startle
At me, thy poor earth-born companion,
An' fellow-mortal!

I doubt na, whiles, but thou may thieve;
What then? poor beastie, thou maun live!
A daimen-icker in a thrave
'S a sma' request:
I'll get a blessin' wi' the lave,
And never miss't!

Thy wee bit housie, too, in ruin!
Its silly wa's the win's are strewin':
And naething, now, to big a new ane,
O' foggage green!
An' bleak December's winds ensuin'
Baith snell an' keen!

Thou saw the fields laid bare and waste
An' weary winter comin' fast,
An' cozie here, beneath the blast,
Thou thought to dwell,
Till, crash! the cruel coulter past
Out thro' thy cell.

That wee bit heap o' leaves an' stibble
Has cost thee mony a weary nibble!
Now thou's turned out, for a' thy trouble,
But house or hald,
To thole the winter's sleety dribble
An' cranreuch cauld!

But, Mousie, thou art no thy lane
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best laid schemes o' mice an' men
Gang aft a-gley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promised joy.

Still thou art blest, compared wi' me!
The present only toucheth thee:
But, oh! I backward cast my e'e
On prospects drear!
An' forward, tho' I canna see,
I guess an' fear!

-Robert Burns

To Timmy from Daniel. First I should say I hope this post goes through. My posts keep going to the care of Jacoby and then never get posted. Second, I take this topic of by what means wisdom is arrived at very seriously. I hope on faith--the main site--posts as a question "what do you think of atheists saying reason is the only path to wisdom, or that reason is more important than any other mode at arriving at wisdom. I take this problem very seriously because we humans have to now start thinking seriously about taking our evolution into our own hands, and we had better have some idea what will constitute a true improvement over what we are now. I am a writer and I wrote three whole pages, front and back about this problem but I am reluctant to try to post it because nothing much goes through. My last post was little of what I wanted to say and was dashed off. Hope this site gets fixed...That is all for now. Let us see if it goes through....

CCNL,

I'm going to meditate on your behalf. I'm going to save you.

"The presuppositional view cuts to the chase in asking the meaty questions of life, of which the atheist is left without his six-shooters."

Don't you wish.

Peterhuff,

Thanks for clearing that up about your predilections, though if you're already impressed by Bahnsen, you're close to the Kingdom of Rushdoony. And thanks for the transparent list of influences. I'm familiar with all of the authors you cite, particularly Lewis. As I thought, you're a common-or-garden-variety Calvinist. I own - pigeonholed, prejudged, typecast. The only question remaining - supra, pre, or infralapsarian?

Presuppositional apologetics a la Van Til might seem sarx-y to you, but it's a tendentious grinder-like robo-progress to those on whom you inflict it.

All you need to know about me is that in terms of religion I'm virtually ex-you. You have called me a "radical skeptic", which honours me too much, so I'll accept it.

As I've already expressed, the grand femur of all the bones I would pick with you is the mental atrocity that is Hell. Note, I'm not talking about judgement per se, but the idea of conscious unending torment for all but Reformed sectarians (and perhaps a few select Christian others). One can play duelling scriptures about it, but I would rather concentrate on the existential actuality of the punishment.

I have already stated my emotional objections to Hell on the Mother of All (Jacoby) Threads that preceded this one. You have made the doctrinal, apologetic, official response. No need to rehash.

What I'm interested in knowing is your emotional response to Hell. I don't promise to respect it, or to refrain from attacking it. But if you aren't merely a theo-machinist, you might consider a making a heartfelt case for the necessity of "conscious unending torment" for non-Calvinists.

Farnaz2 Author Profile Page:

"If we don't learn from history we are doomed to repeat it."
-Santayana

We do not learn either morality from "history." See Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, etc.

We inherit technology.

See Niestche, Walter Benjamin (on the "angel of history," which I posted below.)

January 2, 2009 11:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Pseudo says:
"O?

But can it be bequeathed?
Like how do you know how to read
And what dangers to heed
And that you might plant a seed
To get what meals you might need"

Oh, yes, nowadays. But Cro Magnons and all that went before them, didn't write much. Alas, no cave poetry!

CCNL,

You are God tormented. I wish you well.

In a different way, CCNL is a presuppositionalist, too. He presupposes that he, Son of Crossan, and Crossan exist supranaturally, that it is only through the Son that the words of the Father can be understood, that the Trinity, Father, Son, and Crossan's books are all ye need to know, all ye can know.

There are many like him in this respect. Otherwise, he is unique. I fear he is deteriorating though. I hope not. :-)

Hello All,

No I am not a Christian Reconstructionist. I am a Reformed believer and a presuppositionalist. I don't know Rushdoony or much about Dominion theology or theonomy. Some of my favorite theological authors are A.W. Pink, James White, Spurgeon, R.C. Sproul, Os Guiness, C. S. Lewis, Gary Habermas, Ravi Zacharius and yes, Greg Bahnsen and Cornelius Van Til on presuppositional apologetics.

I believe the Reformed view of Scripture is the Biblical view of Scripture (for the most part).

I believe that Evidential or Classical apologetics, although historical, has problems in that it does not get to the heart of the matter, a persons basic, core beliefs. It becomes a battle between believers and unbelievers as to who can dig up the most "scholars" to support there position.

The presuppositional view cuts to the chase in asking the meaty questions of life, of which the atheist is left without his six-shooters.

I see everyone has been busy today. I feel like Timmy on the other post where he did not know where to turn for the flood of hostile returns kept mounting. Tomorrow my wife has informed me that we are going out of town so I will try to answer some of these posts on Sunday.

CCNL,

I wish you could meet my girl. She could heal you.

Dear CCNL,

Happy new year!

Farnaz

God's Grandeur

The world is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man's smudge and shares man's smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.

And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs —
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast & with ah! bright wings.

--Gerard Manley Hopkins

"BTW, your previous language is not befitting of one who attends a synagogue once a week. For shame!!! And such poor example for your children."

Awww, CCNL, did I offend your good Catholic boy sensibilities?

I only have my girl. You are very fortunate that I protect you from her.

I do not go to a synagogue once a week.

Are you or are you not Shell Script, as Pseudo asserts?

Or are you simply Sui Generis, as others opine?

Have you quite exhausted poor Jihadist?

Farnaz, Farnaz, Farnaz,

Hmmm, so you are an atheist, infidel Jew . And you apparently know how many there are like youself on this small globe. And how many would that be?? Numbers only please!!

BTW, your previous language is not befitting of one who attends a synagogue once a week. For shame!!! And such poor example for your children.

Onofrio,

"And you make it that little bit harder for them to remain simply millions."

Bless you!

Globalone:

Discussion is discussion. It is an honest exchange of ideas, not your holding forth. If your purpose here is to accuse me, I proudly stand accused and convicted (Satan = Accuser). I don't mind your thinking I'm going to hell, but fear you're already in it.

If you could spare the time, I scroll down and read my posts, starting here:

January 2, 2009 11:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments

"Please do not personalize. The issue is not me. I am one of millions."

And you make it that little bit harder for them to remain simply millions.

Onofrio,

Thank you for understanding. Jews, Infidels and otherwise, have the right to subjectivity and to life. That is the issue.

Regarding the former, only you and one other Christian, a Catholic(?) atheist, I think--Observer12--understands this.

Dearest Pseudo,

"Pax Vubiscum, friend Farnaz
Not all of us bear you ill will"

Peace to you as well. Please do not personalize. The issue is not me. I am one of millions. The issue is racism. Would you have said the same to MLK? I believe you would have, as did many other good people.

One must will oneself into seeing.

Farnaz,

13 minutes to respond? I suggest a hobby and the book "Eats, Shoots, and Leaves."

I do not have the time, desire, or energy to read through 280+ posts on an On Faith message board. So, chances are, I did not see the Q&A session regarding damnation.

I don't expect people, even Christians, to see everything "my way." Why would I? If a muslim believes I am damned because I am a Christian, so be it. Their faith brought them to that conclusion. Other faiths believe that I will be reincarnated as a toad or a grasshopper. Again, that is their belief and I respect that.

Farnaz

Happy New Year to you also,

You:
"They racialize us and always have. But my, how many of them get all in a not when we do the same to them."

As one of those who has knotted up, I say thanks.

I recall finding your persistent Christianisation of me perplexing, and confronting. Here am I naively thinking, "But I'm not a Christian. I know I'm not a Christian." And here am I telling faux- and actual atheists it's not so easy to extricate ourselves from the religious past, same time imagining that I can easily extricate myself from the religious past!

Maybe you are a problem to many. But not to all. May your feist keep prodding our illusions.

My illusion - that I was already an infidel.

Your prod - that I still had a long way to go...

Globalone Continued:

Here is my last post to you on the Colson thread. You never replied to it. Would you care to do so now?

You write to Sparrow:

"You are correct in that merely shouting "you're going to Hell" as a tool to denigrate someone accomplishes nothing. In fact, it only hurts and offends.

--> However, my confusion is directed more towards those who are engaged in rationale and intelligent dialog. It's as if they expect me to disregard my faith in an effort to be politically correct."
-------------------
As I remarked earlier (scroll down), I am not offended by Cs who think Jews, Muslims, Hindus, et al, are "going to Hell." I would like to know how, in your view, this furthers "engaged in rationale and intelligent dialog," how it fits in with your "faith," which you don't want to "disregard in an effort to be politically correct."

What hope does this hold for interfaith discussion? Remember, that from an Islamic perspective anyone who does believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ is damned by definition.

As you know, there are, of course, Christians (generically speaking) and Muslims who don't hold with damnation theses.

Judaism holds that the Lord has a covenant with all peoples, that this is not a matter for humans to judge.

I'd like to know more about what other religions have to say about "damnation" and the like.

January 2, 2009 3:06 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Pax Vubiscum, friend Farnaz
Not all of us bear you ill will

Tomorrow will soon beckon with the Rosy Fingered Dawn
So it is time for now to sign off and be gone.

Hello Globalone,

I do feel your comments showed benighted vision, yes. If you are accusing me of this, I stand convicted.

If you read this thread, along with my more recent comments, you will see what I'm addressing. Not every Christian and/or Catholic sees things your way. People on this thread, independent of your post on the other, independent of me, took up the hell issue.

Now, what about the main points of my recent posts?

?

Where they multiplied to six-hundred thousand
As they prepared for the Exodus

Hi Onofrio,

Happy new year, and thanks for your reply!

What many well-intentioned people don't understand is that their discourse is discourse, i.e., is socially situated, makes historic community with beliefs that ended in mass murder and continue to promote racism.

Judaism is invisible to Christians, atheist or otherwise. Likewise Jews, unless they are to be scapegoated.

That the issues are IDEOLOGICAL (theology is oftehn ideological), these people do not see.

I am. The Jewish Problem. ( (Observant Jew, Atheist Jew, Infidel, etc.)

Christians (atheist and other) do not define Jews according to whether they observe or not. They racialize us and always have. But my, how many of them get all in a not when we do the same to them.

They don't know this: Race is fiction, reification, hypostasy.

Farnaz,

"On another thread, a blogger wrote this"

--> You can say GLOBALONE. You don't have to keep my comments anonymous.

This brought forth two new replies, one from an atheist anti-semite, who despite his professed racism, continue to try to make the benighted Christian see"

--> Do you feel better about yourself when you accuse someone of being morally bankrupt or "unenlightened?"

"We never really heard back from him after the Christian atheist's explanation, which, btw, was a very good one in the context of the others"

--> Fortunately, I have a life outside of the Washington Post On Faith message boards. Others may not, but that is certainly their choice.

Farnaz,

"Maybe he knew Tamuz though."

You are so right there...

The Christ myth has more in common with Ba'al, and Eshmun, and Adonis, than with the god of Moses.

I often try to explain this to Christians and Christmongers alike, and predictably...well, you can imagine.

And this Joseph, did he not during the famine
Sell his people into slavery to the house of Mammon?

Farnaz,

Re - the Binding of Isaac

"The purpose of the story was to END CHILD SACRIFICE for ever.
I said more in my post, but it was all ignored along with this. It was as if I'd never written. I am silenced. I do not exist. I am. The Jewish Problem."

I heard you, way back when...during some hurly burly or other. Sorry that I did not let it be known. I have been training myself to use "binding" rather than "sacrifice". Has already been deployed twice in conversation. Don't give up on posting in that vein. I, for one, learn from it, and I'm sure there are silent others who do also.

From one of those atheopneumatic-christianish types...

I am. The Jewish Problem.

"Yes, G-d said unto Abraham that the ram would be provided
And Zeus also declared that children should not thus be benighted."
-----------------------
Yes, but then god so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son to earth for humans to torture to death--as I posted below.

Questions from Heathen Jewish Atheist (Infidel): Why would "God, the father" (!!!!!), send morality hurtling backward in time? Who is this bloody murderer? Clearly, he knew not Joseph nor did he desire to.

Maybe he knew Tamuz though.

"During the early period when the story was written, child sacrifice was practiced in the region. The purpose of the story was to END CHILD SACRIFICE for ever."

Yes, G-d said unto Abraham that the ram would be provided
And Zeus also declared that children should not thus be benighted.

"If we don't learn from history we are doomed to repeat it."
-Santayana

We do not learn either morality from "history." See Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, etc.

We inherit technology.

See Niestche, Walter Benjamin (on the "angel of history," which I posted below.)

On another thread, a blogger wrote this:

"I've always been perplexed by people who disregard Christianity as a "myth" and then become highly offended about the discussion of Hell. If you don't believe in Heaven or Hell, then why would you care if I say you're going there? Quite an enigma I'm afraid."

After receiving three separate answers, one from a Christian believer, one from a Jewish believer, and one from a Jewish atheist, he wrote back to all three. One of his answers was this:

"my confusion is directed more towards those who are engaged in rationale and intelligent dialog. It's as if they expect me to disregard my faith in an effort to be politically correct. "

This brought forth two new replies, one from an atheist anti-semite, who despite his professed racism, continue to try to make the benighted Christian see, and another from a Jewish atheists.

We never really heard back from him after the Christian atheist's explanation, which, btw, was a very good one in the context of the others.
--------------------------
On Christian atheists

On this thread, a blogger assertively pointed out the cruelty of the "Bible" by using the "sacrifice" of Isaac myth. I pointed out to her that the myth was expropriated by Christians to serve as a type for Christ, but whether OT or Tanakh, a not-so-careful reading shows that Isaac would have had to be thirty-five years old at the time of the event.

Jews have always referred to the myth as the binding. During the early period when the story was written, child sacrifice was practiced in the region. The purpose of the story was to END CHILD SACRIFICE for ever.

I said more in my post, but it was all ignored along with this. It was as if I'd never written. I am silenced. I do not exist. I am. The Jewish Problem.

As Onofrio said, Christianity requires a huge faith commitment that makes it impossible for them to take in the fact that the people they were supposed to replace had a different view of their own culture and continued to develop.
THEY LITERALLY CAN'T HEAR US, CAN'T COMPREHEND US.

This is not theology. It's ideology, and Christian atheists often, if not, generally, carry it with them.

Pam,

"Our ancestors' reasoning can't be inherited..."

O?

But can it be bequeathed?
Like how do you know how to read
And what dangers to heed
And that you might plant a seed
To get what meals you might need

Hello Arminius,

I have really enjoyed your last few posts and the fact that you do not let others define you and your faith.

A while back, the subject of the Trinity came up and you said that you believe in it though you do not quite know how to explain it. I thought I'd share with you how I have come to view the Trinity, realizing it is an extremely simplistic view, but sometimes, maybe only a simple explanation is required so here it is: God over us (our Father in heaven), God with us (Jesus that walked in our shoes), God in us (the Holy Spirit).

Also, I think that you would appreciate my (then) 7 year old son's explanation of who the Holy Spirit is. When we were discussing the Trinity one day, I asked him if he understood who the Holy Spirit is and he said: Oh Yes, I understand. It is as if God split Himself up into billions of little pieces and put one of those pieces in each one of us, that is the Holy Spirit.

I really appreciate your gentle spirit Arminius. I used to participate in these boards before. However, the tone has become mostly too negative and mainly people talking past each other rather then talking to each other, so once in a while I read the comments if the question is interesting but otherwise don't participate. But when I saw your comment about the trinity, I thought I'd respond when I had a chance.

Best to you in 2009 and always.

Karen

Pam writes:
"Our ancestors' reasoning can't be inherited - just their ability to do so. You don't inherit aquired characteristics - that's Lamarckianism."

Yes. But almost no one understands this. And it was stated so eloquently by Neiztche more than a century ago.

Atheist Christian conversionists speak to other atheist Christians in a way that's no so far removed from the way religious conversionists do.

Atheist Christian conversionists speak to atheist Jews in much the same way that Christian conversionists do.

So there are at least two kinds, then. Timmy's argument with me. The thing is I have gotten burned and badly, but I resist doctrinaire thinking regardless of who it's coming from.

PAMSM:

"If one of my cats jumps onto the stove and encounters a still-hot burner, she will avoid it ever after. This is just pain, and the memory of same, connected to the place where it happened."

My cat is smarter than yours
He sits on the counter and purrs
O but by jove he won't jump on the stove
to get at the dinner he prefers

Hello Pseudo,

How are you?

OMG

Is there a god like it says in the creeds
Or are those really just antiquated screeds

What do we know and how can we know it
Is there a god and does science really know it
Was there creation and does the universe show it

So perhaps the answer's in creation cosmology
Or is that subjective phenomenology

But the problem might just be with our Epistemology
That must be handled o so hermeneutically

But can't you see that can't be done without an Ontology
Interpreted in the frame just cognitive psychology

Aided by a deep understanding of Social Anthropology
Or was it all just allegorical classical mythology

OMG

Timmy says:
""Do not touch the fire or you will get injured". That is wisdom.
And your sense of touch did not tell you not to stick your finger into fire, it only told you that fire hot. It was your reasoning that hot fire causes injury that brought you to the conclusion not to do that again. "

Sorry, Timmy, I just can't agree with this. If one of my cats jumps onto the stove and encounters a still-hot burner, she will avoid it ever after. This is just pain, and the memory of same, connected to the place where it happened.

Cats aren't stupid, but I don't know That I'd want to ascribe to them too much reasoning about the possibility of injury. In fact, pain-avoidance learning can be induced in some animals with pretty primitive central nervous systems.

Of course, I'd also quibble with Daniel12's assertion that it constitutes wisdom in the first place - in humans, or anything else. It's one of the very earliest behaviors that evolution selected for.

I don't agree with this, either:
"The wisdom that comes from evolution comes from the superior reasoning of our ancestors winning out over the inferior reasoning of those who weren't successful enough to reproduce. The best reasoning has been handed down to us and now lives in our genes".

Our ancestors' reasoning can't be inherited - just their ability to do so. You don't inherit aquired characteristics - that's Lamarckianism.

Hi Daniel,

I'm glad you got your post through. Like Pam said, it's all about length. Just chop them up. They'll get through.

YOU: "on wether reason is the only path to wisdom.

Who said that it was?

YOU: Wisdom through pain. Child burns its hand in fire. Pain first then realization.

Yes the five senses are a way of knowing things. Touch, smell, sight, hearing, and taste. I would not call these things wisdom though. "Fire hot" is not wisdom it's observation through the sense of touch.

"Do not touch the fire or you will get injured". That is wisdom.
And your sense of touch did not tell you not to stick your finger into fire, it only told you that fire hot. It was your reasoning that hot fire causes injury that brought you to the conclusion not to do that again.

YOU: See Aeschylus who said wisdom is arrived through suffering

It is. because when you suffer, you contemplate the reason for your suffering. And it is this reasoning that leads you to wisdom. Suffering causes the very deepest form of reasoning.

YOU: See entire penal system which is predicated on suffering leading to wisdom. For people's capacity for reason we do not send convicts home to reason about their crimes--no--we send them to prison to arrive at wisdom through suffering"

Um, no.
The prime three functions of prison are punishment, justice, and protection. (keeping criminals off the street) Rehabilitation way down the list and is a pipe dream that almost never happens. The entire penal system is most definitely not predicated on suffering leading to wisdom. And even if it were (which it is not) suffering causes deep reasoning and contemplation which is what really leads to wisdom.

YOU: 2) Wisdom arrived at through long and painful process of human evolution.

Painful? I didn't feel a thing. ;)
The wisdom that comes from evolution comes from the superior reasoning of our ancestors winning out over the inferior reasoning of those who weren't successful enough to reproduce. The best reasoning has been handed down to us and now lives in our genes. We really owe it to our ancestors not to throw it away when making major decisions about our world view.

Got to eat dinner. I'll address the rest in a couple of hours.

Cheers

Timmy,

Well, well. Where to begin?

First, as you have perceived, I am not the usual Christian. As I said before, my faith rests entirely in the Gospels. All else is either commentary, interpretation, background, history, mythology, or nonsense. So get it straight, I don't buy into the entire bible.

I call myself Christian because of a guy by the name of Jesus, whose teachings I try to follow. I do believe that he is the Son of God, and Holy Week is special to me. Outside of that, the 'rapture' has no meaning to me whatsoever. As for hell, who cares? Virgin birth - does that reinforce the message of Jesus? Prophesy - how does that help things? Revelation? A possible bad drug trip?

I do NOT condemn anyone to Hell for any reason whatsoever. I am not at all sure about hell, or what it may mean, outside of separation from God.

I do not pray on a bible. I pray to God from myself.

I find the community of my church, which is progressive and upbeat, to be very supportive. I value highly our sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

I really don't give a happy damn what other Christian groups believe. This is my path.

Arminius,

"then it is a beautiful and kind madness. And it harms none, it is my own path"

I only ask that you seriously consider how calling yourself a Christian enforces the group-think that Hell exists, and that ,the rapture is coming when all the infidels (Farnaz for example) will descend into the abyss, as those who accepted the one true path to salvation float up to the sky to parle with God.

It doesn't matter if you believe that. The vast majority of Christians in America do believe all of those things. many think that the rapture will happen in their lifetime. You have watered down someone else's religion and taken out some of the horrible things about it but you still call it what the original is confusing the hell out of the issue.

When rapture preaching nut jobs preach to their flock about how all of the infidels will be sorry when they descend into hell, they count you among the great number of "Christians" who believe what they believe, and they are emboldened and reassured because you and others count yourself among them on the census form. You, as a statistic, are very powerful to the perpetuation of the "Hell" lie.

That is all. I really have no problem with you believing what you want to believe. in fact, because you believe what you believe, I am shocked that you would associate with a religion that preaches such horrible things. I can't believe you still pray on a Bible with so many abhorrent things written it it.

To me your belief is almost harmless. If you stopped supporting "Hell belief" on the census form, it would be completely harmless.

PS: The "Census form" is just a metaphor. Wether you like it or not, when you say Christian, they count you in. Personally I am touched and inspired by the teachings of Jesus. I call myself the atheist Jesus freak. I'm not telling you you have to pick something other than "Christian", just suggesting you consider it, for the reasons that I have outlined. IMMHO

Daniel12,
"A pity I cannot continue writing or even begin to say what I want to say."

You *can* continue writing - just make it a separate post, and label it PART 2, 3, 4...

Arminius,

"ONLY if you are a really good looking woman in a sexy costume!"

Just as I'm getting into the latter, you add that troubling provisio re gender and allure!

Oh, well, back to Chewbacca...

Daniel12,

"On whether reason is the only path to wisdom:"

I'm glad you finally got your post through. All that you have cited is entirely reasonable, but it won't convince those faux-atheists whose god is Reason. I had a go. Perhaps you can get further.

Onofrio,

"...Come to think of it, it's the girl who actually finishes off Jabba. Maybe I should be Princess Leia then."

ONLY if you are a really good looking woman in a sexy costume! Yes, that scene has gone down in cinema legend.

Onofrio,

"Solo does get the girl though..."

Oh, hell! I switch to Solo! Princess Leia... sigh.

Arminius,

...Come to think of it, it's the girl who actually finishes off Jabba. Maybe I should be Princess Leia then.

On whether reason is the only path to wisdom:

1) Wisdom through pain. Child burns its hand in fire. Pain first then realization. Not reason anticipating pain. See Aeschylus who said wisdom is arrived through suffering. See entire penal system which is predicated on suffering leading to wisdom. For people's capacity for reason we do not send convicts home to reason about their crimes--no--we send them to prison to arrive at wisdom through suffering.

2) Wisdom arrived at through long and painful process of human evolution. No discernable reason at the foundation of existence. Instead what we have is the often irrational process of evolution. Furthermore evolution jumps this way and that--see Stephan Jay Gould. Furthermore we are still subject to the whims of evolution and cannot be certain we are being reasonable. See economists and Wall Street folk who for all the wallets on the line still acted and thought unreasonably.

3) Wisdom arrived at through love--morality also. When we are about to take up with our future wife we do not tell we reasoned it was best rather than we love her--no--we tell her that we love her. In fact trying to reason our way into a woman's heart is associated with trying to calculate our way into her paints. See French writer Stendhal who said every time he tried to conquer a woman through reason rather than love he invariably failed. See also Plato's Socrates who said first we love beautiful forms then we love the good.

4) Wisdom arrived at through poetry--inspiration. See professor Harold Bloom who listed the wisdom writers of Western civilization as Homer; Plato; Augustine; Shakespeare, etc. Most of them are poets that he listed

5) Wisdom arrived through music. Music not only gives shape to our feelings, it gives us feelings that we have never had.

6) Wisdom through psychedelic drugs. See Huxley. See native Americans curing themselves of alcoholism through peyote.

7) Wisdom through plastic arts. No logical development which can be taught to students. See Michelangelo moved by "terribilita", common renaissance term for artistic inspiration. Usefulness of plastic arts? Design of appliances, much pleasure and inspiration derived through paintings.

8) Wisdom arrived at through scientific intuition. See Thomas Kuhn who said science proceeds by paradigm busting intuition and that scientific method is really only valuable for verifying intuitive theories. Notice that no matter how well scientific method is taught to students it in no way means they will arrive at original thought.

A pity I cannot continue writing or even begin to say what I want to say. Even this post will probably not go through. Well, might as well try once again. NOTICE: Site is not allowing many posts to go through. Please fix site.

Arminius,

"Actually, I'd like to be Yoda."

Oh all right then, you can be Yoda. Solo does get the girl though...

Daniel12,
Posts are rejected if they contain words that are no-nos, if they contain too many hyperlinks (2 seem to be OK), or if they're too long.

When it happens, use the "back" button to return to your post, and search it for possibly offensive words, or chop it into parts.

Good luck.

Farnaz,

"You mean like Mao or Stalin"

I mean like you. Doesn't believe in deities but thinks that it's beneficial to some. Meaning they think that those some are fundamentally different in some way.

Mao and Stalin were dictators who forced everything on people not just Marxism. I didn't hear anyone hear call for the outlaw of religion or the forcing of atheism on anyone here in this forum.?

Demagogery is beneath you. And so is straw manning.
My god you managed to squeeze both into a 5 word sentence.

Spidey,

Sometimes spoonfeeding is necessary. It is known as 'evidence', whether direct or circumstancial. The rules of communication are not set by you, they are here already by millenia of common agreement. You will reach no one unless you realize this. Please listen.

daniel12,

The auto-censor has probably changed its drug dosage. It is notably insane at intervals.

Also - are you Daniel ITLD?

What is wrong with site? I keep trying to post and all my posts go to Jacoby who says she will look over and see if it meets her approval. Perversely the site allows me to only complain about the problem and never allows me to actually say anything pertinent to the conversation.

Arminius, I can see intelligence everywhere I look. It's just a matter of letting our brains work.

Let the atheists think once in a while. I don't have to spoonfeed everything.

c ya later

OK, Spidey,

You're close to the edge, and you might lose my support and help. Watch your claims - Thomas Baum, regardless of his being an RC, is more of a true Christian than either of us. Stand back and think, please. I don't agree with Thomas on his RC dogma, but he has the message of Jesus exactly right. Be careful here.

c ya later folks

My message is don't just believe in any God. Look for the true one coz there are a lot of false Gods out there.

Hi, Spidey,

I'll keep trying. I know you are sincere, but you are not coming across to anyone. If you claim there are proofs of God everywhere, you must supply examples, or all your arguments fall flat. This is simply basic debating, not to mention basic conversation. You are capable of learning, I have no doubt.

Catholicism is a false religion. That also means that Thomas Baum is NOT a servant of God coz I think he is a fervent Catholic.

Catholicsim believes in FORCED CONVERSION. It's the cause of many wars which occured in this world. It's the cause of millions of deaths.

What Baum is showing is just a facade. Scratch the skin and you'd see snake's scales in its doctrines.

Most atheists here were catholics. That's understandable coz it's a false religion.

Onofrio,

I'll keep a sharp lookout for Peter Huff. Actually, I'd like to be Yoda.

The truth is, everytime I hear a person say "there is no God", I pity the person and think of himself as a dumb fool.

I may not have been a true Christian all my life (those were my dumb years), but I think I never have doubted that there is a God.

It's a truly stupid notion to think that there is no God. The proofs can be seen everywhere you look. It's just a matter of using one's brains.

Look and THINK. Others are simply not capable of THINKING.

Dumb, dumb and dumb. Exactly what the Bible describes them to be.

Psalms 14:1 "The FOOL hath said in his heart, there is no God"

"The FOOL, the FOOL, the FOOL hath said in his heart, there is no God".

What a pity.

Arminius,

If it's to be a run at Jabba the Huff, you can be Han Solo; I'll be Chewbacca.

:)

DanielITLD.

I too ask myself sometimes why I bother to express my views on threads like this. Yes, I doubt that I will ever persuade anyone to change their religious opinions,and I can't imagine anyone persuading me that God exists - short of Thomas Moses Baum taking me by the hand and personally introducing me to Him. Even then I'd be skeptical. ( "Did you slip something in my drink Thomas?")
But I sometimes feel compelled to comment if only to tell the religious that, unlike God, atheists really do exist
I hope by commenting I will do my small part to dent the religious groupthink that gives religion its credibility. "Everyone says there's a God so it must be true". All I can say is - not everyone agrees that there's a God; and many believe He's just another human invention like Zeus, or Santa Claus.
When I comment I might have in mind some crazy mixed up religious teen who's having a hard time making sense out of the supernatural claptrap that has been drummed into his head, and might get some relief to know that he is not alone and others also don't believe in the great Skyfairy, and it's OK to say so these days without getting tortured, drowned, or set on fire.
As far as we know there are no gods, except for the ones we make up. I would want children everywhere to know this.
Like George Carlin said, "As there are no gods, it proves we don't need them."
I think he's right.

Arminius,

We should both keep an eye out for Huff's next visit; my question could well be lost in the thread's dying fall. When he does rear his head, I will ask again, if you don't beat me to it.

Onofrio,

Excellent direct question to Peter Huff. I look forward to his answer. This could be outright war, and I will be on your side if he claims allegiance to that bastard group.

Arminius,

Add my amen to those prayers of yours...my infidel's respect to your Irenochrist.

I could well be wrong about the Peterhuff thing. I'm relying on DMZ's join-the-dots. But it rang true. I stand ready for correction, having already been Corrected by Herr Huff.

So I'll fling it to him -

PETERHUFF
Sir, what is your relationship to Christian Reconstructionism and/or Dominion theology?

Use your brains. Use your brains. Here is a SCIENTIFIC FACT. Any discussion about atheism does not make sense anymore due to this irrefutable fact :

Intelligence can produce (dumb and smart) objects but NO dumb object/s can produce intelligence.

In other words, if we try to rewind creation and and look for the beginning of things, we would end up finding INTELLIGENCE as the MAIN SOURCE of creation.

From hereon, the discussion should be "who or what is that Intelligence?

Use your brains. Use your brains.

Colinnicholas,

"It's more than a little ironic that to be with God, to mingle with the angels, to go to the other side, we first have to be dead."

ME: Actually, no. But don't ask for logical proof, there is none. So consider me nuts, that is fine. If I am insane, then it is a beautiful and kind madness. And it harms none, it is my own path.

Oh, yes - also, the unbelievers must keep up their dialog. It makes us believers - those of us with functional brains, anyway - reconsider, doubt, learn, reinforce. Keep it up.

Re Farnaz' point

Otherwise said:

it's all from all souls' hope
that the wind might listen

DanielITLD.

I usually enjoy your posts, this one too, but take issue with you when you say to Timmy.

"...you are not likely to argue anyone out of their beliefs. The most that you might do is add your voice to someone else's collection of experiences, in ways that you may not intend, and in this way, you may have some unintended influence over some unknown person's modified belief.
I am not telling you to stop arguing your case, or the cause of your beliefs; I am just pointing out how impervious to argument is the human inner will, and how much people like to fight over things like this."
--- --- --- --- --- ---
ME;
Speak for yourself Daniel. Your broad generalization doesn't cover me, or thousands of folk who have been influenced by the opinions of others to rethink their notions of god, the supernatural, and everlasting life. It was through chatting that I became skeptical, and eventually an atheist. I would listen to and/or read the views of others.I wanted more information.

I can't understand how believers can passively accept as absolute truth - ideas about sky gods and other supernatural thingies,(all invisible by the way) that defy credibility; that you have to be dead to confirm and verify.

If atheists and agnostics stop expressing their views here and elsewhere...folks might figure there ain't no atheists, and conclude that there really MUST be a God -'cause absolutely EVERYONE thinks so. So I'm here to say let the people speak and disagree and think and consider, and know that there are an awful lot of people who don't agree at all with religious folk. No more does religion have the field to itself. We are here and we are growing in numbers.

I can't understand how believers can passively accept as absolute truth - ideas about sky Gods and other supernatural thingies, (all invisible by the way) that defy credibility; without wanting to check it all out further.. from this side and that, and to see what others think about it, and so on. Why just simply accept what religious people say without checking what the opposition is saying?

It's more than a little ironic that to be with God, to mingle with the angels, to go to the other side, we first have to be dead. On that point alone, we have to be crazy not to be skeptical.

So let the conversation continue. I thought that was why we were here. It's why I drop in.

Onofrio,

Indeed, the Rushloonies and "Reconstructionists" (WTF are they reconstructing, the stone age?) are the Taliban of America. And yes, they are busy. But, I think and hope (and pray, I am a believer) that they have damn few followers.

I'm not convinced that Peter Huff is in their number. He seems more of the Dobson model. Of course Dobson is close to theocracy, but he is not in Rushloonieland quite yet. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Re Farnaz
'Some of these atheist vs. believer discussions are interesting, but, I wonder, what is the point? The objective?'

If there is no other objective than the sheer joy of tilting at windbagmills - that is enough, methinks. You never know, one of them just might have their own private eschaton. Or the tilter may perish Valhallish.

As for the preposterous joust - the righteous lives by faith. Hear that, O fabled, fought-for, thought-up Other ear!

DMZ1,

Re the Rushloonies and Wreck-instructionists,

And they aint't just sitting around theologising either!

Peterhuff, you're not just a Christmonger, you're a Mental Terrorist.

Onofrio:

I wondered if anyone else got the Greg Bahnsen thing. The reconstructionists are some of the scariest people on the planet. Note that PH did not respond to my post. I urge everyone - believer and non-believer alike - to check out Christian reconstructionism or Rushdoony or Greg Bahnsen, Gary North, Howard Ahmanson and others. You will not like what you find. But, to something like 10 million Americans, this is their philosophy.

Farnaz:

You said 'Some of these atheist vs. believer discussions are interesting, but, I wonder, what is the point? The objective?'

This is an excellent question. I would much rather address questions of how we get along more harmoniously than engage in irresolvable atheist vs theist questions. No conversion is going on here, and I'm not sure we have even opened anyone's mind. Things are what they are.

But, in our case, most of us live in the same country, and it seems prudent that we try to find ways not to polarize ourselves to a degree even greater than now. Great question but no good answer.

Farnaz said:

"Some of these atheist vs. believer discussions are interesting, but, I wonder, what is the point? The objective?"

This is along the lines of what I was trying to say to Timmy, that one is not likely to argue someone out of their beliefs, no matter how clear your beliefs are, and no matter how odd theirs may seem.

The object appears to be to get other people to "see" as you see, to think as you think, to believe as you believe. But a person believes according to an inner will, which, really even they cannot control; how then can an outside agent control it?

Sometimes this back and forth arguing is just to be argumentative; some people like arguing.

Sometimes, people are a little anxious about the nature of their beliefs, and this type of argument is to reassure themselves.

Sometimes, people are not sure what they believe and this kind of argument helps them sort things out in their minds. (The last example is the main reason that I participate in these arguments).

DMZ1,

"Beware of Mr. Huff. He has just shown his true colors."

Thanks for highlghting that, DMZ. I detected a whiff of Rushdoony about Huff's machine-like certainty.

Moi, as an erstwhile screecher of mere emotional impediments vs Huff, like to imagine his words spoken in the voice of HAL in Kubrick's 2001.

Anyone here who hasn't encountered Christian Reconstruction and Dominionism - check it out. Google Rushdoony. If these Certaintists ever get their way, they'll make Taliban seem like libertines.

Think Michael Servetus x ten millions.

As Pope Baum counsels "Take care, be ready".

Spidey,

Tone it down - you are not getting through.

And atheists can be very interesting.

Persiflage,

Please return at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,
Farnaz

PS. Ah, Pseudoooo....

It's very tiring sometimes to talk to atheists. They don't seem to have an analytical brain and tend to believe in lies.

As I've said, Einstein is a believer. I have lots of qoutes from him that proves it. Also, intelligent people like Einstein can't escape this SCIENTIFIC FACT :

Intelligence can produce (dumb and smart) objects but NO dumb object/s can produce intelligence.

In other words, if we try to rewind creation and and look for the beginning of things, we would end up finding INTELLIGENCE as the MAIN SOURCE of creation.

Atheist should stop dreaming. The statement above cannot be debunked. So please, pity yourselves and learn to raise the white flag. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

"Oh yes I'm far too smart myself to believe in any of that clap trap, but for the lesser brained people, it is useful".

You mean like Mao or Stalin.

Answering Farnaz, Pamsm said:

"Speaking only for myself, I always hope that it will cause people to think and question their ingrained beliefs. Maybe even do some research."

Same here. I disagree with Daniel that beliefs are set by your circumstance and most are virtually inescapable. I think that many moderate believers can see the light.

The other thing is to break the taboo/cloak of protectionism surrounding irrational beliefs. Currently in our society, It is very acceptable, encouraged, nurtured, even seen as virtuous to hold delusional beliefs. This to me is the significant key to the perpetuation of the mindset. Reassurance of the group-think.

My goal as a vocal atheist is to contribute to what my fellow vocal atheists are trying to do, 1) break this taboo against criticizing religion, and 2) Make deity belief, embarrassing, not virtuous.

But truth be told, I am more trying to change the minds of non believing religious apologists than religionists. They are the one's who need to answer my question. If religion can do so much good for people, why have you not chosen it yourself. Is there is something fundamentally different about yourself and the people you claim are helped by religion? What is it? Why can religion help them and not you? The non believing religious apologist is a very strange position indeed. I agree with Richard Dawkins that it is a very elitist position. "Oh yes I'm far too smart myself to believe in any of that clap trap, but for the lesser brained people, it is useful". It is these people I am trying to wake up.

Susan,
Wow. Isn't it possible that religious people have good intentions and do lots of good as a result of their service? Isn't it possible that missionaries share the gospel with others, not as an evil plot to coerce people into following their gospel, but that they share the gospel out of love and the desire to share something that makes them happy with others in the hopes that they too can experience happiness?
I don't think that science is the opposite to God. Science and religion can coexist very peacefully. All "truth" can coexist peacefully. The problem is that many people advocate scientific theories as fact when they are actually only theories. You may not be able to do any scientific tests that PROVE God does exist, but likewise you certaintly can't prove that He doesn't.

Farnaz, Farnaz, Farnaz,

Hmmm, atheist yet Jewish, now infidel yet Jewish. How does that work?? And should we really care considering the small number in each camp???
-------------------------------
CCNL X 3

Scrue u (x 3). At any rate, there are more of my kind than of yours, since you are suis generis. You must have first appeared to your now wife in human form. NO?

XOXO

Farnaz, Farnaz, Farnaz

Pam,

It's just good mental exercise. Pilates for the mind.
-----------------
Yes, this, I think is true. I'd get more out of it if I could see, but, hopefully, this, too, shall pass.

A couple of thoughts:

On anthropomorphism

None of the rabbis who blog here, despite their significant theological differences have an anthropomorphic view of God. I'd wager the same could be said for Bishop Cheney, perhaps, for Fr. Tom Reese, perhaps, for others.
-----------------
Sometimes, because of my work, I have to go to interfaith discussions. By and large they are dreadful bores, feel good junk, but every once in awhile something interesting happened.

The notion of heaven and hell came up. Of course Judaism doesn't attend to this, has little interest in an afterlife. One does not do good in order to be rewarded in the hereafter. (Pie in the sky when you die.) In fact, the notion is at odds, distasteful for Judaism.

At any rate, during this discussion. A middle-aged priest started laughing and then said:
"I doubt many Catholics think there is a material hell, a physical entity. As for the trinity, Catholics know this is a metaphor."

-----------------
No one questioned these pronouncements, of course,
but what he said increased my awareness of the different points of view, even within the organized religions.

Pam, you wrote,
"Speaking only for myself, I always hope that it will cause people to think and question their ingrained beliefs. Maybe even do some research."

ME: this moderate Christian agrees. A faith doubted is not a faith, it is a brainwashing. As I have said so many times here, faith is a journey, not a destination. Yes, I question, and yes, I research. So far my faith is in the plus column. The journey has been very interesting, and continues to be so here on these blogs.

Farnaz, Farnaz, Farnaz,

Hmmm, atheist yet Jewish, now infidel yet Jewish. How does that work?? And should we really care considering the small number in each camp???

"Some of these atheist vs. believer discussions are interesting, but, I wonder, what is the point? The objective?"

Speaking only for myself, I always hope that it will cause people to think and question their ingrained beliefs. Maybe even do some research.

I realize that most who care enough to come to sites like this are pretty hard-core and are less likely to develop any healthy skepticism, but stranger things have happened.

Apart from that, it's just good mental exercise. Pilates for the mind.

Farnaz,
Be of good cheer, this too shall pass. New glasses always have this effect at first. :)

To Everyone:

Some of these atheist vs. believer discussions are interesting, but, I wonder, what is the point? The objective?

Whoops! Meant to write "stand corrected."

Proof against existence of deity: I just started wearing glasses, can't see with or without them. Weeping, fasting, praying, soul-searching, repentance, reciting psalms have come to naught.

Pam:

I agree that god can't be scientifically verified. I don't expect that to change

Actually, I stand correct. Some time ago, on another thread, Arminius offered proof of existence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I don't recall it all since it was quite complicated. It had to do with Spaghetti and pans, flight and adhesion to ceilings. :-)

Pam,

the god idea in cases like PH's is so repulsive and also so stupid because with this world view there is NOTHING CONCEIVABLE which a priori could be called good or bad. In all cases it is: Goddiddit, depriving any sensible human being from "normal" moral judgment. What a perversion, and the same crowd claims there is no morals without their religion!

Farnaz,
I rather like "Infidel" myself.

You say: "What I like about part of Huxley's definition is how it anticipated logical positivism. The point is that "god" isn't subject to scientific verifiability. Of course, the LPs took the whole thing much, much further, as you know."

I agree that god can't be scientifically verified. I don't expect that to change. But the god myths make claims that are certainly fair game for scientific inquiry, and so far, they don't hold up too well.

ME: "Let me ask you something - are there not things that God does in the Bible that offend your sense of right and wrong?"

PETER: "Not when you understand that God is the Creator of all life and has the 'right' to do with it as He pleases and that every man has violated what is right and good by sinning against God".

That's not what I asked you. Of course, if he were real, he would have the "right", because of holding all the power. Similarly, a totalitarian dictator has the "right", conferred by power, to have his subjects snuffed. I asked whether this offended *your* sense of right and wrong. It does mine.

ME: "What would you think of a human who did that to someone?"

PETER: God has told us that a human individual does not have the right to take another human life. But the Creator does and He only does so to fulfill justice".

Really? What about the example of Job, which you didn't address. Job was a good and pious man. The word "perfect" is even used. He didn't deserve to have his life destroyed and his nine children killed. And why did God do it? It was to settle a bet with Satan, that no matter how he mistreated Job, Job would not curse him. A BET!!

If you don't find this just about as vile and despicable as things possibly get, then there is something seriously wrong with you - you are a sociopath.

And yet, here is God, the absolute standard of all that is right and fair. Where does the revulsion come from, then?

ANSWER: It's innate, and predates all religion.

Pam,

Post no. 3.

What I mean is there is no belief/unbelief issue. The matter is practical, pragmatic, applied. That is all.

Pam,

Personally, I prefer to be called an INFIDEL. I mean it. It suits me. I was horribly disappointed when I found there was a web site that had taken the name "Infidels."

Infidel:
1. Offensive. An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion, especially Christianity or Islam.
2. One who has no religious beliefs.
3. One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle.

What I like about part of Huxley's definition is how it anticipated logical positivism. The point is that "god" isn't subject to scientific verifiability. Of course, the LPs took the whole thing much, much further, as you know.

You want the most economic explanation to explain a observed phenomena. Then, of course, there may be replication or application.

In such a context, God does not figure. That's my context. Infinitely pragmatic.

Counterww: "I stay on the side of one of the mainstay founding fathers. You are on the wrong side."

In your humble opinion? :D

As for the salient effects of religion on society, please scroll down to my post of Dec 31 at 6:22 PM. Even GW got it wrong sometimes.

Pam,

Point taken on your view of the distinction between atheism and agnosticism. I think agnostic is a more precise term. This post of mine to Susan J. explains why. See the link to Huxley.
-------------------------

The term "atheism" began as a polemic before evolving in the latter half of the nineteenth century into a more descriptive term. There are strong atheism, weak atheism, pragmatic atheism, and probably other varieties as well.

It sounds like your views are most consistent with what some call "strong atheism." As I read Huxley on agnosticism, he anticipates the position of the logical positivists, who declared that discussion of God was "meaningless" since it could not be scientifically verified.

I would have just as soon go with "infidel," myself.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-huxley.html

Susan Jacoby, it's a real shame you don't know any religious people who can think their way out of a paper bag. Perhaps you should start looking for some.

Believers use the word "god" as if it were a description of an object like a table or a house or a person like "my brother".

The closest even fervent believers honestly could come to a definition of what or who "god" is, would be that god is a "principle", and as humans have only a limited fantasy, they tend to personalize such a principle, like "life shows us"... Life doesn't "show" us anything. We experience it. It is a "way of idiomatic talk", when we say "life shows us...".

If we could avoid this personalization ("anthropomorphism"), we could be already one step further: We experience huge natural forces (e. g. gravity) as a "principle", without ever asking about its "truth", because it is evident, or our metabolism as a "principle", the cosmic energies and even the most advanced scientific discoveries - as a "principle", as an abstraction!

If we simply would stop using this word "god" and substitute it with a code for a set of natural forces, laws (not lawyers' laws, but natural laws!), which we might call "xy", about which we don't know any more than about "god" (which is an equally open metaphor or "code"), we would have a much more interesting discussion. Nobody would draw "xy" (choose a nicer code, lol, all except "god"!) into doubt, because everybody experiences it at every given moment of his life.

Another thing: Did "god" (the "principle") have only one son, or are we all the sons or daughters of the principle of the universe? The simplistic father and son- metaphor would disappear instantaneously, together with the story of the atrocious man offering we have to endure.

Thus, we would approach the Einsteinean, awe-inspired world view, which doesn't need all these auxiliary kindergarten stories we were brought up with and we all had some difficulties to finally emancipate ourselves from.

As Timmy points out, most of the fervent "believers" don't have the faintest idea of the object of their belief. I doubt that any of the soldiers in the 30 years' war had the faintest idea of what they were fighting and dying for.

"However if you capitalize the word God as you did in that last sentence, I do not believe that I have to admit to being agnostic about that to be intellectually honest. It can be proven beyond any REASONABLE doubt that God with a capital "G" was most definitely created by man and not the other way around."

You miss the point, Timmy. They are two separate spheres. Agnosticism is not something midway on a continuum between belief and non-belief, it has to do with actual knowledge, which none of us can, with any intellectual honesty, claim.

I am an atheist. I absolutely do not believe in any deity or creator - big G or little g. But while I am as certain of this as one can possibly be, I can't say that I "know" it. I cannot prove it absolutely (beyond a reasonable doubt, maybe, but that's law, not absolute knowledge). Therefore, I am agnostic, in addition to being atheist.

Because atheism is about *belief*, there are things that could conceivably change my mind. If God appeared to me and told me (or maybe even told someone else) the winner of the Kentucky Derby in 2013 (hint: this horse is not yet foaled) - name, color, owner, trainer, jockey, sire and dam, blanket number, odds, and by what margin he would win, and this turned out to be true, I might have to rethink my position. But so far, the only predictions that are made with this level of accuracy and detail, are all made by science.

Timmy

As a philosophical point on how the mind interacts with the world, I do believe that most people have little choice in their beliefs, but take what is handed to them by the previous generation.

I think of religion as a setting into which we are born. Which setting, like the time and place, is entirely accidental. Therefore, it is entirely accidental that you may be handed a set of Jewish beliefs, or Christian beliefs, or Moslem beliefs. And because it is accidental, it should be clear that none is more right or more wrong than another.

All these many religions are mere aspects of human culture, and it is sad and comical to see how the many different believers all think that they are special and their beliefs are more true than any of the others.

It only takes just a little thinking to realize that they cannot all be true. Most people take the beliefs that are handed to them and accept them. They do not care enough to question them, or find out more. They do not care enough to hear from people like you who like to dissuade them of the beliefs they think they have freely chosen. They are not interested enough; it is too much trouble; it is too much bother to change.

Daniel,

I think that people have a little more choice in what they believe than you imply. My experience shows me that many believers believe because they are ignorant of the facts that show their religions to be false. Most have been kept shielded from criticisms of their delusional beliefs and the evidence against them, by the societal taboo against criticizing people's faith based beliefs.

One example is a friend of mine who, until a couple of months ago would say that he believed in God. He is an intelligent person and so I took him through all of the arguments and science, and history of religions, and made him think deeply about what why it is, that he professes in God. Today he calls himself an agnostic and he is more into quantum theory than God.

You are correct when it comes to the hardcore believers. We are not likely to de-convert them. But most moderate believers can be informed about things that they have never thought of, or heard about, like the Council of Nicea, or the problem of infinite regression. Many moderate believers I have spoken to weren't even aware that the Gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus and had never met him. Many thought that the existence of the man, Jesus, and his crucifixion were all a matter of historical record and were not up for dispute.

The reason these people were not aware of these very important points, and had formed their soft belief with misinformation, is because it is taboo to challenge people's religious beliefs, so no one ever told them. It should not be taboo to challenge religious beliefs, any more than it is taboo to challenge someone's political beliefs. Which it obviously is not.

Freedom of religion exists, and it should.

But freedom from criticism of your religious beliefs public or private does not exist, nor should it.

Spidey says:
"There is no wall at the end of the universe. Only idiots would think there is."

"The universe" isn't a "thing." It is the set (as in mathematics) of all things.

Timmy,

I am agnostic about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but I still capitalize it. I also capitalize Zeus, Athena, Cthulhu, etc.

But don't you agree that His Noodliness offers a very fine heaven?

Pamsm,

You said:
"Christians *believe* based on their bible, that God exists, but are, or should admit to being - agnostic because they do not - *cannot* -know this to be true.

Atheists do not *believe* in God or gods, based on everything that the quest for knowledge and evidentiary proof has managed to teach us in the last couple of thousand years, but are agnostic to the extent that they cannot prove that God or gods don't exist."

I would agree completely with all of this.
However if you capitalize the word God as you did in that last sentence, I do not believe that I have to admit to being agnostic about that to be intellectually honest. It can be proven beyond any REASONABLE doubt that God with a capital "G" was most definitely created by man and not the other way around.

In other words, I do not have to admit to being agnostic about Puff the Magic Dragon. I can be intellectually honest and say that I am an atheist to good old Puff. Same goes for God with a capital "G".

Thomas Baum,

Yes, He hung in there for ALL of us. I am taking that to heart this new year, and always.

The move is almost done, thanks.

That previous post was a reply to Timmy:

When I write about tolerance and toleration, I am using these words in a religious sense, as a part of a doctrine of belief; I believe in a doctrine of tolerance; that does not mean (what you referred to as) "absolute tolerance." It is a reference only to religious beliefs of others that are different than my own.

The idea of tolerance and toleration really only has meaning for people that are themselves in a position of power or political dominance, for they are the ones called upon to be tolerant, and they are the ones who must extend tolerance to people of a subordinate position, whom they may consider "different."

For a doctrine of tolerance to be valid, it is not necessary to extend tolerance to the intolerant. In being tolerant of the beliefs of others, I was not intending that all physical activities and processes should be tolerated, only that the inner beliefs and thoughts of others should be tolerated.

These ideas come from the recognition that many people believe many strange things. People inherit their beliefs from the previous generation. Then the acuity of their own mind, and a successesion of contingent life-experiences may cause doubt in these inhertited beliefs, and this doubt then sculpts these beliefs into some new form.

Therefore, it is my belief that most people experience their beliefs happening to them, and forming their inner will, and not the other way around. The formation of belief is really the formation of your personality, and you experience it just as you experience a sunset, or a rainy day. You cannot really control these things, but merely encounter them, and then make of them what you will.

Therefore, you are not likely to argue anyone out of their beliefs. The most that you might do is add your voice to someone else's collection of experiences, in ways that you may not intend, and in this way, you may have some unintended influence over some unknown person's modified belief.

I am not telling you to stop arguing your case, or the cause of your beliefs; I am just pointing out how impervious to argument is the human inner will, and how much people like to fight over things like this.

And the deluded "believers" in 2009 like the hallucinating Thomas Baum will continue to believe in the "simple preacher man was hung/killed by his father for our sins". What signficant stupidity!!

Once again the reality of "atonement" theology:

(from Professor JD Croosan's book, "Who is Jesus" co-authored with Richard Watts)

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

Farnaz, you said:
"Wikipedia has a good explanation of the negative proof fallacy, with links to discussions of proof of impossibility and absence of evidence. Per Pam and many others, "agnostic" is a more accurate, more precise term than "atheist."

I didn't say that, actually. I said that one could be (and is, if honest), an agnostic as well as either an atheist or a theist.

Agnosticism has to do with knowledge (or the lack thereof), and theism/atheism has to do with belief.

Christians *believe* based on their bible, that God exists, but are, or should admit to being - agnostic because they do not - *cannot* -know this to be true.

Atheists do not *believe* in God or gods, based on everything that the quest for knowledge and evidentiary proof has managed to teach us in the last couple of thousand years, but are agnostic to the extent that they cannot prove that God or gods don't exist.

ARMINIUS

Hi, hope your move went okay. BTW when I said, Hang in there, He hung in there for us, that us is ALL OF US.

God has all of the bases covered, so to speak, to get us all home.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hi, Spidey,

First, let me commend you on the better composition of your posts - you are losing your old 'attack' attitude, and are therefore getting more people to read them instead of attacking back (as I always did!). Keep it up, you might could improve a bit.

Next, I fear the posters here are correct about Einstein, and, as far as I can tell, Luther's quotes about reason. I don't have access to Luther's works, so I can't verify that.

Keep searching, keep learning. I'll leave you with something my friend Thomas Baum says: hang in there, because He hung in there for us.

Daniel,

"The antidote is "tolerance" which can be taught, and learned"

Indeed. But let's not be so tolerant that tolerate intolerance. Tolerance, like anything, is not an absolute. There are certain things that society has decided, and rightly so, that deserve no tolerance. We actually have some laws called "zero tolerance". These are good laws based on intolerance.

I have no tolerance for delusional beliefs. I have tolerance for the people with them, but not for the beliefs themselves. I criticize these beliefs at every turn. My intention is to help the people with delusional beliefs by destroying the belief, not the person. Because delusional beliefs are not good for anybody. I raise their awareness ad that's all I can do.

Daniel,

YOU: "You are correct, that doubt is what makes tolerance possible. To me, it just means "live and let live;" or again, it means, "I have mine; i will let them have theirs."

I agree with live and let live. For example, my neighbor uses heave chemical fertilizers on his grass. It's legal and that's his perogative, so I live and let live. But I told him the other day how bad those chemicals are for our environment. I pointed out that my grass is almost as green as his and I use a natural fertilizer. He didn't listen, and he still uses his chemicals, and I've let it go. But I raised his awareness, that's all I can do.

I treat religion the same way. It serves no positive purpose that is not more than countered by it's negative effects on society. And so I raise awareness about this wherever I can. Let the people decide for themselves. The best we can do is make them aware of the reality of it, and hope that they will make the right decision.

YOU: In order to have the ability to see the world from another's point of view, a little doubt in the perfection of your own view is probably helpful.

I have no doubt that chemical fertilizers hurt the environment and that grass vanity is no excuse to use them. But live and let live. Raise awareness, that's all I can do.

No I know that you will want to challenge my assertion that religion serves no positive purpose that is not more than countered by it's negative effects on society. I predict that any benefit that you might raise here will be of equal availability to atheists, therefore making it, not a benefit of religion, but simply a benefit of being human and having access to the sum total of human wisdom and moral philosophy.

But if you know of a benefit that is only available to those who believe in deities, do tell. I've never seen one of these. It will be like a bigfoot sighting. Very exciting.

Susan Jacoby,

"We probably all have words that embed themselves in our minds wrongly at an early age. In this case, I'm sure the mistake comes from putting together "ante" with "deluge" in my mind. Well, I won't forget it now."

I became more spelling disordered as I grew older: worst culprits--"eliminate, immigrant, happiness, emptiness."

A problem for a long time that came to an end about eight years ago: "ridiculous."

A problem all my life: "okay," which I spelled o'kay, up until recently. (I still think there is justification somewhere for "o'kay."

Susan Jacoby

I can't remember who it was who pointed out that I had misspelled the word "antediluvian," but thank you. This is a word I have been misspelling for my entire life. But what's worse is that no editor has ever corrected me. We probably all have words that embed themselves in our minds wrongly at an early age. In this case, I'm sure the mistake comes from putting together "ante" with "deluge" in my mind. Well, I won't forget it now.

Spidey.

I'm posting the Einstein quote again here;

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously."

Albert Einstein. from Religion and Science, quoted in Atheist Universe by David Mills. pub.Ulysses Press.Berkeley,Cal.pp182

Einstein, the brilliant physicist, the great truth-seeker, admired by all for his intelligence and perception into the reality of things, could not take seriously the idea of your kinda God.

Think about that Spiderman. Just stop a minute and think about that. Einstein was unable to take the God hypothesis seriously! He couldn't do it. Why couldn't he take it seriously? Because there is no REASON to take it seriously. Nothing suggested to him, the most perceptive brain of the twentieth century, that gods exist.

He often used the word "God" as a metaphor for the ultimate mystery of existence. But wouldn't even consider it as a serious hypothesis.

So Spidey. Take a deep breath, and ask yourself, could you maybe be wrong about the Great SkyGod?

You brought Einstein into the conversation to support your godism; but he's on the side of the rationalists.

Recommended reading. "Atheist Universe" by David Mills.
and "The World as I See It" by Albert Einstein

To continue Pamsm,

Petesy: "It works both ways. Don't use that argument when you argue for good or moral right as being determined by societal consensus".

PAM: "I've never argued for such a thing. The human sense of right and wrong is innate - put there by millions of years of evolution among social animals. Did you look at the Frans de Waal link that I gave Timmy? Here it is again."

I'm going to think about this more before I reply to you. There is a lot to unpack in the article.

PAM: "Let me ask you something - are there not things that God does in the Bible that offend your sense of right and wrong?"

Not when you understand that God is the Creator of all life and has the "right" to do with it as He pleases and that every man has violated what is right and good by sinning against God. The amazing thing is that by His grace you or I still exist, for we have all broken His commands, His rules, so we are guilty of punishment. There is no justice without punishment. And the amazing thing is that God the Son offers Himself in the place of the guilty by becoming their guilt offering before God. He willingly and lovingly became the substitute of those who believe.

PAM: "Like telling Abraham to sacrifice his son - torture, even though he called it off at the last minute."

A lesson and foreshadowing of what He would do in His Son. That was the intent for God was teaching us sacrifice and obedience. At no time was He going to allow such an act, but even if He did Abraham reasoned correctly that God had the power to restore such a life. (Genesis 22:12-13; Hebrews 11:17-19)

PAM: "What would you think of a human who did that to someone?"

God has told us that a human individual does not have the right to take another human life. But the Creator does and He only does so to fulfill justice.

Sorry I have to go. Will catch up with these thoughts later.

Timmy,

I like an argument as much as the next guy, probably more, but there have to grounds for one.
Actually, I like Onofrio's word "impediments" better than argument.

Meanwhile, I vote for giving the baton to Persiflage to orchestrate some calming monism. Unfortunately (woe is me) I must be away for a bit.

Timmy,

I think you're missing the point. Did you follow the link and read Huxley? It's a brief passage. You are familiar with logical positivism?

Hi Pamsm (January 2, 2009 2:34 AM),

The "Pamsy" was a spelling error. I corrected myself with your other posts. Sorry.

PAM: "That's correct. "Ignorance" and "not knowing" are the same thing. When something is unknowable, ignorance is not a perjorative."

Even though the word was coined by Huxley, I believe the derivative stems from the Greek or Latin word for ignorance. That is the point I was making and yes, you are right, the atheist is ignorant of God but I contend from God's word that you actual do know about Him, you just suppress the knowledge and you do not know Him as in an intimate relationship. (Romans 1:19, 21, 25)

PAM: "And guess what, Petesy, you're as ignorant as anyone else as to the existence of gods."

There is only one God. All the rest are idols. God has given His word on it. (1 Corinthians 8:1-7)

PETESY: "No, the theistic belief is evidence based also. You just fail to recognize the evidence".

PAM: "Right again. At least about the last part. I assume that you're referring to your bible? If not, please tell us about your evidence. Would it stand up in a court of law? Mine would."

Yes the Bible, but also the creation. Chance produces nothing of value because with Chance anything can happen and nothing is more likely than anything else to happen. Probability goes out the window. You can't even predict the future with Chance because anything is possible.

Either everything from Being or everything from Chance for either we are here by intent or we are here by by random chance happenstance. And that is illogical to believe.

The atheist and agnostic makes the mistake of assuming that nobody knows whether or not God exists.

farnaz,

"Per Pam and many others, "agnostic" is a more accurate, more precise term than "atheist."

It is an more accurate term, given that most atheists do not claim to know with certainty that our universe has no creative source, only that it seems highly unlikely.

But the term agnostic, does not apply to most non believers where "God of the Bible" is concerned. Most have no doubt that this God was created by man, and they know this with good reason and evidence. And so with regards to that God, we non believers are mostly atheists.

But since most people are talking about Bible God when they speak of God, "atheist" is the most appropriate term to use. The problem with using the word agnostic, is that people will assume that you are wishy washy as to wether or not "God of the Bible" exists, or that Hell exists, or that Gay might be wrong. Some people can mistake "Agnostic" to mean, "I don't know" on those issues.

Personally I usually take the time to explain fully when it comes up. I usually say "Well I can't say if the universe has a creative source or not, but I have zero doubt that "God of the Bible" is not true". And then I can go into my reasons for that, if they'd like to pursue it. I also go on to clarify my acceptance of the possibility of a creative source by saying "I do find it highly doubtful given that the only logic that leads to the conclusion that there is some creative source, would then force you come up with a source for the source and on into infinity.

We should all take the time to clarify. It's important for people to know that people who call themselves agnostics, are actually atheists, who don't want to get caught up in that whole "Prove God does not exist" BS.

Spiderman2

You said: ”A person seeing the crime right before his eyes is evidence to himself.”

If a person sees a phenomenon that is within the boundaries of the natural, day to day occurrences, and this person knows that s/he is not blind or shortsighted, is not demented, was not drunk or under the influence of any drug at the moment of experiencing the phenomenon, never has been indoctrinated about this type of occurrences, is not experiencing an auto induced abnormal state, sincerely is convinced that will not profit from this experience, that person may have a valid evidence for her/himself.

If the person experiences a phenomenon that is outside the boundaries of the natural, day to day occurrences, in addition to the above self questioning, more stringent criteria will be necessary for this person to be sure that what happened to s/he was real. For example, if you hear a voice and nobody is close around you and that voice gives commands to you or messages to be communicated to others, go pronto to see a doctor, just to be sure.

Best wishes to all,

JAC

To Frederic and all:

What we are witnessing are political, social and economic phenomena. "Globalization" (i.e., secularization and exploitation of developing nations), massive migration have given rise to another Great Awakening (this one more properly called a Great Regression), and unless we start dealing with the problem at the social, political, and material levels, we are doomed.

The intelligentsia in Third World Nations have said again and again: "We told you and we told you and we told you. We're telling you now, and you're still not listening.)

We cannot have strange fascistic/feudal bedfellows (they manage the contradiction), who demonize us, use the third world as our plantation, have peoples migrating everywhere, and not have violent responses.

So here you have the Fundies of various sects, just as there you have the same. The stakes are higher there, the fear more intense, the anomie greater, the danger to us all much more serious.

It is the end of the word "civilization" as we would have liked to know it.

DITLD,

thanks for your reply, which I fully subscribe to.

I even think, that the hatred against nonbelievers stems from the source you describe: They are not as sure, in reality, as they profess, and the hatred against non-believers is a projection of this insecurity. Hatred is easy, doubt is difficult: So to squash their own doubt, they hate those who nourish that already existing doubt by honestly voicing it.

Spidey;

I've posted this one many times, here it is again.

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously.
I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.

Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary.

Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

Albert Einstein. from Religion and Science, quoted in Atheist Universe by David Mills. pub.Ulysses Press.Berkeley,Cal.pp182

Persiflage,

More Adorno: He was also a formidable music critic about which Frederic is knowledgeable.

Frederic,

"I think you are more on the side of social practicability and damage restriction of religion, which, politically thinking, I would even subscribe to.

Personally, I am more on the side of substance vs. vacuum. I think both stances are somehow necessary to achieve something and at the same time avoid a cozy "maybe"- tolerance attitude, blurring the core of the problem."

Frederic, this sounds interesting. Are you saying that you're more interested in it as a philosophic problem? That is where Persiflage and emptiness with awareness could come in, once we clear away the debris, carefully and with a reformist perspective--Mensheviks, not Bolsheviks.

As for me, before living in the ideal community, I just want to live. Hence, the practical nature of my concern. If religoinists would quit being religionists and become believers, renounce conversionism, stop interfering with the curriculum and legislative processes, they could worship their Imaginary Friends all day, as far as I'm concerned.

How about this one Pam-

George Washington- farewell address-

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

You see, this founding father was actually saying that religious people have a positive influence on society and on our Republic.

And although John Adams did not believe in Orthodox Christianity, he did make a comment about Paine's assertions-"The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will."

The founders were people that were deists and Christians- many changed their opinions over the years. But one thing they did believed was that people who were religious had a positive influence on politics and society. The wall of separation was meant so we would not have one denomination be the "church" of the United States- it was never meant to keep religious people out of the political process, or even have their beliefs not codified in our laws.

Look what washington said-"Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle" REASON and experience tell us that national morality can only make it if we INCLUDE religious principles......

Most atheists want to EXCLUDE religious principles.

I stay on the side of one of the mainstay founding fathers. You are on the wrong side.

"and about the universe he isn't quite sure."

I think Einstein was sure that the universe was infinite. He just said it to highlight the stupidity of some "scientist" whose stupidity is infinite.

There is no wall at the end of the universe. Only idiots would think there is.

Hi Persiflage,

Happy new year! And thanks for the links.

When you say you read Adorno, are you referring to "The Authoritarian Personality"?

That's about all Social Psychology has ever been interested in Adorno-wise, but, even today, students generally read summaries of the book or references by Fromm, never the actual work. It was, of course an important contribution to early social psychology and remains significant in the discipline. However, in some ways it pales before his other achievements which US social psychology, although it has improved, can't integrate.

Under the contemporary rubric theory, Horkheimer and Adorno, "Dialectics of the Englightenment" is IMHO the best place to start. "Negative Dialetics" (Adorno) comes next. It's a more difficult text. If you're fluent in German, it would behoove you to read it without translation.

I can't see how, in 2008 for gawd's sake, one can discuss religion and science without benefit of DE. Europe, of course, was way ahead of us with respect to theory.

Wikipedia has articles on the Frankfurt School, Adorno, DE, DN that could provide you with an overview I'm sure. If you can find Douglass Kellner's site, I think you'll find a good overview there too.

I don't know whether the Marx archives has anything by Adorno. It's possible, I suppose.

Frederic

I had to think a little bit to answer you.

You are correct, that doubt is what makes tolerance possible. To me, it just means "live and let live;" or again, it means, "I have mine; i will let them have theirs."

In order to have the ability to see the world from another's point of view, a little doubt in the perfection of your own view is probably helpful.

That is why Fundamentalism, in all of its many variations, is so intolerant, because number one in Fundamentalist ideology is to "stamp out all doubt" and to punish severely all heresey, apsotasy, and revisionism regarding the Fundmenatlist doctrine.

But this goes against human nature; doubt is a quality of the inner will, over which we have no control; people cannot turn their doubts off like turning a valve; people cannot hold back their doubts through the force of their will; it is impossible. Therefore, you can be sure, that many people who are caught in Fudmanmentalism experience "secret doubt" which they can barely acknowledge to themselves, and definitley not to their Fundamentalist Community.

This causes great pain and distress, for which no help is offered, and for which there is no acknowledgemnt nor cure, at least within the Fundamentalist community.

Frederick2, Einstein is a true scientist and he's a believer. The idiot "scientists" like Huxley are actually philosophers and not scientists. Atheists claim Einstein as one of them. They are dreaming. No intelligent person is an atheist.

So sorry! Aldous Huxley wrote 'The Perennial Philosophy', while brother Julian continued in the family tradition as a biologist. I saw my mistake immediately...

See the first article for an excellent if lengthy summation of one academic's point of view on the origins and functional purpose of religion.

We seldom see religion from a highly informed, widely read, academically contemporary and 'professional' point of view. The author recounts his own personal experience with religious insight well into the article.

The second reference/link directs the reader’s attention to a current theory of religion espoused by another old religion professor of mine from long ago, professor emeritus E. Thomas Lawson – and like the first author, an expatriate from the University of Chicago divinity school.

Some familiarity with the academic study of religion certainly is bound to give anyone a much broader perspective on the cultural phenomenon of religion, as Farnaz and the PieLady suggest. Weber, Durkheim, Marx, et al are among the early sociologists, with more than a little social philosophy thrown in!

And in much the same way, 'The Golden Bough' by Sir James Frazer was among the earliest ethnographic and historically based studies on magic and religion.

Speaking of the Huxleys, Julian Huxley's seminal work on mysiticism, 'The Perennial Philosophy' is also highly recommended.

Hi Farnaz!! I read Adorno ages ago in Sociol Psychology studies.

http://www.crosscurrents.org/whatisreligion.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science_of_religion

Farnaz,

I think you are more on the side of social practicability and damage restriction of religion, which, politically thinking, I would even subscribe to.

Personally, I am more on the side of substance vs. vacuum. I think both stances are somehow necessary to achieve something and at the same time avoid a cozy "maybe"- tolerance attitude, blurring the core of the problem.

DITLD, tolerance would have to be a "mutual" attitude, allowing doubt as a possibility. There is no sign of tolerance in the fanatical believers of variable intelligence also here on these threads. Once you possess "truth", tolerance, by necessity, must disappear, which it always has through history up to this day.

And Spidey, any content in your brain certainly doesn't have the slightest evidence character for anybody but yourself. But evidence belongs to everybody, or it simply is meaningless private or at best group conjecture without any value.

Yes, Spidey, and the "idiot" Einstein said that stupidity and the universe are both infinite, and about the universe he isn't quite sure.

"They are all idiots, believe me". Well, Spidey, you sure must know!

Hi Spiderman,

"Huxley...stated that "discussion of God was 'meaningless" since it could not be scientifically verified.'"

Actually, I don't think he put it quite that way, but close. It was the logical positivists (after WWI) who crystallized that view.

Even though it might be a small waste of time for you, Spiderman, why not click on the link I pasted in my last post? At least this way, we can have a common vocabulary, don't you think?

Jacoby, the idiot Huxley (your "scientist") stated that "discussion of God was "meaningless" since it could not be scientifically verified."

This one can be scientifically verified :

Intelligence can produce (dumb and smart) objects but NO dumb object/s can produce intelligence.

In other words, if we try to rewind creation and and look for the beginning of things, we would end up finding INTELLIGENCE as the MAIN SOURCE of creation.

Jacoby wrote "there is, in fact, no evidence (as scientists understand evidence) of a deity's existence."

I don't know what you mean by "scientist". I consider myself a scientist. I am a searcher of truth based on facts and scientific reason.

Think for yourself. You could be smarter than the people you perceive as "scientists". They are all idiots, believe me.

One of the founders of Intelligent Design was dumbfounded of the stupidity when he tried to look at those "scientists'" claims. He felt he was duped when he found out that their claims has really no scientific bases.

DUPED.

Susan Jacoby:

The term "atheism" began as a polemic before evolving in the latter half of the nineteenth century into a more descriptive term. There are strong atheism, weak atheism, pragmatic atheism, and probably other varieties as well.

It sounds like your views are most consistent with what some call "strong atheism." As I read Huxley on agnosticism, he anticipates the position of the logical positivists, who declared that discussion of God was "meaningless" since it could not be scientifically verified.

I would have just as soon go with "infidel," myself.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-huxley.html

Political movements, espeically with detailed dogmatiac doctrine about the nature of the state and economics, are often as psychologically "fundamentalist" as fundamentalist religons. Communism and Naziism come to mind. So how does pointing a finger at the brutality of Lenis, Stalin, or Hitler make atheism worse than religion?

It is not really atheism that is good or bad and it is not really religion that is good or bad; it is the intolerant fundamentalist doctrine, be it Baptist, Mormon, Catholic, Islamic, Marxist, or Nazi.

The antidote is "tolerance" which can be taught, and learned.

Frederick2 wrote " "Evidence" which is not "transferable" is no evidence: "

WRONG. A person seeing the crime right before his eyes is evidence to himself. Whether the other people would believe his account or not is another story coz it's NOT transferable. It's recorded in his brain memory and his memory can't be seen by other people. He can only retell the story and it's different from actually seeing the crime yourself.

Intolerance, not religion, is the problem.

Most Conservative, Fundamentalist people do not get this. They have barely a grasp of tolerance and toleration; they somehow have ZERO ability to empathize with the feelings of others, which gives Christians, at least, low credibility when they talk, talk, talk so much about love.

The infamously trite Christian phrase, "love the sinner, hate the sin" demonstrates this point exactly. They do not know what is wrong with saying this, nor how anyone could misinterpret their "good" intentions. Most religious people, however, bristle at the accusation of "intolerace" as they know somehow that it puts them in the wrong; yet somehow, they cannot help themselves.

This is a complex human problem, that cannot be easily reducible to "getting rid of religion."

Susan Jacoby

No, agnostic is not a more accurate and precise term than atheist. It is simply less forthright. The term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley, the great 19th-century popularizer of Darwin's theory of evolution, as a more socially acceptable alternative to the much older word "atheist." I do not believe in God. Neither does anyone who calls herself an agnostic. Like those who call themselves agnostics, I can allow for the theoretical possibility that there might be some evidentiary proof of the existence of a deity that no one has yet provided. Again, what differentiates atheists (and those who call themselves agnostics)from religious believers is the conviction that there is, in fact, no evidence (as scientists understand evidence) of a deity's existence. What differentiates atheists from so-called agnostics is a willingness to call their conviction by its real name.

"In view of today's status of knowledge of humanity and nature, the literal contents of Christianity (and most other religions) are simply "unbelievable". "

It wouldn't matter if its affects weren't so often destructive. Wedded to nation states, notions of "race," sex, gender, etc., it is dangerous.

Since we can't simply get rid of it, and since no amount of haranguing will persuade anyone of anything, we need to look at how it functions via different models.

Durkheim can explain the connections between religion and social change in some situations but not in others; the same may be said even of Marz. They need to be read together. Weber helps.

Recommend, "Understanding Classical Sociology: Marx, Weber, Durkheim"

There is a basic difference between religion as a (possible) social tool, which can seriously be discussed from all intellectual, historical, philosophical, economical, psychological, biographical, empirical, medical, tribal, familial etc. angles, and the literal religious CONTENTS, which you either believe, couldn't care less or don't believe.

In view of today's status of knowledge of humanity and nature, the literal contents of Christianity (and most other religions) are simply "unbelievable".

"Evidence" which is not "transferable" is no evidence: The essence of evidence is its transferability or it is just any conjecture, private or group opinion, superstition.

It seems to me that the worst wars are not those between religions, but between the religious and the non-relgious.

I suggest all of you, the range of you from single-minded religious adherents to single-minded religion rejectors read Durkheim's Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Religion is nothing but a reflection and worship of our own society. Not a superstition but a structure as inherent as government itself.

So where, then, does this leave the humanists? If they are constructive in their criticism of religion/society then they can be productively included. If they are flippant and arrogant, then they will be alone.

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalms 14:1)

Sorry for the mistake

Here is a SCIENTIFIC fact:

Intelligence can produce (dumb and smart) objects but NO dumb object/s can produce intelligence.

In other words, if we try to rewind creation and and look for the beginning of things, we would end up finding INTELLIGENCE as the MAIN SOURCE of creation.

It's such a simple fact like 1+1=2. A very simple proof that there is God, unless you are so stupid not to understand that 1+1 is equal to 2.

The sad fact is, that is how dumb atheists are. Sorry folks. Truth can be so hurtful like a sharp razor blade.

"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God" (A verse from Isaiah)

It's a proof that atheism is actually a choice. IT'S CHOOSING TO BE DUMB.

Counterww writes:
"DILD- actually, I was thinking the same thing about atheists on this forum. Many are elitist, negative, some have narcissistic qualities, arrogant, and just plain nasty. You have many of these qualities.

I have never claimed to be an atheist; if you think that, then you have read into my comments something that I have NEVER said. That is your ugly arrogance. I have never promoted atheism. Atheism is the belief that there is no God, not someone who disagrees with you, and not a Democrat or a Liberal.

Most of my comments are criticims of current Christian practice, and not a promotion of atheism. It is just, that, among the Christian "Hypocrysia," there is just so much to criticize, in fact, the opportunities are endless.

I criticize Christians for their ugly and mean attitude towards atheists. That is my criticism, and I do not take it back.

As for what you said about me, I am not elitist; I am not negative; I am not narcissistic; I am not arrogant; I am not nasty.

As far as I can see, these are all traits that apply to many of the people who post here as Christians, although I hope and would assume that many if not most Christians are not like this.

Clarity on the negative proof fallacy isn't always as simple as one might like. It can be, and sometimes is, confused with proof of impossibility and absence of evidence, neither of which are fallacies.

Wikipedia has a good explanation of the negative proof fallacy, with links to discussions of proof of impossibility and absence of evidence. Per Pam and many others, "agnostic" is a more accurate, more precise term than "atheist."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

Jacoby wrote "The atheist simply says, "I see no evidence to support the belief that God exists." "

If that is the case, atheists should be ashamed of themselves. There are millions of circumstantial evidences of the existence of God and you guys can't see one?

And for the true believers, they are actually holding that evidence inside their pocket. The only problem is they can't take it out to show it to the atheists coz IT'S NON-TRANSFERABLE.

"the British Centre for Science Education called him (my insertion: Rushdooney, Bahnsen's Guru) "a man every bit as potentially murderous as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot or anyone else you may want to name amongst the annals of evil" and "a thoroughly evil man".

Now here we finally have PH's true identity. I, for one, would be his victim, if his dreams ever came true (death to atheists). He would exceed Hitler's and Stalin's numbers.

Susan, as you said: One cannot prove a negative (an epistemological triviality). Neither can one "believe" in a negative - it is logically impossible.

But we have to continue the good work, and thanks for your contribution to it!

Susan.
It is amazing that some believers can't figure out that basic fact, but then, when your world view is that constricted by a mental straight jacket, it is impossible to see out of that view.

But I do share your frustration!

Shawn Cromett

Susan Jacoby

For the umpteenth time, atheism is not a "belief" in the sense that a religion is. The atheist simply says, "I see no evidence to support the belief that God exists." No atheist claims to "know" that God does not exist--because a negative cannot be proved. Religious believers, by contrast, claim to "know" that God does exist.

Peter Huff:

You just outed yourself guy. Anyone who recommends Greg Bahnsen is a seriously deluded and dangerous person. Bahnsen is a Christian reconstructionist, a follower of John Rushdoony. Christian reconstructionism is the absolute worst that Christianity has to offer.

So, you believe that all atheists should be killed, there should be capital punishment for rebellious teenagers, capital punishment for adultery and blasphemy, etc. You are a dominionist - someone who wants to force their religion on everyone else through totalitarian theocracy.

Beware of Mr. Huff. He has just shown his true colors.

Peter Huff asks me:

"And you ask why it takes great faith to believe in atheism?"

From where did you derive this abstruse idea?

I have never asked "why it takes great faith to believe in atheism".

One can "believe" in an entity, but not in a non-entity. Equally, one can believe an entity does not exist, but one cannot "believe" in the non-existence of an entity. It is logically exclusive. Such a silly statement, as you allege to me, would be contrary to my lowest aspirations to intelligence.

Whoops! That should have been WWAT--What Would Adorno Think?

Timmy2,

Thanks for the info. I didn't know that Marley left Rastafarianism for Christianity at the last moment.

You know the Nobel Prize Winning writer, I.B. Singer was an atheist. Once at a talk, someone asked, "Mr. Singer, is there a God?" (This, btw., was also an old Singer joke.)

So, after everyone stopped laughing, he said, "I don't know, but if we want to survive, we'd better act like there is one."

WWAD?, though, apologies to Singer (who wouldn't have disagreed, but wouldn't have admitted it).

Farnaz,

Happy new year.

"Of course, you know that Bob Marley was a Rastafarian, not an atheist"

Yes.
But actually he's in Christian heaven right now. He was baptized in 1980 and he apparently converted to Christianity on his death bed. He went for Pascal's wager, last minute style.

But I posted it because the lyrics speak to me.

I'm an atheist cherry picker. Take the relevant secular wisdom out of all of the religious traditions and throw the useless deity belief and all of the horror that goes with it in the trash. What a wonderful world it would be if we all did that. IMMHO

You may say, I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one.
I hope someday you will join us,
and the world will live as one.

WWAT?

WHAT WOULD ADORNO THINK?

Timmy2, I don't know if Bob Marley actually wrote "By the Rivers of Babylon." I seem to recall its having been two other people. Marley sure sang the hell out of it though.

By The Rivers Of Babylon
Bob Marley

By the rivers of Babylon
Where we sat down
And there we wept
When we remembered Zion
But the wicked carried us away in captivity
Required from us a song
How can we sing King Alfa song
In a strange land
Cause the wicked carried us away in captivity
Required from us a song
How can we sing King Alfa song
In a strange land

Sing it out loud
Sing a song of freedom sister
Sing a song of freedom brother
We gotta sing and shout it
We gotta talk and shout it
Shout the song of freedom now

So let the words of our mouth
And the meditation of our heart
Be acceptable in Thy sight
Over I
So let the words of our mouth
And the meditation of our heart
Be acceptable in Thy sight
Over I

Sing it again
We've got to sing it together
Everyone of us together

By the rivers of Babylon...

Timmy 2, this one's for you.

Standing in the dock at Southampton,
Trying to get to Holland or France.
The man in the mac said, "You've got to turn back".
You know they didn't even give us a chance.
Christ you know it ain't easy,
You know how hard it can be.
The way things are going
They're going to crucify me.

Finally made the plane into Paris,
Honey mooning down by the Seine.
Peter Brown called to say,
"You can make it O.K.,
You can get married in Gibraltar, near Spain".

Christ you know it ain't easy,
You know how hard it can be.
The way things are going
They're going to crucify me.

Drove from Paris to the Amsterdam Hilton,
Talking in our beds for a week.
The newspapers said, "Say what you doing in bed?"
I said, "We're only trying to get us some peace".

Christ you know it ain't easy,
You know how hard it can be.
The way things are going
They're going to crucify me.

Saving up your money for a rainy day,
Giving all your clothes to charity.
Last night the wife said,
"Oh boy, when you're dead
You don't take nothing with you
But your soul - think!"

Made a lightning trip to Vienna,
eating chocolate cake in a bag.
The newspapers said, "She's gone to his head,
They look just like two gurus in drag".

Christ you know it ain't easy,
You know how hard it can be.
The way things are going
They're going to crucify me.

Caught an early plane back to London.
Fifty acorns tied in a sack.
The men from the press said, "We wish you success,
It's good to have the both of you back".

Christ you know it ain't easy,
You know how hard it can be.
The way things are going
They're going to crucify me.
The way things are going
They're going to crucify me.

--Lennon and McCartney

One name I never call Christians "Jesus freaks"

It wouldn't make any sense for me to say that. Because I am a Jesus freak. I must ask myself 20 times a day, what would Jesus do? I have read the teachings of Jesus and get glassy eyed every time. I get a lump in my throat thinking about the idea of a man so selfless. Of course I think that the Jesus story is a myth. But does that take anything away from the altruistic message of Jesus? On the contrary. If it is a myth, then those beautiful words of wisdom were created by human minds. This makes them all the more powerful to me. It makes me proud to be human that we could dream up such altruistic sentiment. And so I want to honor these wonderful words of wisdom from our ancestors by doing my best every day to say, what would Jesus do? It gives me pride, and it turns out it's true. Being good to others is the true path to heaven here on earth. Jesus rocks!

Of course I also ask myself ten times a day, what would Buddha do?

It's so great to be an atheist. You get to be inspired, and have your life enriched all of the best things from all of the religious texts, and not worry about getting hit with a bolt of lightening when you throw the evil parts, and all of the deity belief stuff, in the trash bin.

"And no religion too"

John Lennon

Timmy2,

Happy new year!

Of course, you know that Bob Marley was a Rastafarian, not an atheist.

ClearThinking1

Overall, I agree with you about dualism and religion, but later Vedic practices could, reasonably, be removed from the religious sphere, so to speak.

Also, I wonder about this...

"REMEMBER THIS: Wars specifically over religion have always involved at least one religion with an underlying philosophy of dualism (Western religion)."

I don't know that there ever was a war "specifically about religion" and nothing else?

Pam,

An addendum to my previous post: At the time of the binding, what Cs call the "sacrifice" of Isaac, Isaac would have been thirty-five years old. (Take another look at the OT.) There is significant scholarship, religious and secular, on why ancient Judaism would have required that Isaac be a mature adult, as well as on why the text has been so misread, literally, that is.

A good essay, but incomplete.

Organized religion has been a cause of many wars, but nonreligious people such as Stalin, Hitler, Mao and their societies have also committed genocides. So there must be a better way. The better way is to make religion only about spirituality and philosophy, and not about group politics and power.

Fortunately, Vedanta already provides such a system. If you don't know what it is, please take some time to learn its basic concepts. Don't confuse it with "Hinduism". Hinduism is a catch-all term in the english language and is a word of relatively recent creation. People get very emotional (defensive and offensive) about Hinduism.

Vedanta is a monistic nondualistic philosophy which is the opposite of Western religions. The "my god is better than your god" concept cannot exist because there is no separation of god and the individual (conscious self). This is difficult to comprehend in the West, but it is a very powerful notion for the basis of spirituality, philosophy and morality.

Organized religion generally refers to Western religions which include Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Islam is a western religion). In the East (especially India) religion is spirituality and philosophy (Vedanta). Social issues such as class are often confused with spirituality under the umbrella of Hinduism (a non-organized religion).

REMEMBER THIS: Wars specifically over religion have always involved at least one religion with an underlying philosophy of dualism (Western religion). Religion should be for the spiritual evolution of the individual, not about having a superior god or proselytizing.

Preacherman, dont tell me,
Heaven is under the earth.
I know you dont know
What life is really worth.
Its not all that glitters is gold;
alf the story has never been told:
So now you see the light,
Stand up for your rights.

Most people think,
Great God will come from the skies,
Take away everything
And make everybody feel high.
But if you know what life is worth,
You will look for yours on earth:
And now you see the light,
You stand up for your rights.

We sick an tired of-a your ism-skism game -
Dyin n goin to heaven in-a jesus name, lord.
We know when we understand:
Almighty God is a living man.
You can fool some people sometimes,
But you cant fool all the people all the time.
So now we see the light (what you gonna do? ),
We gonna stand up for our rights! (yeah, yeah, yeah!)

Bob Marley

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

John Lennon

Pam writes:

"Let me ask you something - are there not things that God does in the Bible that offend your sense of right and wrong? Like telling Abraham to sacrifice his son - torture, even though he called it off at the last minute. What would you think of a human who did that to someone? Or how about the trials of Job? Killing all of his children...? Sure, he allowed him to have more, later, but would you think it was OK to have your children die if you could have more (of the same sex) later? But how can it be wrong, if it's God, the ultimate arbiter, doing it?"
------------------------
The point was to end the practice of human sacrifice forever. Child sacrifice, was in that period occurring in various parts of the region.

Then the Christians expropriated the Tanakh, calling it the "OT," they made it a Isaac a type for Christ. Later, many Christians, observant and secular condemned the cruelty of this "OT" god as part of their self-legitimation strategy, which, they believed (and still do), involved "replacing" Judaism with their more loving religion.

Hence, the Christian God so loved the world that he gave it his only begotten son to be tortured to death.

I'm sure there is morality in this, somewhere. But I can't help wondering, what kind of god would do this? Would send people back to pre-biblical times? Would demand human sacrifice? Would facilitate it?

I dunno, but I am sure it isn't one who knew Joseph.

PETESY:"But the question remains, without God how does order and uniformity come about? How DOES chance plus time equal life and information and intent? You atheists are masters at dodging the questions".

How is there any order and uniformity if your god feels free to turn natural "laws" on their heads whenever the whim strikes him? (Which it apparently hasn't done for the last couple of millennia.)

Your question about chance + time would take a much longer answer than this forum permits, but there are *plenty* of books out there - read a few. Happy to make recommendations if you don't know where to start. No dodging here.

Spidey writes:
"If they can twist the Lord's words, surely, they can twist mine" (Martin Luther)

Spidey, you are such a joke. How did I "twist" his words? I didn't comment on them at all, I just reported them.

Petesy says:
"Greek agnsi, ignorance : a-, without; see a-1 + gnsis, knowledge (from gignskein, to know; see gn- in Indo-European roots).]

If you want to be ignorant about it, fine. (-8"

That's correct. "Ignorance" and "not knowing" are the same thing. When something is unknowable, ignorance is not a perjorative. It's not even necessarily a perjorative when something *is* knowable, as we can't all know everything there is to know. And guess what, Petesy, you're as ignorant as anyone else as to the existence of gods.

PETESY: "No, the theistic belief is evidence based also. You just fail to recognize the evidence".

Right again. At least about the last part. I assume that you're referring to your bible? If not, please tell us about your evidence. Would it stand up in a court of law? Mine would.

Petesy: "It works both ways. Don't use that argument when you argue for good or moral right as being determined by societal consensus".

I've never argued for such a thing. The human sense of right and wrong is innate - put there by millions of years of evolution among social animals. Did you look at the Frans de Waal link that I gave Timmy? Here it is again. Read it please: http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/archive/2005fallwinter/FallWinter0506_deWaal.pdf

Let me ask you something - are there not things that God does in the Bible that offend your sense of right and wrong? Like telling Abraham to sacrifice his son - torture, even though he called it off at the last minute. What would you think of a human who did that to someone? Or how about the trials of Job? Killing all of his children...? Sure, he allowed him to have more, later, but would you think it was OK to have your children die if you could have more (of the same sex) later? But how can it be wrong, if it's God, the ultimate arbiter, doing it?

I submit to you that it seems wrong because it IS wrong, and our innate sense of it tells us so.

Quotations on History and Human Progress:

A Klee painting named ‘Angelus Novus’ shows an angel looking as though he is about to move away from something he is fixedly contemplating. His eyes are staring, his mouth is open, his wings are spread. This is how one pictures the angel of history. His face is turned toward the past. Where we perceive a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage and hurls it in front of his feet. The angel would like to stay, awaken the dead, and make whole what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing in from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such a violence that the angel can no longer close them. The storm irresistibly propels him into the future to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows skyward. This storm is what we call progress.

--Walter Benjamin, Ninth Thesis from Theses on the Philosophy of History.

Did God create the Universe?
Or was creation in reverse?
--Pseudo

Hi Frederic2,

This bud, is for you,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79WkECHuQN4&feature=PlayList&p=29A798396AD739CB&index=0

FRED: "Faith relies on pretense: Pretending something for which there is no evidence, ever. And being proud of it. And shoving it down other people’s throats. And threatening them with death if they don’t swallow it."

1. You have faith too.
2. I'm not threatening you with death.

FRED: "What has PH’s claim that “God is supernatural” to do with the biblical primitivisms... And that, of course goes for all the rest of the nonsense on Pam’s (abbreviated) list!"

What it has to do with Pam's list is all in the way it is perceived. She rules out the possibility of the supernatural by her worldview. All her evidence looks at the world from a natural perspective. So naturally she sees no evidence for God because she has discounted Him.

But the question remains, without God how does order and uniformity come about? How DOES chance plus time equal life and information and intent? You atheists are masters at dodging the questions.

FRED: "Atheists never define what “truth” is. They define what a “working hypothesis” is."

How then do they know it is true because it certainly doesn't work? No one (except God) can accurately construct a working hypothesis that resembles origins or the way the universe came about, since no one was there and it cannot be duplicated, except by God.

FED: "It is the "believers" who pretend to possess truth, even if their “truth” is debunked as a conglomerate of stupid fairy tales from the kindergarten of humanity!"

Since you cannot define what truth is you can never possess it.

FRED: "Atheists never define what “truth” is."

And you ask why it takes great faith to believe in atheism?

Quoting: Beloved by Believer, Demagogue, Rationalist
(Fun, if not taken to seriously)

“Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.”
--Joseph Stalin

"All my life I have done the work of the Lord."
--Adolf Hitler

Frederick2 wrote "Spidey, the “scientist”, of course, can only serve as entertainment."

Until they stand face to face with the SOURCE of everything which is INTELLIGENCE. It's a fact and nobody can escape it.

You can only dream to escape it. So dream on.

"If they can twist the Lord's words, surely, they can twist mine" (Martin Luther)

Spidey says "The qoute you refer to as coming from Martin Luther is a big lie. Go google it".

Umm, I did that, Spidey. While I found a few lame attempts to explain it away, I didn't find anyone claiming that he didn't say it. I also found a few more from him, like:

"And I sat in my heap of pain until the words emerged and opened out, 'The just shall live by faith'. My pain vanished, my bowels flushed and I could get up. I could see the life I'd lost. No man is just because he does just works... This I know; reason is the devil's wh*re, born of one stinking goat called Aristotle, which believes that good works make a good man. But the truth is that the just shall live by faith alone. I need no more than my sweet redeemer and mediator, Jesus Christ.".

and

"But since the devil's bride, Reason, that pretty wh*re, comes in and thinks she's wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil's greatest wh*re".

Peter Huffs prayer mill is repetitious up to irrelevance; his "absolute" Jesus flagpole delusion, which according to him you have to use as an absolute " point of reference" before making any statement, is ridiculous: Me: “If it rains, we get wet.” He: “How dare you make such a statement? What is your reference point if you don’t believe in Jesus”?

Faith relies on pretense: Pretending something for which there is no evidence, ever. And being proud of it. And shoving it down other people’s throats. And threatening them with death if they don’t swallow it.

What has PH’s claim that “God is supernatural” to do with the biblical primitivisms Pam so clearly describes? It seems that PH accepts all those idiocies literally, with god opening a window to let it rain, lmao. And PH believes this! Once you use the joker “god” you can "prove" anything INCLUDING ITS OPPOSITE. Black is black? Huiiii, a conjuring movement with the joker, and black is white! And that, of course goes for all the rest of the nonsense on Pam’s (abbreviated) list!

Atheists never define what “truth” is. They define what a “working hypothesis” is. It is the "believers" who pretend to possess truth, even if their “truth” is debunked as a conglomerate of stupid fairy tales from the kindergarten of humanity!

Pam’s Luther quote is authentic (literally translated into English, of course). There are other gems of this sort by Luther, about the necessity to kill all the Jews, for instance, to which Hitler actually referred.

And Peter, if you want to so condescendingly enlighten us with your Greek etymology, you might use a recognizable spelling of the Greek words, lol!

Spidey, the “scientist”, of course, can only serve as entertainment.

Comments from Susan's last forum by Pamsm,

PAM: "Counterww, I know your post wasn't addressed to me, but I just have to comment on a couple of points:
1) "Agnosticism is at least more honest than your position".
Too many people think that agnosticism is some middle ground between faith and the lack thereof. It isn't. You can be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time. Or a theist and an agnostic. One has to do with belief (theist/athiest), the other with knowledge (gnostic/agnostic).
I submit to you that to the extent that we are honest with ourselves and each other, we are *all* agnostic.

Greek agnsi, ignorance : a-, without; see a-1 + gnsis, knowledge (from gignskein, to know; see gn- in Indo-European roots).]

If you want to be ignorant about it, fine. (-8

PAM: "I *believe* there is no god (atheist). You *believe* there is one (theist). The difference is that my belief is evidence-based, and yours is faith-based."

No, the theistic belief is evidence based also. You just fail to recognize the evidence.

PAM: "Please don't think that numbers of believers or non-believers have any bearing on the relative merits of same. The vast majority, if not the whole, of humanity have believed some pretty bizarre things throughout history."

It works both ways. Don't use that argument when you argue for good or moral right as being determined by societal consensus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rutwC081kcw&feature=channel_page

Pamsm wrote "people from beyond that firmament who have both wings and arms ".

WRONG. Angels have no wings.

Actually, you've already seen the "people from beyond that firmament who have both wings and arms ". You're just CLUELESS. that's the real problem.

Hi Pamsy,

PAM: "Now tell me what part of talking snakes with legs; stars hung on "the firmament" (a hard shell that separates the waters above from the waters below - God opens a window in it when he wants it to rain); a completely sealed small boat that contains two of every animal that ever lived (including dinosaurs) and all the food to feed them, with only a handful of people to take care of them; four-legged fowl; four-legged insects; burning bushes that aren't consumed; walking on water; living for days in the belly of a fish; virgin birth, returning to life after three days of being dead (can you say "stink"?), people turning into pillars of salt; people from beyond that firmament who have both wings and arms (just what muscles operate those wings, and what bones are they attached to?) qualifies as rational????"

I have news for you, God is a supernatural Being. He created the natural.

Good points Globalone!

Hello Counterww (December 31, 2008 1:38 AM),

COUNTERWW: "Peter Huff- I like what you say about Timmy-\\"That is what I have been saying to Timmy. Why is what Timmy says "true"?"
You see in the atheist mindset, what they BELIEVE about truth is sacrosanct to them. THEIR reasoning automatically rejects faith while ours includes it.THEIR claims are the only ones that make any sense, and THEY define what truth is and what it is not."

Thanks for your support on the other forum! I see you understand the plight of the atheist. Here is some lectures by Greg Bahnsen that you may find enjoyable,

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=gregbahnsen

"Problems for Unbelieving Worldviews" is good, especially lectures 3-4. Each lecture segment is only about ten minutes long. Also see "Worldviews in Conflict."

The qoute you refer to as coming from Martin Luther is a big lie. Go google it.

Believers like me find REASON as their BEST FRIEND. There are two kinds of reason. The one which atheists peddle is called REASONS COMING FROM IDIOTS.

Here is a SCIENTIFIC fact:

Intelligence can produce (dumb and smart) objects but NO dumb object/s can produce intelligence.

In other words, if we try to rewind creation and and look for the beginning of things, we would end up finding INTELLIGENCE as the MAIN SOURCE of creation.

To Pamsm, the "fiction" that you're referring to in the Bible has double meanings. You don't understand that, do you?

The Bible is a very intelligent book for intelligent people. Those who find it as a dumb book are actually describing themselves.

It's like somebody calling Einstein as dumb. What he really means is that he is the one who is dumb. Very simple.

Here is a SCIENTIFIC fact:

Intelligence can produce (dumb and smart) objects but NO dumb object/s can produce intelligence.

In other words, if we try to rewind creation and and look for the beginning of things, we would send up finding INTELLIGENCE as the MAIN SOURCE of creation.

To Pamsm, the "fiction" that you're referring to in the Bible has double meanings. Do don't understand that, do you?

One from the other side:

"Reason is the Devil's greatest wh*re; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious who*e; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed w*ore; whor* eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets."
Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148

Globalone, re your post at 10:18 PM:

The greatness of Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, John Hancock and Benjamin Franklin was to leave their personal fantasies out of the constitution. What a great example.

Happy new year for you and all, best wishes,

JAC

"One of the embarrassing problems for the early nineteenth-century champions of the Christian faith was that not one of the first six Presidents of the United States was an orthodox Christian".
~Mortimer Adler, "Chapter 22: Religion and Religious Groups in America," The Annals of America: Great Issues in American Life, Vol. II, Chicago: Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1968, p. 420.)

"Of course, the United States was not originally intended to be a Christian nation. Jefferson, Washington, Franklin and most of the founding fathers were skeptics or Deists; they specifically intended a secular government with an "unbreachable wall" between church and state; they even wrote into the treaty with the Moslem nation of Tripoli a clear statement that, unlike European countries, the "United States is not, in any sense, a Christian nation." (So clearly understood was the principle of separation of church and state in those days that the treaty passed Congress without any debate on that clause, and President John Adams signed it at once, without any fear that it might jeopardize his political future.)"
~Robert A. Wilson

"It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong".
~Thomas Jefferson

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize humankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel".
~Thomas Paine

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit".
~Thomas Paine

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 tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.

Treaty of Tripoli, 1796-1797 The only Treaty in US history ratified unanimously by the Senate.

"We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]"
~ John Adams & John Hancock

"The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."
~ John Adams on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

"In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?" [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]
~ Benjamin Franklin

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."
~ Alexander Hamilton

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever." (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

Did God create the Universe?
Or was creation in reverse?

Farnaz:

I am sorry I couldn't make that longer.
But additions would not make it stronger.

Dear PAMSM :

"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."

- Friedrich Schiller

"No theory is too false, no fable too absurd, no superstition too degrading for acceptance when it has become embedded in common belief. Men will submit themselves to torture and to death, mothers will immolate their children at the bidding of beliefs they thus accept".
~Henry George

Counterww says:
"The other thing I detest is the assertion that atheism is "rational" and theism is not. When the assert-er defines what is rational and what is not, I find that ludicrous , elitist , and in many cases narcissistic."

What makes you think that atheists are defining what "rational" is for themselves? It's a commonly used English word that has a meaning. To wit:

Dictionary:
rational
(răsh'ə-nəl)
adj.
1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2. Of sound mind; sane.
3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior.

Now tell me what part of talking snakes with legs; stars hung on "the firmament" (a hard shell that separates the waters above from the waters below - God opens a window in it when he wants it to rain); a completely sealed small boat that contains two of every animal that ever lived (including dinosaurs) and all the food to feed them, with only a handful of people to take care of them; four-legged fowl; four-legged insects; burning bushes that aren't consumed; walking on water; living for days in the belly of a fish; virgin birth, returning to life after three days of being dead (can you say "stink"?), people turning into pillars of salt; people from beyond that firmament who have both wings and arms (just what muscles operate those wings, and what bones are they attached to?) qualifies as rational????

And that's just a small sampling from the bible. If we want to include other religions, I could go on practically forever.

A notable quotable:

There was one who thought himself above me, and he was above me until he had that thought.
-- Elbert Hubbard

"How does one earn arrogance? By carrying a solid gold staff, dressed in gold brocade, gold crown. red shoes and a white mumu while spouting nonsense about a ficticious god?"

Don't forget the smoking purse - always a favorite of mine. :)

I post this only because I think it funny, although there may be some irony in who's parodying whom. T's a parody of Tennyson's "The Higher Pantheism."

The Higher Pantheism in a Nutshell

ONE, who is not, we see; but one, whom we see not, is;
Surely this is not that; but that is assuredly this.

What, and wherefore, and whence? for under is over and under;
If thunder could be without lightning, lightning could be without thunder.

Doubt is faith in the main; but faith, on the whole, is doubt;
We cannot believe by proof; but could we believe without?

Why, and whither, and how? for barley and rye are not clover;
Neither are straight lines curves; yet over is under and over.

Two and two may be four; but four and four are not eight;
Fate and God may be twain; but God is the same as fate.

Ask a man what he thinks, and get from a man what he feels;
God, once caught in the fact, shows you a fair pair of heels.

Body and spirit are twins; God only knows which is which;
The soul squats down in the flesh, like a tinker drunk in a ditch.

More is the whole than a part; but half is more than the whole;
Clearly, the soul is the body; but is not the body the soul?

One and two are not one; but one and nothing is two;
Truth can hardly be false, if falsehood cannot be true.

Once the mastodon was; pterodactyls were common as cocks;
Then the mammoth was God; now is He a prize ox.

Parallels all things are; yet many of these are askew;
You are certainly I; but certainly I am not you.

Springs the rock from the plain, shoots the stream from the rock;
Cocks exist for the hen; but hens exist for the cock.

God, whom we see not, is; and God, who is not, we see;
Fiddle, we know, is diddle, and diddle, we take it, is dee.

Algernon Charles Swinburne

I wonder what verse Walt, at any rate, would make of gay marriage, what verse Walt and Emily would make of Rick Warren, Rick Warren and the inauguration?

Emily—

Now the Bride of poetry beckons
From her brutal sleep
With each part of truth protesting
At mortality.

She was lonelier than our suburbs
Yet as true and living
Though the same chimeras beckoned
With the same leave-taking.

On her Amherst springtime forehead
Set with laurel's fire
She is hymning into being
Dazzled crests of time.

Bird of summer in her hair,
Wing of autumn on her breast,
Wedded to the winter snow
And each joy confessed.

Soldered with transcendences,
In her room a furnace,
Butterfly and bee contriving
Sceptre, crown and chalice.

Now your coronation's given,
Entrance to imperium,
Veiled with stars and continents,
Your brocade delirium,

Each packet stitched and put away,
Ships of Asian spices,
Harboured to desuetude,
Daguerreotype left over.

For once a passion that will last
Past what rusts and buckles,
There with Walt in double grandeur,
Mystery's odd couple.

Rushing to the sunlight's shards,
Toppling to greatness,
Adoration in your nerve
And the bandaged fierceness

We thought closer to our time—
Yours was purer, truer,
With those words that cauterise
The mouthline's wounded murmur.

There is wonder wide enough
To fold all things within it,
Intoxication offered up
With a goodness granted:

Yours—by right of the burden given,
Yours—by the White Election,
Yours—though centuries steal away,
Yet ours, at the end, your perfection.

-Peter Nicholson

Hi Colinnicholas:

"You have me confused with someone else.

I never wrote to Pam."

Yes, sorry. I noticed my error.

Farnaz

Hi Arminius,

Gee, I don't recall an Obama/Wright Limerick Fest. Maybe a Rick Warren Inauguration Limerick Fest, then? Hmmm

Atheists vs. Believers?

Secularists vs. religionists?

Humanists vs. Helots?

Buddhists vs. No One?

Speaking of Buddhism, I hope Persiflage comes back soon. And sequiturially, Much wisdom is Pseudo's verse.

Ah, Pseudo....

Farnaz;

You have me confused with someone else.

I never wrote to Pam.

Farnaz,

Bless you!

Re That Other Thread

I lost it over there, and single-malt-misled, fell to dreary, prosy sameolds, trying to pick a new fight, this time with a Fomorian honking of Jesu Stalin. No Lugh me.

All play, no work, makes this jackass a very dull boy.

Content now to watch true minds shine, as they pick over impediments.

Auden - inexaustably quotable. Thanx.

Counterww:

Whoops! Sorry! My bad! My last post (on "reason") should have been addressed to you!

Farnaz

Hi, Farnaz,

Wasn't the last great explosion of limericks and real poetry during Obama's preacher problem with Wright last Feb or so? Then we gotta gear up for another contest!

Counterww,

You are right about the impossibility of really knowing someone on the web. The irony, of course, is that the anonymity of the web leads people to reveal things that they might not face-to-face. Nonetheless, it takes face time and lots of conversation and shared experience to get to know someone.

I've gotten used to the 'reason' attacks of non-believers. Since they really have no bearing on the subject, which is not subject to reason, but nevertheless still quite real to me, these arguments are mostly just amusing. Some are not.

ColinNicholas writes to Pam:

"Part of the problem is that the schism between Christians and Atheists is a wide, wide gulf. The other thing I detest is the assertion that atheism is "rational" and theism is not. When the assert-er defines what is rational and what is not, I find that ludicrous , elitist , and in many cases narcissistic."

Don't much care for it myself.

Hi Arminius,

Happy new year! Bliadhna Mhath Ùr!

Is't not soon upon us the Limerick Fest--on the great theme of religion and public affairs, of course?!

Farnaz

Pam-

I just call them like I see them . DILD makes comments about Christians that I have seen in many atheists in this forum. Just like when you tell a loved one about their negative qualities because I love he or she, I can do the same when observing people on this forum.

It is always amazing to me that people think they know another person on the Net. You can know some things and infer some things, but unless you talk to people face to face or even over the phone, you can't get to know them that well. There is something about physical contact or even voice inflection that assists us there. Sometimes I think technology takes away from that.
-------------------
Part of the problem is that the schism between Christians and Atheists is a wide, wide gulf. The other thing I detest is the assertion that atheism is "rational" and theism is not. When the assert-er defines what is rational and what is not, I find that ludicrous , elitist , and in many cases narcissistic.

However, if you came to me needing help- despite your lack of belief, I would help you(like in a scenario where you were stranded with no money or needed food etc. )

Charity is more important to me than you might think.

Hi Frederic,

Thanks for the reply! Now, Goethe's Faust--there is a subject worth discussion for agnostics, atheists, believers, religionists--all!

You write:

"Derrida is all too aware that no critique can ever totally escape from what it is criticizing, that more often than not any critique of a system will be inhabited by the very notions which characterize that system."

Of course. Definitely not his, I don't think, although it has been helpful. In light of D's professed politics, how is this for a defense of irony? Or a "dancer from the dance moment"? Or a re-thinking of the fallacy in the "ad hominem fallacy? Did you know that Ludwig Klages coined the term "logocentrism"?

In a couple of ways, it's unsurprising.

Hello Onofrio:

Happy new year! Thanks for all the Auden poetry (previous thread).

Asking Auden

'Who,' the inquisitive will ask
'Was he?' A writer who spoke honestly
Of his time and character
On this abrasive satellite,
Acknowledging the muck
Words can make whole.

Don't get uptight
Or too plastered
As you prime your pals—
Chester, Igor, Rhoda;
Think of this poor planet,
Rotten with bad sorts
And horrors greater than any
Ever imagined before.

I can hear you b*ching on,
Calling out the old complaints:
Frog effusions are offensive.
Why are people always late!,
Looking like a scruff and dropping
Ash upon the Muses.

Wystan, tend attentive ears,
Bless us on the earth below,
Sens a rhyming, mystic message,
Drop it in the Grand Canal
Where The Rake was first presented
And your hotel rooms were bad.
Let the gondala ferry forward
Through the reeking air and slush,
Bringing with it new precision,
Agape and eros, beauty,
Mastery of form and space.
Wystan! Please stop gossiping,
Listen to my plea,
Send unconscious powers aplenty,
Send the critics out to sea.

continued-

Suddenly a voice is heard,
Genial features looming:
These interruptions just won't do.
Be yourself without my help.
Be true to truth and ready for the worst.
Work hard and don't expect
That God is easily pleased!
With that he sighed, sat back, relaxed,
Ethereally smoked, and drank a glass of schnapps.

A promise then, remembering
The folds of that transatlantic face—
To summon up fresh energy
For the new century of the race
Called sapiens, whose language grabs
From past and future tense
Continuing words of grace.

-Peter Nicholson

Spiritual Mongrel;

If Einstein cannot take seriously the hypothesis of a personal God, why should I? It's an hypothesis that was rejected by science about 150 years ago and makes even less sense today. It is a primitive and cliched hypothesis that defies common sense.
I believe that Frederick used the word god as a metaphor for the great mystery, the great unknowable , more like the way Einstein used it; not to hypothesize the existence of some entity who lives beyond the sky.

However, enough is enough. Lets close with a few words from Bill Maher;

"The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge in having key decisions being made by religious people, by irrationalists, by those who would steer
the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken. George Bush prayed a lot about Iraq, but he didn't learn a lot about it.

Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith and enable and elevate it are our intellectual slave holders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy
and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction.

Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do. Most people would think it's wonderful when someone says "I'm willing Lord, to do whatever you want me to do". But since there are no actual gods talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas...

This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and recognize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price.

If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence and shear ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife for the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the millions of their fellow followers."

-- Bill Maher, from "Religulous"

Happy New Year to you, too, Farnaz,

and thanks for another semantic variant of "logos".

Goethe's Faust also stumbled over the concept, moving from "word" to "sense, purport (Sinn)" to finally "deed" (Tat), which is not the ultimate single meaning either.

But it helps us to stay on the "spiritual" move, doesn't it?

I also found:

"Derrida is all too aware that no critique can ever totally escape from what it is criticizing, that more often than not any critique of a system will be inhabited by the very notions which characterize that system."

That is also a good explanation concerning the hatred of the believers against us atheists. There is a heavy element of "projection" to it!

Religion will be less important in 2009 as more "pew sitters" and "bowers" see the flaws and errors in the major religions.

e.g. (for those eyes that have not seen)

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a
mythical character as was mythical Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and many of their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

Current crisis:

Realization that the Jews are not god's chosen people.
www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/Works_Cited

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Current crises:

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

3. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Current crises:

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology.

4. Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/ plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the massacre in Mumbai, the assassinations of Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

Current crises:

The Sunni-Shiite blood feud and the warmongering, womanizing (11 wives), hallucinating founder.

Hello Frederic,

Happy new year to you!

Logos, eh?

On Logocentrism (from Wikipedia, font of all knowledge)

* speech over writing (this appears to contradict what was just said in the second paragraph)
* presence over absence
* identity over difference
* fullness over emptiness
* meaning over meaninglessness
* mastery over submission
* life over death
* lightness over darkness

Jacques Derrida argued in his Of Grammatology (translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak and published in English in 1976) that, in each such case, the first term is classically conceived as original, authentic, and superior, while the second is thought of as secondary, derivative, "given" or even "parasitic." Derrida believed that to overcome logocentric thinking, we should think of ourselves as a "rapport to the Other." That is, the "now" manifested as meaning through ourselves is always interconnected with various meanings throughout time. For this reason, Derrida privileged writing over speech.

ME: Not that I believe Derrida to be the third term.

ColinNicholas

You are confusing me with religionists who think they have answers. I said to me God is a working hypothesis which by definition means “Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.” I also use theory and one of its meanings “An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.” Our information and knowledge on God is limited.

Hypothesis and Theory are both used in scientific study though science tends to use the definition of theory and rightly so as “A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.”

We don’t know if the universe is a miraculous collection of random events that lead to us being sentient beings or a grand design that is marvelously intricate in detail. I compare the latter to flipping a coin a trillion times and having it come up heads every time which to me is not random. To me there is something more, perhaps as FREDERIC2 aptly put it “God is a proxy for a vacuum of knowledge.”

Add to that my exploration of human consciousness and personal experience and I come to my Theory of God. Sharing my experiences to “convince” someone would simply make that person know of something, second hand knowledge. To know something, to have experienced it is vastly different which is why to me God (or not) will always be a personal interpretation of science or religion.

Religion portrays itself as a blank explanation that everyone should accept. This is a flaw.

There is a difference between knowing of something and knowing something.
There is a difference between knowing of love and being in love.
There is a difference between knowing Julia Roberts and meeting Julia Roberts.
There is a vast difference between knowing of God and meeting God or if you are brave enough to utter the words there is a difference between knowing of God and being God.
That is not saying I am God, it means to be as God would be. The key of course is what is the proper definition of God? Can we all agree that it is Love, it is freedom, it is creation (not destruction) it is life. If we serve life, we serve our God(s). This even works if your atheist. Is there anything better to serve than life if you are an atheist?

I actually found myself sort of agreeing with Spiderman, the part about the Intelligence in plants and in creation. Perhaps God/dess is to be found embedded in creation at the cellular/molecular level? Perhaps the Creation is the Creator? (I know that's probably not what Spiderman was actually trying to say, but he was almost sounding like a Pagan there for a moment.)

Anyway, Happy New Year all!

There still are some rests we haven’t finished working on:

After the „critic’s critic“, there SEEMED to be a consensus that Reason can be a god. Remember, I added: „definition of god pending“, and Timmy, more forthright, said „Reason cannot be a "god", since reason is a mental tool“. A tool cannot be a „god“, under which definition whatsoever. He is right in this, of course.

Again, we encounter the semantic uncertainty of meaning. A word can be a description, an order, a lie, an association, a memory help, a contradiction, a poetic transfer between our senses, a reminder, a metaphor, an ironical opposite of the „basic“ meaning, without any of these meanings having to be „false“. This is the case even within one language, imagine the "semantic turmoil" once you translate words.(BTW: The German word for "reason" is "Vernunft". but already in this narrow context the two semantic fields differ considerably, "Vernunft" having a much more pragmatic meaning than "reason", which touches more at mathematical exactness).

It comes to mind that in the Christian bible the John gospel starts with „In the Beginning There Was The Word“, a meaning of „logos“ disputed right from the beginning.

"Logos" can also mean „Reason“, or even the „Principle of Reason“. "Reason" thus would be the principle of absolute logical plausibility, arriving to natural necessity. (The universe HAD TO appear). Thus, the Greek text could very well mean: „In The Beginning There Was The Principle Of Reason“.

But then, John quite disingenuously substitutes „god“ for „logos“, which is actually dishonest and destroys everything. It is interesting and illustrates the warped mind of Luther, that he arrives at a statement of all "reason" being the work of Satan, thus perverting the original meaning of „logos“ by 180 degrees!

Reason thus can be regarded as the basic principle of natural necessity. When the word is used in a lower, more trite sense, of course, you can connect any nonsense items „reasonably“. If Jesus can conjure stones into bread, it is „reasonable“ that a lot of people get something to eat. You can leave the realm of reason and still fiddle around „reasonably“, only the meaning of the word has changed without the believing crowd even noticing.

Beyond this principle of reason we actually don't know much. "God" thus is substituted as a proxy for a vacuum of knowledge.

HIJANKS;

Loved you terrific essay. Laughed my head off.

Spiritual Mongrel.

part 2 I almost missed this..

You say;

"We have made mind boggling advancements in our understanding of the physical universe and even then we know only a portion of what is. To think that we have the answers on something infinite like God seems either arrogant or foolish. The exploration of human consciousness is the scientific front on which we may some day prove or disprove God."

Me.
I never said we have the answers. I have no answers. It is you who has the answer; Goddidit.
I'm simply suggesting that there is no reason to assume the existence of a magic skygod to explain the fabulous mysteries of the cosmos and existence.

Spiritual Mongrel.

Thanks for your response.

I agree with a lot of what you say; where we differ is in the great leap from the natural into the supernatural.
The fact that our knowledge of the cosmos is incomplete - is no reason to posit a God as the answer to the mystery of it all.
It doesn't logically follow - that we live in a great big beautiful and mysterious universe - so a God MUST have made it.' That's what our ancestors concluded; but they also thought the world was flat. And they were very very superstitious and lived in a world without science. They can teach us nothing about existence or the cosmos. For that we have to look to science.

You quote Einstein, here's one, on how he feels about God.

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously...I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere."

Albert Einstein. Quoted in Atheist Universe, by David Mills.Ulysses Press. Cal.

Einstein was one of the great seekers, and often used the word God as a metaphor for the immense mystery of the cosmos. But he makes clear many times that he never believed in a God. He was, after all, a scientist.

Happy New Year.

“...believers have found what they are looking for, haven’t they.”

If they think they have really found it all, they are only fooling themselves. Faith - the spiritual path - is a constant seeking, it is a journey, not a destination.

Arrogant and half educated. You can read and write but believe in your own created truths making you an unreliable source. Read the Constitution and the Bible and complete your education.

One of the reasons Barack Obama won so convincingly was a backlash against the influence of funadamentalists within the Bush administration. In fact, Bush turned out to be one of the most anti-science, anti-evolution, pro-Biblical literalist Presidents ever elected to that office. During his 8 year term, there was an all out assault on science and rationalism. The litany of redlinings and whiteouts of scientific findings, of threats and intimidation toward the scientific community need not be listed here.

One of the main reasons for the utter collapse of the Bush second term was complete misreading of the 2004 election. Bush and the evanglicals were going about using wholly inappropriate rhetoric implying a "religious reawakening" when in fact Bush was re-elected less on faith based issues than on the fear of another terrorist attack--a fear that the GOP shamelessly exploited.

Bush mistakenly thought that the re-election gave him political capital to do all of the wrongheaded things that the fundamentalists and run-of-the-mill crackpots on talk radio had been preaching for years. He--and they--found out early that nothing could have been furhter from the truth.

ColinNicholas

You said “believers have found what they are looking for, haven’t they.” I guess that depends. If they are merely looking for something to help themselves spiritually then possibly yes. That is a personal choice. They could be happy with their current understanding and it may “work” for them. If they think it is the end all be all of truth then they are deluding themselves.

I disagree that we have learned there probably isn’t a God at all. I would agree that the ideas we have on God are incomplete at best.

We have made mind boggling advancements in our understanding of the physical universe and even then we know only a portion of what is. To think that we have the answers on something infinite like God seems either arrogant or foolish. The exploration of human consciousness is the scientific front on which we may some day prove or disprove God.

Since we are quoting people how about Einstein “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” To me imagination is the first step towards knowledge. Which great scientists thought there is nothing more? Imagination is what drives discovery.

I imagine a supreme intelligence behind the universe. To me the universe is too perfect to be random and personal experience hints at something beyond our own consciousness. If there is intelligence behind the universe then there is an undiscovered science of after life which is just as complex as the science of the physical realm. As with the science of the physical realm it would not be adequately described by a couple of hundred thousand words we find in religious books. These books are a starting place and like a scientist in the physical realm I imagine something more.

To Booklover1:
How does one earn arrogance? By carrying a solid gold staff, dressed in gold brocade, gold crown. red shoes and a white mumu while spouting nonsense about a ficticious god?

As a unrelenting believer in the Sun God, Ra (at least for this week since I've got 10,000 others to choose from), I take exception to points made in your column.
So what if organized and not-so-organized religions once were and continue to be harbingers of intolerance, hate and superstition? Isn't that the most effective way to spread "The Word"? Since all gods result from the fantasies of their inventors (except mine, of course, who rides across the sky in his chariot every cloudless day--definitely not a mirage), is it not reasonable to assume that he (and I do mean HE) exists?
See my line of reasoning here? Man is entitled to believe what he wants to believe no matter how much evidence exists to the contrary. Sort of like the election of George Bush: We believed what we wanted to believe about Him, despite overwhelming evidence that He not only had no clothes but no brain matter, morality, or compunction to become a compassionate conservative, even.
Without fantasies man would perish from this earth. He's likely to perish anyhow as a result of phantasmagorical fetishes, but at least he's got Armageddon or The Rapture to look forward to (the Jews, unfortunately, are probably not looking forward to Armageddon for obvious reasons).
I say keep up the superstition, the belief in gods, ghosts, talisMEN, spooks, devils and such. In a world already reeling from the effect of overpopulation, what better way to level off our numbers than to kill, maim and torture in the name of god?

Pseudo,

Your verse continues to astound and educate me. Farnaz is right - do not be gone too often. You are a fountain of truth and beauty to some very thirsty people here.

Spidey,

No bad feelings here either. Let us at least try to agree to disagree, and I shall strive to do that politely for a change.

Thanks Arminius. Despite our differences in opinions, I still desire that you would see the light. I have no ill feelings toward you. Happy New Year.

Your eyelashes serve as a shade or dimmer to very bright lights. They don't grow more than its DESIGNED length to serve its purpose.

Your eyebrows is DESIGNED to block your sweat from streaming straight to your eyes. It's DESIGNED to be placed on top of your eyes and not under it. They don't grow too long to serve its purpose.

Look around you. There are millions or billions more which are DESIGNED to serve their purpose.

If you haven't notice one, there seems to be a problem how your brain works.

Have you ever wondered why your noses' holes are not facing upwards like chimneys? IT'S DESIGNED THAT WAY SO YOU DON'T DROWN WHEN IT RAINS.

Start thinking and hopefully begin your New Year right by contemplating on who is that GREAT DESIGNER.

cut scan of juchristian/secular mental society.

historicaly speaking,

1-the back ground of humansecularism (european renissance )is juchristianity .

2-secularism is a protestantism against juchristianity.

3-humansecularism is smart enough to run and break the shell of juchristianity but blind enough to come out of the shell of its own humanism,the box of reasonism ,the box of materialism .

the above mad house is in 2 ward,

ward A,
the church and temple of juchristianity.

ward b ,
the church and temple of people of ^reasonism^ (no less delusional than ward A)

despite the advantage of science and technology ,the above mad house not only still exist but leading the world.

Spidey,

Happy New Year

Thanks Farnaz. Thanks also for the poem. Happy New year.

Hello, Spiderman, My Friend,

Happy New Year! Here is a poem for you.

Meditation

Men are children of this world
yet God has set eternity in my heart.
All my life I have been in the desert
but the world is a fresh stream.
I drink from it. How potent this water is!
How deeply I crave it!
An ocean rushes into my throat
but my thirst remains unquenched.

Carl Rakosi
After Moses ibn Ezra

PSEUDO!!!! YOU HAVE RETURNED!!!

Did you hear/see our numerous cris de coeur? We missed you so terribly, so worried were we. I switched on the computer, counseling spirit not to let Hopes swell, and here, here are your beautiful, beautiful verses.

Ah, Pseudo, my great, great friend! You have been so deeply missed. Please don't stay away for so long this time. We need you....

Happy New Year to Pseudo and All!!!

Pseudo

Re your
"Just a New Year musing"

You are far-famed, to be sure. I'm a mouthy parvenu; I don't believe we've Net-met. Just wanted to say thanx for the verse.

Muse on...

Wiccan:

"Aye, friend, polish your claymore with humor and compassion, EFav shall wield the sledgehammer of rationality, Farnaz the sharp swords of honesty and justice, Pseudo his daggers of piercing poetry. PaganPlace will shield us with her courage, Lady Terra with wisdom, and I will mix a potion of understanding into my woad. Let Thomas Baum join us, for he wields the most powerful weapons of all: gentleness, humility, and an unshakable faith in the happy ending."

Felicitations to you and yours in the coming year, too. There is wisdom in what you wrote.

Happy New Year to all, but especially friends Farnaz and Arminius.

And Happy New Year to the Shell Script. Keep on cuttin' an' pastin' little buddy, like the good a little web spider scout. You must be close to gettin' your merit badge in that?

And through it all, we have Wiccan spells to save us from this, that and whatever so chins up, buy a spell and live happily ever after!!! (Or light a candle, buy a Mass or walk around a black rock.)

Just a New Year musing and a wish that all will find their ways through a complex and difficult world, and keep a little place in their hearts for each other along the way.

Happy New Year to all.

Modern Polytheism

You ask will religion influence affairs?
Then ask what is your god, and what are your cares?

Of Well Being, Justice, Religion, and Reason
It was once well said turn to each in its season
But while they all offer a chance for the best
Extremes in them can drive the soul beyond rest

If its money you love and net-worth that you worship
Your self-worth will gyrate with markets as they slip
By worshipping idols of finance and greed
Your value you pin upon short seller's deeds

But if social justice is really your godhead
You may argue your points long after they're all dead
Through endless fighting with all of your best friends
You may never find ways out of all the dead ends

And if fundamental regard for the Bible
Makes you regard neighbors as just really vile
Then maybe you worship the chapters and verses
But should read for meanings and not look for curses

If the Enlightenment creed you do think
Is Most Perfect Reason “those fools” will not drink
It may be that "Reason" is really your tool
To dominate others and not let the truth rule

So see there are answers as many as we
With ways both to fail and real truths there to see
I hope that the New Year much happiness brings
Much peace, and much comfort, to all in all things

Spidermean:

Wanna play, Shelob?

I have a very sharp Sting...

Spidermean2:

Everyone else has gone off to party or sleep, and you're still here with your venom, Mean Spider? My excuse is that I live on the other side of the world, and I'm already in 2009.

But I'll tear your web, with relish.

You:
"Evolution does not believe in Intelligent Design."

Evolution is a set of ideas, Spider. It cannot believe anything. Only minds can do that.

You:
"If you guys just open your eyes and shut out stupidity in your brains, you would notice that all plants and animals are intelligently made."

You, as a Mean Spider, are of the category "animal", yet your anthropomorphism of Evolution shows that you cannot have been intelligently made. Unless of course, your Intelligent Designer planned your stupidity. In which case he's culpable - I'm lodging a complaint.

You:
"You guys are the most ignorant and the most superstitious. Plants and animals are intelligent creatures and you believe they just pieced together without an intelligent maker?"

O, please forgive, I take it all back! Tell us about some of the conversations you've had with those intelligent plants on which your flimsy web is hung, Mean Spider.

Do you speak Hyacinth? Fluent in Azalea? Do tell, you may be on the cusp of something...wonderful. I've always been curious as to whether slime mould has any insights on the doings of fairies at the bottom of the garden.

"Better use your brain so you don't SPREAD your stupidity."

Yes, and when we've turned our brains off, we'll sit at your eight feet and take lessons in Rose Petal and Cactus. The world will be saved!

I can't wait for you to show us how the Intelligent Designer played with the flesh-Lego he made.

Spiderbrain2;

Pray tell O wonderous one, who designed the designer? And who designed that designer? And who designed that designer and the designer before that designer ad infinitum?

Your simple minded understanding poses more problems than it solves.

Recommended reading. Charles Darwin, On The Origin Of Species.

Not recommended. The Bible

Happy New Year. Gotta go.

Jacoby wrote "Secularists will continue to fight the good fight against ignorance, superstition"

If you guys don't know what is the difference between true and false religion, you'd be facing a blank wall. CURE YOURSELVES FIRST BEFORE LOOKING AT THE MISTAKE OF OTHERS coz you guys are just hastening the arrival of DOOMSDAY.

You guys are the most ignorant and the most superstitious. Plants and animals are intelligent creatures and you believe they just pieced together without an intelligent maker? You guys are IGNORANT AND SUPERSTITIOUS TO THE HIGHEST DEGREE. Very stupid.

Jacoby wrote "In the U.S., they will still try to push their anti-evolution agenda on public schools."

When will Jacoby learn? Evolution does not believe in Intelligent Design. If you guys just open your eyes and shut out stupidity in your brains, you would notice that all plants and animals are intelligently made.

What comes in to run the computer is electricity and what comes out on its display monitor are products of intelligence. What made it happen are intelligent human brains.

Plants and trees take in soil nutrients and they produce edible fruits. The transformation or process in between input (soil nutrients) and output (the fruit) is called INTELLIGENCE..
Without intelligence, those plant or trees would produce "soil fruits". NO TRANSFORMATION WILL HAPPEN.

The inteligence involve is so great that no human mind can replicate the whole process.

Better use your brain so you don't SPREAD your stupidity.

"Amo"- one of the few Latin words I can still conjugate; a pitiful end for the 1970 Virginia State Lstin Tournament winner! Mrs. Kerns, you did your best!

AMO (Latin, 'I love') - official motto of Clan Scott

A Bellendaine!

Wiccan,

Amid the seemingly endless and usually pointless bickering here, and the usual slings and arrows of outrageous fortune to be found in life - you give me hope. It is always good to be reminded that there are many good people in the world, and that I am fortunate to know many here and elsewhere. And it is good to be striving toward more good.

Thanks, God bless, Happy New Year!

Arminius:

"On the brighter side, many of us will fight against bigotry and against anyone's attempt to force any belief on anyone else."

Aye, friend, polish your claymore with humor and compassion, EFav shall wield the sledgehammer of rationality, Farnaz the sharp swords of honesty and justice, Pseudo his daggers of piercing poetry. PaganPlace will shield us with her courage, Lady Terra with wisdom, and I will mix a potion of understanding into my woad. Let Thomas Baum join us, for he wields the most powerful weapons of all: gentleness, humility, and an unshakable faith in the happy ending.

We are invincible.

And the athiests will continue to be without hope or happiness and full of anger as this article proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Look at the hatred towards Muslims, the normal anti-Catholic verbage (why not other churches I wonder?) since the Roman, Eastern, and Coptic Catholic Churches are not afraid to speak or change just because it is fashionable to do so. I mention all because to slam one is to slam them all.
Hopefully Susan will wake up one day, find that the world does not revolve around her, and she finds true happiness.

Timmy writes:
" (qouting Susan)'The rights of women will continue to be a flash point, as Islamists in particular do everything they can in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan to undo the fragile advances that have been made by women and to intimidate girls who want to get an education'

Pamsm, would you like to give Susan a little lesson on the virtuous willing submission of the muslim women. Susan seems to be under the mistaken impression that these women aren't willing participants".

She's talking about women who had begun to learn a better way, and then were forced back into the fundamentalist Muslim way of life. Of course they're unhappy. This happened in Iran with the fall of the Shah, too.

I was talking about women who have been raised in fundamentalist regimes and who know no better. The same goes on (to a lesser degree) right here in the good ol' US of A. Women in fundamentalist religions accept the total domination of their husbands because the bible says that's how it should be. Look at the fundamentalist Mormon polygamists in Texas. The women who were taken out of the compound wanted nothing so much as to go back. This happens often with abused women of any stripe. It's brainwashing and a bit of Stockholm Syndrome, I guess; but it's real.

I could not agree more: the secularists are growing stronger and their message is getting through because it is the truth. Being a former Catholic priest and now an atheist, I can speak with some background about the chockhold that religion has had on many of us and the breath of freedom and fresh air that the clear thinking of secularism/humanism brings. We will continue to speak with forcefulness and kindness.

SpiritualMongrel;

Hi Spiritual.

You say;

"I think of my belief as my working hypothesis which serves me well at the moment. As my experience and research dictate I may update my hypothesis and perhaps one day we get to a theory and maybe even proof. Until that time I think it is important for believers to continue to explore. If God does exist we certainly don’t have all the answers."

Thanks for you comments, which make good sense to me. Except I don't get the bit where you say "it is important for believers to continue to explore. If God does exist we certainly don't have all the answers."

Believers? Exploring? Exploring what? Believers have found what they're looking for,haven't they? They have found God. What more do they want?

You say we don't have all the answers. Of course we don't but science has made enormous strides in the last century and a half, and are coming up with answers that would boggle the minds of our ancestors who had few answers for anything at all, in the days when Religion ruled the known world, and science was illegal, and truth was punished.

I think we've learned (since we've been allowed to learn) that there probably isn't a God at all. That like all the thousands of Gods our ancestors invented - they invented this no-name one, too.

And if there is no God, shouldn't we just get over it, and carry on living and learning and exploring and enjoying the fabulous wonder of existence and the mysteries of the Cosmos?

As George Carlin once said "As there are no Gods - it proves we don't need them."

Arminius,

"But don't look for peace if religion goes away - it will not change the nature of mankind"

See Pamsm's posting of Phil Zuckerman.
In countries where religion has been organically rejected by an enlightened populous, all of those things you talked about do get better.

There will always be idols of the tribe, religion for some, reason for others.

Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they have transcended both.

Happy New Year to All!

Farnaz

Arminius said:

"On the brighter side, many of us will fight against bigotry and against anyone's attempt to force any belief on anyone else"

Hear hear.

Pamsm,

Sorry about the pot shot, I'm still a little shocked at your position on this. However I do enjoy your posts and very much appreciate the quote from Phil Zuckerman. Awesome!

Susan Jacoby says:

"The rights of women will continue to be a flash point, as Islamists in particular do everything they can in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan to undo the fragile advances that have been made by women and to intimidate girls who want to get an education"

Pamsm, would you like to give Susan a little lesson on the virtuous willing submission of the muslim women. Susan seems to be under the mistaken impression that these women aren't willing participants.

Ruby,

"With ‘turn the other cheek’ having been rejected after the fall of religion"

No reason to believe that turn the other cheek or any other good teaching by Jesus would be rejected along with Deity belief. The words of Jesus could still inspire knowing that they are the mortal words of a wise man. Atheists aren't against "turn the other cheek" or "Love thy neighbor", just the irrational belief that God put Jesus in Mary's womb.

For those who think atheists cause such chaos:

"If this often-touted religious theory were correct-that a turning away from God is at the root of all societal ills-then we would expect to find the least religious nations on earth to be bastions of crime, poverty, and disease and the most religious nations to be models of societal health. A comparison of highly irreligious countries with highly religious countries, however, reveals a very different state of affairs. In reality, the most secular countries-those with the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics-are among the most stable, peaceful, free, wealthy, and healthy societies. And the most religious nations-wherein worship of God is in abundance-are among the most unstable, violent, oppressive, poor, and destitute.
One must always be careful, of course, to distinguish between totalitarian nations where atheism is forced upon an unwilling population (such as in North Korea, China, Vietnam, and the former Soviet states) and open, democratic nations where atheism is freely chosen by a well-educated population (as in Sweden, the Netherlands, or Japan). The former nations' nonreligion, which can be described as 'coercive atheism,' is plagued by all that comes with totalitarianism: corruption, economic stagnation, censorship, depression, and the like. However, nearly every nation with high levels of 'organic atheism' is a veritable model of societal health".

Phil Zuckerman
Associate Professor of Sociology, Pitzer College
Author of Invitation to the Sociology of Religion

A great New Year to all, and especially to Wiccan, Farnaz, Efavorite, and others - and to Pseudo, wherever you are.

Bluefish2012 claims this:
"On the bright side, we Roman Catholics will continue to fight the good fight against ignorance, superstition, and Ms. Jacoby's attempts to impose her values on different people."

ME: On the brighter side, many of us will fight against bigotry and against anyone's attempt to force any belief on anyone else.

I've been reading Susan's essays for some time, and while she is very forthright (as in the current column!), and can be sarcastic, she never forces anything on anyone.

Brightest Blessings on the New Year to all, dear friends!

"In the New Year, may your right hand always
be stretched out in friendship and never in want." (Irish Blessing)

Counterww writes:
"DILD- actually, I was thinking the same thing about atheists on this forum. Many are elitist, negative, some have narcissistic qualities, arrogant, and just plain nasty. You have many of these qualities.

The point of human existence is to love - and like Jesus said, 1) to love God with all your heart soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. You can't love people as well without loving God first".

Do you realize how diametrically opposed those two paragraphs are? Jeeze, turn the mirror around, Bro, you've got it facing yourself.

dcwca

You say;

".. To live in such a vast, endless universe and to think there could be nothing out there greater than us is truly incomprehensible."

Who thinks "there could be nothing out there greater than us" ?

We don't know what's out there, except the universe and countless othere universes. We seem to be a little blue dot on the edge of things, if we're seen at all from 'out there'.

Most atheists ( I think it's fair to say) believe
we are pretty insignificant in the cosmological scheme of things, even though we're the best that earthly evolution has come up with so far.

If we don't know what's out there, what's so intelligent about concluding that it must be a God that's out there. If we don't know, we don't know.
One can only speculate.

Suggested reading. "The Varieties of Scientific Experience" by Carl Sagan.

Not recommended. The Bible

Dear Great Christian Poet, Pseudo,

Happy New Year, wherever you are!

Farnaz

fr orthodoxheathen:

>...Yes, Prop 8 passed in California, and all similar initiatives passed in other states, but the margins are visibly narrowing. The tide is moving swiftly toward equal treatment of gay people, in the courts and in popular opinion. It won't take long....

We prefer to call it Prop HATE, as that's what it is, plain and simple. Based on sheer HATRED of glbt's, who simply want EQUAL (not "special", as the rr's are continually whining and bleating about) rights under the law, which we do NOT already have.

Prop HATE will be overturned!

Also, LBrown51 - those Christians you mentioned as founding the country? Quite a number of them were Unitarians - they did believe in God but not that Jesus was divine nor did they believe in the Holy Spirit. Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin believed in the separation of Church and State & in the right to believe what one wished - Unitarian, Trinitarian or no one at all! The constitution was developed after the Greek ideal - and Greece was polytheist when it was formed - so climb off your high horse. These are facts. Historical facts. Your brand of Christianity did not form the government of the USA.

I find the comments here comical. Like Right wing Christianity a "fringe cult"...that the public is rejecting. The public is very fickle and when things go wrong they vote in the other party, both of which are inept.According to the Pew forum , about 33% of adults attend evangelical or black churches. Blacks vote liberal most of the time but their religion is conservative( see prop 8 for the rejection of gay marriage for blacks)

DILD- actually, I was thinking the same thing about atheists on this forum. Many are elitist, negative, some have narcissistic qualities, arrogant, and just plain nasty. You have many of these qualities.

The point of human existence is to love - and like Jesus said, 1) to love God with all your heart soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. You can't love people as well without loving God first.

I wish all a great and prosperous New year.

On the bright side, we Roman Catholics will continue to fight the good fight against ignorance, superstition, and Ms. Jacoby's attempts to impose her values on different people.

"Think about how peaceful the world could be without religion!!! "

I see that strange bit of mythology still lives on. People are going to commit violence, be it war, murder, robbery, or whatever, regardless of religion. True that in America, the non-believers are more prone to supporting civil rights. But don't look for peace if religion goes away - it will not change the nature of mankind.

Ms. Jacoby, it's "antediluvian", not "antedeluvian". You've misspelled it in two consecutive columns. Of all the errors in the column, this would be the easiest one for you not to repeat.

Right on!
Think about how peaceful the world could be without religion!!!

Dear Ruby Tuesday:

You wrote: "James Earl Jones redubs the original recording of Martin Luther King’s ‘I have a dream speech’ removing any reference to God or religion. Speech still considered ‘pretty good’ – revisionist scholars give it a B+."

Very funny. Your whole satire was, too. Well done.

L_town_51 says, "I'm cannot completely understand how you can call the fight of the secularists a "good fight" unless you don't know anything about history or unless you are incompetent. "

Are those the only choices - clueless about history or incompetent?

I studied american history in public schools, where I learned that the US is a secular democracy, offering freedom of religion to all. There is no state religion here. Even if you somehow managed not to learn that, I'd think you would have noticed it by now.

Dear Susan,

I always enjoy your essays and observations. As an atheist, it makes me happy to see more great writers (like Sam Harris and yourself) give uninhibited voice to our long-held but conservatively expressed beliefs. However, I feel perhaps more optimistic than you do about the future of non-religion, or at least extreme religion's growing irrelevance in Western society.

Yes, Prop 8 passed in California, and all similar initiatives passed in other states, but the margins are visibly narrowing. The tide is moving swiftly toward equal treatment of gay people, in the courts and in popular opinion. It won't take long. Equally encouraging is that the "good fight" in America, in favor of science, progress, and human rights, is being joined by Christians and Jews who are rejecting their dogma while leaving their faith intact. Many people of faith are just as capable of and committed to making the world better as non-religious humanists are. Even Rick Warren, who I personally regard as a do*cheb*g, has done SOME sincere good in the world in the name of his faith. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We do not need to pick fights with religious people in America. Right-wing Christianity is already a fringe cult collapsing under the weight of public opinion. Let's not alienate all the Christians who are just as happy as we are to see this collapse. I do, however, think we need to deal head-on with right-wing Islam, which continues to produce real violence and oppression throughout the world.

Anyway, I wish you a joyous new year, and I will continue being an avid fan of your writing!

Grouse,
The Atheists that you see and the ones I see are 2 completely different people. The ones that I know are loving and kind and socialy active. They go about improving the lot of their fellow man - just because it is the right thing to do - not because a belief in a higher power tells them to.
Don't think that one has to believe in God to find meaning in their life - they find meaning in nature, in loving one's neighbor, in thinking that they can make a difference in this world.
I am glad that you chose God and therefore you have faith and hope. I happen to believe in God; but I probably do not worship the same way that you do and I certainly would never try to tell someone else that their belief system was meaningless. My religion welcomes the belief systems of many faiths and I personally know of at least 2 atheists who put some Christians I have personally known to shame.
Did you know that every religion has creation stories? Most religions have a flood of some kind that destroys humankind. All have a version of the golden rule - stated differently but at the same time with the same intent. Many of these religions predate Christianity - so how do you explain all the similarities?
You worship as you see fit. I am sure that Susan Jacoby has a very meaningful life with or without a belief in God.

For Grouse1

Most of the "Christians" who comment here are angry and bitter. Take Ltown51, for example, who posted previously. He complains bitterly, about what? Nothing, in particular. There is nothing that pervents him or any Christian from BEING Christian, and attending church on a regular basis.

Every single one of your characterizations of "secularist" and atheists is even more true of Christians. What a bad humored lot many of them.

An atheist is a person who does not believe in God. Therefore, belittling them will not make them believers; trying to make them feel guilty will not make them believe; blaming every bad thing on them will not make them believe.

Everything you said was a little mean, and designed to be hurtful and not helpful. You didn't have to do that; you chose to do that; Jesus is not doing you much good at all, I would say.

ColinNicholas

Faith as it is currently practiced may indeed got he way of alchemy. However I think of spirituality as a continuing quest. The mistake religion makes is it thinks it has the answers, and we do not.

I think of my belief as my working hypothesis which serves me well at the moment. As my experience and research dictate I may update my hypothesis and perhaps one day we get to a theory and maybe even proof. Until that time I think it is important for believers to continue to explore. If God does exist we certainly don’t have all the answers.

Regardless humans must come to the realization that we are all one with each other and the Earth. We are interdependent and abuse of one another or the planet will have dire consequences. It is not punishment as much as it is built into the system; life, universe, ecosystem, whatever you want to call it.

For you Trekies out there Sock once said “The needs of the many out weight the needs of the few, or the one.” I don’t know if he was an atheist or not but it is sound advice whether God exists or not.

Grouse1 asked "What is the point of a humanist existence?"

The point is to make the most of it. As an atheist, my life has the purpose and meaning I give it. To better understand the planet, to enjoy my time with my wife and child, to continuously become better educated, and the list goes on. I don't need someone or something else to give my life meaning.

"And you see the sadness in the bitterness and utter meanness of atheists."

You're either being purposefully disingenuous and insulting, have never personally met any atheists, or have met so few as to not be a valid sample size.

If you wonder why so many of us find your religion so distasteful, consider how a good number of Christians treat us and speak to us.

So small are we to think we are so enlightened, so intelligent...that we evolved into the intricate, wondrous realm that is human only by chance...yet we ourselves have the capacity to design and create, albeit on a much smaller scale. To live in such a vast, endless universe and to think there could be nothing out there greater than us is truly incomprehensible.

My predictions for 2009:

Arabs and Israelis reject God completely but continue their war without Him. One former Hamas leader proclaims, ‘as far as rock-strewn deserts go, this one is worth dying for, God or no God’.

The Pope admits that he never really believed in God and that corporations were right all along. He says ‘Greed really is Good’. Worldwide, Roman Catholic sponsored charities and orphanages close after donations disappear. The Vatican is sold to Donald Trump to house his newest casino and resort. For former donors, it’s now more important to buy something nice for themselves, like that big screen television.

Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church goes bankrupt. Disneyland expands their Sunday morning hours to give former evangelicals ‘new meaning’ for their lives. Warren starts selling cars and makes a fortune. Bibity-bobity-boo!

With ‘turn the other cheek’ having been rejected after the fall of religion, the Texas legislature makes jay-walking and chewing gum in school punishable under a new-expanded death penalty. ‘The perfect secular society right around the corner’, proclaims the governor.

James Earl Jones redubs the original recording of Martin Luther King’s ‘I have a dream speech’ removing any reference to God or religion. Speech still considered ‘pretty good’ – revisionist scholars give it a B+.

California passes a new, improved Proposition Eight which makes Homosexual marriage legal but outlaws all forms of heterosexual activity in reparation for past prejudices against Gays. Teachers challenge the new law, but are overruled by the state Supreme Court which rules that the notion of women needing men or marriage in order to have children is a religious-sponsored bias.

The United States government stops funding any form of abstinence-based sex education, claiming it just doesn’t work. School districts are required to install and pay for condoms and dispensers in each and every school bathroom that might be visited by a pubescent student. Taxpayers in many states stage tax revolts, claiming they are the ones getting screwed after many districts are forced to raise their taxes to pay for the new innovations.

Following the fall of Islam, the world’s largest coliseum is built on the site of Mecca’s Grand Mosque. Poor people, freed from the burden of God, fight each other to the death so that they (or their next of kin) might receive sizable cash prizes. Walmart buys the naming rights to the awesome new stadium, which has a retractable roof. Broadcast rights for the bloody competitions are auctioned on E-bay.

Own_51. This country was never and IS NOT a Christian country. Many of the initial immigrants were Christian, but NOT all. Same with our fouding fathers. This country belongs to NO one religion. It goes against everything this country stands for,

You aren't defending your beliefs, your suppressing the beliefs of everyone else. You should learn to live and let live. No one is telling you to not believe as you wish. We simply don't want it pushed on everyone else. Keep it to yourselves. Stop trying to influence everything to be the way you "believe" it should be.

Susan,

Once again, just a sad statement on the life and drive of a humanist (nice name for atheist). What is the point of a humanist existence? Exist and then not. Therefore it is pointless. I cannot see how someone can go through their entire life with no meaning or higher, faith-based calling or motivation. Or true love for fellow humans. True love is based in God. What a sad existence for the atheist. And you see the sadness in the bitterness and utter meanness of atheists. Without hope. Always griping, always fighting, always complaining. Just sadness, lack of love and darkness. If predictions of atheism growth are played out, you can only expect more such sadness and pointlessness in the world. I choose faith in God and therefore love and hope. I also pray for the hopeless atheists like Susan Jacoby. Truly a sad life. Or rather waste of a life.