801. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171190 by MaxD on April 28, 2008 at 11:01 am

Dick old chum.
Dick, Dick, Dick, how could you slam reservists and the Guard? Without that necessary support force there would be no two fron conflict going on at the moment. Did you know, Dick, that Reservists and Guard units have at times out numbered actual active duty personel in Iraq? Hmmm Dick? You do realize that such units undergo precisely the same basic traing for whatever service branch they enlist in? Dick I understand how you probably wouldn't as you didn't serve. No problem. Ignorance is curable!

SPC Hall put on the uniform didn't he? He took the same oath as everyone else. I think I'm quite comfortable thinking he cared plenty about the US. Suing the Army for allowing the harrassment isn't his fault its the Army's for letting this jock-style-christianity infest too much of the military.

802. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171173 by MaxD on April 28, 2008 at 10:50 am

Al-rawandi
Isn't it just like these guys. Several posters on this site are military or exmilitary and seem to understand the fight for the contistition idea fairly well. But this guy wants to hold his family's military record up as if that proves some point. And christ he doesn't even know what the oath to defend is all about. Dick, have you tried to get in recently? The standards are dramatically lower (I got a waiver and my left ear is next to useless!).

I've no real desire to burn a flag. But if someone were to outlaw it I would immediately burn one and then we could all go to court.

Dick, old chum,
If you want to use words like faggot and homo that is fine. No one will take you too terribly seriously. It will certainly not demonstrate this fabled love of Christ business you christians are always on about, and it may just provoke a bit of hostility in response to your own in your direction. Hostility I would hasten to add you can't justifiably complain about.
Think about it okay,
Dick.

803. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171150 by MaxD on April 28, 2008 at 10:38 am

DickDawkins,
You won't mind if I just refer to you by your first name will you?
Dick you said:

I didn't make any threats. How is that offensive? 'Cause I insult your pweshush Dawkinsh? Should someone kiss his bruised ego? You guys are bitch asses. Atheists troll youtube all the time, now I say something about Dawkins, I get shit and when I retaliate it's trolling? Some "freethinkers" you guys are.

No one flagged you because you said mean and nasty things about Dawkins. They flagged you for slurs against starspangledeagle. Dick, surely you remember them. They involved non-cogent argument terminology like fag. See, Dick?

Now,
Dick no one here would have flagged you had you presented a rather straightforward biblical case to back your ridiculous homophobia. Dick you would have gotten strident disagreement, but Dick I gotta tell you, nobody would have reacted too terribly angrily at your fanatastical ignorance of the very scriptures that so excite you, Dick.

Now Dick, I hope you see better why people reacted so strongly to you.
Good Day
Dick.

804. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171133 by MaxD on April 28, 2008 at 10:24 am

DickDawkins,
Um are you serving in the military? I'll tell you what I recently swore to defend and it wasn't the flag. It was the Constitution. Your ancestors fought to protect a way of life not some peice of fabric.

805. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171079 by MaxD on April 28, 2008 at 9:52 am

Wow we are certainly getting a number of drive-by posters today. Blackhawk089 and DickDawkins who seem to have bought into the lame propaganda that surrounded the expelling of PZ from the theater, and last night there was that mainiac guy.

Blackhawk089 may I ask, should you still be around, what you moniker means or references?
DickDawkins, I would suggest you do some research on the differences between satanists and atheists- they keep that information hidden in books which may explain why you have missed it before. The dictionary will be a good place to start.

806. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170958 by MaxD on April 28, 2008 at 7:25 am

In the last paragraph (and one of my more important points) of my comment to MelissaJoy, I said,

One thing that deeply bothers me. I mean lots. is the assurity with which you, and others like yourself declare my mind to me. I've heard you claim, along with others, that I really already now God exists I am just rebelling against him with my free will. This assurity positively infuriates me. At the same time such a stance frightens me for that which it betrays. It means you can never be convinced of the truth of what I am saying. You will always think it is just a matter of me opening my heart to Jesus, because it could never be a matter of logic or reasoning on my part. It could never be about the evidence. That would impugn the character of your God.
Proof of the creation cannont be up for debate, because if it is then God is unjust. How can he hold people like myself accountable for simply being unconvinced of his existence using the tools of evidence examination, logic and reason?
That would be too grisly to even contemplate.

I noticed this from Remnant, can't remember if TruthID said this (TruthID if you are reading this could you refresh my memory?) and MelissaJoy, I am sure I heard David Robertson say something to this effect, and as I've mentioned I've heard this from other of our theist visitors nice or mean.
I don't think this can bode well for discussion, and is at it's heart hugely disrespectful.

807. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170945 by MaxD on April 28, 2008 at 6:59 am

Riandouglas's Comment #170744 on April 27, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Was nicely done!

808. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170939 by MaxD on April 28, 2008 at 6:48 am

shinewithjoy!

How is it that rates of depression, violent crimes, teenage pregnancies, and STI/STD's have risen dramatically since prayer was taken out of school?
Richard Dawkins, you will bow to your Creator someday; that is a fact. I hope you face it before you die.
"that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" Philippians

You will be happy to note that teen pregnancy, at least in the US is higher in the most religious areas! The same goes for violent crime.
Also, while it isn't a huge difference, born agains get divorced more often than atheists.
Hmmmmmm....kind of hurts the picture you want to paint doesn't it.....?

809. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170736 by MaxD on April 27, 2008 at 11:18 pm

Stein is the goofy machivellian kind political mind that likes to play at morality, but I notice how narrow his sympathies always seem to be. Where was Ben Stein on Darfur, Uganda, Somalia once that mess landed in Clinton's lap? Where was Stein on Bosnia? I am just going to bet it wasn't likely you'd hear him espousing any kind human rights based military action. I could be wrong but I just did a quick google search and found nothing on it.
He just likes playing big super power politics. Screw him

810. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170721 by MaxD on April 27, 2008 at 10:52 pm

I was thinking that what really kills people dead is reactionary, short term gain politics both foreign and domestically applied. It is certainly a kind of politics endorsed by Stein.

811. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170716 by MaxD on April 27, 2008 at 10:44 pm

I'm fairly certain you lost your mind when you said....

The quick dispatch of 30 million cubic miles of sediments was a good example of an impatient dismissal I think.

I've thumbed through more than one geology text book and haven't come across that doozy. I am not a geologist though. So have no expertise on the subject.
txpiper are you by any chance a geologist?

812. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170703 by MaxD on April 27, 2008 at 10:32 pm

Ugh. This is annoying. If that is the kind of logic and reasoning skill produced at Yale I am unimpresssed.

813. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170682 by MaxD on April 27, 2008 at 10:12 pm

Guinness makes you strong!
The perfect brew for the athlete!

814. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170646 by MaxD on April 27, 2008 at 9:39 pm

Mesomodel...

Bzzzt. Thanks for playing.
Time of death: 7:20 PM.
Cause: Pascal's Wager

Ah....that line goes very well with my guinness.

815. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170639 by MaxD on April 27, 2008 at 9:34 pm

Funkymainiac.
What (and since you like capitals so much) CONTROVERSY?
There isn't one. Sorry.
If there is a positive case to be made for ID then get out there, produce the results and make it. Then your view, once it is suitably researched, and replicated will be taught alongside Darwin as another possible explaination. So far there is no evidence in favor of ID. It has no research program, no IDea even how to proceed. It isn't science. It is mostly propaganda, or bad philosophy.

816. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170630 by MaxD on April 27, 2008 at 9:25 pm

Funkymainiac asked:

I understand you wanting to validate your belief, but do you seriously think, as outlined in the God Delusion, that anyone that thinks differently to you on this subject is merely ignorant?

The key is not differently than the professor but differently than the evidence indicates. There are a few possiblities.
Ignorance of the evidence, and the past 150 or so years of research that has proven evolution to be a fact of nature, like cheetahs are facts, and the heliocentric solar system are facts.
Faith You've seen the evidence but you just won't look at it objectively because you know it can't be right. God tells you this in his word.
Honest Doubt You've read the evidence of evo but you are not so sure, especially about origins.
Faith based Mendacity You've seen the evidence and are convinced by it but you think that the world would not give Jesus a chance if we are descended from lesser apes. So you fight the scientists tooth and nail but still want us working on viruses and other practical things as if evolution were true.
A few possiblities for your consideration.

In my experience most people who take a hostile view of evolutionary theory are mostly ignorant and horribly propagandized by the religiously fearful. Being ignorant isn't a crime and can be remedied. Being lied to by parties with dubious morality also isn't a crime and can also be over come.

817. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170619 by MaxD on April 27, 2008 at 9:09 pm

Riandouglas said of Lynn Margulis:

She's also highly respected.

And she is kind of heterodox. I don't find her mech too terribly compelling for anythign but early life. That is just my two cents though.
She is highly respected,
She is still employed.

818. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170605 by MaxD on April 27, 2008 at 8:59 pm

MelissaJoy,
Thanks for the comprehensive post! I suspected Minnessota only because of the niceness! I worked there a couple of field seasons ago and they are the most relentlessly nice people I've ever met! I do disagree with the conclusions you've arrived at by I do appreciate the time you put into the response.

MaxD: Looking further into God's murder of innocents? We are ALL guilty. All of us. None of us are innocent. Until we realize that fact, we cannot understand God's saving grace.

This seems deeply strange to me. Doesn't it seem so to you? I guess God's saving grace is not tied to God's beneficience, or effeciency, or sense of compassion because this approach seems like one of the most wicked things ever invented.
Do you accept that God is all knowing and all powerful? I am going to assume you do and you can correct me later if that turns out to be wrong. If this is indeed the case you must realize that he knew all this was going to unfold in just the way it did. How can a baby, or some Sioux of the time completely ignorant of this God and the goings on in a small desert backwater be held responsible for the actions in the Garden of Eden about which they know nothing, and in whose commission they had no hand? The words and stories you read actually imply important clues about the character of God. I think you are ignoring that.

If what you say is true then I will not accept this God because it is an unjust action.

So it's not about a vengeful murderous God. It's about a God who has a purpose.

I will point you to the tale of the Golden Calf and you can get back to me about vengefulness.

We kill millions of unborn babies every day in this country.

We certainly have a lot of abortions but I see some need for clarification here. Another time perhaps.

We also have millions of kids who are abused and neglected in this country. God cares about all humanity, from the homeless man on the street to the tiny baby in a woman's uterus. People die. We all die. Death is what kills us. But IN DEATH we can have life. It's really easy. It's not like God made it really hard to get or anything.

God cares about all humanity? I remember thinking nothing even remotely like that as I watched my television during the asian tsunami aftermath.
It seems as if you are trying to absolve God of his craven act of intimidation, coercion and murder with the abortion. I think your equivocation here fails.
I will grant you that abortion is a complicated concept but a woman choosing to abort a 10 day old concpetuse is not, in my minds quite the same as slaughtering the first born of Egypt by a God with perfect moral or ethical sight. You said in your last post the times then were all eye for an eye? Surely God knew later he would advocate turning of cheeks. Why not show that path then? Why not disaparate his people outside the walls of the city and turn any method of pursuit, chariots, wagons, horses and camels into harps or something. Why did God have to communicate through a guy who'd just commited murder? ANd why is God always trucking with these crazies anyway? WHy not a seriously sane guy with irrefutable evidence? Doesn't it strain verisimilitude just a bit?

Oh, and the triune God of the Old Testament? Does He not say, "Let us make man in our own image?" Sounds kinda multiple to me. As far the trinity goes, it's one of those unexplainable things that just is. Kinda like gravity. It just is.

I'll accept that as implication that God is multi-personality. I will also join Thomas Jefferson in finding the concept goofy and inconsistent. Proving it is just like gravity though is work you have to do. Because it is nothing like gravity as far as I can tell.

Your remark: "how loving is that" regarding Hell? GOD DOESN'T WANT ANY OF US TO GO TO HELL! That's why He sent Jesus. We just have to accept it! It's completely free (no gimmacks!). How loving is THAT?

Hell is a wicked concept. Torture for eternity for 80 or so years of living seems vastly dispropotionate to almost any amount of crime that could be committed. Eternity is a damned long time :)
And is it really free? I contend the answer is no. Firstly I must give up my intellect to the prospect because there is no evidence for the proposition.
Secondly there is the human sacrifice gimick. Didn't God let himself (Jesus) off just the tiniest bit too easily? Lets face it to pay for all of our sins shouldn't jesus still be down there, or over there or just in there? I mean three days seems like short time compared to the eternity I will have to do simply because I don't find the case for God and jesus very compelling.

No evidence means I have to take his the biblical story on faith, and that for me is too tall an order. Because it isn't free. On the scant evidence/nonexistant evidence you want me to give up any number of enjoyable things, and precious oodles of time on sundays that I could otherwise spend with my family, or here, or in the woods, or with a good book, or at a movie or whatever and instead I have to be in church? That is sounds like hell to me. Then I have to tithe. Lets not forget all the church functions that will now consume my time! That doesn't sound free and I can see no reason, no evidence to adopt such policies as those prescribed.

On top of that I have to succumb, bow down, and kneel before an all powerful ruler and live in their unalterable totalitarian state. Forever. If I disllike something too bad. If I'd like a change of pace. Too bad. This is the very picture of the totalitarian state. We don't like them now, why should posititively want to be part of one?
For eternity.

One thing that deeply bothers me. I mean lots. is the assurity with which you, and others like yourself declare my mind to me. I've heard you claim, along with others, that I really already now God exists I am just rebelling against him with my free will. This assurity positively infuriates me. At the same time such a stance frightens me for that which it betrays. It means you can never be convinced of the truth of what I am saying. You will always think it is just a matter of me opening my heart to Jesus, because it could never be a matter of logic or reasoning on my part. It could never be about the evidence. That would impugn the character of your God.
Proof of the creation cannont be up for debate, because if it is then God is unjust. How can he hold people like myself accountable for simply being unconvinced of his existence using the tools of logic and reason?
That would be too grisly to even contemplate.

819. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170523 by MaxD on April 27, 2008 at 8:05 pm

TruthID,
Francis Collins is a Christian who, doctrinairely cannot be vastly different from you-though I don't know all of his beliefs- isn't troubled by evolution at all. I'm not sure why this is. But you might try to learn a bit about it and maybe you'd find it less troubling too.

I think the best into to Evolutionary theory is actually a book by Dawkins, and that would be The Selfish Gene. Give that a try TruthID. It will give you a firmer idea of what evolutionary biologists actually think, what they don't think and what no one wants to justify. It is very clearly written, so well in fact that it will take you through some very difficult concepts and it won't seem difficult.
It may not convince you that evolution isn't bad but you will certainly understand the process much more and be better able to discuss in any way you chose.

820. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170514 by MaxD on April 27, 2008 at 7:57 pm

Diacanu,
LOL Captain Needa. Now that made my night.
If memory serves, the Executor was like the fastest track to promotion in the Grand Army!

821. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170509 by MaxD on April 27, 2008 at 7:53 pm

TruthID,
thanks for the apology. We've probably all blown our cool and said things just to be mean before. Thanks,
And for my part in the verbal cannonade that ensued apologies.

822. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170484 by MaxD on April 27, 2008 at 7:31 pm

Diacanu said,

And when I do settle down into a relationship, I want it to be based on more than "duuhhrr, your ass tatoo makes me hard!!".

I see you point about needing more for the long haul but I had a thought about the situaion in a different context. It played out something like this.

Ummmm....but if its just going to be for the night that tatoo thing will work just fine for me.

823. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170481 by MaxD on April 27, 2008 at 7:27 pm

Smellhound said,

very true, but then shouldnt your argument be against using faith as an excuse to do things that we generally see as unacceptable rather than just against faith period. The vast majority of believers in any religion don't use it as an excuse to kill someone.

I think our argument would then hinge on defining unacceptable. Is killing the worst thing religiously inspired people could do. I submit to you that it isn't.
Here is a short list of things religiously minded people in the US get involved in and I submit that such involvement causes huge amounts of suffering through its interference.
Sex Ed (abstinence only= catastrophic failure )
End of life issues
Sexuality
Reproductive issues (Abortion and contraception including morning after pills and emergency contraception of the immediate variety)
Foreign Policy Issues
That is a short list to which others should feel free to add. My point is that religious thinking can and often does lead to huge amounts of suffering and backwardness even when direct phyiscal violence isn't present.

824. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170460 by MaxD on April 27, 2008 at 6:44 pm

Smellhound,

come on. In the way that the theory of evolution drives you away from the natural human thought that there is an almighty being and an after life

I think here you have just made a claim that would require some corroborating evidence. Is it this a natural belief at all? Many cultures don't have such a being, or an afterlife myth. Some certainly do. Some have variously fallible creation myths. What characterizs myth it seems to me is the human desire to have an explanation, even, as Christopher Hitchen's so eloquently said, "even a bad one." Humans do tend to search for agency and cause. There are good evolution reasons that this would be so.

, it should also drive you away from morality. Both things that make people feel good etc., but you have made an intellectual assent to the idea that they are not actually beneficial/useful

The case that many of us make against God doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it may or may not make people feel good. Rather there is just no evidence for it.

I guess I also think this business about feeling good is strange. I mean sex with lots of attractive women I barely know feels very good, and is probably natural, I presume you would have a problem with that behavior even so.

825. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170437 by MaxD on April 27, 2008 at 6:28 pm

Brian English,
It is the naturalistic fallacy. And it is indeed considered a logical fallacy.

826. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170427 by MaxD on April 27, 2008 at 6:23 pm

Smellhound,
Breeding fecundity Atheists vs Believers.

I remember something about number of offspring being correlated with resources. That is the greater the amount of wealth the fewer children couples had.

827. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170420 by MaxD on April 27, 2008 at 6:17 pm

smellhound,
you said,

Again, I can't prove it. I am willing to accept it as an act of faith. That is exactly my point though. Without believing there is some objective morality there is no reason not to oppress/harm others when it serves your interest both long term and short term.

Say a study soundly falsified the God Hypothesis would you then feel like murdering, raping, pillaging, coveting asses and such? I am willing to bet that you wouldn't. You will note the lack of such endorsements on a website full of the godless. The fact is, that for most of us, this kind of action makes most of us uncomfortable to even contemplate. All that you need to begin morality is empathy and an understanding that you are dealing with beings like yourself.

Michael Shermer and Steven Pinker have both noted that most people have moral intuitions that they then try to justify after the fact and that their actions are not predicated on deeply thought out processes. This leads us to think that moral intuitions lie largely in human nature. Evolutionary logic explains much of the weirdness in the applications of our moral sentiments.

828. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170410 by MaxD on April 27, 2008 at 6:10 pm

Smellhound,

No, sorry, i think you are missing the point. Acting moral sometimes means acting irrationally against your own interests. The only reason to do that is that you have faith that what you are doing is right. Faith in something that can't be proven I would identify as religion.

I think we are getting at the problem with this quote. I think you are going to have think about whose interests are served by the actions in questions. It would also help to think about when these behavior patterns likely evolved.

It doesn't seem to be rational for me to help a person on the street. I've dropped a few bucks into the cup of a guy I won't likely see again. But in the environment of human evolutionary adaptation this might have been a signal that increased my reproductive possiblities. If nothing else, in pleistocene hunter/gather cultures this person I've justhelped would have been someone I knew, and whose fortunes, or whose family fortunes may change for the better. Further others will see what I do and this may help me get it on a bit.

My point is that you are making an assumption about what rational action is and how benefits are ammassed in various social interactions.

829. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170375 by MaxD on April 27, 2008 at 5:40 pm

Smellhound,

The application of ethics and morality often hinges on at least two factors. Is that person in my family? Yes, then let the ethcial treatment ensue.
Is that person in my tribe? Yes? Well then so long as they don't burn me then so long as you don't burn me too often then I will behave ethically toward you. That isn't the whole story but I would certainly encourage you to go read Steven Pinker's essay on the "Has science made Obsolete?" thread.
EDIT: I mostly only refering here to what seem to be the roots of morality.

I am just wondering if that is the explanation for why it is a bad idea to do things like that if you abandon morality

Who has abandoned morality? I don't think such a thing is even possible as a good part of the morality is evolved sensiblities in ourselves.

830. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170362 by MaxD on April 27, 2008 at 5:26 pm

Bonzai,
I will reread Atran but I wasn't convinced by his case at the time, and his rant after Beyond Belief was totally unconvincing. But thank you for that "corrective," you know the one where you said,

He did. His analysis on "religious"terrorism is far more convincing and better supported by evidence than anything written by Harris and Dawkins.

I don't know I might have brought up some evidence, or something instead of just the authoritarian sentence. Maybe there was something in Atran I missed, or maybe some bit from Atran that you you think irrefutable.

The general case is that religion is a negative force that encourages sloppy and often dangerous thinking in society regardless of the religion. I think that bit about religious moderates could be open to some rather serious confusion. I dont' think anyone is saying that the doctrinaire stances occupied by religious moderates are in anyway dangerous, but the respect for the "beliefs" demanded by both moderate and fundie and the strange allaince the two often form when faith itself is critiqued makes debate on the issue harder. Also letting the unsubstantiated religious revelation stand without critique for the moderate embolden's the fundie in their interpretation because the standards of proof are dramatically lowered in theological discussions.

So it isn't that religions are all an outright bad, but it encourages the kinds of thinking that is in fact dangerous. I personally do think that the moderate instantiations of religion are quite bad in that encourage an environment that priviliages faith and esteems it. Much sillyness follows from this.

How do you want to define harm? Is it just suicide bombing, if that were proven to be as non-religious as you suspect it is would that then let religion of the hook?

831. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170350 by MaxD on April 27, 2008 at 5:04 pm

It is possible that Stryer might have frightened MelissaJoy away. Assuming she was the nice good natured Christian she said she was. (I worried that it was a new screen name for Remnant, of TruthID for a while realizing they had burned their prosyelization bridges.) This is why she didn't answer. It could also be that are questions weren't of the "What does God want us to do" variety.

832. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170348 by MaxD on April 27, 2008 at 4:51 pm

Bonzai,
I've read the Atran papers, though it was a little while ago. In anyevent I don't think they are terribly robust, nor do they say anything about the idea that belief is important as a lever to action. That is to say they do not falsify the notion that it is. Nor do they hurt the general case against relegion made by Dawkins and Harris.
You snide little slam of Dennett seems misplaced, and more than mildly venomous. Why not just say find Dennett unconvinceing with out the hack comments?
I for instance don't find much in your ideas about consciousness, or your belief in belief compelling but I'd not refer to you as a hack. Of course you may just dislike Dennett.
Whatever.

Atran's work doesn't really support your thesis that religion is harmless. It just says that religion is one factor among many.

833. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170314 by MaxD on April 27, 2008 at 3:38 pm

Bonzai,
I think that belief in the supernatural does hinder thinking even if it doesn't prevent people from accurately assessing various facts of reality. Newton held some very bizarre supernaturalisms that probahly did hinder his further eludicating of processes (at least according to Neil Degasse Tyson). It makes people wooly headed very often.
I think Goodall is a perfect example of this, as is Collins, and this makes them say things with an authority that the facts alone do not merit. Knowing the mind of God is a tricky business.

Of course the degree of supernatural intervention is important it still causes the wooly headed syndrome.

Your point about some religious enlighteneds understanding their religious stories were metaphor really hinges on how common this perspective is. I contend that it wasn't wide spread and always limited to cultural elites, and not widespread.

834. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170015 by MaxD on April 27, 2008 at 9:12 am

Epeeist,

Thanks for that txpiper link. I was reading his fascinating theories on Revelations and the end times and trying hard not to roll my eyes too terribly much. I've listened to numerous such theories and it never ceases to amaze me how much sloppy thinking goes on in the defense of eschatological happy talk.

I don't remember who posted the link but in my town Endtimes Ministries used to have a radio show and the pastor who did all the church's major intellectual "work" would speak every day about how this or thing in the world suppoerted the end times various hypotheses, either the end times were now occuring, that is we had entered the final seven years, or we were about to. And every time conflict with another country heated up it was proof that the endtimes were on the way. Iraq has been the beast, China has been the beast, Iran has been the beast, back to Iraq, of course the Soviet Union was the beast, North Korea has been the beast.

I've always wondered why people take a book like revelations seriously as a predictive tool when it can be made to predict anything. Wouldn't God's treatise on the end times be less fuzzy, um...crisper, more user-friendly?

835. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169999 by MaxD on April 27, 2008 at 8:42 am

Teratonrnis said:

It's hard to claim that being gay is perfectly healthy, normal, and so on, while at the same time claiming it causes all these problems for which gay people deserve special protection, and an extra ability to ration other people's speech.

That is one of the silliest things I've read in a while, and I've been debating remnant and TruthID alot.

836. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169820 by MaxD on April 26, 2008 at 10:33 pm

Steveroot!
Holy shit my typos are revealing my fatigue. I meant to blockquote that part. Then in my Comment #169817 by MaxD on April 26, 2008 at 10:23 pm
I originally wrote seasons when I meant sins.
Off to bed.

837. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169817 by MaxD on April 26, 2008 at 10:23 pm

What is the old line,
Jesus died for you sins....for a few days.

838. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169812 by MaxD on April 26, 2008 at 10:10 pm

TonyA
I was thinking the same thing.

839. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169811 by MaxD on April 26, 2008 at 10:08 pm

Bonzai,
Sadly Teratornis is not joking. But you are right he really ought to switch teams. Or play for both. It might help him out oodles.

840. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169809 by MaxD on April 26, 2008 at 10:00 pm

MelissaJoy,
I will keep this brief because between Cartomancer and my post, and others you are going to have some tired fingers when you are done responding but I had to point out a few things.

So anyway, the plagues of Egypt were brought on to show the awesome power of God. The Egyptian magicians were unable to compete with the power of God, and it is through this power revealed in history that this story has lived on and on.

Not quite. And lets back up just one second. Brought on to show the awesome power of God you say? Why does this not astound you with the level of malice and cruelty it implies. Firstborn egyptian babies we will get to, but think of those poor frogs...in the desert! Cruel I am telling you. Doesn't the narcissism and egotism implied in the plagues give you just a little pause?
I teach a kids Judo class, and occasionally the kids get unruly. I could call the kid to the center of the mat and just destroy him. I mean eating food threw a straw for the rest of his life kind destruction. The kid should respect the most powerful being in the room right? I should truly make an example out of him right?
You are probably shaking you head and saying...no I think that is wrong. But that is essentially the same power structure only magnified billions of times for God and humans right? Why is it right for him and not for me? Where is the justice of which you speak. Such a being could have created a less sanguinary solution. And don't give me any business about free will. God has prevented the pharoh at this point from exercising his simply to show off at the expense of babies. (I'm guessing you are pro-life....square that circle).

So was it fair for God to hardened Pharoah's heart? Well, yeah, because it was how God showed His power to the world.

Again what happened to God's high esteem of free will? Maybe the pharoh after seeing how God treated the poor frogs, who let's face had no dog in this fight, might have said, "Look the Israelites can go, I don't want my people turned into dried out husks like all these poor frogs."

The world was aching to see and know God. Just like it is today. But God (luckily for us!) doesn't have to act in such ways today, because HE ALREADY DID BACK THEN! He doesn't have to do it over and over again. This story has been told to generations SINCE then.

Sadly for your case there really isn't any evidence of these events. None. No middens containing massive amounts of dried up mummified frogs, no mass graves full of babies. No historical records. I think Pat Condell recently summed the past 2000 year absence of Christian miracles best when he said,
"Who does this guy think he is that he can be living off his past glories....Woody Allen?"

Was it fair for the firstborn sons of the Egyptians to be killed? Well, yeah, they were killing ALL the Bebrew boys, not just the firstborn. Before Jesus, everything was an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. That's why there's a lot of rules and regs in the Old Testament regarding stoning people for this and that. It's God's way of showing we can never measure up to His standards, thus revealing His mercy to us through Jesus.

I could break this sad passage down and reveal the level of callousness, and disregard that you have unwittingly revealed. But I will simply ask, isn't God perfect?
Why the weird change in ethics? Why is it right in the old testament to hold a family accountable to the 7th generation but after Jesus it becomes a bit less an eye for an eye?
Wouldn't God's morality be perfect from the get go?
Like Diacanu said why the torturously complex machinations and inconsistancies. Saying the mind of God is too complex is I am afraid to say it, just the largest cop out possible. Your bible gives us more than enough to hang the character of God.

EDIT: I forgot to blockquote this bit from Melissajoy ealier. Hopefully noone thought it came from me. But if they did I have blockquoted her words now.

God is just. We are not. We still live with the eye for an eye mentality in our screwed up thinking.

Clearly MelissaJoy you think that way because you haven't really looked any deeper at God's murder of innocents.

841. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169804 by MaxD on April 26, 2008 at 9:25 pm

MelissaJoy,
I will do you a solid and assume you are exactly who and what you say you are. If you are who and what you say you are, you must be from Minnessota.

You say,

I am a Christian. I have been since I was five years old. I was not brain-washed, nor have I ever handled snakes. :-) Just your plain old ordinary average American citizen. The only difference is, the "warm fuzzies" you all say I'm getting from God is not really warm fuzzies at all. It truly is peace from God, it passes all understanding, truly it does.

What makes you so sure that this is the case? How do you know it comes from God? This is a tall claim, and as someone not convinced you could see how I might have some trouble believing the proposition. What internal or external clues do you have the tell you it is the Judeso-christian God granting you this peace?

I've gone through a divorce, deaths in the family, many things in my life, and without my relationship with God, I would probably be a suicidal statistic.

You are already part of the statistics in that you are in percentage that doesn't commit suicide :).

Does this statement though, poignant as it is, really constitute any proof of the assertion? God exists and helps people who come to him? Everyone on this site can say something similar about emotional trauma and yet not add any bits about relationships with God getting them through it.
Perhaps you could too, you just don't realize it.

I know the majority of you are atheists or agnostics. I have a good feeling most of you have never read the entire Bible, let alone studied it.

This as it turns out will surprise you. Many people on this site know the bible just as well, and perhaps better than you. And have studied it, and actually contemplated the characters therein described somewhat assiduously. Hopefully you will hang out on the site long enought to meet some of our resident biblical scholarly types and if not beconvinced by them, at least beconvinced that they have not been shallow in their diagnoses of the bible's principle protaganist.

That is something I would say I AM pretty intelligent about, the Bible. Just to let you all in on something: The God revealed in the Old Testatment, yup, he's the very same one in the New Testament.

Explain. They don't seem like two different conceptions kind of hammered into one book? There doesn't seem much triune in the God of the old testament. But then again I am not an expert. Do unpack that statement.

This has nothing to do with me being a Baptist, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, a Church-of-Christ, or a Pentecostal (or whatever kind of tag you want to throw in), this is about people learning the truth about God in a suppressed world.

A suppressed world? What is that exactly? And the first half of this paragraph doesn't seem to fit with the second half.

I LOVE science. I always have. I wanted to be an astronomer when I grew up (stinking eyesight ruined it for me!).

Stinking eyesight? How did it ruin it for you? Did you pursue some other field of science?

The universe and the galaxy amaze me,

And the galaxy? Perhaps you will be interested to know that there are around 200-400 billion of these. Say each has an average of a 100 billion stars...multiply that by the lowest estimate (about 100 billion galaxies is the lowest I've heard) and you have 10^22 stars in the known universe. that is a lot of stars wouldn't you say. And that isn't even touching on how positively weird they can be.
How does that point to God?

and every new scientific fact that I learn reveals even more the very nature of God.

How does every new scientific fact that you learn reveal the very nature of God? And what is that nature, and is that nature consistent with the texts of the both the old and the new testaments?

Folks, I'm not worried about you being thrown into the "fiery lake". Hell is a very real place, and the worst part about Hell is that it is the complete absence of God, which is something no man has ever experienced, because we have always been in His presence since He created the earth.

This is all stated very matter of factly. My question is how do you know this? What gives you the assurity to make such claims? Hell is a very real place? It will not be lost on you that no one has ever seen this place, or its converse.
Doesn't God harden people's hearts to him? And prefer you to speak only to those who are capable of recieving the message?
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
This according to Bartleby http://www.bartleby.com/59/3/donotcastyou.html
is a warning to only preach to receptive audiences.

THAT is what I am worried about you experiencing. God loved all of us so much, the resounding theme of the ENTIRE Bible is His words, "And I will be their God and they will be my people." That's all He wants is just for us to come to Him, love Him, get to know Him.

.
Are you so sure. If we don't do these things it seems very unkind and unloving what is in store for us. First we don't get his presense which you assure us is quite grand, and then we get tortured. Not for a few days, or till we acquiess and say yeah we were wrong. But forever. How loving is that? And all because we just didn't find the evidence convincing.

For those of you who said rude things about God in your replies to me such as kicking Him and such, I know that when you are face to face with Him, even after rejecting Him all your life, you will simply fall to your knees in worship to Him. It will all come together for you, and by then it will be too late.

Provided we keep our astonishment from transmorgifiying into full blown physical assault, how is eternal damnation terribly fair. After all most of us will not have committed any genocides, or advocated rape (see Moses the meekest of men), none of us will have tried to sacrifice our sons for favors, fame and power (Abraham), and certainly none of us will have offered our daughter's to be raped in the stead of Angels (Lot). This seems terribly unfair.

I just don't want it to be too late for you. And neither does God. He doesn't want any of us to perish, and that's why He gave us the perfect sacrifice for our sins in His very own self, His son, Jesus, who bridged that separation between us and God that was there because of our sins (wrongdoings, evil, whatever you want to call it). Through Jesus we have life AFTER death, because Jesus overcame death itself on the cross and returned to life and is now seated at throne of God and is interceding for us on our behalf. Now tell me that is not a loving and wonderful God! He doesn't care what you've done in the past. . .whether it's cheating on a spouse or even girlfriend/boyrfriend, sleeping around, homosexuality, alcohol or drug addiction, murder, rape, incest, stealing, cheating, whatever the charges may be, Jesus already took care of those penalties on the cross for you. I know this sounds like a sermon, but maybe someone really needs to hear this right now.

The most perfect creator in the universe couldn't think of a simpler, uh...way to manage this feat? I mean this is the guy who you think made William of Occam after all. You would expect a more parsimonious solution to the human problem.

Looking forward to your thoughts on these issues,
-Max

842. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169775 by MaxD on April 26, 2008 at 6:31 pm

Bonzai,

I see no problem if you were best friends and knew that those were fake arguments. Being friends means you can get away with jokes that would be normally considered bad taste. My friends tell Asian jokes and gay jokes to taunt me all the time. I don't have the slightest problems.

I think the shock of it was that I hadn't said anything like that and his boyfriend who was there too, took immediate offense. Even after my apology his boyfried was yelling at me. Which was fine I thought I had it coming really. But then my friend repeated what I had said to him to his boyfriend, added, "He didn't mean anything by it," and we all agreed we were still friends and presto chango party continued.

I completely agree that you can have fun with such stereotypes among friends but your timeing has to be good, and your friendships have to be ready for that kind of casual humorous insensitivy to sensitive subjects.

In any event, as Zeke said, it was one of those consiousness raising experiences.

843. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169774 by MaxD on April 26, 2008 at 6:21 pm

Bonzai,
I think your example is a bit flawed because while it may have been a choice to marry the guy, it probably wasn't her choice to fall in love with him.

All I was trying to say is that whatever the case there would be political problems to overcome that were slightly different depending on what the causal factors were. Not that they couldn't be overcome or wouldn't.

Clearly the religious right thinks there is a great deal of heavy weather about the causes and suspect political advantages if the behavior is a "choice."

I think this is too bad to be sure because I think it is an interesting question and one that has been more than hinted at by the research. But since I think the evidecne favors more one explanation over another I can't possibly be object I must be 'for' some side or another.
(I understand that isn't anyone in here, unless Remnant and TruthID end up in this thread).

844. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169755 by MaxD on April 26, 2008 at 5:36 pm

ZekeCDN,
I think time education and exposure to more out people will be the not so magic bullet.

I wasn't ever homophobic but growing up my friends and I all would say things like that is gay, or call each other fags, or faggots, and it barely entered into my mind that I was uttering something hurtful or offensive. I just thought of it as a way to call my friends wimps and sissies, non-tough guys you know.

In highschool one of my best friends was a loud complainy gay guy. We were having the kind of fake argument all friends do and I said, "Shut up faggot" in the way I did with all my other guy friends at the time. He knew what I meant but I immediately apologized. But it wasn't until that moment that I realized how terribly out of line it was. I stopped saying things like "that is gay," or calling people the names I've mentioned almost overnite. I can't recall using them again in high school, and certainly not after. But it took that exposure.

I think the more people come out the more quickly that old bigotry will fold.

845. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169748 by MaxD on April 26, 2008 at 5:20 pm

Bonzai,
I'm actually with you. Either direction though means a political hurdle. I happen to think that all of the evidence so far presented supports the biological (or extreme enviromnental, womb chemistry, location in the womb, birth order) suggestions so I just discuss the issue in that context.

I don't care and could argue either way for the non-descrimination of homosexuals. But say it is a choice then the arguement could be made that society needn't accept it or be asked to grant partnerships any special dispensations or recognitions. It is after all person X's choice to forego traditionally accepted marriage so it isn't societies fault that they don't get traditional marriage benefit. Whether it is or isn't determined presents political problems.

Your last point about searching for "things to blame, or some excuses, for who we are," seems strange to me. What is the harm in trying to understand the underlying causes for behavior in humans? "Some excuses for who we are?" Either who we are has some set of causes, which might actually be interesting to know about, not to change so much, but because that kind of shit is intrinsically fascinating, or there are not and the process is random. This excuses for who we are line seems a bit less logical and more an appeal to some sense of mystery.

846. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169741 by MaxD on April 26, 2008 at 4:55 pm

Bonzai said,

That depends on the context of course. I agree with Cartomancer earlier that in a school context the issue of freedom of expression shouldn't arise because students have no unconditional freedom of expression. The school can have any policy it chooses as long as it is even handed and reasonable.

.

I do find this to be emminently reasonable. Equal access is the key though. If you are going to have the day of silence, then, regardless of how silly it is, I think you have to let the Christio converse. Day of ignorant noise I think they call it.

One thing I think that Zeke has hit upon that is a big hurdle is the tendency for this to manifest so late in the kids life. Or at least to become noticable only then. This gives some illusion that this is a choice to those who oppose homosexuality. If it were something that was more prominent throught a child's life it might not take as long for a society like ours to accept it.

847. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169736 by MaxD on April 26, 2008 at 4:40 pm

Cartomancer,

Could I ask Remnant where people like me who don't drink alcohol at all fit into the theory though? Actually, scratch that, the less encouragement we give him the better...

You have seen that asking him a direct question is akin to pulling teeth? If he did see fit to grace you with answers they would be of the biblical verses variety.

848. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169731 by MaxD on April 26, 2008 at 4:37 pm

ZekeCDN,
I think you have made a raft of interesting and valid points, how do you think the homophobia question should be addressed?

849. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169726 by MaxD on April 26, 2008 at 4:30 pm

Cartomancer,
I think Corylus is probably onto something with her explanation. Here in the states those two "narratives" would be resoundingly funny to a group called "dittoheads" (these are Rush Limbaugh's listeners). Oh it might also appeal to ScooterNYC. But what I think it was intended to do was bait us into defending liberalism, leftist policies, and distract from the discussion of bibilical inerrancy.

850. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169721 by MaxD on April 26, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Sargieist,

If it is any consolation, I see the merit in what several others in here have said as well. And it is an issue I find myself reviewing over, as people make excellent points all the time on this subject.

The point about incitement made by, was it Newskin?, about the power of the inciter was one I had never thought of before. And the incitement issue is irksome and troubling. Shoule someone be allowed to make a case for exterminating people whose ring and middle fingers are the same length (a sure sign they are werewolves)? I think they should. Because I think people carrying out the actions are the ones responsible.
I admit to not really finding this very emotionally satisfying and more than mildly disturbing.