301. Comment #162372 by Goldy on April 16, 2008 at 7:05 pm

Well, off to pen an essay. Hmmm, The Dawkins Delusion perhaps...

Think that's been done already...

Other Comments by Goldy

302. Comment #162375 by markg on April 16, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Hey Ignoramus, er, I mean theonlythingtofear,

check this out: http://richarddawkins.net/article,2466,A-New-Flea,RichardDawkinsnet

Alister McGrath already beat you to that title. And the Lowered of the Fleas, David Robertson, has written "The Dawkins Letters" So you can't use that either.

Other Comments by markg

303. Comment #162376 by Goldy on April 16, 2008 at 7:14 pm

Mr. Maher could now be Mr. Dawkins imaginary friend

I'm assuming this line is a veiled reference to your belief that God is imaginary ;-)

Other Comments by Goldy

304. Comment #162390 by FightingFalcon on April 16, 2008 at 8:56 pm

Alright Falcon here's the problem, sales taxes even vat are regressive taxes

And Income Taxes are incredibly progressive, which I am opposed to. I am against any form of taxes without apportionment, which was provided for by the hated 16th Amendment.

A national sales tax would be much fairer, more efficient and allow us to shrink the size of the government by a considerable amount. Exemptions for necessary goods would of course be considered (food and poorer clothing, for example) so that it doesn't harm the lower class too much. All other goods would face the same flat national sales tax rate across the country.

The poor just slog along from welfare to dead end job, etc...until they can make the right business connection, get enough college credits to move up in the job market, or otherwise get some lucky break that moves them into the middle class (the taxpaying class).

Something that no one ever wants to talk about is the fact that America (and every country) needs a lower class. Someone has to do certain jobs that the middle-class and certainly the upper-class will never do. Not to mention the incredible strain that would be placed on our country if everyone started living like the middle-class or above.

The well to do in America are dependent on America for the freedom to make their money -- they should pay the most freight.

And they will, because they also spend the most amount of money. But I don't see why the "rich" have to pay higher rates of taxes than anyone else. Not only do they pay more in taxes, but they also pay at a higher rate, which to me is incredibly unfair. Especially when no one has (or will) determined what exactly it means to be "rich" these days.

I'm willing to listen to cutting deductions, flattening the brackets some if possible, and by all means lowering the brackets further if possible. How that money gets spent is another matter...you and I would probably have more in common in our views on waste fraud and abuse in government spending (just not on who is responsible and how to fix it).

O Jupiter - give me 10 days and I'll balance the US budget :-). Seriously though, the amount of waste and abuse that I see is absolutely disgusting. Working for the government has only made me more cynical against it. When I question why the base gym needs flat-screen plasma TVs as opposed to regular TVs, people look at me like I don't care about the troops. No, what I care about is spending every single dollar of tax-payer money on what really matters. But that's not how the government works. It's disgusting.

FF on the gold standard I don't disagree with your wish that it would in some ways be a nice thing to not have a baseless currency that can be inflated on a whim. This is again Dreamertarianism -- that ship has sailed, that horse is out of the barn, the genie is out of the lamp/bottle -- you can't get the toothpaste back in the tube, etc...ad infinitum.

Yea, this is typically the reaction that I get although I'm not sure why. Human society has, since the formation of towns and villages, relied on a commodity currency. A purely fiat currency is a brand-new experiment that has only existed since 1971. We really can't reverse the process? 37 years is really that long to refuse to change course?

Lastly private schools are competition for the public schools. There needs to be a robust public (free to poor people -- yes I know nothing's free we all pay property taxes for other peoples children blah, blah, blah)school system. The alternative is worse and will cost us all more dearly in the long run.

Private schools are not a viable alternative right now because they are out of the price range for most Americans. Obviously if all public schools were done away with there would be some private schools that catered to poorer families, especially those with gifted children who have the benefit of school vouchers. We do so much for mentally/physically retarded children these days that it would be nice to see something done for gifted children now and then.

I'd just hate to be satisfied with the current state of affairs where I could be spirited away to some detention facility without a word or a lawyer or a judge that could set me free until the NeoCons get bounced from office.

On this issue I'm sure that you and I share many similar viewpoints. Being socially liberal and very conscience of our personal freedoms, the rape of Justice in America over the past 8 years has definitely disturbed me. Especially what's come out over the past few days of top White House officials sitting in a room discussing what torture methods to use on certain terrorists. I can't remember a time that I've been so ashamed of my government.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

305. Comment #162433 by Enlightenme.. on April 17, 2008 at 1:12 am

"The poor just slog along from welfare to dead end job, etc...until"

Hang on, he only said 'police, courts, military and education.
You don't get no 'welfare', just charity, they used to call it 'the poor house' on this side of the pond when we last tried Lessez-faire.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

306. Comment #162437 by AllanW on April 17, 2008 at 1:22 am

Hehe you guys are still going on this topic; good for you. I still have a bunch of reading and thinking to do about these issues but can't resist a chip-in here.

Radesq and FightingFalcon were discussing progressive and regressive taxation. Radesq supported a progressive taxation regime and the notion of sales taxes was raised with the idea that the rich people in a society would pay more. In response FF said;

'And they will, because they also spend the most amount of money.' But I'd make a couple of observations here. This idea is the generally accepted layman view of the practical effects of a progressive sales tax but it has been shown to be inaccurate

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/jpet/2003/00000005/00000004/art00003;jsessionid=3rmxkmvgvncm1.alice?format=print
http://www.ipi.org/ipiIPIPublications.nsf/PublicationLookupQuickStudyPDF/D79990146B436FD186256B4D0073A594/$File/QS-Hartman-Redistribution.pdf?OpenElement
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=125&subsecID=163&contentID=1398

And that makes sense when you consider two aspects; the proportion of income that is expended in normal (non-capital) ways and inheritance. By this I mean that the richest one or two percent of the American population have inherited wealth, established infrastructure (homes, trusts etc) and employ the best tax advice thus minimising their tax burden. Even though they pay more actual amounts of tax the effect of them is lower as a proportion of their income than the rest of the population who do not have these benefits.

The other point above is that the lower eighty percent of the population who have effectively zero savings rates therefore expend the vast bulk of any disposable income and data shows (and common sense confirms) that they are not spending it preponderantly on capital goods. The net actual effect therefore is that the PROPORTIONAL taxation effect is skewed downwards. These proportions of the population pay RELATIVELY higher portions of their income in taxation than the rich segment.

The whole conversation about the Gold standard is for me an exercise in misty-eyed nostalgia :) Sorry guys but even the terms you use (capitalising the word 'Founders' etc) reveals a quaint but essentially retrograde and conservative approach that ignores the way that world conditions have moved on since big buckles on shoes were fashionable.

Yet I very much agree with the core concept that the value (always a difficult concept to grapple with in practical terms) of a currency (a surrogate for the economy) should have some basis in material items. It used to be gold. I may have to do a bit more digging for discussion about this but I would initially warm to some basket of commodities that moved over time both in composition and weighting that reflected where the truer value to our society rested. For example silicon would be weighted more heavily in the basket of commodities now than it would have a hundred years ago, the same with uranium.

Other Comments by AllanW

307. Comment #162694 by FightingFalcon on April 17, 2008 at 9:21 am

Hang on, he only said 'police, courts, military and education.
You don't get no 'welfare', just charity, they used to call it 'the poor house' on this side of the pond when we last tried Lessez-faire.

That's precisely right. The amount of government waste in social welfare programs is astounding and criminal. Social welfare programs are approaching 50% of our national budget, leaving room for little else when you factor in defense and interest payments on our national debt. Furthermore, considering the fact that social welfare programs will start to go insolvent in 2017 (the latest projection for Medicare), this is an issue that needs to be tackled now. A slow process of weaning ourselves off of social welfare programs (especially Social Security) can begin now. Or we can wait while continuing to raise taxes and just hope that the problem will go away.

And that makes sense when you consider two aspects; the proportion of income that is expended in normal (non-capital) ways and inheritance. By this I mean that the richest one or two percent of the American population have inherited wealth, established infrastructure (homes, trusts etc) and employ the best tax advice thus minimising their tax burden. Even though they pay more actual amounts of tax the effect of them is lower as a proportion of their income than the rest of the population who do not have these benefits.

This is why I believe a national sales tax would level the playing field for everyone. The so-called "super rich" have armies of lawyers who help them find loop-holes in the law to escape from paying Income Taxes, of which there are many ways. A national sales tax, on the other hand, is not escapable. If you purchase a product, you pay the tax. Period. I must continue to emphasize the added benefit of being able to release thousands of employees on federal payrolls that are involved in the agonizing Income Tax process. Or the untold benefits of having the lowest corporate taxes (e.g. zero) in the entire world.

The other point above is that the lower eighty percent of the population who have effectively zero savings rates therefore expend the vast bulk of any disposable income and data shows (and common sense confirms) that they are not spending it preponderantly on capital goods. The net actual effect therefore is that the PROPORTIONAL taxation effect is skewed downwards. These proportions of the population pay RELATIVELY higher portions of their income in taxation than the rich segment.

As I said above, certain considerations would have to be made for necessary products, such as food and lower-end clothing. Beyond that - well, perhaps people should start learning to save more money and spend less on vacations, TVs, etc. It's not my fault that people have no fiscal discipline in this country.

The whole conversation about the Gold standard is for me an exercise in misty-eyed nostalgia :) Sorry guys but even the terms you use (capitalising the word 'Founders' etc) reveals a quaint but essentially retrograde and conservative approach that ignores the way that world conditions have moved on since big buckles on shoes were fashionable.

What can I say? I love the Founding Fathers :-)

Honestly though, I cannot understand this reaction when I advocate a return to the Gold Standard. People look at me as if I were advocating a return to horse-and-buggy or gas lamps. Again I ask the question - what has changed so dramatically since 1971? Is there something that I'm missing? We're really that far beyond the breaking point?

Yet I very much agree with the core concept that the value (always a difficult concept to grapple with in practical terms) of a currency (a surrogate for the economy) should have some basis in material items. It used to be gold. I may have to do a bit more digging for discussion about this but I would initially warm to some basket of commodities that moved over time both in composition and weighting that reflected where the truer value to our society rested. For example silicon would be weighted more heavily in the basket of commodities now than it would have a hundred years ago, the same with uranium.

A basket of commodities is trickier because the government can simply substitute one commodity for another, should one begin to fail thereby creating yet another artificial currency. Something would be better than nothing though. Knowing that our currency is absolutely worthless is a scary thought and should concern every American citizen.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

308. Comment #162729 by Richard Dawkins on April 17, 2008 at 11:14 am

Francis Collins does not believe in the talking snake. I realised, as soon as the interview was over, that the author of The Language of God could not fairly be accused of taking Genesis literally. I was momentarily thrown off balance by Bill Maher's positive assertion based on his interview with Dr Collins. The correct response should not have been an acceptance of Maher's statement followed by an "In that case . . ." but scepticism followed by "IF that were the case . . ."
My apologies to Francis Collins.
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

309. Comment #162748 by phil rimmer on April 17, 2008 at 11:51 am

The shame is squarely on Bill Maher here.

It doesn't do to be seen to mistrust your host after such a firm claim.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

310. Comment #162753 by AllanW on April 17, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Thanks for posting this, Richard. A standard of honesty that does you credit.

Other Comments by AllanW

311. Comment #162816 by Enlightenme.. on April 17, 2008 at 1:54 pm

If someone asserted to me, that a 3rd party I already know to have made such statements about frozen waterfalls as Collins, has more recently told them they believe in the talking snake, then I would take them at face value in the spur of the moment.

Maher's "absolutely" is pretty assertive.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

312. Comment #162892 by Enlightenme.. on April 17, 2008 at 4:15 pm

How concerned should we be about Bill Maher's forthcoming movie Religulous?
Could it be as much of an embarrassment as Expelled?

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

313. Comment #163027 by theonlything2fear on April 17, 2008 at 9:06 pm

Francis Collins does not believe in the talking snake. Mr. Dawkins don't you think it should be a prerequisite to read a book before commenting on it? Genesis does not mention a talking snake. In the Hebrew the word "nachash" means a shining one. Not the modern English word serpent as it's used today. The nachash, or serpent, which beguiled Eve, is spoken of as "an angel of light" in verse 14. We have, in this, a clear intimation that it was not a snake, but a shining being, apparently an angel, to whom Eve paid great deference.

The willful ignorance of atheism exposed. And typical atheism, knowing nothing about the Bible yet speak as if you do.

Other Comments by theonlything2fear

314. Comment #163031 by theonlything2fear on April 17, 2008 at 9:30 pm

Enlightenme..."Could it be as much of an embarrassment as Expelled?" You speak of a documentary you have yet to see. Much akin to Dawkins and not reading his Bible. Perhaps you will post, after you actually see it, how much of an embarrassment it will be for atheist evolutionists finally getting their religion exposed in "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed".

Other Comments by theonlything2fear

315. Comment #163036 by theonlything2fear on April 17, 2008 at 9:38 pm

To Goldy, "Think that's been done already..." The bait you swallowed was placed on the hook of knowing you wouldn't comment on the substance of the post. Where I gave too much credit in thought was to actually believe I'd be accused of plagiarism, too!

Mr. Dawkins could possibly need a new PR manager. Did he really need Bill Maher to puff him up? Pompous is as pompous does.

Other Comments by theonlything2fear

316. Comment #163156 by Matt7895 on April 18, 2008 at 3:18 am

Richard: he may not believe in the talking snake, but Collins still believes God made a waterfall frozen! To me, that's almost as silly.

Other Comments by Matt7895

317. Comment #163232 by Enlightenme.. on April 18, 2008 at 4:52 am

theonlything2fear #319;

[..."Could it be as much of an embarrassment as Expelled?"]

" You speak of a documentary you have yet to see "

You are right of course, I haven't seen the film yet, and my claim that it will be an embarrassment to rational thinking christians depends on two clauses - the voracity of Richard and PZ's & others claims that they were hoodwinked into appearing in it, some of the reviews from 'my' reputable sources, the truth or otherwise of the claims on 'expelled exposed' purporting to debunk certain claims (I'm told) made by the filmmakers, and the claim's made about a certain Harvard film.

However, it is also true that my statement also rests on whether rational thinking christians actually *are* embarrassed when others they might feel they could be associated with engage in 'Lying for Jesus', or whether they tend to think that it is a 'lesser-evil' that serves a greater cause. So I'll freely admit that this second clause implied by my statement is a little more dubious.

[Pompous is as pompous does ;) ]

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

318. Comment #163739 by Teratornis on April 19, 2008 at 12:19 am

Comment #160233 by Radesq:

What about hemp Teratornis? Could we make oil out of hemp? That'd be far out man.

The starting feedstock would be mostly cellulose, so the most likely fuel would be cellulosic ethanol, which is a bit more expensive to refine than ethanol from cereal grains. Cereal grains let you start with starch which yeast can ferment directly (good old Saccharomyces cerevisiae), whereas cellulose needs an additional step to convert it to sugars with enzymes.

I read on one of the energy sites about some researcher who has a catalytic process for converting cellulose directly into mixed alkanes and aromatics. We've been hearing about people doing that sort of thing for decades at bench scale, but doing it on industrial scale is a wee bit harder. In particular, biomass feedstocks contain such a variable mess of chemicals and dirt, etc., that they can poison catalysts pretty fast. It's hard to make a biorefinery that tolerates feedstock variation as well as a goat.

Hemp would probably be a better choice than maize for making bioethanol, due to higher yield per hectare and no diversion from food crop.

However, Miscanthus giganteus may have more advantages than hemp, such as not containing any controlled substances such as THC, and having higher biomass yield. M. giganteus is a sterile hybrid noninvasive pest-resistant low-input perennial. Basically, you plant it once (from rhizome cuttings) and then all you have to do is mow down the 4m growth once each year. It outgrows most if not all weeds so it requires no herbicide. It's good for soil building, and it's easy to plow back to recover fields for food crops later. For energy crop use, weeds probably wouldn't matter, you'd just chop them up along with everything else into fuel pellets.

Algae fuels have the highest biomass yield of all, and the fuel-relevant species grow lipids which are easily convertible to biodiesel (better than bioethanol from a number of standpoints, such as being suitable for shipping through pipelines - ethanol absorbs water from the atmosphere at thus becomes corrosive to pipelines, so it has to travel by more expensive rail or tanker truck). However, algae fuels require highly engineered growing environments. They're not low-maintenance like miscanthus.

If we are about to have a world food crisis because of peak oil/ethanol.

It's already underway, and would happen eventually even without diversion of the maize crop to bioethanol, simply because petroleum and natural gas are currently huge inputs to industrial agriculture and thus the cost of growing and shipping food is going up as a function of oil price.

This is not a good time to be a desperately poor person.

What about hydrogen cars?

Well, if we had a race, me starting on my bicycle right now, and you in your hydrogen car when you can get one, I'd probably have circled the world by the time you got started.

It's really hard to imagine how hydrogen cars are going to materialize when it's more efficient to put the electricity into batteries which we already have. The automobile industry seems to be utterly incompetent. By now every car being sold should be a plug-in hybrid. Then at least drivers would have a 60 km round-trip range in the worst case when the spot shortages of gasoline (petrol) begin. That is, as long as the electricity stays on.

When you think about all the billions riding on projections of future petroleum availability, it's amazing the auto industry seems to have gone with the most wildly optimistic projections. But I suppose that's not surprising considering this is the industry that largely created the peak oil problem in the first place.

Worldwide water shortage?

Not where I live, as long as the upstream towns keep flusing their toilets into the Ohio River.

No stationary power should be coming from fossil fuels there are enough alternatives for that out there.

True, but it's going to take decades to scale up renewables. Wind power, for example, is on a tear, growing by 30-40% per year in the U.S. and Europe, which is a Moore's law-like doubling every two years or so. However, in the U.S. it's only providing 1% of electricity now, so we will need decades at the current pace to get enough doublings.

It's not clear how much wind turbine production could accelerate, given that all the major vendors have order backlogs stretching out for years. However, the U.S. government is even stronger than the free market, as demonstrated during WWII, when the U.S. switched its entire civilian industrial base over to war production almost overnight.

Of course it took Pearl Harbor to convince the American public to give the government that much power.

If we had competent leadership, 9/11 could have been the catalyst to moving the U.S. to renewable energy at Manhattan-project speed. However, George W. Bush thought it made more sense to spend a trillion dollars invading Iraq.

It's amazing how much damage a few hanging chads can do.

Solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, water, nuclear, landfill gases higher efficiency superconducting transmission wires or "heaven" help us microwave transmission of energy...

It's really hard to imagine microwave power transmission any time soon. That would only be considered for applications where running wires is physically impossible, such as solar power satellites. Only someone who smokes a field of hemp could believe any of those will be built in the next 50 years.

At the moment, in the U.S. at least, there is no crisis in stationary power, as long we don't care about all the drowning polar bears while we dig up Wyoming and West Virginia for coal.

One real NIMBY fiasco is the objection of Ted Kennedy and other politicos to the Cape Wind project, and Cape Code is one of the few places in the U.S. that still burns petroleum to generate electricity. That's one wind project that would directly displace petroleum imports.

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

Other Comments by Teratornis

319. Comment #163744 by Teratornis on April 19, 2008 at 12:42 am

Comment #162390 by FightingFalcon:

Something that no one ever wants to talk about is the fact that America (and every country) needs a lower class. Someone has to do certain jobs that the middle-class and certainly the upper-class will never do.

Someone or something. It's probably only a matter of time before Moore's law enables robots or telebots to handle increasing amounts of manual labor. If the AI is slow to happen, the robot intelligence can come from workers who operate the robots from places like India.

Robots have enormous advantages over human workers:

1. They probably won't steal (a constant temptation for underpaid human workers).
2. They can work 24/7/365, probably in all weather. Underwater too, probably.
3. No need to pay them even a minimum wage, and forget about health insurance costs.
4. Robots don't make mistakes when they get tired.
5. Robots generally don't have drug problems, nor any form of social dysfunction because all they do is work.
6. Robots generally don't sexually harass their fellow robots, or complain of sexual harassment.
7. Robots don't come back with guns when you fire them. But why would you fire them?
8. No unions, no drama, just steady reliable production.

It's hard to figure out what the lower class will do once robots get that good. I guess they can focus on dealing drugs, committing crimes, and making babies.

One hopes that at some point science can find the causes, and a cure, for low attainment.

Not to mention the incredible strain that would be placed on our country if everyone started living like the middle-class or above.

Japan now has a below-replacement birthrate, and a general refusal to import cheap labor in the form of immigrants from poor countries, so it's probably no coincidence that Japan leads the world in progress toward athropomorphic robots.

What every society really needs is an ethically acceptable form of slave labor i.e. robots. Western civilization got its start in ancient Greece, and today we still marvel at the works of Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates that rested on the backs of human slave laborers. The smart people in ancient Greece came up with an inhumane formula to relieve themselves of the need to work, and thus they could spend their time stimulating each other to get creative.

Other Comments by Teratornis

320. Comment #163748 by Teratornis on April 19, 2008 at 1:03 am

Comment #163232 by Enlightenme..

However, it is also true that my statement also rests on whether rational thinking christians actually *are* embarrassed when others they might feel they could be associated with engage in 'Lying for Jesus', or whether they tend to think that it is a 'lesser-evil' that serves a greater cause. So I'll freely admit that this second clause implied by my statement is a little more dubious.

People have cognitive filters which make them judge harmful acts differently depending on who the victim is. When the victims are sufficiently unsympathetic to a group of people, most of them will be at best indifferent to the victims' plight.

For example, when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan to take some of the country away from the Taliban, probably quite a few children were killed by errant bombs. Compare the muted public outcry in the U.S. to what would happen if the U.S. Air Force were to accidentally drop a JDAM on a U.S. elementary school.

When Richard Dawkins writes a book that says several billion people are under a delusion, he probably makes himself a distinctly unsympathetic character to them. Try calling everyone you meet deluded, and see how long it takes to find someone who thanks you - regardless of who is right.

It's hard to imagine lots of the people feeling insulted by Richard Dawkins to see any sort of grave injustice done to him.

How many of, say, Jerry Falwell's opponents mourned his passing, or objected when Hustler Magazine published the parody advertisement in which a fictitious Falwell talks about having sex with his mother in an outhouse?

Anyone who gloated when Falwell keeled over is indulging in the same kinds of us-vs.-them emotions that we can be sure the church basement crowds will indulge in when they see the brilliant Richard Dawkins apparently being fooled by the crafty filmmakers.

I would imagine most Christians will have no more qualms about lying to Richard than British citizens had about their government lying so cleverly to the Nazis all the way through WWII. Some of those British intelligence operations were legendary exercises in deception.

In a war of ideas, it's take-no-prisoners all around.

Other Comments by Teratornis

321. Comment #164260 by theonlything2fear on April 19, 2008 at 9:49 pm

To Enlightenme #322..."the voracity of Richard and PZ's & others claims that they were hoodwinked into appearing in it" Since when did the overly confident Mr. Dawkins need his sheep to defend even a simple accusation. I was under the impression that anyone confident in their beliefs does not run from criticism. Wait, this was not criticism, just Mr. Dawkins being openly candid. I wonder if Mr. Dawkins feels a breeze in his emperor's new clothes. Expelled, or EXPOSED!

Other Comments by theonlything2fear

322. Comment #164723 by TIKI AL on April 20, 2008 at 3:39 pm

HBO's sponsors pressured them to make Bill Maher apologize for saying that the Pope was a Nazi on his show last week.

So he said Friday on "RealTime" that when he said that the Pope was a Nazi that he was wrong, and that the Pope was merely in the Hitler Youth, and swore allegiance to Hitler, which was worse.

He also stood by and repeated his statement that if the Pope was a CEO of a day care facility, and that much abuse took place, he would be in jail.

Nice "apology", Bill!

Other Comments by TIKI AL

323. Comment #165201 by bitofinger on April 21, 2008 at 7:51 am

This was really a non-interview and very poorly conducted. I'm usually a big fan of Maher. This piece, with its canned audience responses and nervous, contrived laughter from Maher, looked more like a promo for the book - which I am fully enjoying - but there was nothing substantive here except a scientist and a comedian discussing another scientist's opinion of the validity of a talking reptile, of which neither were sure.

Other Comments by bitofinger

324. Comment #184823 by mordacious1 on May 26, 2008 at 9:03 am

Richard
When I saw this interview, I thought your skepticism was implied. "He does?" Followed by "In that case..." which to me would also imply the if. I heard it as, "If this were true, then...".

Other Comments by mordacious1

325. Comment #185276 by Geodesic17 on May 27, 2008 at 10:50 am

I've been a fan of Bill Maher for some time now. It would be cool to see Richard Dawkins as a panelist on his show.

Other Comments by Geodesic17

326. Comment #199423 by AWhaleOfATale on June 25, 2008 at 6:30 pm

THE SERPENT OF GENESIS 3.



In Genesis 3 we have neither allegory, myth, legend, nor fable, but literal historical facts set forth, and emphasized by the use of certain Figures of speech (see Ap. 6).

All the confusion of thought and conflicting exegesis have arisen from taking literally what is expressed by Figures, or from taking figuratively what is literal. A Figure of speech is never used except for the purpose of calling attention to, emphasizing, and intensifying, the reality of the literal sense, and the truth of the historical facts; so that, while the words employed may not be so strictly true to the letter, they are all the more true to the truth conveyed by them, and to the historical events connected with them.

But for the figurative language of verses 14 and 15 no one would have thought of referring the third chapter of Genesis to a snake : no more than he does when reading the third chapter from the end of Revelation (ch. 20:2). Indeed, the explanation added there, that the "old serpent" is the Devil and Satan, would immediately lead one to connect the word "old" with the earlier and former mention of the serpent in Gen. 3 : and the fact that it was Satan himself who tempted "the second man", "the last Adam", would force conclusion that no other than the personal Satan could have been the tempter of "the first man, Adam".

The Hebrew word rendered "serpent" in Gen. 3:1 is Nachash (from the root Nachash, to shine), and means a shining one. Hence, in Chaldee it means brass or copper, because of its shining. Hence also, the word Nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2Kings 18:4. In the same way Saraph, in Isa. 6:2, 6, means a burning one, and, because the serpents mentioned in Num. 21 were burning, in the poison of their bite, they were called Saraphim, or Saraphs.

But with the LORD said unto Moses, "Make thee a fiery serpent" (Num. 21:8), He said, "Make thee a Saraph", and , in obeying this command, we read in v. 9, "Moses made a Nachash of brass". Nachash is thus used as being interchangeable with Saraph. Now, if Saraph is used of a serpent because its bite was burning, and is also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a burning one), why should not Nachash be used of a serpent because its appearance was shining, and be also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a shining one)?

Indeed, a reference to the structure of Gen. 3 (on p. 7) will show that the Cherubim (which are similar celestial or spirit-beings) of the last verse (Gen. 3:24) require a similar spirit-being to correspond with them in the first verse (for the structure of the whole chapter is a great Introversion). The Nachash, or serpent, who beguiled Eve (2Cor. 11:3) is not spoken of as "an angel of light" in v. 14. Have we not, in this, a clear intimation that it was not a snake, but a glorious shining being, apparently as angel, to whom Eve paid such great deference, acknowledging him as one who seemed to possess superior knowledge, and who was evidently a being of a superior (not of an inferior) order? Moreover, in the description of Satan as "the king of Tyre" (*1) it is distinctly implied that the latter being was of a supernatural order when he is called "a cherub" (Ezek. 28:14, 16, read from vv. 11-19). His presence "in Eden, the garden of 'Elohim" (v. 13), is also clearly stated, as well as his being "perfect in beauty" (v. 12), his being "perfect in his ways from the day he was created till iniquity was found in him" (v. 15), and as being "lifted up because of his beauty" (v. 17).

These all compel the belief that Satan was the shining one (Nachash) in Gen. 3, and especially because the followin 1000 g words could be addressed to him :-- "Thing heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness : I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee" (v. 17). Even supposing that these things were spoken to, and of, an exalted human being in later days (in Ezek. 28), still "the king of Tyre" is not compared to a being who was non-existent; and facts and circumstances which never happened are not introduced into the comparison.

There is more about "the king of Tyre" in Ezek. 28:11-19 than was literally true of "the prince of Tyre" (vv. 1-10). The words can be understood only of the mightiest and most exalted supernatural being that God ever created; and this for the purpose of showing how great would be his fall. The history must be true to make the prophecy of any weight.

Again, the word rendered "subtle" in Gen. 3:1 (see note) means wise, in a good sense as well as in a bad sense. In Ezek. 28:12 we have the good sense, "Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom"; and the bad sense in v. 17, "thou hast corrupted thy wisdom" (referring, of course, to his fall). So the word rendered "subtle" is rendered "prudent" in Prov. 1:4; 8:12; 12:23; 14:8; and in a bad sense in Job 15:5. 1Sam. 23:22. Ps. 83:3.

The word "beast" also, in Gen. 3:1, chay, denotes a living being, and it is as wrong to translate zoa "beasts" in Rev. 4, as it is to translate chay "beast" in Gen. 3. Both mean living creature. Satan is thus spoken of as being "more wise than any other living creature which Jehovah Elohim had made". Even if the word "beast" be retained, it does not say that either a serpent or Satan was a "beast", but only that he was "more wise" than any other living being. We cannot conceive Eve as holding converse with a snake, but we can understand her being fascinated (*2) by one, apparently "an angel of light" (i.e. a glorious angel), possessing superior and supernatural knowledge.

When Satan is spoken of as a "serpent", it is the figure Hypocatastasis (see Ap. 6) or Implication; it no more means snake than it does when Dan is so called in Gen. 49:17; or an animal when Nero is called a "lion" (2Tim. 4:17), or when Herod is called a "fox" (Luke 13:32); or when Judah is called "a lion's whelp". It is the same figure when "doctrine" is called "leaven" (Matt. 16:6). It shows that something much more real and truer to truth is impressively; and is intended to be a figure of something much more real than the letter of the word.

Other Figures of speech are used in vv. 14, 15, but only for the same purpose of emphasizing the truth and the reality of what is said. When it is said in v. 15, "thou shalt bruise His heel", it cannot mean His literal heal of flesh and blood, but suffering, more temporary in character. When it is said (v. 15), "He shall crush thy head", it means something more than a skull of bone, and brain, and hair. It means that all Satan's plans and plots, policy and purposes, will one day be finally crushed and ended, never more to mar or to hinder the purposes of God. This will be effected when Satan shall be bruised under our feet (Rom. 16:20). This again, will not be our literal feet, but something much more real.

The bruising of Christ's heel is the most eloquent and impressive way of foretelling the most solemn events; and to point out that the effort made by Satan to evade his doom, then threatened, would become the very means of insuring its accomplishment; for it was through the death of Christ that he who had the power of death would be destroyed; and all Satan's power and policy brought to an end, and all his works destroyed (Heb. 2:14. 1John 3:8. Rev. 20:1-3, 10). What literal words could portray these literal facts so wonderfully as these expressive Figures of speech?

It is the same with the other Figures used in v. 14, "On thy belly shalt thou go". This Figure means infinitely more than the literal belly of flesh and blood; just as the words "heel" and "head" do in v. 15. It paints for the eyes of our mind the picture of Satan's ultimate humiliation; for prostration was ever the most eloquent sign of subjection. When it is said "our belly cleaveth unto the ground" (Ps. 44:25), it denotes such a prolonged prostration and such a depth of submission as could never be conveyed or expressed in literal words.

So with the other prophecy, "Dust shalt thou eat". This is not true to the letter, or to fact, but it is all the more true to truth. It tells of constant, continuous disappointment, failure, and mortification; as when deceitful ways are spoken of as feeding on deceitful food, which is "sweet to a man, but afterward his mouth shall be filled with gravel" (Prov. 20:17). This does not mean literal "gravel", but something far more disagreeable. It means disappointment so great that it would gladly be exchanged for the literal "gravel". So when Christians are rebuked for "biting and devouring one another" (Gal. 3:14, 15), something more heart-breaking is meant than the literal words used in the Figure.

When "His enemies shall lick the dust" (Ps. 72:9) they will not do it on their knees with their literal tongues; but they will be so prostrated and so utterly defeated, that no words could literally depict their overthrow and subjugation. If a serpent was afterward called a nachash, it was because it was more shining than any other creature; and if it became known as "wise", it was not because of its own innate positive knowledge, but of its wisdom in hiding away from all observation; and because of its association with one of the names of Satan (that old serpent) who "beguiled Eve" (2Cor. 11:3, 14).

It is wonderful how a snake could ever be supposed to speak without the organs of speech, or that Satan should be supposed able to accomplish so great a miracle (*3). It only shows the power of tradition, which has, from the infancy of each one of us, put before our eyes and written on our minds the picture of a "snake" and an "apple" : the former being based on a wrong interpretation, and the latter being a pure invention, about which there is not one word said in Holy Scripture.

Never was Satan's wisdom so craftily used as when he secured universal acceptance of this traditional belief : for it has succeeded in fixing the attention of mankind on the letter and the means, and thus blinding the eyes to the solemn fact that the Fall of man had to do solely with the Word of God, and is centered in the sin of believing Satan's lie instead of Jehovah's truth.

The temptation of "the first man Adam" began with the question "Hath God said?" The temptation of "the second man, the Lord from heaven" began with the similar question "If thou be the Son of God", when the voice of the Father had scarcely died away, which said "This IS My beloved Son". All turned on the truth of what Jehovah had said. The Word of God being questioned, led Eve, in her reply, (1) to omit the word "freely" (3:2, cp. 2:16); then (2) to add the words "neither shalt thou touch it" (3:3, cp. 2:17); and finally (3) to alter a certainty into a contingency by changing "thou SHALT SURELY die" (2:17) into "LEST ye die" (3:3).

It is not without significance that the first Ministerial words of "the second Man" were "It is written", three times repeated; and that His last Ministerial words contained a similar threefold reference to the written Word of God (John 17:8, 14, 17). The former temptation succeeded because the Word of God was three times misrepresented; the latter temptation was successfully defeated because the same Word was faithfully repeated.

The history of Gen. 3 is intended to teach us the fact that Satan's sphere of activities is in the religious sphere, and not the spheres of crime and immorality; that his battlefield is not the sins arising from human depravity, but the unbelief of the human heart. We are not to look for Satan's activities to-day in the newspaper press, or the police courts; but in the pulpit, and in professors' chairs. Whenever the Word of God is called in question, there we see the trail of "that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan". This is why anything against the true interests of the Word of God (as being such) finds a ready admission into the newspapers of the world, and is treated as "general literature". This is why anything in favor of its inspiration and Divine origin and its spiritual truth is rigidly excluded as being "controversial".

This is why Satan is quite content that the letter of Scripture should be accepted in Gen. 3, as he himself accepted the letter of Ps. 91:11. He himself could say "It is written" (Matt. 4:6) so long as the letter of what is "written" could be put instead of the truth that is conveyed by it; and so long as it is misquoted or misapplied. This is his object in perpetuating the traditions of the "snake" and the "apple", because it ministers to the acceptance of his lie, the hiding of God's truth, the support of tradition, the jeers of the infidel, the opposition of the critics, and the stumbling of the weak in faith.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(*1) Ezek. 28:11-19, who is quite a different being from "the Prince of Tyre", in vv. 1-10, who is purely human.
(*2) It is remarkable that the verb nachash always means to enchant, fascinate, bewitch; or of one having and using occult knowledge. See Gen. 30:27; 44:5, 15. Lev. 19:26. Deut. 18:10. 1Kings 20:33. 2Kings 17:17; 21:6. 2Chron. 33:6. So also is the noun used in Num. 23:23; 24:1.

(*3) Greater than that wrought by God Himself, who opened the mouth of Balaam's ass.

Other Comments by AWhaleOfATale

327. Comment #199427 by markg on June 25, 2008 at 6:40 pm

AWhaleofATale,

I think you posted on the wrong site. This is a clear-thinking oasis. What you are are looking for is www.crazybatshitbibleverses.com

Other Comments by markg

328. Comment #199442 by Frankus1122 on June 25, 2008 at 7:06 pm

Comment #199423 by AWhaleOfATale

You realize, of course, you are completely insane.

How do you solve a problem like AWhaleOfATale?
A flibbertijibbet! A will-o'-the wisp! A clown!

When I'm with AWhaleOfATale I'm confused
Out of focus and bemused
And I never know exactly where I am

Other Comments by Frankus1122