Talk Among Yourselves
October 4, 2009 | 230 Comments
The video below has been making the rounds of the atheist blogosphere lately. However, I don’t think that strictly speaking it is an atheist video. The focus is largely epistemology, and virtually any word could be substituted for “God” in the narrative. Theologians and believers can agree with a good deal of it, and with minor adjustments, turn many of its arguments against atheism, or at least certain forms of it. Much of the ground I covered in this post a few years back, albeit without the emphasis on civility.
Regrettably, time constraints preclude me from expounding upon the foundations of my own faith here although I do hope to get to it eventually. In meantime, talk among yourselves. Below the video I provide transcriptions of the video, one with a description of the graphics accompanying the spoken narrative, and one without.
[Man Facing Room; Screen with Cube Appears]
Imagine you enter a strange room where a computer tells you that hidden somewhere in the building is a cube. Then it asks you, “What does the cube contain?”
Most of us would recognize this to be a futile question. The cube could be large or small. It could be a solid block or a vacuum chamber of nothing but sparse particles of gas. [Cube changes to reflect these possibilities]. Or it might contain any one of billions of permutations of familiar or novel objects. [Objects such as milk, container of blood, key, matches, skeleton with pumpkin head, alien creature, weird signs appear in cube]. You could never give a precise, justifiable answer.
But if you were asked, “What does the cube NOT contain?”, you could give many answers. For example, the cube could not possibly contain the Amazon River, the planet Mars, or absurd objects such as “a bed made of sleep”. In fact, there would be more perfectly valid answers to this second question than you could list in a million lifetimes. [Words “Does Not Contain” appears on cube, with arrow pointing to words setting forth those non-possibilities outside cube, followed by the following scrolling list:
Cats made of airport
Iron Gold
The 17th Century
Frozen justice
A human sun
1-dimensional cubes
1-dimensional swans
1-dimensional hips
The DNAof 1.10pm
A fossilized flame
The heliopause
The colour of up
The back of love
The uncontainable
My unbirthday
Music made of doubt
An inert explosion
[Words “Countless possibilities” and “Countless impossibilities” appear on either side of cube; Words “we can't know was IS in the cube appear below with arrow pointing to “Countless possibilities; words “We know these are NOT in the cube appear below word “Countless impossibilities with arrow pointing to scrolling list of alleged imposssibilities].
This illustrates an interesting asymmetry concerning the contents of this cube. Despite there being countless possibilities and impossibilities, without evidence from the cube itself we can only ever make valid, justifiable statements about what is NOT inside the cube, not what IS.
It’s true that someone claiming, for example, that the cube contained nothing but a wooden spoon might be right, but since, without evidence, they could provide no valid justification for such a claim, there would be literally no reason for anyone to accept it. [Woman appears with cartoon speech bubble indicating she's saying “It contains nothing but a wooden spoon”; rest of words of narrative appear beside her].
What if we were talking about a realm of existence independent of our universe that like the concealed cube is physically inaccessible to us? [Words “Inaccessible realm of existence” appear above oval labeled “our universe”].Would things be different? Would we be able to deduce precisely what occupied such a realm, such as a divine being? [Words “Divine Being” appear outside universe oval, and are crossed out by diagonal red line]. No, there’s the same asymmetry as before. Countless kinds of beings might exist independently of our universe. Countless logically impossible beings cannot. [Words “countless possible beings” and “countless impossible being appear on either side of words “inaccessible realm of being” with arrows pointing to them]. But while we can list many kinds of beings that can’t exist there because they violate logic, [arrow point from words “countless impossible beings” to words “we can list beings which CAN'T exist,” which in turn have arrow pointing to the following list:
An omniscient being capable of choice
A perfect being that needs to be worshipped
A non-spatial omnipresent being
An all-loving omnipotent being that allows eternal agony]
we can’t list those, if any, that do. [Arrow points from words “countless possible beings” down to words “we can't list beings that DO exist”, with arrow in turn pointing down to word “UNKNOWABLE.”] Any attempt to argue that a specific divine being exists in an inaccessible realm of reality is an attempt to argue for either the impossible or the unknowable.[Angry-looking man appears in middle of screen with cartoon speech bubble saying “Divine Being X exists in an inaccessible realm of being!”].
Logic alone can refute impossible beings, [arrow points down from those words to list of allegedly impossible beings] but it can’t show that possible beings actually exist, without evidence. [Those words appear on other side of screen]. If you can’t at some point provide measurable, verifiable evidence for the specific being you claim exists, all the argument in the world won’t establish your claim as fact. [Cartoon speech bubbles with words “Argument A”, “Argument B”, “Argument C”, “Argument D” appear above angry man, only to be popped by hand with pin]. This is one reason why as soon as anyone claims they have a logical requirement that requires the existence of one personal creator of our universe we know it will be fallacious [Cartoon speech bubble above angry man says “I have a logical argument that requires the existence of one personal creator of our universe”, with words soon covered with words “will be fallacious”].because they’ve failed at a basic level to understand what’s required to establish such an existence claim. It’s just a question of identifying where the errors are.
For example, the theologian William Lane Craig has asserted that our universe had an original cause which, because it created our time and space, had to transcend time and space. Transcending our time and space doesn’t necessarily mean something transcends all time and space. [Craig is pictured with various words from the narrative popping up beside him].
However, his conclusion that this non-temporal, non-spatial cause would have to be a changeless disembodied mind is more seriously flawed. A changeless mind is by definition non-functioning. Minds and purposeful creation depend on change. Craig’s changeless creator is self-contradicting and belongs to the category of the logically impossible.
However seemingly plausible they may sound to the unwary or the already persuaded, all popular arguments for the existence of specific gods are based on false premises and/or conclusions and unjustified presuppositions, and a hundred invalid arguments don’t accumulate into one valid one. [List of the following arguments appear on screen:
Cosmological argument
Arguments from complexity
Argument from contingency
Moral argument
Ontological argument
Argument from degree
Mind-body problem argument
Argument from beauty
Anthropic argument
Transcendental argument
Argument from reason
Words “Doomed Arguments” superimposed over list].
Many people with theistic beliefs don’t get tangled up in pursuing doomed arguments like these. They know they can’t prove gods with logic and have no need to do so. They realize their beliefs are personal and that others are entitled to different views. However, when you’re not so willing to respect differences, when you disparage, attack, or work to create disadvantage for others because they don’t share your beliefs, it shouldn’t surprise you when those you try to oppress object to this unreasonable attitude and expose the flawed arguments that shore it up. [Cartoon speech bubbles from speakers off screen say “You're worthless,” “Your lives are unlivable,” “This is a nation of Religion X,” “You're amoral,” “I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens,” You're human garbage” and are then flicked off screen by two hands]. A belief in one or more gods might sustain you in your own life, [women pictured praying at table with her speech bubble saying “What's the harm in saying grace”] but when you pressure others to adopt your beliefs and participate in practices associated with those beliefs, you give up the luxury of not having to explain yourself. [second aggravated-looking woman revealed to be at table; her speech bubble says “Please, either prove your God exists or stop nagging”]. You give yourself the burden of proof, and certain reasons that might seem sound when justifying a belief to yourself are simply not valid when you’re trying to justify existence claims to other people, however passionately you express them. [speech bubbles appear above praying woman which say “But OBVIOUSLY He Exists,” “He cured my illness,” “I feel His spirit inside me,” I have FAITH!”; red rectangles with word “invalid” superimposed over each bubble].. You can’t pester and bully people and then retreat behind faith when challenged on your behavior. And if you can’t demonstrate that gods exist, resorting to emotional blackmail to try to get people to believe is a dishonest tactic. [Praying woman cries, with speech bubble saying “Why are you trying to upset me?; companion responds, “You're upsetting yourself.”]
When those who don’t believe in gods show theistic claims to be invalid, [companion from table now standing next to a man, and pops his speech bubble which says “Complexity proves God”] it’s often claimed that they’re trying to prove gods don’t exist. [Man's speech bubble says “Why do you need to prove God doesn't exist?” to which woman responds “I'm just exposing your flawed reasoning.”] In fact, all they’re doing is exposing flawed reasoning and encouraging intellectual honesty. It’s understandable that when some have their claims debunked it’s an uncomfortable feeling, and employing red herrings becomes an attractive way to wriggle out of admitting their mistakes. [Man's speech bubble morphs into fish shape]. But debunking claims about the existence of gods is just showing those who make such claims that they can’t assert what they’re trying to assert. [Woman's bubble says “you can't assert what you're trying to assert”].
[Heading on page: “Defining the Divine (where the problems begin”]
The question of defining divine entities is where the problems begin. As soon as you define any god you must justify why you’ve defined it that way, giving a valid reason for each quality you’re attributing to it. [Speech bubble says “God X has attributes A, B, C & D”; each letter is then circled with arrow pointing to words “Need justification”].Many who realize they can’t justify any particular definitions avoid them altogether, [words “God 'Y' is an energy which defies definition” appear in speech bubble], but without definition there is no adequately formed concept to have a belief about, [those words then appear beneath bubble] and this is the stumbling block when people are asked to define the gods they claim exist. As their divine definitions become more specific they have more to justify, the flaws in their logic become more numerous and there arguments become easier to refute. [Illustrated with a meter's needle pointing toward word “Specific”]. Conversely, as their definitions become more vague the entities they are proposing cease to have any practical relevance. [Meter needles points to “Vague”]. Ironically, the way many people define gods means that as well as having no logical support, they can’t be supported with evidence either. [Words from narrative appear on screen].
For example, as soon as you say ‘God X’ is non-physical, you’ve proposed a being that can’t be quantified, tested, or perceived even in principle. You literally have nothing to work with. When trying to justify non-physical entities people will often point out that we can’t see the wind but we still know it’s there. [Various words from narrative appear on screen]. However, this analogy is flawed – we know the wind is there because it IS physical. Not only can we measure it and perceive it directly through our sense of touch, it can knock us off our feet and destroy buildings. [Pictures of weather vane, woman with hair blown back, and tornado appear on screen]. The physical force it exerts could hardly be more dramatic. Indeed, we use that force to generate electricity. [Windmill appears on screen]. By contrast, it’s not even clear what a being with no conceivable physical characteristics is supposed to mean.[Words from narrative appear] Even if you were proposing a being that had a different type of physical existence, making it undetectable to humans, you’d have enough trouble explaining how you could know it was there.
Imagine a group of people unfamiliar with electronic technology being duped into watching a carefully staged CGI animation of a man turning into a lion. [Man/lion transformation depicted]. If they thought they had just seen evidence of divine magic, we would know that conclusion was false and due to an illusion of technology beyond their experience. Likewise, if you were to see something genuinely jaw-dropping, like stars spelling out words in the sky, [stars form words “Stop fighting!”; man on earth points up and says “Look! A message from God X!] you’d have no basis for drawing any reliable conclusions about the specific causes of what you were witnessing. You could be having your brain expertly controlled by aliens. [Second man appears saying, “No! It's a message from God Y!]. You could be having a psychotic break from reality. [Men fight, with first man clutching second's throat and saying “It's MY God!”]. We already know that brains can conjure up richly detailed worlds when we dream, and that their dysfunction can cause us to hallucinate. If some kind of intelligence was responsible, anything with the ability to manipulate physical matter or our perceptions to that extent could easily disguise itself so we could never be sure of its identity. With such fallible brains and such limited technology, a spectacle like this would be beyond the scale of what we could comprehend or investigate. [Words from narrative appear].
Could life forms of vastly greater intelligence and power exist beyond the current reach of our perception and technology? Certainly. But even if we were ever to find evidence of greater intelligence that still would not constitute evidence of specific gods. Even if some kind of intelligence initiated the existence of our universe, there’s nothing to say what the nature of that intelligence was; whether it was a single or a collective intelligence; whether or not part of that intelligence remains interested in the universe, let alone the affairs of humans; whether or not that intelligence is aware of our tiny planet, let alone capable of communicating with its inhabitants; or even whether or not that intelligence still exists.
When you impartially review a factual claim, that, for example, one divine universe creator currently monitors and judges every human life, the lines, the layers of unjustified assumptions needed to make such a claim become starkly apparent. One would be no less justified in proposing a race of aliens, that created our universe with an advanced machine and annihilated themselves in the process. [Alien finger depicted pushing red button]. As soon as you propose any specific being, the nature of whose existence can’t be reliably examined and quantified, even in principle, you’re talking about a non-scientific concept that’s unsupportable by either logic or evidence. [Block containing words “God X” falls when supporting blocked titled “Logic” and “Evidence” disappear].Without logic or evidence at your disposal you have no grounds for demanding that anyone agree with you. [Angry woman says “Agree with me” and “You're not part of this family!”] You certainly have no grounds for bullying and ostracizing them when they don’t. [Red lines cross out woman's words]. But if that’s the way you deal with independent thought, your fallacious arguments will continue to be exposed until you grow out of your need for everyone to subscribe to your faith-based ideas. [Arguments “A” though “G” appear over woman's head and are popped by pin-wielding hand].
When you start being honest with yourself about what you know and what you don’t know, you’re likely to realize that you’re in no position to be shouting the odds. And when you understand that it’s behavior that has the practical impact on our lives, you may realize that it’s not whether we believe in gods, but how we treat each other, that says the most about our character. If you attack, condemn, or use emotional blackmail on people because they don’t share your belief in one or more gods [Angry couple pictured shouting at startled woman: “Non-believers are human rubbish!” and “Join our religion of love and peace or go to hell!], you’re invited to consider what that says about you[magnifying glass appears over shouting couple] and how it squares with the values you claim to embrace.
[Pink cube appears on screen; opens up releasing the words “Omne ingnotum pro magnifico [“Everything unknown is believed to be magnificent”].
Imagine you enter a strange room where a computer tells you that hidden somewhere in the building is a cube. Then it asks you, “What does the cube contain?”
Most of us would recognize this to be a futile question. The cube could be large or small. It could be a solid block or a vacuum chamber of nothing but sparse particles of gas. Or it might contain any one of billions of permutations of familiar or novel objects. You could never give a precise, justifiable answer.
But if you were asked, “What does the cube NOT contain?”, you could give many answers. For example, the cube could not possibly contain the Amazon River, the planet Mars, or absurd objects such as “a bed made of sleep”. In fact, there would be more perfectly valid answers to this second question than you could list in a million lifetimes.
It’s true that someone claiming, for example, that the cube contained nothing but a wooden spoon might be right, but since, without evidence, they could provide no valid justification for such a claim, there would be literally no reason for anyone to accept it.
What if we were talking about a realm of existence independent of our universe that like the concealed cube is physically inaccessible to us? Would things be different? Would we be able to deduce precisely what occupied such a realm, such as a divine being? No, there’s the same asymmetry as before. Countless kinds of beings might exist independently of our universe. Countless logically impossible beings cannot. But while we can list many kinds of beings that can’t exist there because they violate logic, we can’t list those, if any, that do. Any attempt to argue that a specific divine being exists in an inaccessible realm of reality is an attempt to argue for either the impossible or the unknowable.
For example, the theologian William Lane Craig has asserted that our universe had an original cause which, because it created our time and space, had to transcend time and space. Transcending our time and space doesn’t necessarily mean something transcends all time and space.
However, his conclusion that this non-temporal, non-spatial cause would have to be a changeless disembodied mind is more seriously flawed. A changeless mind is by definition non-functioning. Minds and purposeful creation depend on change. Craig’s changeless creator is self-contradicting and belongs to the category of the logically impossible.
However seemingly plausible they may sound to the unwary or the already persuaded, all popular arguments for the existence of specific gods are based on false premises and/or conclusions and unjustified presuppositions, and a hundred invalid arguments don’t accumulate into one valid one.
When those who don’t believe in gods show theistic claims to be invalid, it’s often claimed that they’re trying to prove gods don’t exist. In fact, all they’re doing is exposing flawed reasoning and encouraging intellectual honesty. It’s understandable that when some have their claims debunked it’s an uncomfortable feeling, and employing red herrings becomes an attractive way to wriggle out of admitting their mistakes. But debunking claims about the existence of gods is just showing those who make such claims that they can’t assert what they’re trying to assert.
The question of defining divine entities is where the problems begin. As soon as you define any god you must justify why you’ve defined it that way, giving a valid reason for each quality you’re attributing to it..Many who realize they can’t justify any particular definitions avoid them altogether, but without definition there is no adequately formed concept to have a belief about, and this is the stumbling block when people are asked to define the gods they claim exist. As their divine definitions become more specific they have more to justify, the flaws in their logic become more numerous and there arguments become easier to refute. Conversely, as their definitions become more vague the entities they are proposing cease to have any practical relevance. Ironically, the way many people define gods means that as well as having no logical support, they can’t be supported with evidence either.
For example, as soon as you say ‘God X’ is non-physical, you’ve proposed a being that can’t be quantified, tested, or perceived even in principle. You literally have nothing to work with. When trying to justify non-physical entities people will often point out that we can’t see the wind but we still know it’s there. However, this analogy is flawed – we know the wind is there because it IS physical. Not only can we measure it and perceive it directly through our sense of touch, it can knock us off our feet and destroy buildings. The physical force it exerts could hardly be more dramatic. Indeed, we use that force to generate electricity. By contrast, it’s not even clear what a being with no conceivable physical characteristics is supposed to mean. Even if you were proposing a being that had a different type of physical existence, making it undetectable to humans, you’d have enough trouble explaining how you could know it was there.
Imagine a group of people unfamiliar with electronic technology being duped into watching a carefully staged CGI animation of a man turning into a lion. If they thought they had just seen evidence of divine magic, we would know that conclusion was false and due to an illusion of technology beyond their experience. Likewise, if you were to see something genuinely jaw-dropping, like stars spelling out words in the sky, you’d have no basis for drawing any reliable conclusions about the specific causes of what you were witnessing. You could be having your brain expertly controlled by aliens. You could be having a psychotic break from reality. We already know that brains can conjure up richly detailed worlds when we dream, and that their dysfunction can cause us to hallucinate. If some kind of intelligence was responsible, anything with the ability to manipulate physical matter or our perceptions to that extent could easily disguise itself so we could never be sure of its identity. With such fallible brains and such limited technology, a spectacle like this would be beyond the scale of what we could comprehend or investigate.
Could life forms of vastly greater intelligence and power exist beyond the current reach of our perception and technology? Certainly. But even if we were ever to find evidence of greater intelligence that still would not constitute evidence of specific gods. Even if some kind of intelligence initiated the existence of our universe, there’s nothing to say what the nature of that intelligence was; whether it was a single or a collective intelligence; whether or not part of that intelligence remains interested in the universe, let alone the affairs of humans; whether or not that intelligence is aware of our tiny planet, let alone capable of communicating with its inhabitants; or even whether or not that intelligence still exists.
When you impartially review a factual claim, that, for example, one divine universe creator currently monitors and judges every human life, the lines, the layers of unjustified assumptions needed to make such a claim become starkly apparent. One would be no less justified in proposing a race of aliens, that created our universe with an advanced machine and annihilated themselves in the process. As soon as you propose any specific being, the nature of whose existence can’t be reliably examined and quantified, even in principle, you’re talking about a non-scientific concept that’s unsupportable by either logic or evidence. Without logic or evidence at your disposal you have no grounds for demanding that anyone agree with you. You certainly have no grounds for bullying and ostracizing them when they don’t. But if that’s the way you deal with independent thought, your fallacious arguments will continue to be exposed until you grow out of your need for everyone to subscribe to your faith-based ideas.
When you start being honest with yourself about what you know and what you don’t know, you’re likely to realize that you’re in no position to be shouting the odds. And when you understand that it’s behavior that has the practical impact on our lives, you may realize that it’s not whether we believe in gods, but how we treat each other, that says the most about our character. If you attack, condemn, or use emotional blackmail on people because they don’t share your belief in one or more gods, you’re invited to consider what that says about you and how it squares with the values you claim to embrace.
October 4th, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
The supposed rationality of this message, sad to say, simply falls apart upon examination.
October 4th, 2009 @ 11:05 pm
You successfully attacked some of the video’s specific points. (I presume successfully, because I did not watch the video, only read your response to it.) But since its overall message, even judging only by your synopsis, remains quite robust, I have to conclude your critique is essentially of its quality. The fact remains that to believe in a god, you have to make a conscious decision to ignore your rational mind when it makes conclusions that are not supportive of believing in a god. An atheist on the other hand merely strives to see the universe as it is presented to him. You call this pride. Your conscious decision to see what cannot be seen must therefore be humility. I find this peculiar.
I do understand it, however: You are respecting the beliefs of our elders and applying them to that part of your mind and heart that senses a loving god. We all have that: It’s instinctive. Our spiritual and religious sense evolved with us, as it gave us reproductive advantages in the face of our increasingly complex minds’ reactions to a harsh world. To try and see beyond human evolution and experience existence as it can be proved to exist might be called pride, certainly, because it requires use of one’s mind and discards the conclusions of countless minds that went before. But that is by no means a less positive outlook than faith, which has been proven countless times to be an uncertain guide at best.
October 5th, 2009 @ 11:45 am
“If you attack, condemn, or use emotional blackmail on people because they don’t share your belief in one or more gods, you’re invited to consider what that says about you and how it squares with the values you claim to embrace.”
I agree, and I’m Catholic. It always frustrates me when I hear people resort to attacking others when they are not comfortable in their beliefs, whether they are Christian or Atheist. And I’m embarrassed to say I’ve often fallen into the same trap, especially when my faith was not as strong.
I believe in God because of evidence and reason. Evidence of the courtroom kind, through events in my life that point to a “someone” taking a very active interest in my life. Reason, because everything I’ve learned has made sense, logically flowing from one item to the next.
When I was less involved in my religion and toying with rejecting all religion, I found that things just didn’t make sense. Why was there evil and why did I care about it? Why did I feel joy at some things and loathing at others that had no effect on my life? Why was I so hurt when a guy, who had started the relationship as a temporary fling, left me?
Atheism told me to ignore those questions, only the insecure and immature bother worrying about such things. Life just IS, get over it and start making it better. “If you need a ‘god’ to answer questions like that then you need help.”
Catholicism, on the other hand, broke out each question and provided an answer based on a solid logical framework. Why is there evil? Because love desires to be loved in return, yet you cannot love if you cannot choose, therefore we have a choice to love. If we choose not to love then evil is the result. That is simplified, but so true. It’s played out in relationships all the time.
I’m Catholic because it’s True. Evidence for that Truth in Catholicism is how it has opened my eyes to truth in the world, in relationships and in my own heart.
I can’t explain how this video is not correct. I feel like religion is more like having someone tell you that there is a one-dimensional cat inside the cube who will answer all your questions. You think “a 1-D talking cat is impossible” so you laugh and ask the box a question. It answers…correctly. You ask another and this time it’s wrong, so you laugh and walk away…but then a month later you realize that it wasn’t just right, but dead right, because you were fooling yourself at the time. Again and again it produces just what you need, till you begin to seriously believe that the wild claim is true.
Anyway – just my 0.02
October 5th, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
Thank you for this interesting riddle, raving athiest! For me, the cube contain beautiful porn! Am I right? Am I? Am I? Yours in Christ, Porno Lily
October 6th, 2009 @ 8:18 am
This is a ridiculous argument, because in reality you would be able to open the box to find out the contents. This is not an option in this exercise, and both the video and Raving make huge assumptions without any logic behind them.
All this complex video and huge diatribe are saying is ‘you cannot prove or disprove that there is a god.’ This is something that intelligent people already know.
What is completely ignored is the science behind probability and theory development, and when you include that most of the logic presented here falls away quite nicely.
And ‘beautiful porn’ is a sin according to the bible. Graven images, sexual thoughts, hmmm. If you truly read the bible then being ‘yours in christ’ conflicts with any type of porn. Sorry, but I actually read the bible (I love good fiction).
-Ranting Man
October 7th, 2009 @ 5:54 am
This video is asking you to prove what God is like. To describe Him and to define Him.
While I can tell you how He works in my life, point to the words of those that walked the earth with Him, for obvious reasons I cannot tell you what He looks like, smells like or what breakfast cereal He prefers.
But it seems to me the question that would truly be analogous to the cube, is not what is in the cube, but where did the cube come from? The cube exists. How did it get there. I cannot tell you who put it there. I cannot know anything about it’s “creator” or the “person” that placed it where it is.
I CAN however, be certain, that SOMEONE made the cube, and SOMEONE put it where it is. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that there IS a SOMEONE.
The cube does not contain that someone any more than the universe contains God. To argue differently, is insanity.
“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” C S Lewis
I believe in that someone, NOT because I can see them, but because I can see the “cube”.
October 7th, 2009 @ 10:42 am
You’re argument is idiotic “MK”.
Have you ever considered “I DON’T KNOW”???
What is wrong with just suspending your eager and pathetic horniness for god(s)by jumping to your first infantile fantasy “it must be a God”.
Why is that you Christians think in this way?
If you *think* there is a creator of the cube (which is already quite an assumption) how about, for once in your life, be honest and simply say: “there is not enough data to make a conclusion” or “we can’t say for sure” or “I might make myself guilty of falsehood if I make any claims about this cube” or “I may mislead myself to believe in shit as I cannot know for sure” or “I am a total idiot”.
Christina – your claim that you have “evidence for God of the courtroom kind” is not only an absurd claim but a flat-out bald-faced lie. Or, most likely, I suspect you have not the foggiest of clues what constitutes “evidence” in the real world.
But then again, I expect no less from Christians to lie for Jesus. You are simply continuing a grand tradition started early on in the cradle of Christianity.
October 7th, 2009 @ 10:50 am
…Oh, and by the way RT, what the fuck is up with typing out a word-for-word transcript of the video, and then again, without describing the visuals? Are your followers that slow that you have to give it to them three times?
Oh, wait, I now see what you did there. High five!
No wonder you have no time “to expound on the foundations of your faith”. But thanks anyway.
I am also starting to think you have forgotten what an atheist is, by the way, by just reading your intro to this. We make no claim about the existence or non-existence of gods. Just keep that in mind, sunshine.
October 7th, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
We make no claim about the existence or non-existence of gods.
Depends on the kind of atheist. There is a spectrum ranging from weak to strong. Some are atheists because they have never thought about God; some actively disbelieve in God but don’t think His non-existence can be proven by logic; some disbelieve in God and believe that logic can disprove him; others employ a mix of logic and evidence, with some again disbelieving even though they don’t think that either logic and/or evidence conclusively resolves the question.
October 7th, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
@ABC, oh, you are naughty man! You make not claim, eh? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, eh? Same is with me: I make no claim about existence or non-existence of porn. (But psst, look for my movies in the adult section of video store). Yours in Christ, Porno Lily
October 7th, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
OFFS,
You’re argument is idiotic “MK”.
LOL. As opposed to your brilliant dissertation?
F***ing argument is F***ing stupid? Oh yeah, like that’s gonna get your point across… *giggle*
The problem is I DO KNOW…I know that when I walk into a room and there are pancakes and bacon on the table that somebody was cooking. I know that when the phone rings, someone is calling me.
I know that when I see a cube sitting on the table that somebody must have put it there. I may not know who, but I know it didn’t walk there by itself.
As to what’s IN the cube. Well, that would be science. The taking apart of what already exists to discover how it works, what it’s made of. But science doesn’t answer the question “Who put it there”. That would be the job of philosophers and theologians.
So, again, the problem is not that I can’t prove what is in the box, but that I know the box must have come from “somewhere”.
October 7th, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
I wonder why RT thought this sorry lot would be an intelligent audience for this video.
When I walk into a room and smell? A phone rings and someone calls me? Seriously, are you living in trailer park? ALL of these things are real as they can be detected with human senses. Scientists can measure and detect obscenely small things. You can even detect the effect of love and jealousy, before anyone of you idiots bring these old chestnuts out.
So if they build a building, and this by chance meant that a cube of air exist inside the building, did somebody put it there? Did somebody put a cube of air inside a building? Jeezus Krist. I don’t even get your point. If you even have one.
Let me see, what is inside the cube? Let ME have a look.
Fuck me, Porno Lily, you were right!! Damnit. It is FULL of beautiful porn!
It. Is. Full. Of. Beautiful. Porn. I see it now!
It is so…beautiful.
(This is the sort of inane posts this blog deserves. It is devoid of any intellect. Auf wiedersehen!)
October 7th, 2009 @ 8:05 pm
Ah, if only it really is good-bye, offs!
However, I have little doubt that this exemplar of reason and courtesy will be back. But here’s hoping that I am not only wrong but that he will take that silly oaf, Porno Lily with him.
October 8th, 2009 @ 5:30 am
Not a bad video. Exactly how I see spirituality: your experiences are for you, not for me. What’s good for Paul isn’t necessarily good for Peter. Despite Paul’s insistence and possible revision of his own life (got that idea from Dennis Potter’s ‘The Singing Detective’).
And if we determine that someone must have put the cube there, how can we make the quantum leap to saying that God X (in our case, Jehovah) put it there?
Christina, it is not Catholicism that is “True”, it seems. It is mystical philosophy that is true, judging by what you wrote. A Sufi or Kabbalist would probably give your post a thumbs-up and continue along their respective ways.
October 8th, 2009 @ 6:15 am
Pikeman,
While OFFS completely missed the point, you got it exactly.
We cannot know who put it there. Not with any certainty that can be proved.
But once we agree that the most reasonable explanation is that SOMEONE put it there, we can now begin to look at ways of discerning “WHO” put it there.
WIthout looking deeply, you’re right. All possibilities are equal. BUT, if we slowly, methodically, look at the bits of evidence that have been collected over the last 6,000 years or so, some “who’s” begin to emerge as more likely than others.
The three largest religions, Christianity, Islam and Judaism…have all come up with the same someone. Even the Kabbalists have the same source. Buddhists don’t really claim to know the identity of the who, they just focus on the “How” to live your life.
Which leaves us with Hindus, pagans and a few assorted other faiths like scientology, or Latter Day Saints.
So now we have to ask ourselves, where did they get their ideas of “Who”? The one thing that we all agree on, however, is that there MUST be a “SOMEONE”. At least if you are a reasonable person. It’s quite a leap of faith(lessness) to believe that the cube simply came into being of it’s own accord.
You could argue that believing in God IS believing that that “Someone” came into existence on “It’s” own accord, but the difference is that we KNOW about cubes. We know that cubes don’t just appear out of nowhere. So it would be unreasonable to think that this one did.
But we know nothing of the cubes creator. He/She/It is an unknown. Something we have NOT been able to take apart, or dissect…something we have no prior knowledge of. So we can’t say what, if anything, would be reasonable in how “it” came to exist.
October 8th, 2009 @ 6:23 am
OFFS,
I’m sorry you don’t get it. Maybe if you read the posts a couple of times you will understand. If not, that’s okay, we can bring the conversation down a level or two. Not everyone is cut out to have these kinds of discussions.
I often tell my children to be patient with people that feel it is necessary to use foul language. I explain that these people are not gifted with a large intelligence and try to compensate by using the same four letter word over and over. They don’t know any others, and are not really capable of complex thought. I tell them we should not look down on them, but instead Thank God for our own gift of intelligence. We need to understand that people that use words like that are just trying to make them selves look “bigger” because they feel so small. It must be hard going through life not being able to “keep up”.
So stick with it. Maybe you’ll learn a few new words and be able to play with the “big boys” someday.
October 8th, 2009 @ 8:22 am
Yes, OFFS, I must agree that you are bad boy for using foul language, such as “auf wiedersehen”, which was also used by Nazis!
Maggie, I very sorry to see that you must call me bad names. Also, by the way, proper names to be capitalicized always! This is also true in credits of the movies I am seen in.
OFFS and Pikeman, you really must listen to MK, he explain so well why Christianity is logical: first, you must convince yourself that everything was “made” by someone, then you take majority vote to find out who is that someone. Is logical, do you not see? Maybe analogy from porn business helps: all adult movies are “made” by someone, and if you want to know who is that someone, just ask all your buddies to take vote!
I wish you can learn to see the beauty of religion! Yours in Christ, Porno Lily
October 8th, 2009 @ 11:23 am
Lol, yes Porno Lily.
Isn’t it hilarious how the video is packed with 10 minutes of insightful, intelligent information and commentary, yet, these retards get stuck into who made the littul pink cube in the beginning!
Not exactly the reaction that RT was hoping for from his bright little followers here.
BWHAHAHAHAHA!
October 8th, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
PL and OFFS,
Just keep showin’ off your brilliance. It’s quite entertaining to watch two amateurs go at. Seriously, you should take it on the road. It’s right up there with the three stooges. If only you had a third member to round out the group…
October 8th, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
I am always right. I knew OFFS would be back. You know, mk, the Russian spammers make more sense than these two clowns. Of course, Porno Lily does not appear to be a native speaker of English, so maybe we can cut him/her/it some slack. On the other hand, OFFS, appears to be fluent in Foul, and very fluent in Low-Class English. I wonder if he is a contributor to the Urban Dictionary?
October 8th, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
MAGGGIEEEEE??? WHO. MADE. DE. PINK. CUBE??
WHO. PUTED. IT. DERE?
Discuss.
October 8th, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
———————————-
First, there is a pink cube.
October 8th, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
MK, I was in movie one time where amateurs went at it! They took it on the road and also they took it everywhere! And there was third member! Am very happy you know my early work!
Maggie, I truly very sorry for my bad skill with your language. I practice very hard the English, because is the language our Savior spoke! I will pray for more better cutting the slack (am using this idiom rightly?).
Raving Athiest, could you please solve the riddle now? What was in cube? Was it beautiful porn, or really just old wooden spoon (which would make me very disappointed). Yours in Christ, Porno Lily
October 8th, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
I think it is high time for me to step in and put an end to all this nonsense. I apologise as I cannot censor comments made on my blog.
It is finally time for me to ‘come clean’.
The time has come for me to expound upon the foundations of my own faith.
The truth is, I have come to accept and believe in the existence and beautiful power of the Pink Cube. It is beautifully square and hard, and cannot be popped by a needle as shown in the video. In my home church down the street (St. Thomas the Gardener), we have replaced all those awful wooden crosses with Pink Cubes. Over the pulpit, we have convinced the elders to even replace that cross with a massive, large Pink Cube. I get a tear in my eye every time I see it.
I know in my heart this is not exactly what all of you have been waiting for all these months. However, with time, you will see the perfection of the Pink Cube, and accept it in your heart as the only truth. You can easily go through the entire Bible and simply substitute the word ‘God’ and ‘Jesus’ with the words ‘The Pink Cube’. The symmetry and beauty of the text makes so much more sense this way.
In time, I promise to expound further upon the foundations of my own faith in the Pink Cube. For now, I first have to re-type this three times for my loving friends here to fully understand and embrace.
Yours lovingly in The Cube,
Raving Theist.
October 8th, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
Maggie,
Lol. I think OFFS is a community organizer.
As for Porno Lily…too bizarre for words.
Thing is Maggie, you and I can always click off the site, but they have to wake up with themselves every morning. No escape. It’s a pity too, because this is actually a really good place to have serious discussions. Pikeman Urge is a great example.
October 8th, 2009 @ 6:24 pm
MK, you are absolutely correct, but don’t be too hard on them. The Pink Cube has taught us to forgive, forget and open our hearts to others.
I have also learnt in time, that there exist, alongside the Pink Cube, a dark, evil Black Cube. These pranksters are controlled and influenced by the dark forces of the Black Cube.
And OFFS and Porno Lily actually have beautiful souls, they must just open their hearts to the Pink Cube. When you accept The Pink Cube in your life, there will be no need for them to wake up with only themselves anymore. The Pink Cube attracts others of beautiful souls and physical form of the female kind; hence even these lost souls may one day wake up with others at their side. Such is the wonderful power of The Pink Cube.
If anyone here doubt my convictions (or think this is some sort of cruel joke) – the clue is at the end of the video I have posted.
Yours lovingly in The Pink Cube,
Raving Theist
October 8th, 2009 @ 9:14 pm
Forget the cube, err Cube. A real miracle has just occurred–one I never thought I would live to see. The Raving Theist has spoken! The Raving Theist has revealed himself to his believers and doubters!
Sit vis vobiscum.:0 Or something like that.
October 8th, 2009 @ 9:30 pm
Oops. Didn’t see this:
Maggie, I truly very sorry for my bad skill with your language. I practice very hard the English, because is the language our Savior spoke! I will pray for more better cutting the slack (am using this idiom rightly?).
I am afraid you are mistaken. Our Lord spoke Latin. However, I am willing to cut you some slack because you have been too busy making movies to have thought about this deeply. (to cut someone slack=to give someone the benefit of the doubt; to be less critical of someone)
Difficile est saturam non scribere.
October 9th, 2009 @ 5:46 am
OFFS,
You’re too much. Impersonating a person with intelligence, does NOT make YOU intelligent.
Sit vis vobiscum
And also with you…
Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
October 9th, 2009 @ 7:32 am
MK, you are such great thinker! I read your blog and the Lord FILLING me up good! You inspire me to start own my blog (in adult movie business, women cannot work to old ages, so is good to have second line of business):
http://pornolily.blogspot.com/2009/10/my-first-praise-to-lord.html
Post coitum omne animal triste est sive gallus et mulier!
October 9th, 2009 @ 9:05 am
MK,
It is interesting that you would call Raving Theist “intelligent”.
Few of your ilk used to call him that when he was The Raving Atheist. Funny, isn’t it?
Does it matter though?
I thought someone like Francis Collins would give us an “intelligent” reason for being a Kristian. Yet, his reasons are as fucking inane and infantile as we would get from any red-neck Kristian. It is astonishing how unimpressed we always are when we are able to even find a so-called intelligent Kristian.
So when Raving Theist finally (after how many months and how many posts) eveeentually get to tell us why he has become a Christard, we are all fully prepared to be explosively underwhelmed. (So, maybe he just shouldn’t bother.)
Despite that, we shall put it onto a proper forum like ravingatheists.com for…shall we say…a more rigorous peer-review than what he is likely to get from this little prayer-group.
October 9th, 2009 @ 9:31 am
Oh, heaven give me strength! This puerile, venom-spewing philistine disses Francis Collins! Do you have even 1/75 as many scholarly accomplishments as he? Does anyone in the scholarly world know your name? If so, you can undoubtedly cite the journals in which I will find the disproof of God, properly peer-reviewed, data and methology laid out so that others can replicate those findings, right? Lemme see, will it be found in the Journal of the American Chemical Society? Letters in mathematical physics? Physica. B, Condensed matter? Living Reviews in Solar Physics? Science? Wait! I know! It’s in Microbiology and molecular biology reviews? No? Oh, I know, I know! It is in Evolution & development Duh!
I eagerly await the exact citation so that I can read up on the proof that there is no God and acknowledge how foolish my beliefs are.
October 9th, 2009 @ 10:13 am
Maggie, you are a fucking idiot. You have no clue what a fucking atheist is.
So here it is:
WE MAKE NO CLAIM THAT NO GODS EXIST!!
————————————-
Repeat after me:
WE MAKE NO CLAIM THAT NO GODS EXIST!!
————————————-
DO YOU FUCKING GET IT? We lack a god-belief. It is as simple as that. Can you see it is not the same??
We needn’t offer ANY proof of our non-belief. Gettit? Only when you CLAIM something do you need to PROOF something. Bloody hell.
My point (which obviously went right over your hippo-head) is that Francis Collins is a highly respected scientist in his field. Yet, despite his rigorous application of scientific method in his professional life, he offers us none of the same to show us why being a Kristian can be intelligently motivated. So, *OUTSIDE* his field, he is just another dim-witted Kristian offering us the beauty of a waterfall as his reasoning for the existence of a God.
If I have time, I will re-type this for you three times so that (hopefully) you will get it.
DUH!
October 9th, 2009 @ 10:52 am
If I were you, offs, I would not be so quick to spew. I know very well what an atheist is. What I tried to tell you, and it went over your head, is that I don’t give a flying fig about your non-beliefs and your obscene attempts to insult us. Until you can prove that there is no God, spare us your ranting and your impotent challenges. We aren’t interested.
October 9th, 2009 @ 11:28 am
Maggie, I must tell that I admire the way you use your native tongue! “Puerile, venom-spewing philistine”, this is very good phrase I will going to put to my memory, is exactly right for bad boys like OFFS.
OFFS, why you do not understand that YOU must proof the NON-existence of G-D? We Christians have feeled presence of the Lord many times. As Moses says “to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand” (Exodus 17:9). (I was once in movie that had a scene was very similar to this).
Also, we know that G-D he exist, because otherwise, who could make pink cube? Still, I hear no answer.
October 9th, 2009 @ 11:38 am
My little Maggie,
Just in case you forgot, you are a fucking idiot. And your post proves it. One day, when you leave school you will understand these diffikult things.
You responded to my post about intelligence and Francis Collins. AFTER you asked me for proof that god(s) don’t exist you now suddenly claim to know what an atheist is. And then you, (giggle) you ask me AGAIN for proof that Gods don’t exist. Are you confused? Is it too early for you?
Just for fun, in your beautiful, lovely world, how do you prove a negative? How do you prove fairies don’t exist? Do you also believe in all sorts of bullshit until somebody proves that it doesn’t exist? Is that how you live your life? Cute. You’re the ideal Kristian.
Your solidification is no surprise to me. Why don’t we do the CRAAAZZYYY thing and ask the person (YOU) who made the claim, to prove that God exist. See, Maggie Twinkle-toes, that is how the grown-up world works. You make a claim, you back it up.
Ah, but of course, you will take the idiot’s high-ground. You will now respond to say that you don’t need to prove anything to me or anybody else. You just knowwwww in your little heart that Jesus exist.
Embarrassing.
October 9th, 2009 @ 11:46 am
Very funny Porno Lily.
If only resident idiot Maggie actually knew anything about the real history of the “Philistines” she would think twice before using it in the off-handed vitriolic way she did.
October 9th, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
Let me spell it out for you, offs. Your disbelief (or if you *really* want to insist on the tedious “an atheist lacks belief in a god or gods”) and our beliefs are on much the same level. You cannot prove that God does not exist and we cannot prove that God does exist. If you were slightly less hysterical and obscene, it might be possible to discuss which of us can make a stronger argument for his/her position. But you are only interested in trolling. I do so hope you tire of it soon. You are a nuisance.
October 9th, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
Wow. I stop by to see what’s going on here at the site and I see this trainwreck of a thread. As an atheist myself, I am going to have to say that the video is awful, but even worse are the comments of the people using the same descriptor for themselves that I do. Seriously, if this site causes you so much frustration and agravation, bloody well leave it be! You can comment on the fact that random chance is a sufficient possibility for the existence of the universe without trying to club the believers here over the head with profanity and rudeness.
October 9th, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
Maggie,
I eagerly await the exact citation so that I can read up on the proof that there is no God and acknowledge how foolish my beliefs are.
I’m thinking Mad Magazine/Spy vs Spy…?
October 9th, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
Just in case you forgot, you are a fucking idiot. And your post proves it. One day, when you leave school you will understand these diffikult things.
LOLOLOL…You mean, as opposed to one day when you are old enough to finally GO TO SCHOOL???? Ohmyohmyohmy, my side hurts.
Here try this one on…We Christians don’t believe in God. We just don’t believe that God doesn’t exist. So we don’t have to prove anything, because we don’t have to prove a negative!
Good Lord, you are priceless.
I won’t even bother explaining to you yet again, *sigh*, that you cannot prove something scientifically that is not of the physical world. That is the job of Philosophy and Theology.
Do you use a stethoscope to check your cars heartbeat? A magnifying glass to eat your soup? A shoehorn to comb your hair?
You use science to answer questions that apply to science. You use philosopy and theology to answer questions that apply to philosophy and religion.
Physical to prove physical.
NOT physical to prove metaphysical.
October 9th, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
OFFS,’
See, Maggie Twinkle-toes, that is how the grown-up world works. You make a claim, you back it up.
How would you possibly know WHAT grown ups do? Have you ever met one? From your behavior and communication skills, I’d guess that other than your preschool teacher, you’ve never met anyone over the age of 14! I’m dyin’ here. This is just too easy!
October 9th, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
Richard Norris,
You rock!
October 9th, 2009 @ 8:07 pm
“We just don’t believe that God doesn’t exist” LOL! Wow, mk. You almost got testy with our troll! I didn’t think you had it in you. Of course,with all those sons, I don’t imagine that the testosterone fueled ravings of an unhappy adolescent can be unknown to you. In fact, I rather imagine you could have a blighter like offs for lunch, if you really wanted to.
Richard, thank you for your eminently sane contribution to troll control.
October 10th, 2009 @ 1:32 am
MK, I want to tell Thank You for the beautiful riddles! “Do you use a stethoscope to check your cars heartbeat?” I think solution is no, because the Wikipedia say “Less commonly, “mechanic’s stethoscopes” are used to listen to internal sounds made by machines” so if is less common, I think this mean “No”. “A magnifying glass to eat your soup?” I think again is no! Magnifying glass is use by car mechanic for checking heartbeat of the car, no? “A shoehorn to comb your hair?” Oh, you naughty man, I think you saw adult movie I made, where shoehorn played important part but not for the combing of hair!
October 10th, 2009 @ 1:34 am
Richard Norris, thank you for defend the Jesus! You are good Christian man, but more cutting the slack for bad language. (Maggie, I learned this rightly?) Bad words not a problem for G-D: “For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power” (4 Corinthians 1:20)!
October 10th, 2009 @ 1:35 am
MK, you are Christian but not believing in the G-D? That make me very sad! Also, I do not think G-D is negative! He very positive influence in my life! Do not loosing your faith! “What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?” (4 Corinthians 1:21)! I think better you come unto me with your rod, because I am sure is very strong. So please not to use the spirit of meekness for being sad that OFFS is such puerile, venom-spewing philistine!
October 10th, 2009 @ 1:39 am
OFFS, why you do keeps spewing the venom? Existance of G-D is non-scientific: “And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.” (John 8:23). Why you do not understand that science cannot prove non-scientific argument? Non-scientific argument reserved strictly for Theology and Philosophy.
October 10th, 2009 @ 2:05 am
Ok MK, I will bite.
I beg of your forgiveness. You are a smart man. You will answer plenty of dumb questions.
Assume then that I am 14 years of age (if that will help you). This means I am in need of an edukation. You also use words I cannot understand. They are too big for me. Help me. Please.
1) What is “not in the physical world”? I have no idea what you are talking about. Where is that? Have you experienced it? How do we prove it with theology and philosophy? (These are your words) Has it been proven then? What is in this “non-physical world”? Have you seen it? What is it made of? What is different about that world to this one? How do you know?
2) What is this thing “God”? I know this is a smaller word, but I don’t know what it is. What is it made of? Where does it live? What does it do? How? Have you seen it? Why not? Is it human? If not, what is it? Does it breathe? Eat? Breed? Does it make love? If it is not human, what is it?
October 10th, 2009 @ 2:31 am
3) If science can not “prove” the “non-physical world” can we at least detect it? Somehow? Does it influence us? Do we influence it? If not, does it matter? If not, what is its purpose, if any?
4) If you are going to use another big word to explain all of these diffikult konsepts like spirit, or spiritual you need to explain this to me too. What is it? Where is it? What is it made of?
.
.
.
.
.
.
As a 14 year old, I find it kinda funny you grown-ups make fun of me, yet it is you who believe in talking snakes, big wooden boats with animals inside, parting seas, 10 magik plagues, food falling from the air, the sun standing still, men walking on water, zombies rising from graves, virgin births, stars standing still in the skies, water turning into wine, dead people becomming alive again, magik tricks feeding 5000 with two fish, heaven, hell, angels, demons, talking with gods with your eyes closed, and imagining that there is a super-being looking after me every day!
Wow! That is SO cool. I wish I can play-play these things too!
October 10th, 2009 @ 5:19 am
Richard, I am not an atheist (but not a Christian either, obviously) and I thought the video made valid points (at least in themselves).
OFFS, it isn’t the miracle stories that bother me (and why should they?) but rather, it’s the hallmarks of anthropogenesis in the Bible which eventually made me realize that no matter what its value, the Bible is by no means evidence of ‘the one, true faith’. By all means let Jesus save man. But he isn’t the only one, if there are any to begin with.
October 10th, 2009 @ 5:48 am
Pike,
I wouldn’t mess with Richard if I were you. Have you not heard of his famous cousin??
Have you no fear??
October 10th, 2009 @ 7:45 am
Hey Pike,
Nice to see you and Richard. I was beginning to feel like Alice. Mad Tea Party and all…
OFFS,
When discussing things NOT of this world, we use “reason”. Meaning we attempt to discern if something that we don’t know, can be known with any probability.
We look at what we DO know, and try to use it to deduce answers about what we DON’T know.
Take your cube. We cannot know beyond a shadow of a doubt how the cube got to where it is, either in the short term or the long. BUT, we can know from experience that it is MUCH more PROBABLE that it was placed there by someone. because in our own experience, this is how things get from one place to another. Maybe the wind blew it. Maybe it was dropped from the sky. But in the end we can know, from the rest of the world, that at some point some intelligent someone or thing, had a hand in creating and getting it to where it is.
Now, if we were to find a manual somewhere, especially somewhere close to where we found the cube, we could read that manual and draw the conclusion that it is PROBABLE that this manual was written by either the cubes creator or someone with an intimate knowledge of the cube’s creator.
We could look at whether the manual says “I” took cardboard, or whether the manual says “the cardboard”. We could date the manual, and date the cube. We could take fingerprints. Whatever we did, we could come up with a reasonable scenario for how the cube came into being and if not “Who” made it, that “Someone” most likely did.
Through reason.
This is what we use in Theology and Philosophy. Reason, and probability.
October 10th, 2009 @ 8:35 am
MK,
What is “NOT of this world”? Again, you use words I do not understand. Do you?
I understand using “reason” as a way to ‘theorise’ about things we don’t know. However, bringing us back to what we are really discussing here, the God issue, heaven hell, etc. these are things we have no experience with.
You have no point of reference to apply experience or ‘reason’ to.
How can you possibly apply ‘reason’ to concepts that from my point of view are ‘nonsensical’, and hence de-facto meaningless to start out with. It is similar to use ‘reason’ to theorise about the existence of a bed made of sleep. Or cats made of airports.
By using a cardboard cube and its creator as an example is not applicable in this case. I know what a cube is, and I know what cardboard is. But I don’t know what an angel is. Or a devil. Or a god. Or a non-physical world.
You are in essence trying to use a supposedly “reason’-based methodology to wholly ‘unreasonable’ or nonsensical concepts.
How can you reason to estimate probability to things like Heaven, Hell, God, non-physical world, not of this world, spiritual, if I have no clue what these words mean. Seriously, I have no clue what you mean by using these words.
After all of that, IF you were able to define these concepts to the satisfaction of yourself and your audience, AND you have somehow used reason to apply probability to
the existence of such things, you still cannot claim it to be true. At best you may say, ‘God probably exist’.
However, this is NOT what Christians do. They claim it to be absolutely true. THIS is why I take Christians on in the way I do. They make themselves guilty of falsehood by doing this. Or, as OFFS would say, they are first-class bullshitters. Can you see the nobility in what I do? Sort of?
October 10th, 2009 @ 8:44 am
Yes, OFFS, why you do not understand power of reason? IF we find cube and IF we find manual for cube, then we know that cube must be made by someone and manual also made by someone! Is reasonable and probable, no? Also, manual MUST be made by someone who know about the cube and the maker of cube. Because if you don’t know maker of something then you cannot write book about this something, do you not see? Is improbably. This reasoning of arguments is call Theology and Philosophy.
MK, if you feel like “Alice” this ok! I once acted in adult movie with many mens who feel like womans. I will say no more, but I give you hint: was very confusing, everyone making out with everyone.
October 10th, 2009 @ 9:31 am
Porno Lily, do you have hands?
October 10th, 2009 @ 9:52 am
LOL Porno Lily.
You think THAT is confusing.
I tried what The Great Raving Theist suggested for us to do by ’substituting virtually any word in the narrative of the video with the word “God”‘.
Sweet Methuselah.
It is a garbled mess! I makes no sense! None, I tell you None! It is driving me crazy!
I then tried it with the word “Quetzalcoatl” and NOW it makes perfect sense. It is amazing!
October 10th, 2009 @ 9:55 am
Now Maggie, you know it is impolite to ask if someone has hands if you have no head.
October 10th, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
OFFS,
We know the universe exists. We can see it. So it is reasonable to assume, since we know this is the way that the universe works, that the universe MOST probably came from “somewhere/someone”.
We have precedence for things coming from somewhere, but we NO precedence of things coming from nowhere.
Which is more reasonable to believe? Which is more probable? The the universe simply ‘popped” into existence? Or that someone put it there? That it is randomly ordered? Or orderly ordered?
Can you show me another circumstance where something came from nothing? or where something was meticulously ordered, that wasn’t created by “someone”? This is why the “watch” is such a good analogy.
Christians do not “Know” that God exists the same way we know that we exist. They believe that God exists. In a very personal way, they “know” that He exists, because we DO experience Him. But that is very subjective. For obvious reasons, we cannot prove empirically that He is there. But we CAN “KNOW” in our hearts that He is. That is enough for us, yes. And for our audience. It is not enough for you, and I concede, that to you, we only believe.
Far greater minds than I, have laid out the reasons for this belief. Read Aquinas. Read Augustine. Ask Lily (not Porno).
October 10th, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
Jeez MK, even I, a 14 year old girl knows that particle physicist Victor J. Stenger has shown that in a vacuum, pairs of electrons and positrons can and do materialize from nothing and then disappear back into nothing.
I must say your baseless claim that our universe must have came from “somewhere or someone” shows a gross over-reaching and misunderstanding of current (easily available) scientific knowledge of the universe. I suggest a bit of Hawking, Stenger etc.
However that may be, science fully acknowledges that there will always be boundaries to what we will know for sure. A simple “we don’t know (yet)” suffice in these cases.
Is that so difficult for you to do? Just say, “I don’t know”?
The description you have given me of somebody being sure (KNOW in their HEARTS) regardless (and sometimes despite) evidence to the contrary is called, a delusion. Plain and simple.
You, MK, will apply this standard to any other crazy idea and person, from Hitler to Charles Manson to the pilots who flew into the Twin Towers. Yet, you, and society will revere a person if these delusions are (as crazy) Christian based. Double standard?
MK, it is no use to refer me to the theology of Aquinas or Augustine or anybody else for that matter. (Who is Lily?)
What you regard as a grand academic achievement or body of ‘knowledge’ is from my point of view nothing more that the glorious creative imagination process of the human mind. There: that is theology for you in one sentence.
We have the unique ability to take something that is total myth, and apply our wonderful, creative and clever minds to fabricate and construct the most elaborate and ornate pseudo-academic frameworks around it, just for it to make a bit of sense.
We have been doing this since we have developed the ability to think, write, and fantasize. We have applied this process to most of the 5000 or so gods mankind have invented since the dawn of time. We are doing this to this day at Star Trek conventions and Catholic seminaries around the globe.
October 10th, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
OFFS– Are you aware that “big bang” cosmology met with stiff resistance in the scientific community? In fact, it was Hoyle who coined the term “Big Bang” as a term of derision and proposed his steady state cosmology to get around it. He saw, as did others, what the implications of a universe that had a definite beginning were. To this day, the attempts to get around that can be down right comical (as with the fairy tale of “multiverses”). Some, of course, are legitimate attempts to answer the questions big bang raises. But you might pause to ask yourself what the scientific community was afraid of.
You clearly have not read Aristotle or you would understand how he reasoned to an unmoved mover or a first cause. That foundation was rather brilliantly built on by Thomas Aquinas, whom you have also not read. That is a serious gap in your education that disqualifies you from taking part in a serious discussion of the logical arguments you would need to master to prove that it is not logical to postulate God. You are then left with what the majority of mankind has been left with– a search for evidence. We would never get very far, if we had to depend on the natural world. We don’t. God has spoken to us through Jesus. We have a number of accounts of him, his death and Resurrection, attested by a number of authors in different times and different places. Thus we have historical evidence to weigh– and the historical evidence is quite strong. Apply the usual standards of historical research to the New Testament and … oops! You have a very well-attested account of some rather remarkable events to explain or explain away.
Of course, the majority of believers have never read Aristotle or Aquinas either. They have listened and weighed what they have heard or been taught and concluded that it is true. Why? Have you ever asked? You appeal to Hawking but he does not share your simplistic acceptance of well what? Nothing? He wrote:
“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the question of why there should be a universe for the model to describe.”
You take the easy way out by not thinking about these things. What compelling evidence do you have that the physical universe is all that exists and nothing else? Do you have some empirical evidence for that proposition or a logical argument for it? Why should a universe that just “is” run (or seem to run) according to laws that we can understand and describe in the language of mathematics? Why do you take for granted what is a staggering mystery– that the universe can be comprehended by humans? When you have good answers to these questions, there are plenty more for you to deal with.
October 10th, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
MaggieMyLove,
You should have been on that list. *CHEERS* The crowd roars.
OFFS,
For the record, by “other worldly” I mean things that cannot be known in this world…our world. That might include Galaxies so far from us that we cannot discern them, or things in a different dimension, or on another plane. It is my understanding that the word metaphysical does not really mean other than physical but that which contains EVERYTHING, whether physical or mental or spiritual. The WHOLE enchilada so to speak.
Also, I am so happy you decided to drop the snarky adolescent routine and embark on a real discussion. Kudos to you. I knew you had it in you. I also know that you aren’t really fourteen, but were just playing one on TV. Truce?
October 10th, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
OFFS,
We have been doing this since we have developed the ability to think, write, and fantasize.
How do you “know” this?
The description you have given me of somebody being sure (KNOW in their HEARTS) regardless (and sometimes despite) evidence to the contrary is called, a delusion.
But wasn’t that your point? That you don’t HAVE to give evidence to the contrary because you aren’t making any claim? What evidence is there that there is no “other”? How does this make me delusional?
We have 6,000 years of Jewish history…much of which can be archeologically verified. We have the books of the New Testament, which as Maggie pointed out, were written by MANY different people, in different places, at different times. We have historical evidence that the man named Jesus DID exist.
Sure, people from the beginning of time have been trying to “fill in the blanks”. But they didn’t have scripture. They didn’t have ANY answers. Little by little things have been revealed to us. Not everything. You are right that man has been trying to find answers. At different points in time, they very well might have simply made things up, much the way we speak of angels bowling when it thunders or the “man” in the moon. The allegories might have been off, but from time immemorial, the questions and desire to know, have remained the same.
Why? Why does man continue to desire to know?
October 10th, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
LOL, mk. It would make almost as much sense to award me the Nobel Peace Prize for smiting heathens online as to reckon me amongst the olympian intellects like Aristotle, Aquinas, Lily, et al. I am not worthy!
October 10th, 2009 @ 6:17 pm
I still can’t get over the fact that RA is now RT. What the hell? I read this blog religiously for a long time, enjoying his daily skewering of religious belief.
How the hell does this happen? I still don’t think RA/RT has provided a suitable explanation of his conversion.
You can still be an atheist and a conservative (even pro-life). At my blog, there’s a large collection of highly conservative, intellectual, Darwinian secularists.
October 10th, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
OFFS, I have neither faith nor fear!! And about that proverbial 14 year-old girl: you are talking about virtual particles, right?
Maggie, not all the universe can be comprehended by humans. We can’t visualize more than 3 dimensions. We don’t know what nothing is. We don’t have any idea what particles look like (if that is even legitimate to say).
MK, I don’t know what kind of archaeology you’re reading but there’s nothing that I know of that solidifies the OT to a significant degree.
One STDV, I suppose RT will explain his POV one day. I’m very curious so I’m looking forward to it. And you make a good point: the socio-political spectrum is multi-dimensional. There are no ‘rules’ for being a liberal or conservative or moderate or radical or whatever.
Christopher Hitchens can support the Iraq invasion if he wishes – he cannot be obliged by his liberal peers to toe the line. He’s wrong, but he has the right to think as he pleases.
October 10th, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
Pikeman– Your cautions are very right but I am probably not the one who needs to be reminded. If I had a dollar for every atheist who has told me that I believe in a God of the gaps and that science will explain everything some day, I could retire a rich woman. Of course, one doesn’t often find that sort of scientism among real scientists but most atheists aren’t real scientists. Hence their absolute faith that science has or shortly will explain everything.
OneSTDV, people convert for all sorts of reasons. Frankly, everyone’s story is different. If you want to get a sense of it, you might read some spiritual autobiographies like the classic Seven Storey Mountain by Thomas Merton, Surprised by Joy by CS Lewis and, of course the earliest (and probably one of the most amazing ever written) St. Augustine’s Confessions.
Of course, if you have any friends who are adult converts, you might speak to them.
October 11th, 2009 @ 4:45 am
Maggie, I think you are little bit naughty for ask me if I have hands. You have obviously seen adult movie I am appear in where I use mostly mouth and sometimes feet. Am happy you like my work! Also, I think is right what you say in comment number 67: if many people tell you something, it must has to surely be wrong (except in case of majority vote for G-D, but this is obvious, no?). I am so happy I meet smart woman like you, and finally you have lerned to capitalicise your name, so you learn from me, I learn from you, no?
OFFS, why you do not listen to MK? He tell you every logic of Christianity but simply you will not learn. We know universe exist, yes? We have precedence for fact that if something exist, it must come from someone/somewhere. There is not any exception to this (except G-D, but this is obvious, no?). Therefore, universe must come from somewhere/someone, and MK already tell you that majority vote decide that this someone is G-D! You must read more deeply Aristotle, who is cutting edge researcher!
October 11th, 2009 @ 8:52 am
LOL Porno Lily,
I think you like learning from Maggie, because the two of you may be far-off sisters! Her second name just may be Lily too. This is why you like her so much! That’s so hot.
Funny thing, as a 14 year old girl they want me to read Aristotle first to be able to become a Kristian. That’s quite a task! I was sure there is an easier way to convert lost sheep like me. Now I have to read Aristotle! Imagine that, me, a 14 year old! Is this how they recruit new Kristians? The marketing department suck!
It is also funny because they bring this Unmoved Mover argument to the fight which they should know has been comprehensively disproved by scientists on a practical level and even more comprehensively as a philosophical concept as a logical fallacy. My uncle says for them to do this is like bringing a pen-knife to a gun fight. The only people ever satisfied with that argument is – get this – already Kristians! Nobody else accepts it. That so funny. My dirty uncle, he is so funny.
I have just read the back-cover of Aristotle’s novel (in soft cover) and it says here that Aristotle used to put a lot of emphasis on the correct meaning and definition of words, and used to require his students to do this properly. Funny that I am amongst grown-up Kristians who loooovvvee Aristotle, yet none of them have been able to tell me anything what god means or define him. It is so funny that uncle MK and Maggie Hippopotamus just keep rambling on, and I have no klue what they mean. That’s not fair!!
See MK, Maggie, I believe in the great kfhduhgf. He lives in fhhiyuffwdwe. His characteristics are iforcfncnx, fds, ferfref, and cfrrrtess. He is made of vfgupidxd and crcresw materials. Do you fucking get it? I have no clue what you mean by the word god, angels, demons, spirits, miracles, heaven and hell.
So, before I can rap with you, where does God live? What is it made of? Does it eat? Does it breed? Does it like ice-cream? Is it humanoid? Why can’t we find him? Is he shy? Why can’t we detect him? Does he live on another planet? In the sky? Does it breathe air? Does it own sunglasses? How does it communicate with you? And how do you communicate with it? How does “prayer” work? Where’s my spirit? In which part of my sexy body does is it? What will happen to you when you die?
I have thought about it (in my little 14-year old mind) and I have realised I have the proof to disprove this god-thing in one sentence! Yes!
And all you grown-ups will become atheists.
But to do that I need to know what I am supposed to disprove. So if you don’t mind, since you LOVE, KNOW, REVERE, and READ about It, please let me know.
Oh, by the way, don’t be naughty now and give me silly human-like qualities like “love”, “justice”, “father”, or that crazy “all-knowing”, “all present” bullshit, because you know as I do those are logically impossible and / or false (The Bible is my witness). I love using the bible against Kristians. They HATE it when I quote the Bible.
Oh, yes, the Old Testament / New Testament archaeology and historicity thingy. It is soooo cute you bring this up. Last year, and the year before, and the year before, my uncle took me to Israel. We had a lot of fun. But my uncle went to see all these other grown-ups at universities and archaeological sites. I tagged along. And I was so interested in finding all the evidence for any or all the exciting and cool Bible stories, but….none of it exists! None!! Boy was I peeved!! One of the professors told my uncle that the tour busses will gladly show you all the amazing Old Testament stuff as well as Jesus-land, but sadly, they don’t have any evidence of the Bible. In fact it CONTRADICTS the Bible. I was a bit pissed and quickly became bored after that. I KNEW I should’ve stayed in the hotel in Jerusalem!
Next to the pool you know, with my IPod. One day at the pool I met this creepy bearded guy who said he was a Jewish historian. And he says, even though Jesus MIGHT have been a real dude, NOTHING else of the story is true! And they should know, they lived there! LOL. They say Paul was a bullshitter who just wanted to become famous by starting a new religion. I don’t believe him though. Tentmakers are honest poeple!
I then slapped him because he wanted to see what I looked like without my bikini on! Can you believe it??!
October 11th, 2009 @ 9:37 am
So much cyber ink spilled in order to say nothing. Children really should be seen and not heard.
Porno Lily– are you Chinese?
October 11th, 2009 @ 9:48 am
Maggie…are…you…giving…up…on me?
I soooo wanted to believe. Really, really, really!
Funny again, that you call me a child, yet you believe in
talking snakes, big wooden boats with animals inside, parting seas, 10 magik plagues, food falling from the air, the sun standing still, giants, super-strong men, men walking on water, zombies rising from graves, virgin births, stars standing still in the skies, water turning into wine, dead people becomming alive again, magik tricks feeding 5000 with two fish, heaven, hell, angels, demons, talking with gods with your eyes closed, and imagining that there is a super-being looking after you every day!
Stoopid grown up.
October 11th, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
I am so sick and tired of all the ontology FFS, does “G” word exist or not???!! ‘S all I wanna know….
October 11th, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
Quite honestly OFFS,
You have become kind of tedious. I think I’ll bow out. I love a serious discussion, and I’ll put up with a lot of adolescent nonsense to get to one. But quite frankly? You’re not really good at this. There’s not much of a challenge, and I’ve become rather bored.
Sorry Maggie, Pikeman and Richard…you guys are on your own. I have much more pressing business…like clipping my nails or watching the grass grow…
Good Luck OFFS.
October 11th, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
Awwww, noo MK!
I am not good at what?
Pretending?
Playing along?
Play make-believe?
Indulging in your fantasy?
Aw, gee, the Great MK predictably does what all Kristians do when we get them in a corner by asking them what god is. Then they pretend to be all angry, frustrated and stomp off in a huff. Text book case.
Ok, ok, MK, let’s have a *serious*, *grown-up* discussion about:
talking snakes, big wooden boats with animals inside, parting seas, 10 magik plagues, food falling from the air, the sun standing still, giants, super-strong men, men walking on water, zombies rising from graves, virgin births, stars standing still in the skies, water turning into wine, dead people becomming alive again, magik tricks feeding 5000 with two fish, heaven, hell, angels, demons, talking with gods with your eyes closed, and imagining that there is a super-being looking after you every day!
Come baaacckk MK! Don’t be scared! I am only a 14-year old girl! You must have had stiffer opposition before, surely!
October 11th, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
Not good at sarcasm. Not good at insults. Not good at arrogance. Mostly your just annoying. I even complimented you earlier on your apparent sincerity.
My bad.
I’m not leaving because I can’t answer, I’m leaving because you are a waste of my time. I only joust with worthy opponents. Sorry. Maybe next time. Not.
October 11th, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
As official referee here, I hereby (reluctantly) declare
2-0 to the 14-year old girl. It seems MK has lost (or withdrawn) due to injury to his ego.
Come on team! The two of you is all I got!
You are letting me down!
October 11th, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
MK, my wonderful man! I knew I could count on you to be back! All Kristians do this too. Pretend to go, and then return to remind us they are going now. Cute. Never knew you were a text-book case did you, you dirty old man!
And funny, you say the exact same thing the 12-year old boys say at my school when they have had their asses handed to them:
“I’m not leaving because I can’t answer”
Classic, priceless and sooo predictable!
We belieeeeve you MK! Really!
October 11th, 2009 @ 7:32 pm
What on earth are you talking about, RT? Since when does it make sense to argue with time-wasters, much less an anonymous troll? It is one thing to to try to get through to the people around one in real life but quite another to allow some preposterous excuse like offs to waste one’s time online. I go online for my amusement and no one else’s. MK has her reasons but neither of us has enough years of life left to waste them.
This clown, when challenged with real questions, failed to answer a single one, opting to spew the usual nonsense about “talking snakes, big wooden boats with animals inside, parting seas, 10 magik plagues, food falling from the air, the sun standing still, giants, super-strong men, men walking on water, zombies rising from graves.” He has had several chances to show that he could engage in adult conversation. He failed.
If you think he is worth arguing with, have at it.
October 12th, 2009 @ 4:45 am
Maggie it is getting boring to call you an idiot. So I will just call you, and MK, downright pathetic.
You are so crawled up in the ass of your ridiculous religion, you do not even realise the magnitude of your infantile fantasy. I have asked, VERY POLITELY, BEFORE I can continue a *conversation* that I need to know what the hell you are talking about!!! So I will gladly answer your *questions* (wait why am I asking the questions? surely I should be asking YOU the questions!), but I need to understand your funny words.
IS THAT SO DIFFICULT TO GRASP!!?? You cannot be THAT thick can you?
WHAT
IS
A
“GOD”????????????????????????????????????????????????????
However, I know my efforts will be in vain to get an answer to this basic question. It is always met in textbook fashion – refer to posts above.
Wanna see more examples of crafty, squirming side-stepping? Watch the following responses. LOL.
OR – they will say (in between sobs) that whatever description they give I will challenge. You bet I will. No bullshit allowed. No logical contradictions. And don’t contradict your own Bible with your silly anthropomorphic descriptors. Kay?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I have learnt over many, many years why you never engage in answering this question. It is simple.
It erodes any intellectual integrity you may have in these debates. It is all great to be haughty when discussing CS Lewis, or the cosmological argument, but this embarrassing question pulls the grown-up, intellectual carpet straight from under you feet. It forces you to become all “esoteric” and a little illogical, a little irrational, a little silly, and even your infected brains HATE doing this.
Especially when you are talking to a 14 year old girl.
October 12th, 2009 @ 6:24 am
Maggie,
Raving Atheist (this time) is OFFS. Trust me, there can’t be two of them.
OFFS,
Puhlease…
Your argument: Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah..I don’t believe in Goooooood…you caaaaan”t make me. I know you are but what am I? You’re a big fat stuuuuupid. I’m smaaaaaaart. You’re a maaaaaaaan. Neener, neener, neener. F***, F***, F***…blah blah blah..I don’t understand big woooooooords…you’re an idiot…nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah.
My answer in words you CAN understand: Neeener, neener, neener. I DO believe in God. You can’t stooooop me. Stupid is as stupid doooooooes…I’m not a maaaaaaan…You’re too smart for me. Got it all figured out. You’re right. You win.
October 12th, 2009 @ 6:56 am
Jezuz on a tricycle! MK! Welcome back girlfriend!! Sorry, about before. I thought you were a dumb man. Now I find out you are a dumb woman. My apologies!
Do you have a formula of behaviour saved on your computer?
It is not just that you are unwilling (or can’t) answer my basic question, but that your reaction and behaviour is text-book, to-the-letter predictable. Even the bit where you insult me for being more clever than you. Wow! I’m looking for ‘acting superior’. You missed one MK!! You ‘joust’ like Don Quixote.
Atheists of the world, I bring you….the bog-standard, factory made, garden variety, vanilla flavoured KRISTIAN!!
Alongside this, your promising not to return, “or tune out”, or ignoring you me, yet you come back time and time again for more abuse.
You really DO have a problem with the real meaning of words, don’t you? Cuuute.
Wanna see how I drive this little prayer group craaazzzyyy? Watch this:
What is a ‘god’?
October 12th, 2009 @ 8:31 am
Well, mk, maybe you are right. But wouldn’t it be easier just to close up shop and stop blogging altogether than to create a persona so annoying that it drives away the last two or three people who still drop by occasionally? Still, I must admit that I wondered what was going on when RT descended from Mt Olympus to interact with the mere mortals.
I’m going to miss Porno Lily!
October 12th, 2009 @ 8:46 am
Maggie,
There is absolutely no reason why you and I can’t continue to talk. I have never read Aquinas, or Augustine…Chesterton and Lewis are tough enough. But I’d LOVE if you’d teach me what you know. Walk me through their arguments from “reason”. Cliff notes, you know? Then I might be ready to read the real thing.
We might as well use this blog. I’m here. You’re here. I want to learn. You know stuff.
Are you up for it?
October 12th, 2009 @ 8:47 am
Oh and BTW, I didn’t mean that RT was posing as OFFS, but that OFFS was posing as RT. RT is the real deal. He DOES want us to talk. The “post” is legit. It’s the commenter that is a phony. Pretty sure Porno Lily and OFFS are the same character.
No, this is real. Anyone can come on an use Raving Theist as their moniker. I could come on and “pose” as OFFS…watch.
October 12th, 2009 @ 8:48 am
See? It’s me.
October 12th, 2009 @ 8:48 am
Me again…
October 12th, 2009 @ 8:49 am
Raving Theist can tell who is who, because he can get “behind the scenes” and see IP numbers and email addresses. I run a blog, so I know. But ANYONE can use ANY moniker that they choose and you and I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. Except by the idiotic words that the commenter uses.
October 12th, 2009 @ 9:02 am
Maggie, am I not Chinese, but the China use to be socialist country brother to my home Russia when still we were oppressed by Communist! I am from the Russia, member of Eastern orthodox church but always hoping that schism between East and Roman Catholic maybe can oneday be healed. Of course, smart researchers of Theology and Philosophy must invent true answers for difficult theological question, especially my fellow Eastern orthodox must learn to accept full divineity of the Jesus as I have accepted through hard study and personal revelation. But I hope one day Body of Christ must no longer breathe with two lungs!
October 12th, 2009 @ 9:12 am
Oh, I see! Well, Porno Lily is an old troll friend of mine. offs is not. I would be so surprised if PL could pull off such an annoyingly juvenile persona. She is just way too smart to be able to pose as a stupid person (I think).
As for discussing Aquinas and Augustine with you? Sure, but I am no expert (Do we want to do it here? You have a venue to that might make a weekly “Visit the Church Fathers” post amusing). I just call on stuff I remember from years ago in college; occasionally I dust off the old books still sitting on my shelf and look stuff up. But if you haven’t read Augustine, you really must give the Confessions a try! There are a bunch of translations online but some are so old that the English translation is annoyingly old fashioned. Lemme look around and get back to you with a link to the most readable I can find, so that you can give it a test drive and see if you would find it interesting. I can tell you that there is a biography of Augustine that came out 15 or so years ago that was so good that I was left shaking my head in awe. I guess I wasn’t the only one who thought so because it was popular enough for the publisher to print a 2nd revised edition. It is by Peter Brown and should be readily available in any decent-sized library.
Speaking of Church Fathers, I just bought the Pope’s little book on the Church Fathers. I haven’t had a chance to read it yet. It should be interesting.
October 12th, 2009 @ 9:19 am
Oops. I hasten to add that I used the word “troll” of PL, in the friendliest, most loving spirit! I wouldn’t want to offend a star of stage or screen… Plus, her sister Lucy is a very great friend of mine; so great that I named one of my cats after her. Amazingly, Lucy is Chinese, yet Porno Lily is Russian. Talk about diversity!
October 12th, 2009 @ 9:33 am
Maggie, lol.
I have a bunny named Lucy.
How does one profess to be A Russian Orthodox Christian that makes porn movies??? Good Heavens!
We can do it right here. You start me out. Then if you want (after you give me a version that I can wade through) we can even do a “book club”.
I do have a blog of my own (well I share it with another girl) and it would be AWESOME if we did a running/weekly book club post on Augustine (Confessions) or Aquinas (teach me the Reason Argument). We can repost the posts here.
I’m off to grocery shop right now, but I’ll be back. I actually need to go to the library today so I can get whatever book we come up with. ALthough I tend to mark up my books so I might have to actually purchase it.
There is another Lily that posts on here that might like to join us…
Whoo hoo! I’m finally going to read the “GREAT ONES!”
October 12th, 2009 @ 9:37 am
Well, if you are off to the library, try to get your hands on Brown’s biography. That would be a very friendly intro to Augustine and his world (the man is just fascinating!) I will poke around the internet to see about that translation, during my lunch break.
October 12th, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
Maggie,
Man, I was runnin’ all day. Grandkids today. BUT, tomorrow I’m relatively free. I’ll pick up the Augustine book then…if that’s the one you want to do…
October 12th, 2009 @ 7:57 pm
Well, I dunno. I went to Amazon to see how the 2nd edition changed and basically, Brown changed his mind about some of his judgments– I can’t tell you how cool I think it is that he would add a couple chapters just to say that he was wrong about xyz. I have the first edition we could still start with it. But I am ordering the 2nd. You should take a look at the reviews on Amazon. I am not alone in thinking it was really a fantastic piece of work.
But I am thinking that what this is good for is putting us in the right frame of mind to tackle the Confessions. I did find one pretty decent translation out there and there are more. I will see if there is some consensus about the best translations over the next couple of days.
You can take a look at the one I found that I think is the best so far, here: http://www.online-literature.com/saint-augustine/confessions-of-saint-augustine/
It is still pretty dense. I think I will the read the 5 chapters on Augustine in B16’s book and see what that might add to the mix. For all I know, that might be the place to start!
October 12th, 2009 @ 11:01 pm
Dude, OFFS, the God in whom we believe doesn’t even define himself. “I AM WHO I AM” is a pretty declarative statement on the matter. We don’t even freaking know – He’s a mystery. That’s kind of what’s so awesome and fearful about Him. All that we know of Him is what He has revealed to us – we’ve been created in His image and He enables us to enter into an actual relationship with Him. When I was a bit younger, before my atheistic stage, I believed in God – but it didn’t transform my life because it was more of a mental assent. Now, He has given me an increased awareness of Himself. I have physically felt His presence. I know many who have been miraculously healed. I have been healed of many emotional issues and have a freedom and confidence I never had before. I am able to love people in a way that I never previously was able. But most of all, I have gone from not believing in God, to believing in Him through experience but not loving Him, to actually loving God. I crave spending time in worship and prayer. His presence is a powerful thing. (there are actually chemical changes that occur in the brain during prayer – you may have heard about this.) I’ve only been a Christian for two years, and my life, the way I see things, is COMPLETELY altered. I can only attribute this to being a “new creation.” This may not convince you, but that is because you are spiritually dead – haha! Sorry, but that’s what I believe. I was there, too. It was only when I realized the desperate state of myself and all of humanity and cried out to the void to reveal truth to me that it came. “Seek and ye will find.” See, another affirmation was that all of these promises have (and still are) coming true for me.
So, don’t expect an indepth description from Christians. He is the eternal mystery. We can’t define him or quantify Him, but know He exists through the very fabric of creation. He reveals Himself through Christ and, as William Lane Craig would say, “The inner witness of the Holy Spirit.” Now, this won’t convince you because you haven’t experienced it, so I’m not trying to convince you from my own experience – but just attempting to relay that I don’t think Christians are uncomfortable with the question of defining God. We have experienced His love, provision, discipline, guidance and all that sort of thing and so tell of it, but that’s really as far as we can “define” him. We recognize that He is a mystery. Life is a mystery. It is a GIFT. We accept this gift with an awe and reverence, not content to claim it as our own, we have searched and found its Source and aim to show our deep appreciation for the gift by living it for Him.
I think there are good intellectual arguments for the existence of a Creator, but until you have experienced who God is for yourself, you cannot truly know that he has the characteristics typically ascribed to Him.
I recognize that people of other religions have felt strongly about who they believe God to be, and we can get into that. For starters, I don’t think people from other religions who have sought the Eternal are necessarily going to hell because they don’t know about Jesus – I don’t think that perception is Biblical, despite the claims of many Christians. Heck, I don’t even think many people who claim to be Christians truly are.
I guess I should get prepared to be made fun of, eh?
October 13th, 2009 @ 12:18 am
Kelly, there are lots of people who insist on telling us who and what God is. Needless to say they can safely be ignored. But fanaticism can touch us all, I guess, so we need to be careful.
Your experience is for you. I don’t doubt it for a second. Are you deluded? I don’t know. Richard Dawkins can’t know. But who cares? I’m not that neurotic to make you admit to the label I could put onto you.
I know a spiritual person who is very much at peace and contentment. He has had different but equally amazing experiences to the ones you describe. Not better, just different. He isn’t a Christian. There is no label for his spirituality, sadly, but let’s just call him ’spiritual’.
October 13th, 2009 @ 5:38 am
Pike,
We know that there can only be three things that are true.
There is a God and one of the religions has got it right.
There is a God, but He/She/It has not revealed Himself yet.
There is no God.
What cannot be true is that your friend and Kelli both have it right.
As a Catholic I believe number 1 (obviously). I believe that the Catholic Church has the Fullness of Truth, meaning “all that can be known”, is known by Her. I believe that other faiths (mostly) have bits and pieces of the truth. So, it’s not like I’m saying they are flat out wrong about everything (except of course for scientologists
)just that they do not have a complete picture.
So if your friend is at peace due to his beliefs, I would say that even tho he doesn’t know/realize it, this is because on some level he is still in touch with God, THE God, the ONLY God.
October 13th, 2009 @ 5:43 am
Okay Maggie
I’ll hold off buying any book until you decide. Then if it goes well, we can tackle them ALL…lol.
Pick one you haven’t read if you want. If that will make it more fun for you…
I’ll do whatever you want. We should probably read them one chapter at a time. Do you think? I did this with “The Abolition of Man” and it was awesome. One chapter at a time was more than enough. The girl I did it with is as verbose as I am and it took us weeks to get through a chapter. I also did a 6 month long book club post on “Theology of the Body” on my blog.
It’s really a great way to read a book. Especially a deep book. You know how you read and come across something and you want to talk about it, but no one else is reading it so they just don’t “get” it? It’s awesome to have someone that is exactly “where you are”…
Pikeman,
You want to join us? Kelli?
October 13th, 2009 @ 7:22 am
Well, if you take a look at the translation I pointed you to, it is dense! But it isn’t hard to read. I did read two of B16’s Augustine chapters and they are a really nice introduction. But I don’t think they would yield much in the way of discussion. The teacher in me says that reading about someone is not the same as reading someone. But Augustine and his world are 1700 years removed from us, so I am leaning towards starting with the Brown’s biography.
I am starting to get into this– what do you think about this– we read a chapter of the biography and a chapter (they are pretty short) of the Confessions? I will have to look at the biography again to see if it would lend itself to being a sort of chapter by chapter intro to the Confessions. Or we could just read the dratted biography and go from there!
October 13th, 2009 @ 8:49 am
Maggie,
Whichever you think. You’re the one that knows what we’re doin’ here, so I’ll concede to your decisions. Either way, I’m way excited.
October 13th, 2009 @ 8:50 am
Oh I see now that the WHOLE of the “Confessions” is online. That’s awesome. So I only need to pick up Browns book, right?
October 13th, 2009 @ 8:51 am
Maggie,
Now that I think of it, that would be great because then ANYBODY could jump on board because the “Confessions” are free.
October 13th, 2009 @ 9:38 am
Oh joy! I just found another, even better, translation online. This one references the scriptures that A cites throughout. I am going to land in moderator hell if I put too many links in this post so here is the translation itself:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/confessions.iv.html
but if you poke around the site (Christian Classics Ethereal Library) you will lots more of interest. I am going to chance one more link to a large selection of etexts just for the sake of anyone who might find an old favorite there:
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page
If anyone is unfamiliar with Project Gutenberg, this will be an eye-opener. It is amazing what you can find there!
October 13th, 2009 @ 11:45 am
Ok. This is weird. I posted a message with a couple links an hour or so ago and now it is gone. What on earth? Well, here it is again. If this disappears, I will be perplexed:
Best free online translation I have found by far:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/confessions.html (there is at least one other translation at this site)
Also, just for fun– Project Gutenberg is the largest etext site in creation I believe. It is unbelievable what you can find there– old favorites, out-of-print, etc.
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page
October 13th, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
Wow, Confessions is gonna be tough. It’s not the ideas, its the language! Okay, let’s do it. Are we doing both side by side?
October 13th, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
Might do something constructive with my lurking here and follow along with you. Been meaning to dust off my copy of Confessions one of these days, anyways.
October 13th, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
I think is such the beautiful idea to read St. Augustine’s “Confessions”. This was very important books for me always! Has it such a powerful spirituality, really it moves the heart and the mind! One of very beautiful paragraphs is in book Eleven, the second chapter:
This what OFFS cannot understand: The heaven and the earth, they TELL that must have been made. First, because they is always change! Everything that is changed must be made, is obvious, I think. Second, because they have visible presence but you must LISTEN to voice of heaven and earth. Maybe am I not express this well, but I think the Christians, they will know what is my meaning.
@Kelly, I think is very important what you say: G-D, he does not define what he is, therefore simply cannot be any hope that human people can define, because we human not higher than G-D. OFFS, she think she higher than G-D, that is why is she always ask for “definition”! Thank you!
October 13th, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
Lemme look at the biography tonight and see if it lends itself to being used sort of like a commentary. If it doesn’t, I propose we just read it and then decide what to do about the Confessions. (We *really* ought to read the City of God too!)
October 13th, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
Catherine Margaret,
Yeah!!!!!
Porno Lily,
How can someone have such a fine understanding of God, the Faith, Scripture and Augustine and still choose to use her body to incite lust? I’m asking seriously, because I cannot decide about you…On the one hand you sound like a very decent person, and then on the other you keep talking about porn…
Can’t decide if you’re yankin’ our chain for on the level.
October 13th, 2009 @ 7:57 pm
Your list of three possibilities is very concise – and agreeable.
But both my friend and Kelly *are* correct at the same time. Should one be celibate? Nobody but the individual can decide that. Should one hit back? Should one take another to court? It depends. My friend has not had any details revealed to him. Maybe he will, maybe he won’t.
Christianity is an expression of certain spiritual values. Or maybe just one way to express all of them. I asked a clergyman why the Bible trivializes God by calling him ‘Father’. His reply: God is too big for us to understand, so we have to dumb it down somehow.
There was a Rabbi Hillel who said something vaguely like “Love is the only law, all else is just details.”
I would love to read Confessions. Just not right now.
October 13th, 2009 @ 10:08 pm
Hey MK, I would put money down that Porno Lily is really an educated atheist. I think s/he’s attempting to make Augustine’s poetic proclamation of creation “speaking” seem superstitious, as well as my claim that God is too incredible for definition. Believing that I shouldn’t have the capability of defining the Eternal God in incredibly specific terms means I’m relegating myself to childishness. And I admit, it is true – I am but a helpless infant in the hands of Yahweh. The finite cannot comprehend the infinite. How do people ignore this?
“I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” (Mark 10:15)
PK, I am not one to judge your friend – that’s God’s job. The defining factor of being saved is having a relationship with the true God. The way I perceive it is (and there is Scriptural precedent for this) that this God can be known without knowledge of Jesus (take the Native Americans who believe in the Great Spirit, pre-Christ (and likely post-Christ) Jews, and those from other religions who are truly seeking a relationship with the Source of their existence. Jesus is the image of the invisible God, and so heightens our awareness of WHO God is, and who we are in relation to Him, which makes it easier to love Him. It also enables us to have a fuller realization of what is going on in the world – where it is all heading, and what God has enabled us to do to be a part of it. Now, I think that a person who has access to good information about Jesus Christ who is interested in Truth will come to Him.
Pikeman – how can a person who claims exclusive truth be equally correct with someone who claims relativism?
October 14th, 2009 @ 5:08 am
@Kelly, I am very sorry for the bad English, I cannot express very well often my thinking. But I study hard! Am educated through studying hard the Holy Bible and the Christian philosophy. Unfortunately, could not my family pay for college or university, so only education I have is by myself and study group by local church. But I think is this good education, because in Russia very little Christian universities. I do not want to say that you are superstitious at all! In my opinion, OFFS is the superstitious for believing there cannot be any G-D! St. Augustine’s proclamation (thank you for teaching to me this new word!) to me is very poetic, but I think can be poetic but also true, no? You say you are helpless infant, I think is this just a manner of speaking, no? But I think is very beautiful image, which show how the Christians they must live their life!
@MK, I must thank you for telling that I have fine understanding, but I think you praise too much, no? I am study hard, but so much I must still learn! Every day I struggle, because faith very beautiful, but also hard work, do you agree? The inciting of lust, is surprising question for me. First, is just job that I working for money, so I think this is not bad thing. Also, I think that the sexy feelings, they are gift from G-D too, but of course I agree that is difficult to see fine line between good sexy feeling and cardinal sin of lust. I will try to think more about question from you. The yanking of chain, this idiom I did not know. I look up in dictionary and see it mean to harrass the people. But this not my plan! I am very sorry for harrass!
October 14th, 2009 @ 5:42 am
Porno,
Yanking one’s chain means to fool someone…to pretend to be something you aren’t.
You say this is just a job and yet in an earlier post you said:
“to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand” (Exodus 17:9)
Seriously? You don’t see how incredibly offensive that is? To evoke a picture of having sex with God?
You say that you only do these movies as a job, and yet there is considerable pride in your voice when you talk about your occupation.
If you had not highlighted that part of the quote I might believe you. But there was no reason, none, to do so, except for “shock” value.
Of course the body is beautiful. Of course sex is good.
But surely you know, if you know nothing else, that God expects ONLY married people to have sex, and He certainly doesn’t want you abusing your body by using it as a “thing”. Your body is the temple that God lives in. It’s a church. It’s a dwelling place. How can God live in a place that has been desecrated. That is treated in such a degrading manner?
If you are for real, and you are sincere in your desire to know and please Him, then you have to rethink what you are doing. If, on the other hand, this is just a “Borat” type game for you, then carry on I guess. It’s your body, your bad. You, not I, will reap the repercussions.
October 14th, 2009 @ 5:46 am
Maggie,
You told me that Peter Brown wrote the biography, but didn’t tell me the title.
October 14th, 2009 @ 7:18 am
mk– Augustine of Hippo by Peter Brown.
Porno: Christians are not to live like helpless infants, rather just the opposite– you know better than that. It takes more than a little maturity to do the right thing even when it costs. It is not an easy matter to become conformed to the image of Christ.
Understand that you are a helpless infant … no, a helpless worm in the hands of God. God is not mocked. We emphasize rightly His mercy and compassion. But do not be fooled. Our God is a consuming fire. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (You could do worse than read Hebrews on this subject. Or Deuteronomy)
October 14th, 2009 @ 11:21 am
Maggie,
I went to the library this morning and they have no books by Peter Brown and no books tites Augustine of Hippo…
Are you sure the title/author are right? Did I get them wrong?
October 14th, 2009 @ 11:38 am
@Maggie, I think you are yanking on the chain for saying that the Christians, they should not live like the helpless infants! This is just manner of speaking to say that we must accept absolute authority of G-D, because “he will beautify the meek with salvation” (Psalm 149: 4). Is many such manner of speaking in the Holy Bible: “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass (Isaiah 40: 8), this not suppose to mean that should sit on lawn all day, yes? “O Lord, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.” (Isaiah 64: 7), this does not mean G-D make pottery from Christian people, yes? It mean that we must accept absolute power of G-D over our life! Because G-D give strength to Christian people: “But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.” (Isaiah 64: 31), so maybe better we say that Christian people must live the life like STRONG helpless infant, but I know that this is not well express.
@MK, title of book is right, is Peter Brown, “Augustine of Hippo”, publicized by University of California Press, in year of 1967. I think there is new edition, also, but we have very little new books in Russia.
October 14th, 2009 @ 11:53 am
P-Lily: Metaphors and similes are devices to help illustrate concepts. Recognizing one’s utter dependence on God is the act of a sane human being. It is fine to describe the creature as clay or as an infant, so long as one understands that we are talking about the relationship of creator to creature. An adult who remains a child, morally or intellectually is greatly to be pitied. We are called to better things.
MK– I am really sad that your library doesn’t have the book. Can you ask them to get it for you through interlibrary loan? (Or recommend that they purchase it? They really should have it, if the library is a decent-sized city library.) The only problem with interlibrary loan is that you usually only get the book for 2 or 3 weeks.
October 14th, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
Porno Lily (PLEASE can we change your name?) You didn’t answer #112 and I really, really, really want to hear what you have to say.
Maggie,
I ordered it from Amazon…it should be here in a few days!
October 14th, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
You better not have grabbed the cheap used copy of the 2nd. ed. I put on my wish list!!
October 14th, 2009 @ 7:40 pm
Maggie,
Oh man, oh man, oh man…I bet I did. It was a used copy…shoot…let me go and check. If I can.
October 14th, 2009 @ 7:42 pm
Dang, dang and double dang…
1 “Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (New Edition, with an Epilogue)”
Peter Brown; Paperback; $10.45
New Edition…that means 2nd, doesn’t it???? Now what do I do? Is it that awful? I thought you said you liked the idea of him correcting stuff?
Oh man, oh man, oh man…. hmmmmmmmmm….
October 14th, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
Oh wait…that was on your wish list???? oops.
I’m so confused. Okay, so I got the right copy, but unfortunately it was your copy?
I think there were two of them from different places. Both in very good condition…both for $10.something…but I don’t know if the other one was the new edition…
I’m so ashamed
October 14th, 2009 @ 7:47 pm
Maggie,
It looks like they are all second edition and there is a copy for 10.99 and the one I ordered is still up there so maybe they had more than one copy? Or else they just didn’t take it down yet…lol…what are the odds????
October 14th, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
And where the heck did P. Lily go? I went to her “website” and the “the rod of God in my hand” is her “logo”…
October 14th, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
I’ll survive, even if you did snag my copy! Re PL. Don’t forget the time difference! I think it is yesterday in Russia. Or maybe its the day after tomorrow. As far as the website is concerned? I think PL is “yanking on your chain”. She’ll be back.
October 14th, 2009 @ 8:07 pm
Maggie,
I do too. But if she’s for real, I’d hate to dump on her…anonymity can be great…or it can be a pain in the behind.
October 14th, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
Btw,
So sorry about your copy. Who knew? lol.
October 14th, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
Its ok. Apparently, Brown didn’t revise the text so much as add a chapter or two talking about where his interpretation/ understanding of Augustine had changed over the years. So you will save me $10 by telling me what he says!
Do you have access to NetLibrary(a subscription online library)from your public library? I ran across a very interesting book of Brown’s on early Christian vs Roman attitudes towards marriage, the body, et al. Can’t remember the title but I have it bookmarked. Given your interest in the Theology of the Body, I suspect you might get even more out of it than I.
October 14th, 2009 @ 11:09 pm
OFFS wrote:
“…even I, a 14 year old girl knows that particle physicist Victor J. Stenger has shown that in a vacuum, pairs of electrons and positrons can and do materialize from nothing and then disappear back into nothing.”
The virtual particles materialize from the vacuum state which is a quantum field with vacuum energy. The most popular explanation for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is that energy density of the vacuum is non-zero.
Regardless of which theory of dark energy, the cosmological constant, etc. pans out, this vacuum state is clearly not the same as the “nothing” philosophers speak of when they say things like, “Out of nothing, nothing comes.”
October 15th, 2009 @ 3:34 am
Kelly #110: Pikeman – how can a person who claims exclusive truth be equally correct with someone who claims relativism?
I note that few people actually look at my alias closely. It has two ‘n’s not one.
But you sure as hell aren’t the first to make that mistake. I started using the net while USENET was still popular.
Anyway! When I say that you are right also, I mean that your experience was legitimate. My spiritual experiences are quite mild compared to a lot I hear about.
Last month I watched a video by a man named Ian McCormack, whom I describe as evangelical, who had a very specific vision of Jesus and Heaven after being stung by jellyfish. Parts of it felt right, parts of it did not. Not for me, though, to pass judgement. His experience was for him.
October 15th, 2009 @ 5:37 am
Pike,
I (we?) thought you were responding to my point that there are only three choices…no one right, there is a God but we are all wrong about who He is, No one is right, there is no God, or one of us is right and the rest are wrong.
The one thing that cannot be true is that we are all right.
Of course we are all entitled to our own beliefs and interpretations. But I was talking about “Truth” not feelings.
It is not wrong to believe in the wrong thing.
October 15th, 2009 @ 5:45 am
Father Terry,
Don’t disappear. If OFFS comes back, we’ll need you!
October 16th, 2009 @ 6:06 am
MK, I of course wasn’t structuring my arguements that well. So I’ll see if I can summarize. Your points in order above were:
1. There is a God and one of the religions has got it right.
2. There is a God, but He/She/It has not revealed Himself yet.
3. There is no God.
I’m going with 2. The only solid thing about truth that I know is that at the very least, discrete truths can be known well enough to call it a done deal. E.g. we live in the universe.
I also am aware that certain propositions cannot be true all of the time. E.g. killing a person is not permissible.
A doctrine that claims that any fundamental, ultimate truth can be known only though it goes against every bit of understanding about ‘truth’ that I possess.
A feeling is not an experience. And for practical purposes, it’s hard to know anything without having a feeling about it. I am not convinced that Kelly’s experience was genuine while my friend’s was not. They both can be: why not? I am not for organized faith, yet here we have Kelly’s experience. I can’t pretend that it was a delusion while mine and those of others are genuine.
I think your last statement has at least some legitimacy. I’m not sure how far it can be stretched though!
October 16th, 2009 @ 6:41 am
The analogy is faulty.
A better one would be trying to describe a rainbow to a SEEING person who has never been outside and doesn’t plan to go look until you can prove that rainbows exist.
October 16th, 2009 @ 9:29 am
Pike,
Seeing the doctors post got me thinking…
If 2 patients go into the doctors office and tell him/her that they are feeling nauseated, they are relaying subjective feelings. Their feelings are valid. Both are correct. They ARE feeling nauseated.
Now suppose that both patients “believe’ that they have the stomach flu.
The doctor, taking into account their subjective “feelings” will also run some tests. She will also ask them if they have vomited. How many times. What their stools looked liked. Was their blood in them. Are they running a fever…
The doctor will then take the patients subjective evidence and COMBINE it with the objective evidence and then use reason to come up with the most probable diagnosis. She will probably start with the most likely cause and work from there, eliminating the ones that don’t hold up.
Turns out patient number 1 DOES have the stomach flu. BUT, patient number 2 is pregnant.
In a similar way, your friend and mine, both have “feeling” that are the same. They both “subjectively” feel that their “God understanding” is real and the right one.
So we need to look at some objective evidence. Scripture, the fact that all the places in scripture DO exist, the fact that a man claiming to be God existed, the fact that a number of things claimed in scripture can be verified physically (Solomon’s Temple, writings, symbols left on walls, tombs of those that were alive…)while there is very little evidence that your friends “God” ever revealed himself.
Matthew kind of thinks like you do. His Gospel was written with the express purpose of drawing lines from A to B (Old Testament Prophecies to New Testament Situations). He wanted the Jews to add 1 + 2 and come up with 2. He would point out passages that prophesied the Messiah in the Old Testament and then show that they were being fulfilled right in front of them.
Where is the evidence for your friends belief? While your friends “Feelings” might be valid, and they might be ONE piece of the puzzle, without other evidence they are just that…feelings. Same with my friend.
So while the feelings are justifiable and real, the diagnosis requires more.
Your friend might be thoroughly convinced that she has swine flu, but is actually pregnant.
October 16th, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
I sorry for taking so long with the answer. I was working so did not have time to go to Internet cafe to research the Bible and Christian philosophy and to read the website of the Raving Athiest. MK, I do not mean to offend you with name “Porno Lily”, is just stage name, but please, can use real name for me, which is Liliyana.
I want to tell about question of MK, why I work in the adult movie as Christian woman. So I have be writeing carefully my thinking and put on my website:
http://pornolily.blogspot.com/2009/10/glorify-g-d-in-adult-movie-business.html
But please if you visit web site, do not be offend by “rod of God”. MK, this is not meaning to have sex with G-D! Of course, G-D, he will not make sex with me, because I am just “helpless worm”, like Maggie say. Maybe you are having your tongue between the cheek for saying this, but if you read about “rod of God” in Holy Bible, you see is not about sex at all! Is telling about strength that G-D give to Moses for fighting enemies of faith. THis is meaning of selecting this for my website: to fight for G-D against enemies.
October 17th, 2009 @ 3:20 am
The idea that there is ANY sort of God is one that I simply cannot support. Human history is rife with examples of people convincing themselves of what they want to believe using the shodiest of reasons and arguments. This becomes obvious when you take a close look at what the word “God” means.
Take a look at some of God’s attributes. We have omnipotence. God is supposedly all powerful and is capable of doing anything at any time whenever he chooses. This is an easy argument to shoot holes into. Let me start by asking something simple: Can God make and eat a sandwich? The answer is normally no, God is immaterial. Okay, then God is unalbe to perform any physical action that any normal human being is capable of. Lets move on then. Can God lie? Of course, the answer is normally no. God cannot commit an act of deception or evil. Of course, I can, which is another limit placed upon divinity that supposedly weaker humans don’t suffer from. This sort of quandry can lead to redefinitions or “refinings” of the quality of God’s omnipotence, which shaves that term down until the mind can grapple with its logic and not suffer cognitive dissonance.
I’m going to have to say that many of the arguments against God’s omnipotence also apply against God’s omnipresence. Any of the limitations placed upon God due to his “perfect” and immaterial nature also preclude Him from knowing what those actions or sensations would feel like for those of us with a more coarse or physical nature. Thus, God’s knowledge of those actions could at best be only theoretical as he could not apply Himslef to those actions and experience knowledge of them directly.
So there are two of the things that give God so much of his majesty revealed to be incomplete or unworkable concepts.
Finally, I will mention the concept of God as Free. I imagine a God with infinite power and knowledge is perfectly free, capable of making any choice He desires and then acting on that choice with no constraints or limitations. Let me illustrate what I mean. When God made everything, he could have made trees absorb oxygen instead of carbon dioxide, or he could have made stars out of helium rather than hydrogen. Or he could have decided to not create anything at all. If God HAD to do these things, that would mean that some sort of constraint was placed upon him in some shape or form to make him act in a certain way at a certain time. Such an idea is logically inconsistent when applied to a God that is supposedly perfectly free. But now lets take a look at God’s prior knowledge. Does God KNOW that he will create the universe? If God KNOWS that he will create the universe, then he is constrained to do so as a consequence of his own knowledge. If God actually KNOWS that he is going to do anything, then he MUST do that thing BECAUSE he knows he will, otherwise God just becomes wrong. In effect, when God becomes aware of his own actions, He becomes something of an implaccalbe, inexorable machine, programed to a function because of his own “omniscience”. And that conception of God is not truly free. Every time I hear someone say that God has a plan for the world I chuckle because of this.
There are a lot of other reasons that I take issue with any supernatural belief, whether it is of the organized sort or the more mystical and seeking sort, but I am going to go to bed and see if it gets digested on here by the many polite and calm commenters. Goodnight.
October 17th, 2009 @ 4:07 am
Richard, interesting post. I will read it again tomorrow and then comment. I have a point to make, maybe you can give me some feedback.
Well, MK, I don’t have a problem with that analogy. I guess being pregnant and having the stomach flu are both plausible!
To your second general point:
“Scripture, the fact that all the places in scripture DO exist, the fact that a man claiming to be God existed, the fact that a number of things claimed in scripture can be verified physically (Solomon’s Temple, writings, symbols left on walls, tombs of those that were alive…)while there is very little evidence that your friends “God” ever revealed himself.”
Unlike other, non-Christian NT critics such as Bart Ehrman, I do not believe that the historical Jesus can be known. He may have existed, he may even have not existed. But we can’t know – that is my current diagnosis based on the information that I have, which comes in steadily (and it won’t stop, it’s too big a subject).
Jesus sure as hell never claimed to be God (but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t believe it). The Gospels have different theologies (not just different angles on the same theology). It is clear that Matthew wrote prophecy into his Gospel – based on slightly inaccurate Greek renderings of same.
It quite possible that the Synoptic Gospels were written later than we thought. And we don’t know who wrote them. Some of the Epistles are likely forgeries. And on and on.
And if we find that certain moral imperatives are either damaging or neither-here-nor-there, we can conclude that either men wrote these documents or that they are irrecoverably corrupted.
October 17th, 2009 @ 6:01 am
Pike,
Well, MK, I don’t have a problem with that analogy. I guess being pregnant and having the stomach flu are both plausible!
Yes, that’s the point. Both are plausible, but only one is “True”.
As for Jesus not claiming He was God, I beg to differ. The Jews knew many of the terms that Jesus used to describe Himself as terms that had always meant God. Remember, they didn’t use the term God and used substitute words. Son of Man was one of them. I AM was another.
You could argue that NO ONE can be proven to have existed. How do we know anyone from history was real? You say we don’t “know” who wrote the Gospels, yet we know that they were written. And not just the Gospels but other writings that were done very early in the church.
To me it is unreasonable to think that numerous men wrote similar stories, pawned them off as truth, duped billions of people for 2,000 years…many of whom gave up their lives for these beleifs. We’re not talking a handful of folks hypnotized by someone like Charles Manson…we’re talking BILLIONS of people…people that have been tortured 2,000 years after the fact for refusing to deny these beliefs.
You are asking me to believe that these beliefs are held based on nothing more than the coincidental writings of a few deluded men? That to me, seems very UNreasonable.
Could billions of people be deluded in this way? Sure. But it is HIGHLY IMPROBABLE.
Let’s look at the flip side of the whole thing. Alongside the followers of G-D, and later Jesus, there have always been a HUGE group of people that believe the real God is Lucifer. Starting from day one, there is a group that follows the “other” side. They don’t get talked about as much, but they are just as prolific.
From the Kabalists, to the Gnostics, to the Free Thinkers to the Free Masons to the New Agers…These are all basically the same groups, just different names. They have always believed that Lucifer, Baal, Bel (Call him what you want) is the more powerful of two equal gods and that hidden knowledge is the key to power and the final ascension of Man into God.
This group doesn’t deny the existence of God, just his power. They’ve placed their bets on the other guy.
What are the odds that this group, along with “our” group would ALL for over 6,000 years believe basically the same thing? That Adonai exists?
So not only do you have Christians, you have anti-christians (not atheists) who are fighting a God that you claim does not exist. For thousands of years.
Could we all be nuts? Could we all be living in a fantasy land? Could you and Richard Norris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins be the minority that “knows” the Truth? Definitely.
But that would mean that brilliant men through the ages have ALL been duped. Moses was nuts, Elijah was nuts, Solomon was nuts, Abraham was nuts, the guys that wrote about them were nuts, Peter, Paul, James, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John (or whatever their real identity was) were all nuts. Every pope was nuts, Thomas Aquinas was nuts, St. Jerome was nuts…The list goes on. What are the odds that ALL of these men were duped? These were not your average Joe’s. These men were educated, intelligent…
Whether you believe that there are two equal Gods or one all powerful one, the bottom line is that for 6,000 years the core belief in the Judeo/Christian God HAS existed, virtually unchanged.
And it has been claimed over and over that this God has revealed Himself…to many, many, many men and women.
How does one explain the miracles that take place today? Not the ones that claim to have taken place thousands of years ago and cannot be observed right now, but the Eucharistic miracles I have written about? The miracles attributed to saints like Padre Pio? The incorruptible bodies of saints? Fatima? Akita? LaSallette? Rwanda?
These exist NOW, in our time. They have been witnessed, attested to, video taped, scientifically tested…
At what point do you say it is more probable that they are true, than it is that they are all fictions? How is it more probable that 70,000 people imagined that they saw the sun dance, or 2 million imagined that they saw the Virgin Mary on top of a Coptic church in Egypt for months, than that this really happened?
What are the odds that hosts, for centuries, have inexplicably bled, always with the same blood type? That the tissue exudes from said hosts inevitably turns out to be tissue from a human heart?
What are the odds that millions of people would suddenly stop sacrificing their own people because of the claim that a “woman” appeared to a peasant in Guadalupe, Mexico?
That millions of people would simply give up their faith, based on a crazy story about an apparition on a remote hill in the dead of winter?
At some point, you’ve got to look at the collection of claims and wonder if there isn’t so much evidence that not believing becomes more UNreasonable, than believing…
October 17th, 2009 @ 6:09 am
Poor Bart. He says he lost his faith when he realized that the Bible wasn’t written by God but by men! He, and he is not alone, subscribed to a sort of dictation theory of the Bible which is not unlike the way Muslims do believe the Koran was written. Christians do not (or should not) believe this.
Pikemann, it seems to me that your objections to the Bible are not grounded in history or in actual facts about the kind of literature its various books are but in some sort of expectation about what they ought to be and aren’t. As far as the text itself is concerned, we know beyond any reasonable doubt the scriptures we have are virtually identical to the texts available in the 2nd century.
As far as weighing whether they are accurate or not, well what sort of literature are they? Some of Paul’s letters were likely not written by him. But so what? The early church included in the canon those writings that were held to teach true doctrine, had been used liturgically, were associated with an apostle, and were popular. All those criteria had to be met which is why the Didache, which was wildly popular and did teach true doctrine, didn’t make it in.
More to the point, the letters that we know are genuine can be dated very precisely. We learn from his letters that belief that Jesus died, was buried, and then resurrected arose within a few (as in less than 5) years of the events in Jerusalem. I’m sorry. This is not likely to have happened, if the tomb were not empty. And then there were all those pesky witnesses, most of whom were still alive when Paul was writing.
I believe you hold some mistaken beliefs about the Gospels. They are not teaching different theologies. They aren’t teaching “theologies” at all! They are spirtitual biographies very much of the same sort as all the others wtritten at that time. Before you can criticize them (in the literary/historical sense), you have to understand what that means. To say that we can’t know the historical Jesus is to disagree with the consensus of scholars modern and not so modern. That’s fine if you can demonstrate convincingly that you have good reasons for doubting it but you will have your work cut out for you.
Richard Norris– you have written a fine essay and it is too much for me to deal with in one sitting. I will say this: I think you have started at the wrong end of the stick. I also think your arguments are far to anthropomorphic to hold up to examination. As you say: Human history is rife with examples of people convincing themselves of what they want to believe using the shodiest of reasons and arguments. Unfortunately, while that is true, it has no value in deciding whether there is a God or not. Nor is arguing God’s attributes helpful, until you demonstrate the probability that there is a God. (It doesn’t make much sense to set up a straw God, so to speak. I can do that and knock it down, too. But of what value is that in deciding whether there really is an actual God or not?) You must start with logic and see where that gets you. There are arguments from contingency, cosmological and teleological arguments and so on that should be examined first. Worrying about whether God can make and eat a sandwich is amusing but of no value, philosophically.
October 17th, 2009 @ 6:17 am
Richard Norris,
If you continue to think of God as simply a really advanced human, then you’ll never understand Him. You are putting your limited understanding of the world, your small, tiny, glimpse of the big picture, onto God. You are confining Him to the rules that you yourself are confined to.
God is not constrained by time, or space, or natural laws. He is limited to these laws only in that He created them, and works within them. You speak as if the laws came first.
How can He know and yet allow it to happen? You are assuming that He exists within time and that one comes “first”. There is no first, last, in between in His world. Those are all things that exist in “our” world. Not THE world.
You are limiting Him, and attempting to understand Him through your own understanding. But He far surpasses your understanding.
Evil is only “good” turned on itself. God can “know” evil because He can know “good”.
The best example I can think of illustrating God existing time out of time, is the Eucharist. We do not believe that we “RE” sacrifice Jesus on the altar at every mass, but we believe that we transcend time and are actually re entering the original sacrifice. We go back in time, or transcend time or whatever you wish to call it. There is no time in God’s world. Time is simply a tool created to help men acclimate to this particular world. To say that God is constrained by time, is to totally not get the whole God thing at all. He works within time, yes, because that is what we are limited to. But HE is NOT limited by anything, let alone time, which He created.
If you try to understand God by bringing Him down to your level of understanding, rather than rising to His, you’ll never get anywhere.
October 17th, 2009 @ 7:46 am
@Richard Norris, I think you are making many the logical mistake which is well known by Christians and have been answer long time ago. You have simple minding definition of “omniscience”. Does not mean that G-D know everything, but just mean that G-D know everything that can be known. Does not know He know logical impossibility. G-D is free in actions, so cannot be known what He will do in future. Therefore, G-D cannot know what He will do but still he is omniscient. Also, still he can have plan. YOU cannot know what you will do in future, still, you can make plan, no? I give you analogy from adult movie business: sometime, director do not use exact script, just generally idea of how movie should turn out. Still, can shoot scene that fit this generally idea, yes?
October 17th, 2009 @ 11:41 am
Lilyana,
I love your real name.
But tell me, why did you choose that specific quote for your logo? Thousands of scripture quotes to choose from and you choose that one and place it next to a picture of a woman committing a horrible sin. She is using her body in a sinful way, to incite others to sin…how do you reconcile this? How do you expect me to believe that it is just coincidence that you chose that particular scripture passage?
October 18th, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
MK: “Both are plausible, but only one is “True”.”
No, both are true – one for the first woman, one for the second.
“As for Jesus not claiming He was God, I beg to differ.”
I’ve ranted a bit about this subject on this blog before. Suffice to say: the idea of Jesus as God incarnate was not original to the faith but rather a later development. Anything in Scripture which points to Jesus as God is not imperative but based on interpretation. In some cases misunderstanding the writer’s intent.
“You could argue that NO ONE can be proven to have existed.”
It’s about probabilities. Caesar’s existence is more difficult to establish than, say, J. J. Abrams’. But we have a good probability for Caesar nonetheless. We’re even less sure about Socrates, apparently.
“To me it is unreasonable to think that numerous men wrote similar stories…”
You mean they copied each other?
And billions of people certainly have good reasons for being Christians. When, eventually, it becomes the only faith to choose from, and when it’s imposed upon certain peoples, you’re going to get that. You don’t need a miracle for Christianity to prosper.
“Moses was nuts, Elijah was nuts”
We’re not sure of their existence, but again, I wouldn’t rule it out.
“Every pope was nuts”
Maybe ‘limited’ or ‘power hungry’ or ‘hypocritical’ or ‘criminal’ might be more apt for some popes than ‘nuts’.
“How does one explain the miracles that take place today?”
I don’t know enough about them. How interesting it is to note, though, that the constant in many miracles, Mary, is a product of the evolving Church? I won’t doubt the supernatural elements here but so what if these miracles are true? Does it have anything to do with the veracity of the moral teachings of the Bible? Does it make the Bible any more true or any more inspired?
“What are the odds that millions of people would suddenly stop sacrificing their own people because of the claim that a “woman” appeared to a peasant in Guadalupe, Mexico?”
I don’t think it had anything to do with sacrifices of millions of people.
Maggie: “Poor Bart. He says he lost his faith when he realized that the Bible wasn’t written by God but by men!”
That is not what he claims. He claims that he was unable to reconcile the problem of suffering. I don’t know his arguement in detail as I have not read that particular book (’God’s Problem’). I am glad to note that most Christians are not inerrantists.
“we know beyond any reasonable doubt the scriptures we have are virtually identical to the texts available in the 2nd century.”
The oldest complete NT is from the 4thC. The oldest complete Gospel is 3rdC IIRC. We can even claim, with good reason, that even the earliest Gospels could be quite late. But the real problem is that we just don’t know either way.
“As far as weighing whether they are accurate or not, well what sort of literature are they?”
I know what they are not, however: journalism, biography or history. (I should point out that I don’t claim they have no value – far from it).
“They aren’t teaching “theologies” at all!”
Here’s what I mean. One Gospel might teach that Jesus died for us. But another (e.g. Luke) might teach somethings subtley different, that the unjust death of Jesus is an opportunity for man to turn back to his creator. Those are different understandings of what God wants from us.
Richard, I don’t usually go by could’ve-should’ve-would’ve type arguements. However, I appreciate your view at least philosophically. I think there must be more practical reasons why you would reject the idea of the Biblical (or any) God.
For me, practicality matters a lot. In the world as I see it, people can be telepathic and can have premonitions etc. There are practical reasons for that. I’m not saying I’m right, I’m just sharing the way I see the world.
October 18th, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
Actually, Bart was shaken the first time he found an error of some sort– which is what led him to reject the Bible as the word of God. If it is important to you, I will find you the citation. He gets no credit for finding the problem of suffering troublesome. We all do. Yet, somehow, it isn’t a deal breaker for most of us.
I don’t see much point in arguing the historicity of scripture with you. You have adopted the less well grounded debunkers view, despite the fact that the consensus of scholarship is against them. I assume you have some evidence or reason to prefer the minority opinion.
To not know what sort of literature the Gospels are puts you in an awkward position for discussing what they teach. Proper understanding of their meaning is heavily dependent on knowing how the authors expected them to be understood. How you can find the message of them different, rather than fuller and perfectly compatible, eludes me but then so does quantum physics and both I and the world’s physicists go on just fine anyway!
October 19th, 2009 @ 6:29 am
Pike,
You sort of debunked yourself there. First you say that the Gospels were copied from each other, then you say that they are all different, proposing different theologies.
Which is it?
Do you think that all biographies of all people were copies of each other simply because they contain the same facts?
You talk of probabilities…which is more probable? That the Gospel writers copied each other (what would be the motive?) or that they are all telling the same story? Why would they reproduce a “fictional story”? Has this ever happened before? A time when 3 guys copied and plagiarized the exact same fairy tale? We’re not talking about simply photocopying here. This was a painstaking process…PLUS, the Gospels weren’t written by 4 men…they are compilations of many authors. It just doesn’t make sense to me that a group of men would work so tirelessly and tediously to produce a campfire tale over and over and claim that it was true.
If Jesus existed in a vacuum I could understand this argument. If only one person had known Him, you’d have a point. But this isn’t the case. His ministry was public.
As for Guadalupe, they sure as heck did stop sacrificing humans after Her appearance to Juan Diego. That’s just history. The Tilma exists, the Aztecs existed, and there was a mass conversion after the apparition. Which is more probable? That the apparition took place, or that this is another fairy tale that coincidentally coincided with a mass conversion?
You say you don’t know much about the miracles that take place today, but if you are serious about finding the “truth” then perhaps you should do some research. I’ve posted on them before. Egypt, Rwanda, Akita, Fatima, LaSalette, Guadalupe…google Eucharistic miracles. There are some fascinating videos on YouTube that lay it out for you…
October 19th, 2009 @ 10:39 pm
Maggie, you are right, there isn’t much point. To me the facts are clear as daylight. Not *all* of them, mind you. It’s a big field. I won’t be able to stop investigating for the rest of my life, there’s so much stuff. But the most basic fundamentals, in my eyes, are clear.
If you have the Ehrman quote handy, by all means post it. And you’re right, I only know what the Gospels are not. But if I had to give you my definition of what they actually are I’d say they’re statements of faith, FWIW.
The Gospels are indeed copied from each other. Ah, but the devil is always in the details. E.g. in Matthew 3, Jesus calls the Pharisees and Sadducees a ‘generation of vipers’ but in Luke 3 Jesus accuses the multitude of same. Luke (assuming he wrote after Matthew) copied Matthew but changed the wording slightly to convey his own theology.
I stand corrected on Guadaloupe, I thought it was only a private, limited revelation.
And no, I don’t see the rush to do the research on the miracles (although I surely will get that in when I can). I say this to naturalists and atheists: don’t reject the Gospels because they have miracles, reject them only if the history etc. does not pass muster. If the history passes muster, then we can talk about the miracles. Because if you begin with the miracles then there is pretty much nothing else to say and we’ve already concluded the matter.
Once again: miracles do not lend credibility to Biblical morality.
October 19th, 2009 @ 11:09 pm
I agree with one of the comments in which it was said that arguing/debating is largely a waste of time. Brothers and sisters, use that time to pray for them instead because they can’t see, hear, or perceive until their hearts are prepared by the Holy Spirit (so pray for that). All of you have my prayers.
By the way, I was glad to see MK prove his point with the fake RT posts. Anyone that knows his brilliance, personality, and writing style at all can tell right away that the posts were made by an imposter (he would never misspell “apologize” – check the first post by the alleged RT). Furthermore, he wouldn’t make light of his conversion with “pink cube” talk. That kind of jesting is RA talk – and RA is no more.
Praise God for that!!
October 20th, 2009 @ 7:29 am
Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus p. 7. He speaks at some length about his Evangelical background and education in the introduction to the book. Off he went to seminary and, for the first time, was exposed to serious Bible scholarship. It shook him badly. Among other things he says: “I kept reverting to my basic question: how does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we don’t have the words that God inerrantly inspired, but only the words copied by the scribes—sometimes correctly and sometimes (many times!)
incorrectly?”
This is an excellent question for the neophyte biblical scholar to ask and he is not the first Evangelical or Fundamentalist to ask it. It comes rather naturally if one has been part of an environment in which people tend to think of the King James Bible as the one Jesus used (even though they *really* sorta know he didn’t). It is just too darned bad he didn’t think to pursue it, since he was hardly the first to come up against the questions inherent in in this one (what is inerrancy? How does God inerrantly inspire fallible human beings? What would that even mean? Do we or do we not have trustworthy texts (he is in the minority in saying that we do not)? How do we establish that?)
Pikkemann, it isn’t a matter of conjecture what sort of literature the Gospels are. There is pretty widespread agreement on that. It is reallly helpful to spend some time learning about the genres of ancient literature in order to see the Bible’s literary genres and qualities more clearly. Similarly, knowing the conventions of rhetoric helps one understand Paul’s letters (and letters are a type of genre which followed certain well-established conventions in the ancient world.) The Bible didn’t exist in a vacuum and I think we really short change ourselves (we=believers and unbelievers alike) when we treat it as though it did.
October 20th, 2009 @ 8:59 am
Pike,
I think it isn’t so much that the authors are touting their own special theologies as it is that they are addressing different audiences.
Matthew was trying to connect the dots specifically for the Jews. The Pharisees were an odd lot. They followed the letter of the law, to a fault, but at the same time adhered to some weird notions…
Luke on the other hand was much more interested in reaching the non Jews, the marginalized. He saw Christ’s coming as salvation to ALL men, specifically the outcasts and lowlifes. He was especially kind to women.
And example would be the infancy narratives. Matthew mentions the wise men. He is trying to show that those who followed the Old Prophecies (even non Jews) recognized what was going on. He was pointing out that the Wise Men were foretold of in the Old Testament and that this was one more notch in the belt of “proof” that Jesus was the awaited Messiah.
Luke on the other hand, ignores the Magi and instead focuses on the lowly Jewish Shepherds. His point is that EVERYONE, not just Pharisees or Sadducees, but EVERYONE, was being called. And EVERYONE was being told.
You could mistakenly think that this was a difference in theologies, but it wasn’t. It was a difference in who was hearing the message.
The message remains the same in all of the Gospels. Jesus was the promised Messiah.
October 20th, 2009 @ 9:10 am
Pike,
Also in Matthew 3 that is not Jesus speaking. It is John the baptist and he is wondering who spilled the beans to them about what was taking place. The Pharisees and Sadducees were a political power and the idea of the Messiah coming was upsetting their apple cart. John knew that they were not there to receive the “truth” but rather to protect their own interests.
Luke is a replay of the same scene. This might very well have been copied as it is quite an important text. Again, it’s not Jesus speaking, but John the Baptist.
Luke however, doesn’t point out that the crowd was made up of Pharisees and Sadducees because his focus was on proving that you had a change of heart. It wasn’t enough that you gave lip service, or descended from Abraham, or wore the robe of a priest…you had to walk the walk AS WELL as talk the talk.
Why would it surprise you that both authors reported the same story? If you’re really concerned that they copied from each other and were not giving separate accounts, wouldn’t they have copied verbatim? Remember that this stuff wasn’t written down anywhere and was probably gathered from word of mouth. Matthew heard the story from Joe the Plumber, while Luke might have heard it from Sam the Baker. It’s not like they went to the library and took out the same “book” and then plagiarized it.
October 20th, 2009 @ 10:54 pm
Yeah, sorry, that was JOHN not JESUS!! I am glad that was not an exam paper. Tsk, tsk.
Maggie, are you suggesting though that Ehrman lost his faith because of that realization?
MK, I’m not sure that ‘wise men’ is an apt translation. ‘Magi’ or ‘astrologer’ is closer, but whatever they were that category doesn’t exist in today’s religion.
So you’re saying that Matthew didn’t mention the shepherds and Luke didn’t mention the magi? Seriously? Shall we go through all the other discrepancies?
(Actually let’s not!)
Well, you’re probably right in that the material wasn’t written down a lot (if at all) until the Gospels emerged. But it seems pretty clear that Luke either copied Matthew or, assuming Q existed physically, he copied the same source and changed what he felt needed changing.
October 21st, 2009 @ 5:15 am
Pike,
but whatever they were that category doesn’t exist in today’s religion
Well since we have no way of knowing what religion they were we can’t possibly know if it still exists…however, they most likely came from Persia. There are a number of religions today that would fit the bill. Kabbalism, Zorastrianism (which is most likely), any Gnostic religion, New Age, paganism…all of these have occult leanings.
I’m saying that Matthew didn’t mention the shepherds and Luke didn’t mention the Magi because they were addressing two different groups of people. And the fact that their stories are NOT identical is evidence that they DIDN’T copy each other or a single source, but that they were SEPARATE accounts.
Have you never read 2 newspaper accounts of the same story? If you “cut and paste” a story, then you source it. If you write the story yourself, then it will probably have different details than another reporters.
There is a difference between discrepancies and simpy reporting different details. These differences do not contradict each other. Not mentioning the Magi doesn’t mean that Luke was saying they didn’t exist. Only that he didn’t find them key to the story HE was telling. Not mentioning the shepherds doesn’t mean that Matthew was saying anything about them one way or another. They just weren’t relevant to the audience to whom he was addressing.
If I do a report on a Madonna concert, what I say will depend on why I am doing the report.
If I write for a fashion magazine, I’ll talk about what she was wearing.
If I write for Rolling Stone, I’ll talk about the music.
If I write for the National Enquirer, I’ll talk about who she is having an affair with.
Does this mean that she didn’t sing because the fashion magazine didn’t mention the songs that she sang? Or that she was naked because Rolling Stone didn’t describe what she was wearing?
Does it mean that they copied each other? Or that they copied a single source? Or is the MOST PROBABLE explanation that they ALL attended the concert, but saw things from different viewpoints?
As far as I know there are NO contradictions in Scripture. None that can’t be explained, anyway.
October 21st, 2009 @ 5:31 am
Pike,
Also, don’t forget that the Gospels are canonical because we believe they fill all the prescriptions, that they are “true”, but there are any number of other sources, that for varying reasons we do NOT hold to be completely true, that also attest to the histriocity of Jesus.
It seems to me that you are in a VERY SMALL minority in believing that Jesus did not exist at all. So small, that your belief seems less plausible than mine.
It is more PROBABLE, given the testimony (not just the accepted New Testament) that He DID exist, than that He didn’t.
Did all the Gnostic writers also copy from the same source?
October 21st, 2009 @ 5:46 am
Pike,
Sorry…one last thing:
But it seems pretty clear that Luke either copied Matthew or, assuming Q existed physically, he copied the same source and changed what he felt needed changing.
If anything, it is thought that both Matthew and Luke were influenced by Mark, not each other…
October 22nd, 2009 @ 3:08 am
MK: “And the fact that their stories are NOT identical is evidence that they DIDN’T copy each other or a single source, but that they were SEPARATE accounts.”
Well they are separate viewpoints. But they are not ‘accounts’ in the sense that they saw what they were writing about. They are not identical? Fine. But they are in fact contradictory.
“If you write the story yourself, then it will probably have different details than another reporters.”
And if you’re a good reporter you’ll get your facts straight so that if you and another write about the same incident you’ll be in harmony. But the Gospels are not journalism, alas.
“It seems to me that you are in a VERY SMALL minority in believing that Jesus did not exist at all. So small, that your belief seems less plausible than mine.”
Firstly, I wouldn’t go that far. I would only say that we can’t know the historical Jesus at all because our evidence is too poor. It follows that the mythicist case is stronger than the historicist case, not because it’s right, but because it’s closer to the facts at hand.
I am not too familiar with the Gnostics, but we’re talking about degrees, not quantum jumps, between the views of who/what Jesus was. John’s Gospel is an example of a Gospel in between the Synoptics and the Gnostic works.
It is clear that what was left out and what was changed by a given author indicates scriptural corruption and not mere variance.
“If anything, it is thought that both Matthew and Luke were influenced by Mark, not each other…”
Yes, they were – and also Q (which may not exist per se but can represent common material between Matthew and Luke which does not exist in Mark).
October 22nd, 2009 @ 5:28 am
Pike,
I know you said that you didn’t want to go over the “contradictions”, but for my sake, would you? I don’t know what they are. I know of some inconsistencies, but as I said those can be attributed to the need to reach different audiences. I’d like to hear what you think the contradictions are.
For instance, in my mind, leaving out the shepherds but putting in the Magi is not a contradiction. In your mind it is. (I think that’s what you were saying, anyway).
I also think that the criteria for historical knowledge is way different for stuff that happened 2,000 years ago compared to stuff that would happen today.
Considering everything had to be painstakingly written by hand, 4 accounts, plus the gnostic gospels, plus the early church fathers…seems like a LOT of documentation.
Do we have that much for other historical figures of that time period?
October 24th, 2009 @ 2:53 am
Well, there’s Matthew 3 and Luke 3 as above (but here we have in principle a defined source in Q so if we find an old version of Q we can find out quickly which is the correct detail).
Then there is Mark 9:40 and Matthew 12:30: “For he that is not against us is on our part” and “He that is not with me is against me” respectively.
An interesting one is Mark 14:55-59 and John 2:19-22. In Mark, Jesus is falsely accused of saying he’d destroy the temple and raise it in three days; in John he does say those words.
Note also that in Mark, the two men who were crucified alongside him ‘reviled’ him (also in Matthew), whereas in Luke at least one of them becomes enlightened and sees the importance of the moment.
I guess that will do. I should mention that shepherds and magi aside, the two nativity accounts (Matthew and Luke) are more different than one would think just by casually going on memory.
Yes, it’s a lot of documentation, some of which is copied, some forged, some – alas – lost or destroyed, some yet to be discovered.
Ancient history is not my strong suit. However, we do have good evidence for Caesar that is enough to give his historicity some solid ground.
October 24th, 2009 @ 6:52 am
Okay,
I don’t see, as I said, that simply leaving something out, is evidence that the stories are frauds.
In John, it makes clear that Jesus was NOT talking about “THE” Temple, but about His body. So it would be false testimony to say that He was talking about the “Temple Proper”…
Jesus answered and said to them, 15 “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.”
20
The Jews said, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, 16 and you will raise it up in three days?”
21
But he was speaking about the temple of his body.
With the “theives”, why is it “deceitful” not to mention the one’s change of heart? As I’ve already said, Lukes focus was on the marginalized, forgiveness…it would only make sense that He would tell this particular story.
Now, If Matthew specifically said “And NEITHER theif ever changed him mind or heart and both died hating God” you’d have something. But simply neglecting to focus on that aspect…that to me is not a contradiction, but a different point of view.
Here is Mark. It doesn’t say that the two being crucified with Him reviled Him…it says that those passing by did.
With him they crucified two revolutionaries, one on his right and one on his left.
28
) 12
29
13 Those passing by reviled him, shaking their heads and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days,
30
save yourself by coming down from the cross.”
Same with Matthew.
It just seems to me, that if you are going to give so much weight to discrepancies proving the invalidity of the Gospels, you’ll have to do better than this.
Again, if one Gospel claimed that He rose from the dead and another claimed that He remained dead, you might have something. But these little differences are hardly worth noting.
Even here, on this blog, Maggie will focus on one thing you say, while I’ll focus on another. This doesn’t mean that you didn’t say both, or that Maggie and I are frauds. It just means that each of us focuses on what you say from our own particular points of view. Both are valid, as is what you say, but none negates the other…
I’ll have to take your word for Caesar, since I know nothing about him, but I wonder, how much of what we know came from the “writings” of men?
October 24th, 2009 @ 7:58 am
Oy veh! The earliest manuscript we possess of Caesar’s Gallic wars was produced in the 9th century by monks. Yet woe to him who dares to call it unreliable. Hordes of aging classic professors, living and dead, will descend on him and rend him into so much confetti! Refrigeration needed.
Actually, the earliest biography we have of Alexander the Great was written 400 years after his death. But no one dismisses it. Why?
History isn’t a game. There are standards for weighing historical evidence which comes in a dozen or more forms: archaeological, written, inscriptions, coins, etc, all painstakingly measured, weighed, and argued over– sometimes for centuries. The Gospels have been around for nearly 2000 years. We know more about them, their transmission, and the world they came from than we know about most any other documents from the ancient world. We would die (historians and history lovers, that is) to have as much and as good quality evidence for the historicity of Alexander, Plato, Socrates, and a gazillion other figures, as we have for Jesus. Now, history is provisional in the sense that serious evidence (good quality) could turn up that might cast a different light on what we think we know but that is a different question. The issue at hand is whether or not the evidence we have supports the majority view of it. It is hard to see how it does not.
In other words, casting doubt on Christ’s historicity or the reliability of the Gospels is not a convincing strategy in the face of the current evidence. Now if Herod’s archives are discovered, intact, then we will have something new to talk about and will, maybe, need to review what we know …
October 24th, 2009 @ 9:06 am
Maggie,
I was wondering where the heck you were. I’m woefully ignorant when it comes to history, thank you. Teach me, oh great one.
BTW, the book came and I’m halfway through chapter 2. It’s slow going as the writing style isn’t exactly “gripping” lol, but so far so good.
What next?
October 24th, 2009 @ 11:14 am
I think the style will draw you in– or so I hope. It is certainly a style we don’t see today. I have been rereading the book and enjoying it thoroughly but I had to get used to the style again.
What next? I dunno. If I were back in the classroom I would probably have the class read up a bit on the Manicheans! In fact, the Catholic Encyclopedia has a good article (may be a bit dated, I am no expert) (www.newadvent.org/cathen/09591a.htm)
In other words, we could, perhaps, study some of the main themes in Augustine’s life and writings, as they are treated in the biography. Or, we could read the darned book and just talk about the bits that strike us as new/interesting/worthy of further study?
October 24th, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
mk (and any interested others) I have created a new blog for this discussion. I can’t see having it here in the comments. I think we should comment on whatever we want here (and let it be free-wheeling!) and have the book discussion elsewhere. The blog can be found at: http://monica354.wordpress.com/ (monica is Auggie’s mom; 354 is his birthdate. Get it???)
October 24th, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
any chance we could do this at my blog? I have readers that would benefit (even if they don’t think so) from it. Unless you have readers also…
As for what’s next…you tell me. I’m just following orders. I’m up to chapter 4.
There was one line that I highlighted…really got to me as the mother of 6, 4 of them young adult males…
“I just cannot see how she could have been healed if my death in sin had come to pierce the entrails of her love.”
Wow. I don’t dwell much on my boys lack of faith, but it is a deep pain, and very real. There just isn’t much I can do except pray so I basically shelf it. Reading that line made me cry, and my heart ache. I fell in love with Monica in that moment. And what a great son to realize it!
October 24th, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
Of course we can do it at your blog! It took 5 minutes to set mine up and it will take 5 seconds to delete the whole thing! (How did you get to chapter 4 already? I am still in 3, I think.)
I love what you just wrote. I think that would be a wonderful way to discuss the book– pick out some lines or a description of an event and relate it to a present concern. Absolutely fabulous.
Can you do a separate page or what?
October 24th, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
PS. I think it was quite beastly of you to boast of your many readers when I don’t have a single one. Not even you,
October 24th, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
I work on Live Writer but my computer is in the hospital…Don’t know how long. I think it caught bird flu.
So I can’t post for a couple of days (I can’t access live writer from the family computer) but yes, I can put up a weekly/bi-weekly/daily whatever post and even make a separate page for it. Like I said, I already did this for Theology of the Body.
So keep reading and underlining and we’ll get it up and running in about a week.
Sound good?
BTW, I didn’t even know you had a blog. Your name doesn’t link to it like mine does. I don’t have that many readers. I used to moderate at Jill Staneks (for almost 3 years) but it started getting to me. So another girl and I did the Luther thing and split into our own blog. Some of the regulars came with us (tho they still go to Jill’s). We have about 15 or 20 off an on commenters. Some are pro life, some pro choice, some Catholic, some agnostic, some protestant…some combinations. They’re all good people though. And even if they “ignore” the posts on Augustine, I know (cuz I can see behind the scenes) that they read it. Hardly anyone commented on TOB but lo and behold months later they’d bring up something that was written there. And it got plenty of hits…so it might seem like it’s just you and I but you’d be surprised!
October 24th, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
Oh and as for how I got to chapter 4… (this is just between you and me
) I used to live in a house with 8 people and one bathroom. The kids were trained EARLY that when that bathroom door is closed mom is OFF LIMITS. Now that I have my own bathroom I found the habit hard to break. So I get my coffee at 5:00 am, go into the bathroom, have a cigarette or two and read for a blissful 20 minutes without anyone even knowing that I’m up. But if you tell anyone, I’ll have to kill you.
October 24th, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
MK, the priests wanted witnesses for evidence against Jesus. Regardless of what Jesus *meant*, they were searching for evidence of sedition or blasphemy or whatever.
Secondly, regarding Mark’s crucifixion narrative, the two thieves most certainly did denounce Jesus (15:32). Luke was not telling a different perspective of the same story. He was changing it to suit his particular views of what Christianity should be.
You don’t need exhaustive narratives to establish contradictions. My favourite example is the death of Judas. How did he really die? You don’t need second-by-second accounts to compare. It’s just plain from what we already have that it was either A or B. Now, A or B could be true. Contradictions don’t cancel each other out. But both cannot be true.
Maggie, regardless of how much evidence we have for Caesar or Plato or Socrates, the existence of those men does not matter to the fate of my soul. But Jesus? I’d say his claims – and the claims made on his behalf – are important enough to warrant better evidence.
Hell, it’s possible that Shakespeare never existed. And that was ‘only’ 500 years ago. But it makes his plays no less worthy.
October 24th, 2009 @ 8:14 pm
No, it is not possible that Shakespeare never existed. The only thing of major interest in question is whether he wrote the plays attributed to him. We have a wealth of information about not just him, but his parents, their lives and his father’s career, his brothers and sisters; when they were born and when they died, his baptism which is entered in the baptismal register of the Holy Trinity parish church, in Stratford on April 26, 1564. We know when and to whom he was married, when his daughter was born, etc. We’d no more but there was no National Enquirer or News of the World following celebrities around.
I am curious though. Obviously we would all love to have a complete, accurate picture of Jesus’ life and times from birth to Resurrection but we don’t. What we do have has seemed plenty adequate to many people. What would you like (that would have been possible given the time and culture he lived in)? What would convince you?
October 24th, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
Pay no attention to that woman who claims to be me and writes stupid things like “no” for “know”!!!!
October 25th, 2009 @ 6:12 am
Pike,
I must have missed something here. You claimed that the Gospel writers wrote conflicting reports. I pointed out that they did not. Yes, the High Priests wanted to accuse Jesus of wrongdoing so they used His own words against Him. But they used them “wrongly”, as in made them seem as if He were saying something that He wasn’t. So I don’t know what you mean by this:
MK, the priests wanted witnesses for evidence against Jesus. Regardless of what Jesus *meant*, they were searching for evidence of sedition or blasphemy or whatever.
Yes He said those words. Yes the Jews accused Him of saying those words. But they made it sound like He was saying something that He wasn’t, therefore this was not really a contradiction.
Also, can you show me where the thieves “revile” Jesus. Cuz it ain’t where you said it was.
I guess I’m confused as to what we are discussing. I’m claiming that the accounts are not identical because they were written by different people, addressing different audiences and highlighting different episodes.
You are claiming they were copied, yet somehow have different information. Which confuses me. If I copy someone elses work then I would copy it. It would be the same. If it’s different, to me, that would be evidence that I did NOT copy it.
I’m with Maggie. You seem to want it both ways. Sans photographs or videos, what are you looking for in the way of “evidence”?
The Gospels claim to be non fiction, all the places in both the Old Testament and New exist. Most of the people that are talked about existed.
Why would these men, 100 years after the fact, come up with these fictional accounts and claim them to be real? What did they gain? Power? Money? Prestige? I don’t think so. They were beheaded, stoned, fed to lions…I mean seriously. What is the reason for this “Great Deception”?
I hope I’m not sounding snarky, cuz I don’t mean to. I’m just missing the boat on this. It’s me, not you. I’m not clear on what you are saying…
October 26th, 2009 @ 10:53 pm
Seems like my post disappeared into the ether. Unless it was a network error at my end. I’ll try again.
Maggie: “No, it is not possible that Shakespeare never existed.”
I haven’t visited this area for a while but the evidence was surprisingly good as I remember it. Not as interesting as the Jack the Ripper case, that’s for sure.
“What would convince you?”
I’ll know when I see it – that’s probably the best answer I can give. But it’s what does not convince me that is at issue. Get rid of all the problems in the texts and then we can start.
mk: “Yes He said those words. Yes the Jews accused Him of saying those words. But they made it sound like He was saying something that He wasn’t, therefore this was not really a contradiction.”
No, that’s the point, he didn’t say those words. That’s pretty much the clearest reading as I make it. Although passers-by thought also that he said those words (Mark 15:29-30).
“Also, can you show me where the thieves “revile” Jesus. Cuz it ain’t where you said it was.”
It is: 15:32. Here is the KJV with one verse either side:
31: Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save.
32: Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.
33: And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.
“You are claiming they were copied, yet somehow have different information.”
Yes, both. Matthew and Luke copied Q (apparently). But one of the authors – perhaps because he heard a possibly more reliable tradition – changed 3:7. One of them can still be true! But not both.
“The Gospels claim to be non fiction, all the places in both the Old Testament and New exist. Most of the people that are talked about existed.”
We know a lot of persons and places that were real and we also don’t have a clue about a lot. A mixed bag.
I’m not sure there was meant to be a deception. I think the whole story took a life of its own, so to speak, and not for trivial reasons. I am sure others can shed more light on that.
Hope that clears some things up.
October 27th, 2009 @ 6:09 am
Pike,
This is why I’m confused…
“Jesus answered and said to them, 15 “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” John 2:19.
He does say it. And then the Jews misrepresent why He said it.
As for the thief…it doesn’t say that he did NOT repent later. It just says that at some point he too was abusing Jesus. This is what I mean by the difference between contradiction and omission. It’s very possible that BOTH thieves were insulting Jesus but that as time went on, one realized that he was wrong to do so.
I mean, I see where you’re coming from, but I just don’t think that these are contradictions, really. Certainly not unexplainable, irrefutable contradictions that render the Gospels unreliable.
Here’s a link that responds to 143 different “discrepancies”….
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm#77
I just think that if you focus on these minor, “apparent” inconsistencies, and use them as your sole excuse to dismiss the entire faith, then you are doing yourself an injustice. Like you’re biting off your nose to spite your face.
“We know a lot of persons and places that were real and we also don’t have a clue about a lot. A mixed bag.”
Okay, maybe the “all” was stretching it. But I was talking about the main players. Obviously you can’t prove or disprove the existence of a leper with no name. But Caesar and Herod and Pilate etc.
October 27th, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
“He does say it. And then the Jews misrepresent why He said it.”
In John he says it, yes. In Mark he is falsely accused of saying it. Round and round we go!
“As for the thief…it doesn’t say that he did NOT repent later.”
Mark has no need to say that. Because to Mark, the thieves said what they said and that was that.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm#77
Yeah I’m familiar with that site. I’ll have to go through it all sometime. But if you’re satisfied with their (or anyone else’s) harmonization of the death of Judas, good luck to you!
“and use them as your sole excuse to dismiss the entire faith”
These inconsistencies simply betray either man-made religion or man-made corruption of that religion. Either way the NT isn’t something that’s sanctioned by God. It’s one reason why I cannot accept it as ultimate truth. There are other reasons, of course.
October 27th, 2009 @ 8:36 pm
Pikemann: Have you done anything as obvious as read someone who defends the Gospels in a simple, reader friendly fashion? Mark D. Roberts springs to mind. He is a Harvard trained theologian who really knows how to write for non-specialists. (His take down of the Jesus Seminar is worth my weight in gold) If you go to this page, you can see a list of Jesus-related topics he has written on and then after you scroll down a bit come his chapters on the reliability of the Gospels. (http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/gospelsreliableprint1.htm)There are far more scholarly authors and resources out there but there is no reason not to start at the beginning.
October 28th, 2009 @ 3:54 am
“Have you done anything as obvious as read someone who defends the Gospels in a simple, reader friendly fashion?”
Are you a fan of Yes, Prime Minister? You know how Humphrey sometimes objects with that affably pompous tone? Imagine me as Humphrey: “Maggie. Now, now.”
Okay, seriously though. Anyone with an interest in NT criticism pretty much has to read apologetics. Lucky for me that I enjoy it! Not only do I read apologists’ works but I take notes along the way. Same as I’d do for anything that I take seriously. Heck, I even marked pages while reading The Lost Symbol.
‘The Case for Christ’ is as useful as ‘The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture’ or ‘Jesus, Interrupted’.
I’m somewhat familiar with people such as Lee Strobel, WL Craig, Frank Turek etc. Even that windbag JP Holding, famous for hair-splitting when it suits him.
Just as important to me are the 2ndC apologists such as Irenaeus. More reading there is required, though.
Of course, getting to know the material I’m examining is crucial. So careful NT readings are always in order (though ATM I’m focusing on the Gospels with Lattimore’s translation).
BTW, I am going through the document you linked to. Why not!
October 28th, 2009 @ 5:40 am
Oh Maggie,
Your like a treasure chest just FILLED with wonderful stuff!
I’ve bookmarked that link. It’s wonderful.
Also, I have some more quotes from Augustine to share, but it will have to wait till I get the kids to school!
I wish you lived next door!
October 28th, 2009 @ 8:21 am
On the Internet, everyone lives next door!
Pikemann: I adore Yes, Minister and Yes Prime Minister. Paul Eddington! Nigel Hawthorne! Oy veh! Such greatness.
October 28th, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
Maggie,
Okay, here are a few excerpts that I really liked. Forgive any typos as I have to hold the LARGE book open and type at the same time…
“I should not chase after this or that philosophical sect, but should love Wisdom of whatever kind it should be; that I should search for it, follow hard upon it, hold on to it and embrace it with all my strength. That was what stirred me in that discourse, set me alight, and left me blazing.”
Wow. Talk about reading my own heart! I love this guy!
and
“They are, all of them, stalwart schoolmasters, deaf to any appeal other than to reason, capable of understanding the idea of authority only if introduced to them tactfully, in terms of their professional use of authoritative textbooks as an aid to learning”…
Man, he could be talking about so many people that have posted here and elsewhere…as well as Hitchens, Dawkins and Michael Moore. lol
and
“Whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve (the temptress)that we must beware of in any woman…”
Hmmmmm….one eyebrow goes up, and yet, there is truth in there.
October 28th, 2009 @ 8:52 pm
Those are great quotes. I am afraid the women are either Eve(bad) or Mary (good) nonsense was just getting started and, largely, because of the baleful influence of Greek thought. Those dratted Greeks with their contempt for the body…! You also have to remember that Augustine was quite a mama’s boy and stayed one until she died. She warned him about women a little too well!
Try not to get too far ahead of me. I have developed a cold and imagine that I will be sleeping off alcohol laden cold medicines for a couple of days. Starting now…
October 28th, 2009 @ 11:25 pm
The whole ballgame (knowledge and understanding) is about to go through a major expansion: understanding a brand new (and traditional) view of our worlds. For doubters, it is a scientific approach, taking a theory and checking phenomena to see if that theory makes them more understandable.
Agnostics routinely refer to a lack of intelligent thinking on the part of Christians, and admittedly, ideas such as the dead rising long after their molecules are in use by later generations, the unprovable concept of an immortal soul and the search for the simple whereabouts of God, lead to Yuri Gagarin stating that he had been in heaven and looked all around for God and saw no sign of Him. But true agnostics keep an open-mind, carefully considering all views and weighing them well.
‘Techie Worlds’ (available at Amazon.com) builds on ‘Flatland’s ideas about contiguous geometric worlds to show how logical Trinity is, how resurrection, judgment and soul are reasonable in such worlds, and that Christianity is as probable as that simplistic idea of ‘only the material world’. Considering not just the testimonies of Wiccans and Satanists, but also miracles such as the dance of the sun at Fatima (witnessed by thousands) it appears that multiple-worlds is more likely. Oh well, the minds of agnostics are not really that open to any belief based on love. Techie Worlds presents a completely new way of looking at the truths of Christianity, able to persuade atheists that Christianity is logical and a sound, well-reasoned view.
GeorgeRic
October 30th, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
George, interesting stuff. Christianity as a worldview may be fine – depends who you are and how you see it. Whether it’s true or not of course is a separate issue. A poem doesn’t have to be true to be true. If you know what I mean.
One of the most interesting films I’ve seen is ‘What the Bleep do We Know?’. Don’t be in the know, be in the mystery. I like that.
However valuable Christianity is, I find more value in mysticism. Just MHO.
October 31st, 2009 @ 8:52 am
Pike,
What do you mean by “Mysticism”?
October 31st, 2009 @ 9:20 pm
Mysticism differs from religion (although there’s no reason why you can’t be both – as Sufis are) in that religion assumes a personal God whereas mysticism assumes God as a force, an energy, and it’s something you can have direct access to. There aren’t many boundaries. There isn’t much doctrine, either. You have to figure things out for yourself.
October 31st, 2009 @ 9:30 pm
Well, that is certainly not true of Christian mysticism, though I cannot speak of Eastern mysticism. It is an interesting phenomenon. I studied the women mystics of the medieval period in Europe rather extensively for many years and if there is one thing God is not, He is not impersonal!
November 1st, 2009 @ 5:38 am
Pike,
Zoarastrianism, gnosticism, kabbalism, pagansm, new age…these and so many more are what I would call mysticism.
So I guess what I as really asking, is what do YOU, mean by mysticism. What are YOUR beliefs?
We keep talking about ours and the Catholic Faith, I’m just curious as to what it is exactly, that YOU believe…
?
November 1st, 2009 @ 5:39 am
Maggie,
Are you all better? Ready for some more quotes…
Oh and my computer is still MIA. I’m starting to get ticked off. How long can it take to fix a computer????? It’s been over a week!
November 1st, 2009 @ 10:31 am
Amazingly, yes I am better. I dodged a bullet for sure– just a plain old, annoying cold and not the flu (of any sort). I am still blowing my nose and annoying all around me but… tough.
I can’t stand putting Augustine off much longer.You want to talk on my blog until we get under way? We can always summarize what we have said (or compile it) and post it later on yours. I just reread the bit where he ditched his mom in order to sail to Rome without her.
I’m sorry. I know she is a saint and all but she is the original [i]Jewish Mother[/i]and clearly the source of that stereotype. I mean her boy was 28. He didn’t need his mommy…
November 1st, 2009 @ 10:32 am
Aaargh. I hate faux html. I really, really, do!
November 1st, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
LOL…
I felt the same way. I kept thinking “She’s killin’ him”.
As the mother of boys (and a LOT of them) I can tell ya that nothin’ sends ‘em runnin’ faster than clinging…
Food. Food is the secret to keeping them close.
Give it til tomorrow. If I don’t have the computer back by then, then yes. We’ll do it on yours for the interim.
Unless Pike wants to be involved?
November 1st, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
What? Has Pike got ten broken fingers? He can come over to my website too, if he wants to dissect Augustine with us.
You know, as I read about the strategms Augustine used to ditch his mother, I was thinking of you with all those sons. Monica must surely have a special place in the heart of mothers with teenaged and adult sons! You don’t have to tell me about food and males! I watched my grandmother keep her sons in line with the stuff long after they were married and fathers themselves. Nothing like pasta and garlic bread to do that!
November 2nd, 2009 @ 3:25 am
Maggie, I have a book about Christian mysticism but haven’t got around to it yet. When I say that God is not personal – just to clear things up – I mean to say that God is not a personality. If God feels personal it’s how one reacts to him.
Mk, interesting question about beliefs. I’d like to say I don’t have any, but who’s to say? It is… ‘apparent’ to me that the mystics are right. Briefly, these statements would describe my world view:
- We have a physical and spiritual, transcendent component
- The material world may be lower than the spiritual but it cannot be demeaned or deprecated
- God is a ‘vibe’
- God connects us all
- The Indian mystic, Shree Rajneesh, proposed that while religion teaches that God is love, mysticism teaches that love is God. Where love is, there God is
Have you read the book, ‘Mister God, This is Anna’? I’d describe that girl as a mystic.
November 2nd, 2009 @ 6:09 am
Maggie,
Okay, the computer is back, but it won’t get connected again until Wednesday. Then I have to wait to get live writer downloaded. They had to wipe the entire thing clean. Something about Vista not having some drivers, something I downloaded searching for the missing drivers and then Vista going bonkers. I’m not a very happy woman right now.
Pike,
If you don’t mind, I’d like to flesh out your “beliefs”…I’m curious. You don’t accept scripture because it’s to vague…vague about what it means, where it came from…
Yet you hold that there is a “spiritual” realm and a “vibe”…Talk about vague, lol. So what is your “evidence” (I don’t mean convince ME, but what convinced YOU?) that there is an “other” and why do you think it connects us all?
November 2nd, 2009 @ 6:16 am
Pike,
BTW, yes I have read “Anna” but I was a teenager and dinosaurs roamed the earth at the time, so I don’t remember it well. You need to read the Diary of Faustina. Now THERE was a mystic. Or Padre Pio. Anna was fiction. Faustina and Pio were REAL. For a guy that requires concrete proofs you sure do believe in some gauzy stuff.
I can show you 60 some books written about a God that spoke to, appeared to and lived with, or at the time of, the authors. I can show you real live mystics and documented miracles.
So far you’ve told me about a fictional 5 year old and a “vibe”…I’m teasing you here…
So which one of us sounds more “reasonable” to you? Which set of beliefs sounds more plausible?
November 2nd, 2009 @ 7:55 am
LOL! mk. Most admirers of mysticism rarely know what it is. Mostly, it seems that the word gets used to cover a certainty that a lot of people have (rightly) that there is more to life than the physical world. But it is sad to settle for intuitive feelings of that sort and not look to the source of them.
Now, as to your plight, let it be said … I hate Vista. I hate it with the white hot heat of 1000 suns. There is nothing good about it; it is garbage and I wish nothing but a thousand itches in places its inventors can’t reach on every single person associated with this abomination.
I trust you are in no doubt about my feelings?
November 2nd, 2009 @ 8:25 am
Maggie,
I’m sorry. Are you saying that you don’t care for Vista?
Can you put up your link again so it’s closer to the bottom and I don’t have to search for it?
PIKE,
PLEAAAAASE join us? You don’t have to read the book, just the conversations…
November 2nd, 2009 @ 8:34 am
my name is hypertexted now. But, ok– http://monica354.wordpress.com
Pike: you are welcome. I have the blog set up so that first timers have to be approved.
Since I am on my way to work, I am not likely to be able to respond to anything you write mk until lunch time (you have been approved so anything you write should show up immediately).
November 2nd, 2009 @ 9:26 am
Duh! Sorry. I didn’t realize. Great. Okay then, I’ll put some stuff up this afternoon.
November 2nd, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
Hey, I’m so sorry. My kids both have strep. Spent the afternoon at the Pediatricians. I’ve been walking around with the book all day. Read some of it to my 23 year old. I’ll post what I read on your blog tomorrow. Got to get everyone to bed and then I’m going too. 5:00am comes all too quick and I have 4 of them tomorrow morning. Then Jeff Cavins bible class, THEN, I should have some time…
November 2nd, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
That’s fine, mk. I am exhausted. Monday is always hard and I am still congested, so that even though I don’t feel bad, I don’t really feel like myself. Tomorrow will be just fine if you can manage it.
November 3rd, 2009 @ 3:01 am
mk: “Yet you hold that there is a “spiritual” realm and a “vibe”…Talk about vague, lol. ”
But I’m not claiming anything specific. The Bible is not really vague. Its narrative is quite clear, usually. The only criticism I have of it is that much of it is not true.
Evidence? There isn’t strong empirical evidence for things like ESP, remote viewing etc, but I have reason to accept some of this as true, partly based on my experiences, partly on those of other persons whom I know.
What the hell does it matter if Anna was fiction or not? (How convenient that she is fictional but the ‘real’ Christian ones are legitimate?). I don’t know if she really existed. I can’t know. But the book is still quite valuable to me. So is much poetry and fiction. Even if the NT was 100% fiction would people stop reading it and finding value in it?
I don’t require concrete proofs, especially where there cannot be any such thing. E.g. the Bible’s claims.
A religious belief becomes plausible only when there are enough other people who hold it the same way that you do.
I’ll take a peek at Maggie’s blog for sure, even if I don’t participate.
November 3rd, 2009 @ 6:39 am
Pike,
There isn’t strong empirical evidence for things like ESP, remote viewing etc, but I have reason to accept some of this as true, partly based on my experiences, partly on those of other persons whom I know.
But this is exactly what we say. We have reason to accept that God, Catholicism, etc is true partly based on our experiences and partly on those of whom we’ve known/read.
I didn’t mean to tic you off up there. I was just razzin’ you.
I don’t think Anna has to be real to find value in her words. But I do think Jesus has to be real to find the value that we find in Him. Everything I believe, all of my actions, my entire LIFE has changed based on this belief. If He is just fiction then I don’t want any part of Him. I’m finding out that Augustine was the same way. I am ONLY interested in the Truth. No matter WHAT that is. So it would make a huge difference to me if Jesus was just a “story”. It’s why I’m not Muslim, or Mormon or a scientologist. Because I believe that these are all fictions, even if their philosophies do contain some wisdom.
November 3rd, 2009 @ 6:43 am
Pike,
Also,
A religious belief becomes plausible only when there are enough other people who hold it the same way that you do.
I don’t want any part of a religion that is only true if someone says it’s true. If every Christian in the world fell off the face of the earth tomorrow, Christianity would still be a viable religion. A lonely one, but a viable one.
That, to me, is like saying bacteria is only plausible if there is someone to believe in it.
Truth is Truth and it is independent of outside influences. It is constant, not mutable. It doesn’t change. It remains true. Always.
November 3rd, 2009 @ 10:08 pm
MK,
Just out of curiosity, I was wondering if there was any thread of theology that stated how God chose the semitic peoples to be his people, or the process by which he revealed himself to them as a real deity apart from the rest of the Canaanite pantheon of deities.I mean, given the fact that much of what is in Genesis is not accurate, or perhaps to put a finer point on it, allegory, does anyone have a clearer picture of how El was selected or revealed?
November 4th, 2009 @ 3:36 am
“We have reason to accept that God, Catholicism, etc is true partly based on our experiences and partly on those of whom we’ve known/read.”
Sounds fine to me. But if you were to say that Christianity is more true than X or is the ultimate/exclusive truth, then we have a problem.
“If He is just fiction then I don’t want any part of Him.”
I think you’re right: you can be inspired by fiction but certainly you wouldn’t live your life by it.
“Truth is Truth and it is independent of outside influences.”
AFAIK that’s… uh… true!
Richard, I’m glad you aren’t asking me. Wouldn’t have the faintest idea.
November 4th, 2009 @ 6:38 am
Good question Richard. I’ll look into it…
November 4th, 2009 @ 7:15 am
Richard,
I know this doesn’t answer your question as it isn’t “before the fact, but after” but it still hits on the “idea” of your question…
How can we know that the Jews are really the Chosen people? (top)
There are several, objective ways by which we can know that our claim to be the Chosen People is, in fact, true. The very fact that we survived as a nation and a religion[10], a tiny group of people spread throughout the nations of the world is totally mysterious and entirely unprecedented[11]. Paul Johnson stated it beautifully when he observed: “Above all, that the Jews should still survive when all those other ancient peoples were transmuted or vanished into the oubliettes of history, was wholly predictable. How could it be otherwise? Providence decreed it and the Jews obeyed.” (A History of the Jews, pg. 587)
Anti-Semitism is another phenomenon in the world which seems perplexing and without explanation. No other hatred is as intense, spread over so many countries (even ones where Jews do not live), over so many centuries and with such persistent dedication[12].
Lloyd George stated in 1923: “Of all the extreme fanaticism which plays havoc in man’s nature, there is not one as irrational as anti-Semitism. … If the Jews are rich [these fanatics] are victims of theft. If they are poor, they are victims of ridicule. If they take sides in a war, it is because they wish to take advantage from the spilling of non-Jewish blood. If they espouse peace, it is because they are scared by their natures or traitors. If the Jew dwells in a foreign land he is persecuted and expelled. If he wishes to return to his own land, he is prevented from doing so.”
Nations dedicated enormous energies and resources to their Jew hatred, sometimes to the point of their own destruction. Ultimately, anti-Semitism can only be explained as result of the recognition which the nations of the world have that the Jews are the Chosen People[13].
All the prophecies about the Jews, which have proven to be so accurate further bolsters our claim. Finally, there is the fact that this is the people to whom G-d gave the Torah[14]. None of the monotheistic religions denies this claim. The Kuzari claims that a claim of a national revelation cannot be made unless it is true, which is why no other nation ever attempted to make a similar claim[15]. The miracles which occurred around this time were public, easily observable and testable and took place over an enormously long period of time.
Many other proofs that verify that G-d gave the Torah to the Jews exist besides[16]. The last one we will discuss here is the Jewish contribution to civilization, a phenomenon so remarkable that all great historians have felt a need to comment on it[17]. More than anything else, the Jews have contributed Monotheism[18], a fact that changed everything about the world, including the ability to do science as we know it today. The Jews contributed the Torah, the idea of universal education, the concept of the basic rights of man. They also gave the basic notions of equality of opportunity, democracy, and our basic notions of justice. In Paul Johnson’s beautiful prose:
“Certainly the world without the Jews would have been a radically different place. Humanity might eventually have stumbled upon all the Jewish insights. But we cannot be sure. All the great conceptual discoveries of the intellect seem obvious and inescapable once they have been revealed; but it requires a special genius to formulate them for the first time. The Jews had this gift. To them we owe the idea of equality before the law, both divine and human; of the sanctity of life and the dignity of the human person; of the individual conscience and so for personal redemption; of the collective conscience and so of social responsibility; of peace as an abstract ideal and love as the foundation of justice…Above all, the Jews taught us…Monotheism[19].”
This contribution, which is so disproportionate to our size, was made under the most difficult of circumstances, when we were under siege, spread out, being hounded and expelled. Other nations would have been pleased to have survived; while the Jews did more for the world than any nation on earth.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/faqs/The_Jewish_Nation.htm
November 4th, 2009 @ 7:31 am
and this….
Moses Theory and Fred Theory
The claim that three million people heard God speak appears in every intact Torah scroll ever found. The claim is either true or false. If it is a lie, and no such revelation ever took place, at some time in the past someone must have made such a claim. If we contemplate what the scene must have looked like when a false claim of national prophecy was first launched, we find ourselves locked into one of two scenarios: The person making the claim either told his followers (a) that the national prophecy happened in the present — “You personally heard God speak” — or (b) that the national prophecy happened in the past — “Your ancestors once heard God speak.” We might call the first theory “Moses Theory,” since the Torah records that “Moses” was the name of Jewry’s leader when the prophecy took place. We can call the second possibility “Fred Theory,” since the leader during this post-Sinaitic period need not be Moses — he might as well be Fred.
I think the problem you are having is in believing that because much of the Torah is allegorical, you jump to the conclusion that none of it is historical. I’m no OT scholar and I’m sure that a much better job of explaining this can be found, but I do know that it’s not either/or.
The fact that this happened to MANY people, and not just one, is significant. The entire bible, all the books, in my understanding is the painstaking, slow process of God revealing Himself to us…bit by bit.
So while Jonah might not have actually been swallowed by a whale (allegory) he most likely existed and something out of the ordinary happened. While there might not have been an animal of every type on the ark, as the flood may only have involved a certain part of the “the world”, with other animals surviving, there most likely was a flood and a man named Noah most likely did have a hand in saving a large part of the “world”.
While paganism is alive and well today, it is not organized or united as it was in the past. Judaism/Christianity has survived for 6,000 years virtually unchanged. The Old Testament remains the same today as it was in the beginning.
Even if you argue that Hinduism is still here, you must recognize that Hinduism is not a story of salvation and not really a religion that starts at “the beginning”. The Gods of Hinduism or more like practical application than mystic revelations. My pediatrician is Hindu and told me that it is more a philosophy of life, than a true religion, in that it doesn’t answer the “where did we come from questions” so much as the “what do we do now that we’re here questions…”
So I have no answer for you. Not really. The Old Testament is it as far as I can tell.
I would be curious to know if the God of the Jews is mentioned in any texts of other religions. Like, do they reference Him when defining what was going on in their own times/faith, the way the OT mentions pagan religions.
We know that Moloch and Baal were worshiped in part because they are talked about in Jewish Scripture…see what I mean?
November 5th, 2009 @ 6:58 am
[...] the Raving Theists blog: There was one line that I highlighted…really got to me as the mother of 6, 4 of them young [...]
November 5th, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
Wow! Who put up the book club link and THANK YOU!
November 5th, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
mk–isn’t that a ping back?
November 5th, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
offs
One day, when you leave school you will understand these diffikult things.
Such as correct spelling, one assumes.
November 5th, 2009 @ 7:02 pm
TOF,
OFFS went the way of “Brave Sir Robin”. In other words…he ran away.
November 5th, 2009 @ 7:02 pm
Ah yes, ping-back…whatever…it was wonderful!
November 9th, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
Funny how all the logic in the facebook page arrives at “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” as if it were a central human truth defined years ago by an itinerant carpenter in an ancient Middle East crossroads. All that stone logic to one emotional conclusion. Careful. you might end actually reading the thing you oppose and finding out you’ve become what you oppose.
November 15th, 2009 @ 9:52 am
Maggie,
I know that you haven’t “loved” the conversations that have been taking place at 2secondsfaster, but they aren’t always that heated. We’ve all known each other for years, so we know what argument styles work with who and it’s not at all like it is over here…
Either way, you didn’t comment on the Augustine post and I’m wondering if you you’re not coming back. Should I even bother to keep going????
December 20th, 2009 @ 9:43 pm
Looks like your website is under attack from supernatural forces…
http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=2&subcatid=7&threadid=3449994
you really need to add comment moderation to your blasphemy…
January 18th, 2010 @ 2:07 pm
I come to say to you this afternoon, however difficult the moment, (Yes, sir) however frustrating the hour, it will not be long, (No sir) because “truth crushed to earth will rise again.” (Yes, sir)
How long? Not long, (Yes, sir) because “no lie can live forever.” (Yes, sir)
How long? Not long, (All right. How long) because “you shall reap what you sow.” (Yes, sir)
How long? (How long?) Not long: (Not long)
Truth forever on the scaffold, (Speak)
Wrong forever on the throne, (Yes, sir)
Yet that scaffold sways the future, (Yes, sir)
And, behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow,
Keeping watch above his own.
How long? Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. (Yes, sir)
How long? Not long, (Not long) because:
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord; (Yes, sir)
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored; (Yes)
He has loosed the fateful lightning of his terrible swift sword; (Yes, sir)
His truth is marching on. (Yes, sir)
He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat; (Speak, sir)
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment seat. (That’s right)
O, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! Be jubilant my feet!
Our God is marching on. (Yeah)
Glory, hallelujah! (Yes, sir) Glory, hallelujah! (All right)
Glory, hallelujah! Glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.
–some guy
March 25, 1965. Montgomery, Ala.
January 22nd, 2010 @ 12:42 pm
“With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally dissentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.”
– some guy
January 22, 1973
January 25th, 2010 @ 11:30 am
The ideological and economic systems succeeding one another in the last two centuries have often encouraged conflict as a method, since their programmes contained the seeds of opposition and disunity. This fact profoundly affected their understanding of man and of his relations with others. Some of these systems also presumed to relegate religion to the merely private sphere, stripping it of any social influence or importance. In this regard, it is helpful to recall that a modern State cannot make atheism or religion one of its political ordinances. The State, while distancing itself from all extremes of fanaticism or secularism, should encourage a harmonious social climate and a suitable legislation which enables every person and every religious confession to live their faith freely, to express that faith in the context of public life and to count on adequate resources and opportunities to bring its spiritual, moral and civic benefits to bear on the life of the nation.
–some guy
Havana, January 25, 1998
January 27th, 2010 @ 12:24 pm
The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.
–some guy
January 27, 1999. St. Louis, Missouri
January 29th, 2010 @ 6:51 am
By caring for children who need mentors, and for addicted men and women who need treatment, we are building a more welcoming society — a culture that values every life. And in this work we must not overlook the weakest among us. I ask you to protect infants at the very hour of their birth and end the practice of partial-birth abortion. And because no human life should be started or ended as the object of an experiment, I ask you to set a high standard for humanity, and pass a law against all human cloning.
–some guy
January 29, 2003. Washington, D.C.
January 31st, 2010 @ 12:14 pm
In addition to vindicating the right to life of those in the process of being born, the State has a compelling interest in protecting the line between abortion and infanticide — the second significant difference from the Nebraska statute. Congress, inter alia, found that partial-birth abortion “blurs the line between abortion and infanticide,” Partial-Birth Abortion Ban § (2)(14)(O),117 Stat. at 1206, and that failing to prohibit the practice would “coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life,” id. § (2)(14)(N). There is undoubtably a compelling state interest in preventing the killing of newborns. Infanticide, like suicide, is a “serious public-health problem,” which the State has an interest in “studying, identifying, and treating its causes.” This horrific crime occurs in the United States and throughout the world with alarming frequency.
–some guy
January 31, 2006. New York City
January 31st, 2010 @ 9:22 pm
Hey, Some Guy, bring your Wisdom over to 2secondsfaster.com. We could use you, and more people will read what you have to say!
February 1st, 2010 @ 6:59 am
Thanks for the invite, MK. 2secondsfaster looks like a fine site, but I am not looking for discussion right now. Just looking to plant a few flowers here to keep the weeds from overrunning the place.
February 1st, 2010 @ 1:43 pm
The Hebrew Bible tells us: “The strangers who sojourn with you shall be to you as the natives among you, and you shall love them as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt (Leviticus 19:33-34).” In the New Testament, Jesus tells us to welcome the stranger (cf. Matthew 25:35), for “what you do to the least of my brethren, you do unto me (Matthew 25:40).” The Qur’an tells us that we should “serve God…and do good to…orphans, those in need, neighbors who are near, neighbors who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer that you meet, [and those who have nothing] (4:36).”
We call for immigration reform because each day in our congregations, service programs, health-care facilities, and schools we witness the human consequences of an outmoded system. We see and hear the suffering of immigrant families who have lost loved ones to death in the desert or immigrants themselves who have experienced exploitation in the workplace or abuse at the hands of unscrupulous smugglers and others. In our view, changes to the U.S. legal immigration system would help put an end to this suffering, which offends the dignity of all human beings.
–some people
February 1, 2006
February 6th, 2010 @ 12:35 pm
Now what we do in the meantime is we have the proper attitude toward law and politics and the legislative process. And that is, that on the one hand it is not our salvation, and yet on the other hand, as we respond to and follow the one who is our Savior whose name is Jesus, we know that he calls us to be actively involved in shaping public policy: that he calls us to be actively involved in choosing our leaders, in selecting those who will be our public servants. And that he calls us to understand — and calls them to understand — that the first requirement of being a public servant is to be able to tell the difference between serving the public and killing the public.
He calls us to speak very clearly and to challenge those who either hold or seek public office: that if a politician cannot respect the life of a little baby, how does he or she expect us think that they will respect our lives?
– some guy
Oklahoma City. February 6, 2008
February 8th, 2010 @ 7:11 am
The world needs powerful examples of Christian charity and understanding. By remembering and by renewing in your daily lives your obligations as true followers of Christ you will be giving such an example to the world.
First of all, We ask you to pray for the countless children in other lands who need assistance. Ask God to comfort them and to bless them. Pray that they may see His providence working in all things. In this way you will bring them closer to God.
Lent is a time for penance, and so We ask you to deny yourselves something you may or may not need. Then you will be able to contribute to the special collection taken up in your school. This will help your Bishops maintain that worldwide program of the Catholic Relief Services which has been most effective in bringing aid to the needy, and especially to the poor children who are sick, undernourished and homeless.
–some guy
Radio message to the school children of America. February 8, 1967.