Comments by gr8hands

251. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90916 by gr8hands on November 26, 2007 at 4:44 pm

steve99, you wisely hit the nail on the head with

Of course, what singularities meant was that our physical theories broke down; it did not mean that reality broke down

That very important point appears to elude Davies and his ilk.

stringbean, I believe you may be confused about the definition of 'conflate'. Regardless, no physicist or scientist is insane enough to believe that their models are all encompassing, all descriptive, EXACT representations of every aspect of the known universe. Nor do they ever state that is what they are modeling. If you can find a single instance where any scientist states their "model uproblematically [sic] corresponds to things in the world" your argument might have some weight. Perhaps you are confused about what a model is.

I'm not trying to be snarky, but your post demonstrates a misunderstanding about what a model is, and what scientists use models for.

Quine, the physicists and scientists I've worked with are very careful to not make unsubstantiated claims as you describe -- although the media who report on their work often do! That is the media's fault, not the fault of those in the sciences.

It is that very ambiguity in the precise statements which gives wiggle room to those theists who resist science -- while they claim absolute knowledge, a definitive black/white, yes/no, good/evil, heaven/hell.

252. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90612 by gr8hands on November 25, 2007 at 7:53 pm

One more small point: either the universe is ordered, or it is not. It cannot be both at the same time, and they are mutually exclusive. It could be that it is not knowable.

The fact we all wake up to apparent order (sun 'rising' in the East, gravity working exactly the same as yesterday, etc.) points towards order. It could also point to a few billion years of order in an infinity of chaos, but we would never be able to know that, so it is of little use.

If Davies has a problem with physicists saying "the laws just are", then he should equally have a problem with people who say "God created everything, but nobody created God, God always was." Thus far, he's not pointed out how that is illogical. Any guess why not?

253. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90610 by gr8hands on November 25, 2007 at 7:01 pm

Davies is wrong that scientists assume an ordered universe -- but they learn to accept the results of countless experiments from their earliest science education as children that point to this result.

No faith required when you're conducting independent experiments, and validating them against others, with the same results and conclusions. If they didn't come to the same results, science would have rejected those hypotheses in light of the new evidence.

Evidence, based on repeatable tests, not faith. And most scientists spend a large part of their careers looking for where the "laws" fail, are in error, or are incomplete. Hardly likely if they kept them as inviolate presumptions.

I automatically distrust the science of anyone who is affiliated in any way with the Templeton prize -- because as theists, their logic and rationality are in question. I would give several extra layers of scrutiny to their work, and always make certain that there was a statement that "these results were arrived at by a person with irrational religious beliefs, so should be viewed skeptically."

steve99, I believe you may be in error when you state:

When someone says that life would not exist if the laws of physics were just a bit different, they know this because detailed models of different cosmoses have been set up, and life (let alone atoms) is unlikely in to exist in situations such as within black holes or in areas of continuous spatial inflation.

I have seen models done where many aspects have been changed dramatically, and the possibility of life as we know it was possible, let alone a different kind of life. (Not every scenario, or even most, came up with an overabundance of black holes, nor continuous spatial inflation.)

Davies clearly has chosen his words to further the theocratic cause. He takes every opportunity to put religion on equal footing with science. He has NEVER stated that any religious belief is in error because scientific evidence proves it to be wrong. He is an affront to the scientific community -- but, in that wonderful way Science has of self-correcting, he will eventually be banished to the rubbish bin as a crackpot who happened to get some bits of science right, but was still a crackpot.

Janus and others have been astute in their critiques. I, too, have read Davies' previous work, am unimpressed, and feel that the sooner he is consigned to oblivion, the better.

254. When Congress Interferes With Science, Who You Gonna Call? (Hint: It's not Ghostbusters)

Comment #86443 by gr8hands on November 9, 2007 at 8:27 am

I hope that Bizarro Dawkins prays for forgiveness for writing statements he knows are lies. Unless his brand of Christianity doesn't follow the "Thou shalt not bear false witness" commandment, or allow reading/watching the news.

Of course, from his profile, "Showing the world that one can be an intellectually fulfilled Christian" -- but not an intellectually honest one. But then, how would he learn that, being involved with the biology department at Liberty University, where the first sentence in their program description is:

The biology faculty at Liberty University are committed to academic excellence and to training students to represent Christ in the fields of medicine, scientific research, and teaching.

I apologize if that sounds snarky, but I don't recall jesus doing any scientific research, studying medicine, or actually going to school to qualify him for teaching -- but perhaps being god incarnate means all that is unnecessary...

Because the examples supporting Lori Lipman Brown's 'naked assertion' are legion, on the front pages of daily newspapers and television, I am forced to treat his request as seriously as someone asking for examples of gravity.

Perhaps Bizarro Dawkins can look at http://jcnot4me.com/Items/Misc%20Topics/atheists_in_america.htm and see some new data.

I give him failing marks in research for the conclusion "nowhere did I find 10%."

Bizarro Dawkins is wrong about the "best way to avoid teen pregnancies and STD's" -- it would be to proactively kill the teenagers, which would absolutely prevent the possibility of them having premarital sex. Or castration/hysterectomy. Of course, that would be silly, but then so are abstinence programs which are considerably less effective than condom programs.

However, I do demand that Bizarro Dawkins supply the proof (a pdf of pamphlets, documentation, course materials, etc. or a link to their website) that ANY official, federally funded sex education program ANYWHERE gives out documentation that says, as he claims:

since they are merely animals with no control over their bodies, they may as well have sex safely.

That is yet another lie he will have to get forgiveness for from his imaginary omnipotent omniscient omnipresent yet amazingly unable to raise money by himself so his followers constantly have to beg for donations sky friend.

If that concept were true or thought to be true, there could not be any laws against copulation in public, in front of children, anywhere, because if everyone can't control it (like sneezing), you can't make it a crime. But that's obviously silly.

As for the 'lighter side' comment:

"The church at Westboro which he leads has 71 confirmed members, 60 of whom are related to Phelps through blood or marriage or both."

Anyone see the problem?

No, if 2nd cousins, or various combinations of in-laws or other relatives get married there is no incest problem here. You don't seem very capable of making a family tree to figure this out -- which is strange for someone studying biology... Maybe you're not getting the highest quality education at your current institution. Perhaps less focus on jesus and more on science would steer you towards a better understanding of your subjects...

Oops, sorry, got snarky again.

255. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85632 by gr8hands on November 6, 2007 at 2:26 pm

Dalrymple appears unaware that in medicine, unlike religion, when something doesn't work -- it is discarded. We don't drill holes in your head to let out evil spirits causing headaches any more. We have antibiotics and vaccines now, because witch hazel wasn't effective.

Nothing new? How about medical technology that is allowing some regeneration of fingers that have been cut off? Not through prayer (visit http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/ for a thorough discussion on that topic), but through medicine, through science. Not by divine revelation, but atheist scientists working in the lab.

Nothing new? Go to www.ted.com/ and look at some of the groundbreaking work in neuroscience -- they've discovered the cause of phantom limb syndrome, and effective treatment (using just a mirror), and all manner of other amazing breakthrough. You can see that we're learning how the brain perceives and believes, and why it is likely that we evolved a belief in religion in the first place.

Nothing new? The data from cosmological experiments and testing are shedding new light on the reality of the universe -- and amazingly, no god was mentioned being found. (By the way, where is it written that god exists but can't be detected?)

Nothing new? Archeological evidence is constantly uncovered which contradicts the accuracy of religious texts, which is impossible if they are from an infallible divine god.

Nothing new? All geological evidence shows that the religious texts are completely wrong when they discuss anything related to geology. The same for when they discuss medicine, astronomy, etc.

Nothing new? We are able to create at will the 'out of body experience', 'near death experience', 'presence of another being not visible' -- all artificially via science, which easily explains how these are merely aberrations of normal human brain functions, and not anything supernatural.

Dalrymple needs to apologize for failure to do any research, for being amazingly ignorant about his subjects, and for the poor quality of his writing in this article.

256. Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case

Comment #84575 by gr8hands on November 2, 2007 at 2:59 pm

According to my law dictonary:

trespass
n. entering another person's property without permission of the owner or his/her agent and without lawful authority (like that given to a health inspector) and causing any damage, no matter how slight. Any interference with the owner's (or a legal tenant's) use of the property is a sufficient showing of damage and is a civil wrong (tort) sufficient to form the basis for a lawsuit against the trespasser by the owner or a tenant using the property. Trespass includes erecting a fence on another's property or a roof which overhangs a neighbor's property, swinging the boom of a crane with loads of building materials over another's property, or dumping debris on another's real estate. In addition to damages, a court may grant an injunction prohibiting any further continuing, repeated or permanent trespass. Trespass for an illegal purpose is a crime.

and

harassment
n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone anxious or fearful. Such activities may be the basis for a lawsuit if due to discrimination based on race or sex, a violation on the statutory limitations on collection agencies, involve revenge by an ex-spouse, or be shown to be a form of blackmail ("I'll stop bothering you if you'll go to bed with me"). The victim may file a petition for a "stay away" (restraining) order, intended to prevent contact by the offensive party. A systematic pattern of harassment by an employee against another worker may subject the employer to a lawsuit for failure to protect the worker.

and

crime
n. a violation of a law in which there is injury to the public or a member of the public and a term in jail or prison, and/or a fine as possible penalties. There is some sentiment for excluding from the "crime" category crimes without victims, such as consensual acts, or violations in which only the perpetrator is hurt or involved such as personal use of illegal drugs.

and, of course

tort
n. from French for "wrong," a civil wrong or wrongful act, whether intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another. Torts include all negligence cases as well as intentional wrongs which result in harm. Therefore tort law is one of the major areas of law (along with contract, real property and criminal law) and results in more civil litigation than any other category. Some intentional torts may also be crimes, such as assault, battery, wrongful death, fraud, conversion (a euphemism for theft) and trespass on property and form the basis for a lawsuit for damages by the injured party. Defamation, including intentionally telling harmful untruths about another-either by print or broadcast (libel) or orally (slander)-is a tort and used to be a crime as well.

I hope that clears up the obvious misconceptions some posters have about whether a crime was committed by Phelps, and what some of the possible crimes were.

257. Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case

Comment #84299 by gr8hands on November 1, 2007 at 4:43 pm

Heathen Dan, I don't believe anyone here is espousing "hatred against idiotic religiosity" -- and we are actively involved in restoration of our rights in this regard.

Part of that is not to let criminals, under the guise of 'religious expression', trample on our rights of privacy.

The "beacon of freedom" is not freedom from responsiblity, nor freedom to commit crimes. This is not a slippery slope.

Phelps is the only group protesting funerals, because "other protesters" know it is illegal, and respect the law so it can protect them. Phelps erroneously feels he can do what he wants and claim religious protection under the First Amendment -- loudly claiming it, so people will be intimidated into ignoring him rather than pointing out that he's wrong and just a criminal.

This is not having a chilling effect on free speech or protesting anywhere.

Letting it go would be a 'bad precedent' because it would encourage even bolder intrusions into privacy. Don't muddy the waters with reference to 'SLAPP tactics' because they're not germane to this discussion. (But since you mentioned it, Phelps is the one who uses the intimidation of being an attorney and all the litigation as tactics against grieving people just trying to be private. It is a travesty of justice that he is not behind bars.)

258. Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case

Comment #84214 by gr8hands on November 1, 2007 at 12:31 pm

coretemprising -- I'm glad someone else saw that episode of The Awful Truth about the Sodom-Mobile.

259. Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case

Comment #84194 by gr8hands on November 1, 2007 at 12:01 pm

steveroot, no, I tried to get www.gr8hands.com but some dentist already had the website. I thought about complaining to him, but he looked down in the mouth, so I resisted. (sorry for the groaner!)

hungarianelephant is ignoring the crimes of trespass (a cemetary is not public -- you cannot merely set up a picnic in a cemetary when or where you like, for instance), harassment, intimidation, perhaps even of laws regarding staging of demonstrations or required permits for such activities, cemetaries are usually in 'quiet zones' where loud activities are not permitted, etc.

hungarianelephant and others are confused about what a jury judgement means, and how it is decided. It is the jury that decides whether something is illegal or not -- and they have been known to acquit confessed killers, as well as punish the innocent. Yet we don't tend to think of them as making it up as we go. That's just how the jury system works.

Ultimately it is what only 5 people -- a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices -- think that makes something illegal or not. Notice I don't say "right" or "good" or "moral" or "just".

Because the Phelps family is not trying to comfort the grieving, they are showing themselves to be hypocrites, only giving lip-service to their "religion" as a way of getting attention.

I don't wish anything violent to happen to them (although I think it would be funny if they all came down with extreme incontinence). I just wish that no one would ever write another news story about them, or take a photo of them, but would ignore them utterly!

260. Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case

Comment #84172 by gr8hands on November 1, 2007 at 11:09 am

No, HAMMERHEAD, they're not. Right next to the scriptures they so dearly love to quote that they think condemn homosexuality, are scriptures telling the men not to cut their hair or beards, and not to wear clothes from two kinds of thread.

(I could go on, but you get the point.)

They're simply cherry-picking the verses they want to follow, and those they don't. If they were ultra-orthodox Hasidic Jews, you might have a point.

261. Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case

Comment #84140 by gr8hands on November 1, 2007 at 9:19 am

As for the contention that harassment must be repeated, firmly grabbing a woman's breast ONLY ONE TIME and telling her that if she doesn't have sex with you she'll be fired, is still illegal, on multiple fronts (sexual harassment, assault, intimidation. . .).

Look at a blank restraining order, and note what is considered illegal.

262. Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case

Comment #84137 by gr8hands on November 1, 2007 at 9:13 am

Robert Maynard, windweaver and others have missed the point about the USA 1st Amendment. It does not say or imply that all speech is okay everywhere at all times.

You cannot legally say 'fuck' (and many other words) during children's programming, regardless of the broadcast station or time of day it is being broadcast.

You cannot legally threaten to harm another person.

You cannot legally use language to intimidate (see RICO statutes).

You cannot legally joke about terrorism, bombs, hijacking, etc. at an airport terminal, regardless of whether or not you're a professional comedian.

You cannot legally commit libel.

You cannot legally commit slander.

You cannot legally make false police reports.

You cannot legally tell lies under oath in court proceedings (or various government proceedings, like Senate hearings).

You cannot legally lie in advertising.

You cannot legally knowingly commit fraud in advertising.

You cannot legally speak about classified information without prior and specific authorization -- even in private.

You cannot legally speak about proprietary information specifics (i.e. secret formula for Coke) held by someone else or a company.

You cannot legally advocate for a certain public candidate in a church.

You cannot legally blast your stereo/television after certain hours of the night, or when they create a public nuisance.

I can go on and on about the many restrictions we have in the US on speech and writing. And just about everyone understands that these are good and desirable things. And just about everyone knows examples of where these have been abused and ignored without any repercussions.

Please don't try to argue about "public property" -- the streets are public property, but you still have to get a permit to have a parade there, or sell hot dogs, or a lot of other legal activities.

Phelps, as an attorney, is clearly aware of all these restrictions on speech, and that he is in violation of some of them -- that his actions are criminal.

Please note that it isn't the content of the speech, or his religious views (the signs should read "in the opinion of Fred Phelps, God hates fags" regardless of his opinion that he speaks for the non-existent god) which are the main problem. It is in his choice of venue, timing and method. (Even his website advocates violence by repeatedly writing that fags are "worthy of death.")

I defend the right of the Phelps family to have their opinions, even to disseminate them in appropriate venues -- but when they knowingly venture into criminal acts, they've crossed the line and no longer have the support of the First Amendment.

Of course, as an atheist, their whole raison d'être is silly -- what a wasted life. And I agree that undoubtedly he's a closeted homosexual himself, full of self-loathing. Come out, girlfriend!

263. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81142 by gr8hands on October 24, 2007 at 8:45 am

Why don't the atheist representatives respond to comments about Stalin, Mao, etc. with: "No one has ever done anything because their atheism demanded it. Atheism is simply not believing in god -- it requires absolutely no actions beyond that simple belief. If anyone DOES do anything, it is for other reasons -- they're hungry for power, a tyrant, insane, a sociopath, or many other awful reasons -- but it is NOT because they're an atheist."

I am tired of hearing the Hitchens statement about Stalin inheriting a position somewhat above mortals, etc. I am tired of quibbling about whether Hitler was a catholic or an atheist. It evades the point! It gives ammunition to the theists and makes our position look weak.

Theism demands action, but not atheism.

264. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #78597 by gr8hands on October 13, 2007 at 5:44 pm

Dr Benway, I am certain you describe many, and I was responding to the many. I understand that many religious people can pray for the soul of a sinner while concurrently pushing the sinner's head under water until they stop moving, and believe they are being charitable.

I just don't share that value. I don't define compassion, honesty and fairness in ways that require a deity -- in fact, I find it likely that a belief in a deity actually gets in the way of having those values.

There are, of course, many good and decent theists who do share compassion, honesty and fairness with their non-theist human brethren, and do not foist their theology off like a smelly fart in a tightly-packed elevator. But they are too few.

I didn't get to the part of your post about thinking it was ever okay to restrain your neighbor for doing something that might bring down god's wrath on the community. That, of course, is utter nonsense. It is ALWAYS wrong -- not because the person may be doing something wrong and terrible that could harm the community, but because the reasoning behind it as a preventive measure to keep from inciting god's wrath is such a silly notion, which needs to be stopped!

Since god does not exist, there is nothing anyone can do to bring down nonexistent wrath from a nonexistent being.

265. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #78588 by gr8hands on October 13, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Dr Benway, you wrote:

For the most part, believers and non-believers share the same values, such as compassion, honesty, and fairness.

May I ask what planet you live on, because on earth, I have NEVER found this to be true 'for the most part.' When it happens, it is isolated, and usually transient. I have never even read about it being the norm, anywhere -- and I get around.

One only need look at the continuing USA problems with racism, poverty and homophobia. I know of no atheist who refuses to allow same-sex marriage because it is against god's law. I know of no atheist who speaks of other races as being cursed of god, or about purity of races as god intended. I know of no atheists who claim their riches are blessings from god.

I know of no atheist pharmacists who refuse to give contraceptives to unmarried people because it offends their religion. I know of no atheists who feel okay with doing what they please Monday through Saturday because they can get forgiven on Sunday. I know of no atheists who don't lift a finger to help someone, but merely say "I'll pray for you" and then walk away. I know of no atheist who lies about condoms spreading AIDS because god told them to.

I know of no atheists who organize book burnings because Harry Potter promotes satanism/witchcraft! I know of no atheists who are taking their country to war in Iraq because god told them to.

Too many believers only have compassion for those who will turn from their sin and follow their religion. (You want to stay at the shelter? You have to attend the services. You want our help? You gotta come to our church.) Some religions don't require you to tell non-believers the truth. Most religions are so unfair that they demand the ability to cram their dogma down YOUR throat, but scream like the dickens if you say you'd rather not have to hear it -- let alone express your atheism. Everything we say is an "attack" on them.

So, I have to take issue with that thought. We have much less common ground than you'd like to think. Except for those who are religious in name only, but don't actually practice anything, or go to church, or evangelize, or such things.

266. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #77611 by gr8hands on October 9, 2007 at 8:47 pm

Simon Packer, I cannot speak for Roger Stanyard, but I have read the entire bible (including the Apocrypha, the Gnostic writings, and other materials which did not pass muster and get included in the canon). In Hebrew and Greek. I am also able to put them into the perspective of the society and history within which they were written.

That being said, your Comment #77341 is rife with errors, and I suggest that you re-read it with an eye towards the possibility that almost everything you wrote was wrong.

If you're unwilling to do that, to consider the possibility that you've been deluding yourself, that your scholarship has been poor, that your understanding of scripture is based on a simplistic and inaccurate translation of the texts -- then you don't have the right kind of attitude for more meaningful discussion.

Those of us who are rational will take the rational approach that we might be wrong, that our most cherished beliefs might be wrong. To think anything less would not be intellectually honest. It would fly in the face of so much evolution in science and the scientific method.

So, are you willing to accept the possibility that god does not exist? That your "relationship" is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part, an internal psychological want/need fulfillment cycle?

If you are, then we can continue.

Let's start with your first paragraph mentioning hermeneutics. Following what is written in the bible (because I do not believe the Gospels are anything but handed-down stories from non-eye witnesses many decades after whatever happened), I believe if you were to ask the moneychangers about whether jesus was violent or not, they would give you a different answer than what you gave. They would remind you that he attacked them with a scourge of small cords -- without justification, because they had broken no law.

revcort keeps pointing out that jesus came not to abolish the law, and here you come talking about "do away with" and "supercede" and "ended" -- clearly you can't both be right. I suggest a fight to the death between you two, with the winner getting to represent the true divine perspective, because surely god would assist the one who was in the right. Right?

In giving your reasons for the bickering in the church, you left out "because this is man-made nonsense which is internally inconsistent" and equally accurate (and substantially more insightful) reasons.

You wrote:

It is wrong to desire or gloat over the destruction of the wicked.

That would contradict MANY passages of scripture where the prophets were clearly gloating (look in Psalms and elsewhere), and they even claimed that god himself was as well! It's always dangerous to say "Thus saith the Lord" -- because people will call you on it.

You merely show your lack of education about religions and philosphy when you write:

Christianity is unique among philosophies and religions

There is nothing unique to christianity -- it 'borrows' from many 'pagan' beliefs, and in turn other religions 'borrow' from it. Since there is no real actual god, and humans are creating all religion, it is natural that they will copy each other.

You wrote:

The Bible is the story of humanity. It tells us what has happened...

No, Simon Packer, it is merely a story, a fable, nothing more. It tells us only what the human writers at that time thought happened, with their primitive understanding of everything. They probably believed in the literal truth of every word of the creation myths. And they were simply wrong.

You exhibited great silliness when you wrote:

The Bible limits itself to the paradigms of the times when it was written. It could not have communicated otherwise. Early Genesis was written from the cultural understanding of the time, attempting to describe the ineffable. It seems to me unwise to attack it for it's language and metaphor. It is not primarily a scientific text, or a timeline. That said, unless there is good reason to believe otherwise, I believe the Bible is literally true; if genuine mistakes were made, they do not affect the eternal truths they are meant to convey.

Where are you getting this explanation? Upon whose authority? It isn't scriptural. The 'eternal truth' that the bible was inspired by a divine inerrant god is certainly affected by the existence of simple math and biological errors. Either god is omniscient, or not. I would have thought that 'eternal truth' would be evident and of great importance, but you've completely missed it. Good thing I pointed it out for you.

Even before my son was born, I started writing letters to him. He couldn't possibly understand them at the time, and wouldn't be able to appreciate them until he was reasonably well educated. (Some of the letters were in other languages, so he would have to study those languages as well to understand them, or have them translated.) The point is, I didn't expect him to understand them initially, only after making adequate progress. And I make no claims of omniscience or fortelling the future. However a god that does, should have given a simple sign he was communicating to people in the 21st century by including something that only they could understand. A simple commandment to moses, like "and the 11th commandment will be to the people of the future, that nanotechnology shall not be used as a weapon of mass destruction. moses, put that down phonetically, even though you don't understand it now. It isn't meant for you, but for the people of the future, that my divinity will be manifest."

No, your argument about keeping to the paradigm of the times would only hold water if it didn't contradict laws of science in the process. The medical instructions would not only not cure anything, but would make diseases worse! No 'eternal truth' in simply getting it wrong.

You wrote:

There is also much hard history, and most of this has good correlation with archaeology and other historical texts.

There is also much which doesn't square with real history, real archæology, and other non-fiction texts of the time. Which should we believe? That which we can prove, or that which is clearly fiction?

Your statements about homosexuality demonstrate a clear ignorance about what the bible actually says, in the Hebrew and the Greek. Suffice it to say that there is a big difference between male rape, pederasty, gay sex as part of idol worship, and homosexuality.

Since you discount the "old" testament in favor of the "new", please show me where jesus mentioned anything whatsoever about homosexuality.

If you knew your Greek, you could point out that jesus healed the Roman Centurion's pais, his entimos doulos, his gay lover -- and did so without any "go and sin no more" platitude, as he did with those who were committing sin. So clearly jesus approved of gay relationships.

That's the problem, Simon Packer, when your 'understanding of the Bible is superficial.' You almost always get it wrong.

You finally write:

We may be in the end times.

This contradicts what jesus himself said in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32 when he identified the people standing in front of him, that they would be alive to see his prophecies fulfilled.

Of course, this is all silliness. There isn't any contemporaneous, non-faked, eye-witness historical proof that jesus existed, so arguing about what is attributed to him is foolishness.

You might want to read the leprechology thread for illumination. I'm tired, and it bores me to edify yet another ignorant theist. (CHeard, I'm not referring to you.)

267. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #76689 by gr8hands on October 6, 2007 at 6:01 pm

I received a PM that revcort had admitted my statements about jesus changing the law were correct.

I reference his post 1088

Now certainly, I can admit there is a change. Obviously there is some change in this instance.

See? Was that so difficult? I am sorry that it took days and days to get that simple admission, but at least revcort made that small breakthrough.

Paul Creber -- thank you for taking up the mantle of reason. revcort spouts his nonsense as if he's some kind of expert, and without knowledgeable people to point out his errors, they might pass without comment.

He still bores me, so I'm not going to linger, but keep up the good work!

268. 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' Religious Group Turning Heads at MSU

Comment #76547 by gr8hands on October 6, 2007 at 7:37 am

I was pleased that on Wednesday's interfaith luncheon, held on the campus of a theological seminary, there was a seminary student who was wearing a t-shirt proclaiming "a pirate's life for me."

When I questioned if he was a pastafarian, he replied that he had not been touched by the noodly appendage, but was a Pirates of Penzance fan. Everyone in the little group laughed, because it was clear they all knew about the FSM, and enjoyed how it mocks blind orthodoxy.

269. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75728 by gr8hands on October 3, 2007 at 1:41 pm

revcort -- you are a liar.

Everyone reading this blog can look back at every post I have made, and see for themselves that I have never asked for your identity. You are lying when you write

But, then again, I haven't really received the same kind of animosity from anyone else here as I have been getting from gr8hands on a regular basis. I mean, he specifically asked for my identity earlier and his tone with me has become more and more abrasive.

Prove it -- provide the specific Comment# where I asked for your identity.

Look, but you won't find it, because I have never asked for it. If you have any credibility as a so-called christian, you have no choice but to apologize to me for lying about me.

I presume it may be as simple as getting my post confused with someone else's post, but since I have been telling you the check yourself and you haven't, I can only deduce that you are doing this purposely. I do not believe that it is an ongoing, repeated accident or that you're merely stupid.

Then again, revcort, seeing your post #1025 where you quote me, make my point, and don't see that it makes my point, shows you to be a complete idiot, perhaps you are merely stupid.

So, I apologize for calling you a liar, who purposely is misrepresenting and confusing what I wrote. You're merely stupid.

By the way, I had already guessed you were Baptist by the poor theology -- they just don't tend to be very well educated people, even if they do sometimes have degrees . . . the knowledge they're exposed to runs through the holes in their doctrine like water through a sieve.

You wrote:

Jesus also was allowing for grace, which is a concept that was still somewhat foreign to these people.

It was also foreign to jesus, because he never used the word. Strange, if it were so important to him that he would never utter the word. So, please, to be consistent, don't put words he never spoke into his mouth.

Dr Benway is correct to point out that the 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' story found in John 8 was inserted later, which, of course, casts doubt as to its authenticity -- but then the entire book of John is hardly authentic.

No, revcort, the commentaries you supply are from sources who are not good linguists, and not even good historians. Matthew Henry was a Presbyterian minister, not really a linguist, not a historian, not a researcher. Jamieson, et al. do not demonstrate that they have any understanding of Hebrew or Greek, nor even particularly of biblical history.

You'll have to do better than that. Why not start with the seminary and collegiate standard: The Interpreter's Bible. It's in many volumes, because it is quite comprehensive. It's conservative (or at least not liberal), and definitely non-atheist.

Check out the verses CHeard and I have supplied about god changing his mind, and see what the original Hebrew says. (I just did over lunch, and it says just what he and I have said -- so at least one of the pillars of good scholarship agrees with me.)

But, you know, revcort, I've grown bored with trying to soften your thick skull. It is no skin off my nose if you continue in your misguided and erroneous beliefs. However I do hope that you will stop teaching children, voluntarily or by force of the law. You are harming them, and you should feel ashamed. But since you bore me, my participation in this particular thread has come to an end.

270. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75677 by gr8hands on October 3, 2007 at 9:45 am

revcort -- you are so silly, and can't even read what is presented here.

By telling you your points are wrong, it is clear I haven't ignored them.

I didn't say or suggest Calvin didn't do his homework, but stated clearly that he got it wrong. That's very different, or can't you see that?

John Calvin is not considered (except by the ill-informed) an example of an "orthodox" christian. Most protestant denominations staunchly deny a great many of his tenets (predestination, for one). Catholics consider him a heretic. Most fundamentalists would not accept him as "saved" because he didn't follow their narrow (and incorrect) recipe for salvation. (As a point of correction, I didn't say that "I" didn't feel Calvin wasn't a christian, but re-read my post to see what I did write, since you got it wrong.)

revcort, you came to yet another wrong conclusion, that I don't understand salvation. Only too well do I understand salvation -- the myth, the desperate need some people have to be saved and turn themselves over to god's hands and thereby relinquish all responsibility. . .

I could lecture you for some long while about my personal religious journey, but since you've shown you are not capable of paying attention to even short declarative sentences, I will not waste my time. Suffice it to say that you are wrong.

"what the standard christian position is" -- you haven't supplied that. You don't comment on or list the religion of the authors (except Calvin, who was a Calvinist) -- who might belong to denominations you don't approve of or agree with. They may also be of fringe groups that are hardly representative of orthodox christianity. By leaving out their affiliations, you don't demonstrate that they respresent any opinion other than their own.

It may surprise you that some commentators and writers of religious books are agnostics and non-believers. John Rutter, who is probably the greatest living composer of glorious church music, renowned throughout the world, is an atheist.

revcort, you claimed the commentators supported your position -- implying that they were proving the accuracy of your position, but they didn't provide any proof or evidence, they only re-stated the same thing. A billion people stating an error doesn't make it suddenly right. Even if they have a bunch of letters after their name.

CHeard is a current teacher in the religious arena, I have done so in the past, and am in daily contact with one of the premier theological seminaries, so I have some idea about what orthodox christians believe and are being taught. I assure you that only a small fringe group agrees with your position.

If you cringe at the word fringe, recall that jesus was fringe in his day (under your mistaken belief that he existed at all). As described in scripture, he was a homeless, unemployed man and a bastard, because he was conceived out of wedlock.

271. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75660 by gr8hands on October 3, 2007 at 8:24 am

revcort -- sorry, but you are quite wrong in your statement

Here are some commentators who know more than all of us.

Calvin does not provide any refutation other than to basically state 'no it isn't a change.' That doesn't demonstrate that he knows more than anyone. It is unlikely that he was aware that there was no historic evidence that the gospels were written by eye-witnesses, or controversy about even the historical existence of jesus.

(As a small point, since Calvin never claimed to have accepted jesus as his personal savior, many could claim he was not really a christian. As I have not read the works of the others you supplied, I hope they have, in the books, declared that they have accepted jesus as personal savior, otherwise you could be wrong about them being christians as well. Merely writing a book commenting on the bible doesn't make one a christian -- perhaps you didn't know that.)

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown merely state that jesus added nothing, but provide no evidence to support their claim, nor do they refute the points I have made. Whether they know more about scripture than either CHeard or myself is unknown, since they have demonstrated no knowledge. Both CHeard and I have provided examples which clearly show changes, from scripture itself, and these are unchallenged by actual proof, only rhetoric.

Matthew Henry uses the phrase "limits and restrains" but refuses to see that those are changes. In fact, this is a typical response from apologetics -- ignore the obvious.

You claim that "other various denominational slants that might be referenced" all agree -- sorry to disappoint you, but here are just two links from a quick search:
http://www.libchrist.com/bible/sermonmount.html
http://anti-missionary.com/files/WasJesusSinless.html

Once again, your poor scholarship is shown. Perhaps you should be more careful when making sweeping statements. Or are you confused about what "all" means?

CHeard was clear to point out an example of god speaking that god changed his mind -- not someone else saying that in their opinion god had changed his mind, but "Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying,..."

So, far from knowing more than all of us, the commentators you supplied are simply examples of other people who, like you, got their homework wrong. It doesn't mean they're bad people, only that they made a mistake. (Just like the people who deny evolution, or believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old, or believe the noah's ark story was literally true in every respect. Perhaps they don't know what "Midrash" means.)

revcort, once again you are not telling the truth when you say I

was unwilling to acknowledge the simple points I was trying to make

To repeat, I have made comments on your so-called points, refuting them with evidence. That is going beyond mere acknowledgement. Perhaps you should go to the store and buy a clue.

revcort, many people would be surprised that a theist and non-theist would agree on anything, so CHeard's agreement with me on these issues of change would be astonishing.

NOTE that CHeard is not reaching the same conclusions at the end of the day as I do, and it is not likely that he will change from being a theist. He's just being intellectually honest about the evidence -- you should learn from his example. That's why I respect him.

272. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75328 by gr8hands on October 2, 2007 at 10:58 am

NormanDoering, yes, I read your link. I was only commenting on the portion related to jesus specifically, not on james.

However, the theologians Emil Schürer and Frank R. Zindler challenged the entire passage relating to james. But, they are in the minority. (I happen to agree with them in this regard.)

273. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75314 by gr8hands on October 2, 2007 at 10:03 am

Veronique, here's a wonderful free biblical research tool: http://www.biblegateway.com/

You can do all kinds of searches, in a host of translations, versions and languages. Lots of study guides and helpful devices.

You see, revcort, we believe in sharing knowledge so that all can see. By opening something up to examination, we assure ourselves of learning the truth. Only those who know (or suspect) they are wrong fear scrutiny.

One of my favorite expressions is "Let's look it up now and see for ourselves."

274. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75313 by gr8hands on October 2, 2007 at 9:57 am

NormanDoering, sorry, but the Josephus entry about jesus has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century. So thorough and universal has been this debunking that very few scholars of repute continued to cite the passage after the turn of the 19th century. (taken from "The Jesus Forgery" but it expresses my sentiments)

I do note that Philo of Alexandria never wrote about a bunch of people in Jerusalem who were all raised from the dead on the same day, just after Passover, and walked around, being seen by lots of people in the holy city. You would have thought that might make the news.

revcort is once again wrong in his claim

As you probably already know, the gnostics believed all matter to be inherently evil, and further that Jesus was not a real person, but was a spirit and didn't actually walk on this planet, but, rather, that he floated around.

Where does he come up with this nonsense?

revcort wrote:

So, authorship is a major sticking point.

Couldn't agree more. But scholars know, beyond doubt or question, that the apostle Matthew did not write the gospel of Matthew, Mark did not write Mark, Luke did not write Luke, and John certainly did not write John. They were not written in the lifetime of any supposed eye-witnesses. So why should anyone believe them?

Oh, I forgot, revcort is now ignoring me because he's still smarting from the beating he received.

275. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75309 by gr8hands on October 2, 2007 at 9:40 am

revcort, I don't suggest you pray for forgiveness because it is necessary, good, effective or even sane. Read the first part of my sentence: "in order to be consistent with your own theology" -- You are confused about what 'disingenuous' means.

Finally you hit the nail on the head with:

You say, "for all to see." This reveals the bottom line in your argument.

Exactly! Truth, knowledge, science, reality -- they are present for everyone equally. You don't have to have permission, or special dispensation, or belong to a particular brotherhood, or say arcane incantations to acquire it. Truth doesn't give one set of results to you but some other results to someone else based on their having unconfessed sin or not enough faith.

We look for evidence, that which is open for all to see! We don't believe in hidden mysteries that only a chosen few have earned the right to know. We don't believe in needing some kind of enlightenment in order to perceive the reality of something. We don't believe in personal revelation as the sole evidence of anything. We don't believe in hoarding knowledge, but share it freely. We don't believe that it is heresy to believe something different from established information, but we absolutely require evidence to defend the position!

Yes! "For all to see" is exactly the bottom line in the scientific method -- repeatable, verifiable, and falsifiable (if you're confused by that, look it up).

You are once again mistaken when you claim:

yet you will not even acknowledge the points I have offered.

Please look at my posts again, because I make a comment on every point you've specifically made to my posts. Perhaps you are confused about what 'acknowledge' means -- it doesn't mean to agree.

Until you provide proof that you have a spirit, it is silly to claim you have a spiritual condition, or claim that I care nothing for it. (You don't mention that I care nothing for your invisible tattoo from Galgameck. Why not?)

2 Timothy 2:24-25 says "And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." It doesn't seem like you're doing the patience and meekly instructing portion of that scripture. Don't you think that it applies to you?

I have, in fact, "beat a Christian using his own book." Rather than scampering away in a huff, tail between your legs in fear, aren't you supposed to turn the other cheek? Or does that not apply when you've been soundly thrashed? Or is that some other part of scripture that you might only give lip service to, rather than follow?

You will notice that brother john and CHeard are not coming to your defense -- because your brand of biblical literalist fundamentalism is actually poor theology, based on poor scholarship. They won't defend what they know to be untrue, unsound, linguistically incorrect, historically inaccurate, and just plain silly.

They may think I am too harsh in my mocking tone, but you've brought that upon yourself with the pious, self-righteous attitude you spout your dogma from -- which cries out to have the cold hand of Reason slap across the face as a "wake-up" call.

I'm not interested in winning an argument -- I'm interested in having a discussion. But you refuse to answer questions, even the simple question about what denomination you belong to, or what church you attend, or what you mean by "the church" in your writings. You don't respond to those specific posts. You are mistaken about what I've written (or claim I haven't written what I have).

Pointing out your inconsistencies and failures is not a schoolyard bullying technique -- it's all part of getting at the truth. Besides, quite frankly, you present no challenge, as your understanding of language, history, scripture and theology are pretty much entry level seminary stuff -- which I, in all honesty, surpassed long ago. That isn't bragging, just the simple truth of a lifetime spent at least partially in academic research. Winning an argument against you is akin to Bruce Lee winning a bout against a paralytic.

276. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75282 by gr8hands on October 2, 2007 at 8:25 am

revcort -- "proven wrong"? When? Please tell me the Comment# so I can look it up, because I seem to have missed it.

What I notice lacking is your response to my specific questions.

Was the scripture you quoted somehow in response to my saying jesus changed the law? Because it doesn't deny he changed it. I did not say or imply he 'abolished' it, only that he 'changed' it, which is patently obvious.

The very fact jesus says "... but I say ..." demonstrates he is making a change. Even a refinement is a change. Even a refinement that keeps in the spirit of the original, is a change.

Perhaps you need to use a better dictionary and look up the words 'change' and 'wrong' because you are confused about what they mean.

Read Matthew 12 where jesus himself is reported to have broken the Law, and had it pointed out to him, when he healed on the Sabbath -- strictly against the Law, without question. He then rationalized it away by saying it was just like something any of them would do. That is a CHANGE from following the Law, and according to verse 19 you quoted above, he is the lowest in the kingdom -- which contradicts other scriptures where he is the highest!

Open your eyes and see the contradictions. It will free you!

Until then, to be consistent with your own theology, you need to pray for forgiveness for the sin of lying -- you have not proven me wrong, and you know it. The evidence is in these posts for all to see.

277. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75265 by gr8hands on October 2, 2007 at 7:36 am

revcort -- you still haven't answered my question about 'unicorn' in scriptures. Still researching?

Try these links:
http://www.bible-history.com/smiths/U/Unicorn/
or
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i2/unicorn.asp
or
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/what_about_the_unicorn_and_the_satyr

Does that help? Note they all (as will every reference you can find) state it is a mistranslation which has been corrected. This, of course, proves that god did not and could not have been in charge of ensuring the exact wording/syntax/etc. for the bible from inception through to today -- without error.

Comments, revcort? Or still researching? You will not find a single link from any linguist or historian that suggests the words were actually correct, but feel free to keep looking. If you were seminary trained, you may be able to look at the Hebrew itself for your own translation (although I know not all seminarians learn Hebrew and Greek). Or perhaps you might 'pray about it' and hope for a personal revelation from god. (yes, that is the sound of laughter you hear in the background)

Ready to just admit it was a simple mistranslation? Like every other scholar? All evidence demonstrates that as the only answer. Why be stubborn and deny the evidence?

278. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75250 by gr8hands on October 2, 2007 at 6:25 am

brother john, please re-read Comment #74958 by gr8hands on October 1, 2007 at 8:06 am. That is where I describe in detail what we will need in order to accept the actual historical existence of a person commonly referred to as "Jesus" -- the onus is on you theists to provide the proof to us that he existed, not on us to prove he didn't.

Historians don't say "there is such a place as Atlantis -- there has to be, because so much has been written about it. The same with unicorns, because they occur in many places in the bible, so they have to be real." And for good reason they don't, because there's no proof it exists. The so-called eye-witness accounts are not verifiable by other contemporaneous persons or subsequent exploration.

The only people who believe in a god are those who have been taught one exists. Much like no child spontaneously believes in Santa Claus unless they are exposed to the concept first. And the god which children believe in is exactly the same god as their parents, regardless of where on earth they are born. If this were not parental (or societal) conditioning/training, then you would find Jewish children spontaneously believing in the god of the New Zealand Aborigines, or Native American children spontaneously believing in the Nordic gods Thor and Odin -- or other combinations.

Children are born with no concept of god, and have to have it taught to them, along with the concept that faith without tangible evidence is a good thing. I believe both of these things are wrong.

So asking us what reasons we have for being non-believers in god makes as much sense as asking us what reasons we have for being non-believers in the invisible pink unicorn.

Are you a believer in the invisible pink unicorn? Why not? It has the exact amount of evidence for its existence as does god.

Keep thinking about that. When you read that someone claims to receive messages in response to prayers to the invisible pink unicorn, do you believe them? Why not? When you read that someone claims miracles have been performed by the invisible pink unicorn, do you believe them? Why not? When you read about the beliefs of the followers of the invisible pink unicorn, do you think they're serious? Why not?

To us non-believers, there is no more credibility to your beliefs than to the followers of the invisible pink unicorn. Both are clearly man-made belief systems. Neither shows any divine intelligence beyond the capabilities of humans, no keen insight into the inner workings of science/math/psychology/cosmos, and neither provides any tangible proof.

If you want to see miracles before your very eyes, go watch Banachek -- he's an amazing mentalist/magician. He fools even other magicians, he's so good. His act looks incredibly real. But he has the good graces to acknowledge that he;s just fooling you.

The point is that you'll be entertained, but you'll also see how easy it is even for trained observers, scientists, and certainly theists to be tricked into believing something that isn't true. We don't worship banachek, he doesn't have any supernatural powers -- he has amazing skills as the result of much training and practice, but he's just a human being. It would go a long way, I hope, to demonstrating that you can't trust eye-witnesses about so-called "miracles."

brother john, you seem nice, but you really do need to put down your cross and follow us. You'll be at true peace within yourself, maybe for the first time in your life. It's worth the effort.

279. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75103 by gr8hands on October 1, 2007 at 8:17 pm

revcort -- you wrote:

The purpose in the Old Testament of stoning the adulteress was the responsibility of the nation itself, not individuals within that nation. A nation has right to inflict judgments and punishments that individuals have no right to inflict. This is the way God has set it up.

This is something you've made up. If you think I'm wrong, please provide the scriptural reference for this belief.

You wrote:

So, Moses's allowing for a certificate of divorce was actually an act of mercy toward the women. Note the reason Jesus gave for it being allowed was "because of the hardness of your hearts."

This only proves that there is no absolute unchanging divine standard found in the bible, rather a very relativistic morality that changes with the whims of the followers.

You wrote:

21 "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not commit murder' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' 22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

There is no loophole about righteous indignation -- are you claiming there is? You talk about "a murderous kind of anger - a hatred that would result in wishing death upon someone. That kind of anger has always been a sin." And yet, god himself had such anger, plotted/planned, and killed everyone but the occupants of the ark -- whom he had warned. In other parts of scripture god repents of the evil he had planned, so clearly he had been "wishing death upon someone," which according to you "has always been a sin." Ergo god has sinned in every instance where he got angry and killed someone -- which is throughout the Old Testament.

You wrote:

No, it was always sinful to lust after a woman.

What is the book, chapter and verse for this? It doesn't appear in the old testament. In fact, Deuteronomy 14:26 says "And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household." Notice there aren't any caveats like 'except if thy soul lusteth for women.' Don't insult us with 'he didn't change the spirit of it' stuff.

You wrote:

By the way, the original command did not require people to make vows, but only to keep the vows they made. Jesus simply clarifies it by saying we are simply to keep our word.

Nope. Wrong. jesus went further and said "anything beyond these is of evil." That's completely different from what you're trying to backpedal to right now.

You wrote:

This command was intended to "limit" vengeance, and in limiting it, helping man to understand that it is wrong. So, if someone took an eye, you could not take a life. If someone took a tooth, you could not take a life. The purpose was always to let God take vengeance.

Wrong. You need to re-read Exodus 21, especially when it goes into detail about "... thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." The people weren't confused, because god (through moses) was quite clear. There's page after page about this kind of thing. It continues in Leviticus (around chapter 24) for more detail.

No, people weren't confused -- jesus came with a New Deal, a CHANGE. You refuse to call it a change, because it would annihilate the structure of your beliefs, laying them bare as blatantly false (which we all can easily see anyway).

You wrote:

The purpose for the law was never salvation, but condemnation.

Where did you pull that from? Again, what is your scripture reference, because you are confused about what is in the bible. Try John 1:1 and 3:17 as a pair.

Your whole misunderstanding about the role of jesus as a substitutionary atonement (or for your Calvinistic views, a penal substitution) was unknown to the apostles and the early church, and is patently unjust. As is the concept of original sin -- punishing the innocent for something that happened before their birth is not the act of a loving being. Any human parent knows this.

I noticed you glossed over jesus beating people with a scourge of small cords -- that must be okay, since he wasn't trying to kill them. Or all the thousands of people god told the israelites to kill (men, women and children) because they were the enemies of god -- I guess that doesn't go against the thou shalt not kill thing.

Please look up the word 'sophistry' -- it applies to your statements.

280. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75065 by gr8hands on October 1, 2007 at 2:47 pm

No, Bonzai, before his pronouncement about divorce, it was not a sin, afterwards, it is a sin. That's change.

Before jesus, a little revenge was not a sin, afterwards it was. Before jesus lusting in your heart was not a sin, afterwards it was. These are CHANGES.

A law doesn't have to be repealed, just changed. revcort is arguing that it wasn't changed when it clearly was.

281. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75057 by gr8hands on October 1, 2007 at 2:06 pm

revcort -- What I understand, clearly, is that you're being a bit dishonest by not using the examples I supplied. I believe that's because you cannot reconcile their internal inconsistencies.

god (through moses) saying to stone an adultress, and then jesus putting in some new 'but you have to be sinless to cast the first stone' requirement was obviously a change.

god (through moses) saying you could get a divorce and not sin, and then jesus saying divorce was sin was obviously a change.

But let's look at the examples you provided:

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court;

Well, looking through scripture we find many examples of god being angry at us, (Deuteronomy 4:21, 1 Kings 11:9, Psalm 7:11 just to name a few), and LOTS where god's wrath was against some human. That means god was being guilty a lot, sinning a lot. And jesus driving out the moneychangers with a scourge of small cords -- he's equally guilty of the same sin (I guess like father, like son).

Your second example shows a change: god (through moses) said only physically having sex outside of marriage when you are married is a sin, so that left lusting in your heart as not a sin -- until jesus, who CHANGED that to 'nope, lusting in the heart is also a sin.'

Your third example is a complete change from 'it is okay to make an oath as long as you do not break it' to 'it is never okay to make an oath.' Can't you see that's a change?

Your last example is yet another complete change from 'a little revenge is okay' to 'no revenge is okay.' Perhaps you don't understand the difference between 'a little' and 'none' -- also you are confused about what 'revenge' means.

Why would god need to revise instructions anyway? Wouldn't an omniscient god get it right in the first place? If he were writing for all time, wouldn't he have put in all the appropriate instructions, closed any loopholes, and made it crystal clear? It only makes sense to 'refine' if it wasn't done correctly or completely in the first place -- which contradicts the idea of an infallible god.

So by stating that jesus was 'refining' god's instructions, you are agreeing that god was fallible, incomplete and not omniscient. That much, we can agree. We just go one step further and say god doesn't even exist at all.

282. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74958 by gr8hands on October 1, 2007 at 8:06 am

brother john, you wrote:

if anything in the Bible contradicts what Jesus Christ taught - it is wrong and not binding on a believer because, in the Christian understanding of things, he is God's son who became one of us precisely to tell us everything God his Father had told him.

You do realize that a number of times jesus was purported to say "You have been taught X, but I say Y" -- think divorce, stoning an adultress, etc. Now, since the teachings of X were supposed to come from moses, who got it right from god's mouth to his ear, doesn't that contradict what jesus was saying?

I've heard many "explanations" which attempted to reconcile these contradictions, but they simply don't pass muster. god at one time said something was a sin, then jesus came along and said it wasn't -- and if jesus was god, then god changed his mind. Otherwise, god was pretty crummy at getting his points across to moses or the other prophets.

As for New Testament contradictions, here's a sample from the mouth of jesus:
John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Then, of course, there's jesus saying in Matthew 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." But he proceeded to make a number of significant changes to the law -- divorce, certain foods being unclean, etc.

Obvious contradictions from jesus himself -- presuming you believe jesus existed.

Our problem with jesus is that there are no contemporaneous non-biblical verifiable unfaked documents telling us of the existence of a person jeshua bar joseph who lived, preached, was tried/convicted/crucified by the Romans (who kept reasonably good records of those things), or of the many people raised from the dead on the same day as jesus and walking about. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

We've got access to lots of other documents from that time, from the people in power and historians of the day, Roman reports and such. But no jesus.

If you, revcort or CHeard can provide links to them, we'd all be pleased to give them a glance. Do not insult us by trotting out the passage from Josephus (first of all, it was not contemporaneous, nor an eye-witness, second there is much to imply it is a fake added much later).

You see, that's how history works -- nothing is stated as definitive if the only reference to it is second-hand, often more than a century after the event. It must be corroborated from multiple sources. If there are no eye-witness accounts, it is not labelled 'fact' only 'rumor' or 'claimed.' Reputable historians are extremely careful with their claims.

283. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74411 by gr8hands on September 28, 2007 at 3:52 pm

brother john, I have a pastor friend who has his doctorate in history. I've always enjoyed his sermons, because they intertwined the history of the events, with the history of the particular Greek phrases used, and were generally interesting.

Then, he followed the lectionary and preached on the virgin birth. I was expecting an exposition on the fact this was merely taking previous myths and incorporating them into the christian writings. Instead, he spoke of the historical fact of the virgin birth.

I was appalled! Afterwards, in private, I asked as gently as I was able how he could possibly preach something he knew was not historically accurate. His response was that his job as pastor was to toe the denomination's line on the topic.

Even when you know it is false? Yes, because he chose that denomination and made a pledge to uphold its teachings.

This is one reason why I never considered being credentialled in that denomination. It is also applicable to your statement about being

duty bound to be a FAITHFUL, RELIABLE expositor

What happened to truth? Isn't is lying by omission when you don't mention from the pulpit that seminarians are routinely taught that biblical scholars know the book of Matthew was not written by Matthew, nor Mark by Mark, nor Luke by Luke, nor John by John?

What responsibility do priests have for truth when it clashes with dogma? Don't they have a higher commitment to god's truth than to earthly religious organizations? Is god served by hiding truth? What does that say about the religion or god?

brother john, you seem pleasant, and I do not wish to appear like I'm attacking a man in his 70's. I just think that ending my days with a clear conscience, knowing and speaking the truth, would be more important than merely saying I devoted my life to something I only believed was true without seriously investigating whether it was true or not.

I read about mother theresa's depression and atheism, and say 'what a tragedy, what a wasted life.' She could have been so much more effective AND happy if she could have escaped from the oppression, and been true to herself.

This is why I urge all gays and bisexuals to 'come out' -- it is so liberating, so freeing, so empowering. I also urge all people who question their religious beliefs to try and live without them, looking at the wonder of nature and the cosmos in and of themselves, and see how much more wonderful Life is when you aren't under the oppression of an omnipresent sky-gestapo.

I believe that those believers who come and linger here are really hoping against hope that they'll find the courage, the magic words which will unlock the manacles shackling them to their vengeful god. They secretly long to shed the chains and walk tall, and free.

Although you truly don't need it, you have our permission, to leave behind the anchor and ballast of your previous theology, and join our community of humans as a full equal. No caste system, no hierarchy, no 24/7 judgment, no eternal punishment for what happens during this 100 years (or less) of life.

We can all share our experiences, hopes and dreams, and all be enriched by your company. You want this, we can tell. Even revcort desires it. CHeard is working his way there, slowly, as befits an academic. Not everyone plunges right in.

But shrug off the fetters soon, brother john, for none of us is getting any younger, and we want to rejoice with you.

284. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74363 by gr8hands on September 28, 2007 at 8:42 am

I am glad we agree that a detailed hermeneutical discussion (and the requisite mental gymnastics and suspension of disbelief) is unnecessary to reconcile the error.

It is refreshing to read that we accept the humanity and flaws of Hitchens (and the rest), without blind devotion to every jot and tittle of his written word. I winced at the thought someone was going to launch into a long diatribe about how he really was accurate, only too subtle, too enlightened, and too sophisticated for the unwashed masses to comprehend.

I'm glad that I read these posts from time to time. I just don't have enough free time to be a junkie.

Thank you all for your participation (except revcort, who chooses to evade my criticism on the exegesis and accuracy of scripture).

285. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74346 by gr8hands on September 28, 2007 at 7:49 am

CHeard, in gING on page 117, the sentence is:

In order to resolve this near-unmentionable and near-sexual dilemma, reverse-engineering is again applied, this time much more recently than the frantic early church councils that decided which Gospels were "synoptic" and which were "apocryphal."

Earlier, on page 113 Hitchens wrote:

For a long time, there was incandescent debate over which of the "Gospels" should be regarded as divinely inspired.

And on page 112,

These scrolls were of the same period and provenance as many of the subsequently canonical and "authorized" Gospels, and have long gone under the collective name of "Gnostic."

But on page 118 he writes:

This is why some of the Gospels, synoptic and apocryphal, report people (including his family members) saying at the time that they thought Jesus must be mad.

I personally believe Hitchens wrote the section ending near the quote from 118 before the section from 117, but after the section from 112 and 113. And that when it was put together, the wrong word was inserted in the wrong place. (Hitchens clearly knows the difference between 'synoptic' and 'Gnostic.')

Synoptic, Gnostic . . . an accidental switch could happen.

But of course it is an error, which demonstrates that it was written by a human, printed by humans, without the aid of any divinity. Exactly like the bible, koran, torah, whatever.

We don't normally bother pointing out such errors, because they exist in everything, except when the writing claims to be infallible from an omniscient divinity. Then, we have a duty to point it out.

But, as I pointed out in another thread involving pseudonyms, stating you have a "Ph.D. in biblical studies" really just means "because I said so." There's no logical reason to believe that Hitchens doesn't have the same access to the same sources as you -- perhaps even better access since he is a minor celebrity.

We know too many people with Ph.D. after their names who spout clearly erroneous material (Michael Behe, for instance).

I'm not suggesting you're like him -- in fact, I've publicly stated I enjoy your scholarship and presentation.

No, here on this blog we have no difficulty in finding small errors in the juxtaposition of words, slips of the tongue, typos, mis-attributions, misquotes, and errors of all kinds. Some people devote their lives to it. (In Science, the best thing is to discover something new and have it named after you. The second best thing is to prove something from the past was wrong, incomplete, or needs updating.)

We don't get too bent out of shape to hear that one of the movement leaders has been wrong. It would be nice to have theists make that same admission about the bible, koran, torah, etc. And that being wrong clearly makes the tome a totally human endeavor, not divinely inspired/dictated/whatever.

286. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74162 by gr8hands on September 27, 2007 at 1:48 pm

Goatsbane J -- I hate to disagree with such an erudite and pleasant post, but Star Trek really does hold all the answers!

The Ethics of Star Trek by Judith Barad, Ph.D. and All I Really Need to Know I Learned from Watching Star Trek by Dave Marinaccio, as well as Star Trek and Sacred Ground: Explorations of Star Trek, Religion, and American Culture by Jennifer E. Porter and Darcee L. McLaren are just three examples demonstrating this.

Of course, anything that is comprehensive enough, espousing a morality you agree with, is going to also AMAZINGLY hold all of Life's answers. For you.

You wrote: "You said somewhere that you're arguing with 20 people here who are smarter than you. I don't think that that's true for a second." That was one of the few accurate things revcort wrote!

Most real christians didn't watch The Matrix saga because it promotes violence, pre-marital sex, and doesn't acknowledge the hand of god or the blood of jesus. (Small point.)

But I enjoyed the rest of your post.

287. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74149 by gr8hands on September 27, 2007 at 12:17 pm

revcort -- You're blaming my "apparent attitude" for why you won't respond to my questions.

You need to repent for more dishonesty and pride.

It merely sounds like you, in fear, have chosen easier targets.

Your breath has been taken away, and you've reeled back in dismay at how you could possibly have devoted your life to a lie, wasting the precious years on a man-made delusion.

But the inner irrationality rears its ugly head, and screams "change the subject, and blame the messenger for having a bad attitude!"

So silly. You remind me of supposedly straight men who spent too much time trying to "convert" gay men ... but who really are gay (or bi) themsleves, and are jealous of the sense of freedom the gays demonstrate.

Admit it, revcort, you are not-so-secretly jealous that we non-theists are not bowing to a fantasy, not beholden to a mirage, not pledging allegiance to a myth, not devoting our lives to a lie. You really want to "come out" and join us, because it is such an incredible world, out here in reality, unfettered by delusion or irrationality or dogma.

You are hereby empowered to put down your cross and follow us. Just put away the bible. Take charge of your own life. Stop going to church. Quit the useless praying to nothing.

And be amazed at how free you feel. How wonderful the cosmos is. How connected you feel to all life.

Take that for what it's worth.

288. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74122 by gr8hands on September 27, 2007 at 9:53 am

No, revcort, you do not get a free pass on your statements. Nor can you hide behind 'not enough time to research.' You've found time to get quotes to respond to CHeard's posts. (His points, clearly, weren't specifically about the errors in the bible, and so didn't trigger fear in you.) And what "research" do you need to respond to my question about what your denomination is, and what you mean by "the church"?

So, I think you might need to pray for the sin of lying as well.

You are wrong in your criticism of Brother John's perspective: It is not specifically catholic. NOTHING moral appearing in the bible is "strictly scriptural." NOTHING. There are precedents appearing earlier.

As for his view on the treatment of the poor, you only have to review the parable of the sheep and goats at the end of Matthew 25: "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

I guess you need to re-read scripture a bit more closely, since you seem painfully unaware of what it contains. And again, you need to stop teaching religion in any form to any child. Stop the abuse!

289. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74102 by gr8hands on September 27, 2007 at 8:35 am

Since revcort had his "personal divine revelation" after exposure to my scathing questions and demonstrations of where the bible is internally erroneous, I am claiming responsibility. His god fears me, and so has signalled retreat ("run away, run away").

revcort, you're in good company with your repenting. 1 Chronicles 21:15, Amos 7:6, and Jonah 3:10 state that god repented -- even repenting of evil he had planned to do (which, I need not point out, is hardly consistent with an omniscient, divine, absolutely good god).

My real hope is that you will change vocations, and not further poison the minds of any more children. You've had the errors pointed out to you. If you continue, you do so knowing you are doing harm, and shame be on you.

Brother John, if you can provide some valid, unfaked contemporaneous evidence that jesus actually existed, perhaps I might be persuaded to consider following the teachings which are attributed to him. However, he appears to be no more real than Harry Potter, and I do not choose to use that as a basis for personal morality.

On a side note, I love coffee (but can't stand French roast), and I love tea (but only with honey).

290. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73920 by gr8hands on September 26, 2007 at 2:55 pm

revcort -- I'm still waiting for a response to my statements.

I've really shaken you up, haven't I? Perhaps no one has previously demonstrated the errors found in the bible to you.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

For a laugh, you can go to http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm to see how some very silly people have tried to "counter" the contradictions. (If you find they are similar to your own explanations, you may want to re-think those explanations.)

You still haven't responded to my question about what denomination you mean when you say "the church" -- are you ashamed to tell us? Are you under a restraining order not to tell us?

As for your comments about possible prosecution for child abuse, if you follow the bible instruction to kill a disobedient child, shouldn't you be prosecuted? Regardless of it merely being you practicing your religion?

You see, as long as you keep your religion internal, it is usually harmless. As soon as it goes outside yourself, there is potential for harming others. When you want special privileges or tax benefits because of it, that's a no-no.

revcort, please comment on my examples of biblical error.

291. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73892 by gr8hands on September 26, 2007 at 2:08 pm

BillySands, I believe epeeist was asking about the proscription against a minister/pastor/priest/rabbi shaving their beard. (Leviticus 19:27 and 21:5) It's a no-no.

revcort, you still haven't responded to my statements about the internal fallibility of the bible, or about the "unicorn" mistranslation.

In fact, you haven't responded to ANY of my comments. . .

292. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73825 by gr8hands on September 26, 2007 at 9:32 am

revcort -- it's called "faith" because "irrational" wouldn't attract many followers.

Since no one is born knowing the concept of god, when does that come into their heads? Surely from their parents or society -- not from anything that happens to them. It's the same with Santa Claus (except you realize that's a myth while still a child).

Why is it so difficult for you to see they're the same thing?

Stating that "by definition" god is outside of space and time (sounds like the theologian Tillich, who was labelled an atheist by most of his contemporaries) is an interesting concept. What part of scripture do you cite as an authority for this definition?

Isn't it more likely that you merely defined god that way because you aren't able to defend god's existence without that kind of mental gymnastics? Sort of a last resort because all the logical arguments were whittling down where a god could exist?

I mean, who created everything? god. Who created god? god always was, without beginning or ending. god is outside of time and space.

. . . right . . .

revcort, if god is inerrant and omniscient (even about the future), how is it possible for god to decide that something once was a sin, but later is not? I mean, either something is a sin forever, or it isn't -- if you have an ultimate definer of sin to make that determination.

Yet, scripture shows numerous places where things were once sin, but then changed over time. Eating pork or divorce being just two.

I notice you've ignored my post about the "unicorn" mistranslation. I take that as tacit agreement, but I would prefer you to actually state for the record your agreement.

Back to your definition. I recall god being described as 'jealous' (hardly likely if god were eternal, omnipotent, omniscient and outside of space/time); 'angry' and taking 'revenge and is furious' (since anger comes when something happens that you don't expect or want, that's hardly likely if god were omniscient or omnipotent).

That doesn't sound like a divine anything, but something made by man, in the image of man. Something truly celestial, infinite and all-powerful would not deem residents of earth as enemies, any more than we consider individual electrons as enemies!

revcort, we're all willing to say that if a god were to present tangible, unfaked (surprising how much fraud the church creates) evidence of existence, it might persuade us. Are you equally willing to say that you accept the possibility that you are merely suffering from a delusion, with your belief being nothing more than desperate hope/fear?

If not, then you're not being intellectually honest, nor deserving of fair treatment by those who are intellectually honest.

Still waiting for a comment on my earlier post pointing out biblical fallibility.

293. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73813 by gr8hands on September 26, 2007 at 8:52 am

Galactor (and revcort, as well as others), my only response to those who claim that "a person who claims with absolute certainty that there is no god must claim absolute knowledge" is this:

A person who claims with absolute certainty that there IS a god, must do so based on proof. Please provide it.

Of course, this never comes. If there is any response, it is subjective piffle ("personal revelation" or other meaningless expressions).

My other response is: I am absolutely certain that no one has ever provided reliable proof that god exists. Of course, if you're stepping up to the plate now, I'll be glad to examine your evidence . . .

Amazing how that causes some theists to scatter.

294. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73771 by gr8hands on September 26, 2007 at 6:07 am

revcort, if you believe god is inerrant not only in the "inspiration" of ALL scripture, but has also protected the copying, translation and printing of scripture from the original texts to the bibles of today, I suggest you read the following verses (I'm presuming you use the King James version):
Numbers 22:32
Numbers 24:8
Deuteronomy 33:17
Job 39:9, 10
Psalm 22:21
Psalm 29:6
Psalm 92:10
Isaiah 34:7

They all contain the word 'unicorn' -- which linguists have known for centuries was a human error, a simple incorrect translation.

It is of supreme importance whether such an animal as a unicorn ever existed, because an inerrant god claims they do, and made many references to them.

This also demonstrates, within the confines of the bible itself, that errors exist. I hope it will settle the question of infallibility of scripture once and for all.

Again, silliness.

295. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73675 by gr8hands on September 25, 2007 at 7:46 pm

CHeard -- your blog is wonderful! I'm quite impressed that you have taken the time and effort to put something so detailed out for everyone's enjoyment and edification.

This is exactly the kind of community building that I had hoped the Internet would spawn.

I'll have to check in regularly.

296. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73658 by gr8hands on September 25, 2007 at 6:37 pm

revcort, you keep mentioning "the church" -- which church do you mean?

I have extensive experience actually attending the worship services of over a hundred various denominations, and reading volumes of their literature -- but I do not find any one of them matching EXACTLY what you are stating.

Do you believe EXACTLY and ONLY what your denomination professes? If not, why not? Perhaps you are alone in your beliefs?

So, again, what do you mean by "the church"?

297. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73656 by gr8hands on September 25, 2007 at 6:29 pm

revcort, you do realize that NO historians from ANY other place on earth recorded the event of the sun stopping in its place, don't you? This is particularly strange, considering how extremely interested many societies were in the sun.

Which is more likely, they ALL simply forgot to record it? They ALL failed to notice? They ALL thought it wasn't important enough to note? Perhaps god made them ALL forget it happened, so that only the bible could record the event? Or is it more likely that it didn't happen and the passage from biblical scripture was simply made up?

As for your previous comment about fearing the lord, you are incorrect in the use of the word. It means 'respect' not 'fright' -- but isn't it curious that hell isn't mentioned at all in the old testament? If it were so important, or existed, that is . . .

revcort, you claim everything in the bible is inerrant? Even Matthew 27:51-53 where it says that not only was jesus resurrected, the graves were opened and many (the word is more correctly translated 'all') saints were also resurrected, walked around and were seen by many?

How is it that nobody, NOBODY wrote about this? No historian. No visitors. No travelers. No rabbi. No Roman. No diary. No official report. Wouldn't you think that MANY people coming back to life at the same time, wandering into 'the holy city' and being seen by many would have been somewhat newsworthy?

Please. It's just too silly.

CHeard, you have forgotten that "true" christians believe they are the only "true" christians. Therefore quoting jews means nothing to them, because they are hellbound. The catholics likewise (because they aren't "true" christians). On and on it goes, winnowing away those whose interpretations clash with the "true" rendering -- since god possesses humans and through a form of 'automatic writing' gets them to write EXACTLY the words (syntax and everything) EXACTLY the way god wants it, not only when it was written, but also thousands of years later, after translation and typesetting. It leaves you and almost everyone else out in the cold -- sorry, in the heat of hell.

As far as the "true" christians are concerned, you're part of that group in Matthew 7:22-23 "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

You can't possibly prevail against such silliness. Whenever you make a claim of being a christian, they'll point to this scripture -- and ignore the possibility that they themselves are the deluded ones.

It is so laughable. Much like revcort's "scholarship" (I am loathe to, and will not put revcort in the same category as serious scholars).

298. Why are we Muslims so self-destructive?

Comment #73613 by gr8hands on September 25, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Personally, I never use my real name, nor do I go into detail about my credentials -- that merely reduces an argument to "because I said so, nyah!"

While I appreciate those who choose to use their real names, I do not make that same choice. I already get enough spam and junk mail -- I don't also need personal appearances by nutjobs with a grudge and too much time on their hands.

I am, however, a little surprised this thread hasn't been better moderated . . .

299. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68439 by gr8hands on September 7, 2007 at 7:27 am

There IS a book "Liars for Jesus" --
http://www.amazon.com/Liars-Jesus-Religious-Alternate-American/dp/1419644386

300. The Out Campaign

Comment #60079 by gr8hands on July 31, 2007 at 8:11 pm

Henri Bergson -- you are wrong. Here is a translated text of §41:
41. One must subject oneself to one's own tests that one is destined for independence and command, and do so at the