Another religious assault on education

Yeah! Teach the controversy! W00t!

I wonder if the DI will want to include this bunch of wackos under their "Big Tent".

And see this thread at http://www.kcfs.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001257

Marshall Klarfield believes that aliens from the tenth planet settled here some tens of thousands of years ago and are responsible for genetically engineering human beings - apparently there is a group of people who believe this. Marshall has posted regularly on the KCFS forum, and now wants to write the Kansas BOE. We've told him to go for it.

Marshall Klarfield believes that aliens from the tenth planet settled here some tens of thousands of years ago and are responsible for genetically engineering human beings - apparently there is a group of people who believe this. Marshall has posted regularly on the KCFS forum, and now wants to write the Kansas BOE. We've told him to go for it.

Why not just stick to theories for which we have EVIDENCE and PREDICTIVE POWER? By this criteria the age of the Universe would be noncontroversial (several billion years), but most of Darwinism would be laughed out of the classroom. Thank goodness we have physics to remind us of what real science looks like.

Where are the Raelians when you need them? If we are to teach the controversy we'll have to include Raelian inspired atheist intelligent design less we be found guilty of being unscientific and and dogmatic. And note the Raelians have published as many peer reviwed papers in legitimate scientific journals as Behe and Dembski combined.

Raelians promote atheist intelligent design which will pass the constitutional lemon test. According to our good friend the Raelians, the designers are not god(s), they are a master race of space aliens. They also claim to be in contact with the intelligent designers. Yup, they pose a race of alien folks created humans. Isn't that what Behe and Dembski have been saying all along?

"Space aliens" - Dembski

"Time travelers" - Behe

Someone should contact the Raelians and invite them to join the IDCBT (Intelligent Design Creationism Big Tent). There is plenty of room for all philosophical and scientific theories in the IDCBT, And no icky knowledge stunting definitions of science either. Anything goes in the IDCBT, baby, so bring on the Raelian space alien intelligent designer master race!

Finally, in the spirit of the IDC Big Tent, I leave you with the original message sent by the Intelligent Designers to Rael (a French media hack) back in 1973,

"We were the ones who designed all life on earth"
"You mistook us for gods"
"We were at the origin of your main religions"
"Now that you are mature enough to understand this,we would like to enter official contact through an embassy"

I hereby nominate the theologian known as William "it could be space aliens" Dembski to be the official Ambasador of Good Will to the Intelligent Designers.

.

Whatever. We've experimentally verified and can estimate the relative contributions of evolutionary mechanisms to the process, hence we can make predictions about outcomes.

Physicists can't even tell us whether or not gravity is due to the curvature of space, force particles, or both.

"The earth is neither 111.5 trillion years old, nor only 6,000 years old, and the errors and misperceptions of old priests are not a sound foundation for science. It doesn't matter whether those priests spoke Sanskrit or Hebrew..."

Without getting into what precisely old Hindu priests may have said in Sanskrit pertaining to a 111.5 trillion year old earth, the fact of the matter is that no Hebrew priests ever claimed a 6000 year age for the earth. The Hebrew Bible says no such thing, nor does it imply any such thing anywhere. This is nothing but a discredired and disproven falsehood perpetrated by athiests, such as PZ, who refuse to become informed about a book they cannot read themselves.

the fact of the matter is that no Hebrew priests ever claimed a 6000 year age for the earth

— Carol Clouser

This is nothing but a discredired and disproven falsehood perpetrated by athiests, such as PZ, who refuse to become informed about a book they cannot read themselves.

I have a book about you Carol that says you're a doo-doo head marketing lowlife with her head buried deep inside her own wazoo. I have no reason to doubt my book's veracity. You have been informed about my book. You're welcome.

And, PZ, as an addendum to my previous post, I don't know of any Jewish organizations, of any theological persuasion, that is pushing for ID or any religious views to be introduced into public education, in science classes or anywhere else.

David Gehrig,

You are wrong. The Hebrew calendar works its way backward through the chronological history of the Jews, as depicted in the Bible, all the way to Adam. But nowhere does the Bible claim that Adam was the first human, despite what people who cannot read the Hebrew Bible say or believe.

I am not saying that you cannot find some ancient Jewish scholars who supported a 6000 year old earth before the scientific evidence to the contrary emerged. But these were personal opinions, not gospel or the word of "priests" representing the Bible. Nothing of the sort.

Carol wrote : I don't know of any Jewish organizations, of any theological persuasion, that is pushing for ID or any religious views to be introduced into public education, in science classes or anywhere else.

We are going to get crazier and crazier attempts to get crazier and crazier things taught in schools in a world where social constructivism is an increasingly popular ( or increasingly influential) viewpoint among educators and thinkers. I believe ( don't quote me) that these Hindu creationistst are enabled and inspired by these "developments" in thought. ( I hesitate to call them "developments" because they haven't changed in essence since pre-socratic Athens).

A thought that I've been pondering lately is that maybe, as tragic as it is, we actually need a relativistic educational system to allow students to deal with the world, an idea can be both BS and necessary, culturally relativism coupled with universal cultural tolerance might be incoherent, but arugably it did a lot of good. Would you be willing to let your kids be exposed to Hindu creationism if ( theortically) it made them more tolerant and understanding, or even more enviormentally aware? It's sort of a noble lie thing. I am pretty sure we don't need such a noble lie, but hypothetically if we did, would it be right to teach it in schools?

Very Worried

I understand what you are saying, but giving these people a little finger will result in them grabbing the arm. We cannot allow them one inch of leniency. If they get a foothold into the door then there will be no stopping them. Look at history to calculate what will happen.

I agree that tolerance is a good thing, and I try to practice it, but tolerance is not a word understood by these religious Fundy people. They only tolerate their own kind, and even then not always.

No, it's about freedom. They would take every freedom away if they were given half a chance. I am not willing to give them half a chance. They also think all people should be like them and believe what they do. You really want these people telling kids how they are supposed to be and what they are supposed to believe? As Ingersol would put it, "It will not do".

CArol, although your comments are good for thread derailment, all you have to do is post the original hebrew and Landas interpretation/ translation of it. This would then give us something to think about, whereas right now, your debate style is more along the lines of "My dad says..." which is not exactly helpful.

I demand that Scientology be taught as fact too. Children need to know that humans were infected with spirits implanted by the evil, alien-overlord Xenu 75 million years ago.

I always thought the 6000 year old earth thing (at least for Christian fundamentalists) came from
Bishop Ussher in the 1500s who calculated the figure from the bible. Regardless the outpouring of demands from all these religious/metaphysical groups wanting their origins beliefs taught equally is good news for us because what we're interested in is highschool science classes. None of us should really care about comparative religion courses and the more squabbling among the chosen all of whom posess the revealed truth the better. I would bet that there would never be a consensus among them to a unified design or creation theory or means of speciation and diversification to compete with current scientific theories (including fledgling abiogenesis hypotheses) even if they all reject "Darwinism" (whatever that is). It may be true that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and its also true that intelligent design is a political movement (where strange bedfellows can be found more frequently than even on Brokeback Mountain), but when salvation is at stake there's no room for compromise. One of the major differences between fundamentalist and mainstream Christian protestant demominations is that in the former what matters is what you believe and in the latter what matters is how you live your life. Expressions of radical belief are very impressive to people like Pat Robertson and whatshisface Buchanan and this is why they supported clemency to Karla Fay Tucker who converted to Christianity while on death row. This was because she did'nt become a work-for-justice-and-help-the-poor type of Christian but became a babbling-in-tongues-and-handling-serpents type favored by fundamentalists. As far as I can tell Pat Robertson believes that as we speak Jonas Salk and Mahatma Ghandi are roasting in eternal hellfire and damnation. So the stakes are huge for these people, protecting the tender beliefs of their schoolchildren from ideas that may interfere with the rapture that they all believe in and desperately want to occur sooner rather than later. We realists just dont want it taught to our kids in taxpayer funded science courses. The answer for them is obvious to me: home school your kids and send them to bible college; and they'll never humiliate you by winning a Nobel Prize in a scientific field.

Why not just stick to theories for which we have EVIDENCE and PREDICTIVE POWER?

Hey Carol, why again should science give a flying fig about your religious opinions?

Why again should your religious opinions be considered as "evidence" for anything?

So much for ID? Hell, so much for theology.
No evidence and no predictive power, despite Carol and her alleged husband's nonsense.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Lenny,

If ID is devoid of evidence and predictive power then how is it that you have such an awareness of it? Are you able to dissociate from your scientific self to an "unknown" state to discuss something scientifically "unknown?" Please elaborate?

One of the major differences between fundamentalist and mainstream Christian protestant demominations is that in the former what matters is what you believe and in the latter what matters is how you live your life. Expressions of radical belief are very impressive to people like Pat Robertson and whatshisface Buchanan and this is why they supported clemency to Karla Fay Tucker who converted to Christianity while on death row. This was because she did'nt become a work-for-justice-and-help-the-poor type of Christian but became a babbling-in-tongues-and-handling-serpents type favored by fundamentalists.

If ID is devoid of evidence and predictive power then how is it that you have such an awareness of it?

Are you able to dissociate from your scientific self to an "unknown" state to discuss something scientifically "unknown?" Please elaborate?

Comment #75589 Posted by thordaddy on January 25, 2006 08:08 AM (e) Lenny, If ID is devoid of evidence and predictive power then how is it that you have such an awareness of it? Are you able to dissociate from your scientific self to an "unknown" state to discuss something scientifically "unknown?" Please elaborate?

I think the first comment, by Moses (#75512), is the best.

We should all pick up this news item and spread it. Wherever ID proponents pop up insisting that schools "teach the controversy", we should bring up this "controversy" as well.

Of course it won't deter the diehard ID supporters, but it will definitely show the fence-sitters exactly what "teaching the controversy" opens the door to.

Comment #75561 Posted by Carol Clouser on January 25, 2006 02:16 AM (e) And, PZ, as an addendum to my previous post, I don't know of any Jewish organizations, of any theological persuasion, that is pushing for ID or any religious views to be introduced into public education, in science classes or anywhere else.

In December 2005 a group of Orthodox rabbis, primarilly from Chabad Hasidic Judaism, convened in a conference at Florida International University for an International Conference on Torah & Science. In this conference Chabad Jews invited and worked with Protestant Christian William A. Dembski, of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dembski is an advocate of rejecting scientific views of evolution and inserting Christian views of theology into public school science classrooms. One of the conferences' organizers is Rabbi Sholom Lipskar, who believes that science in schools leads to drug abuse and the breakdown of families, and advocates that intelligent design be taught as science in public schools. In response to a question asking if this was merely a back door to teaching religion in public schools, Lipskar responds "It's not a back door, it's a front door!."

Posted by theonomo on January 25, 2006 12:42 AM (e)

Why not just stick to theories for which we have EVIDENCE and PREDICTIVE POWER? By this criteria the age of the Universe would be noncontroversial (several billion years), but most of Darwinism would be laughed out of the classroom. Thank goodness we have physics to remind us of what real science looks like.

Buuaahhh ha ha ha ha. Darwinism. That is a strawman if I ever seen one. Get your act together stupid!!!!!. Anyway don't talk about physics as real science or is that you have no knowledge of the "debate" between quantum vs relativity vs strings, vs ....... oh what the hell I am already all strung up in the controversy. See theonomo nothing is clean and clear except only in the head of a dummy :)

Why not get rid of schools altogether?

Roger Schank suggests that we get rid of schools altogether...how would his idea fit in?

* Born of a virgin. * He was of royal descent. * He crushed a serpent's head. * He performed miracles and wonders, healed the sick and walked on water. * He preached "the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness." * He taught chastity, temperance, tolerance, compassion, love, and the equality of all. * He was transfigured on a mount. * Crucified in a sin-atonement and was resurrected 3 days later. * He ascended to "heaven." * He was called the "Savior of the World" and the "Light of the World."

* Born of a virgin. * He was a child teacher in the Temple and was baptized when he was 30 years old. * He was baptized. * He had 12 disciples. * He performed miracles and raised one man from the dead. * He walked on water. * He was transfigured on the Mount. * He was crucified, buried in a tomb and resurrected. * He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light, the Messiah, God's Anointed Son, the Son of Man, the Good Shepherd, the Lamb of God, the Word" etc. * He was "the Fisher," and was associated with the Lamb, Lion and Fish. * He was called "the Anointed One."

* Was born of a virgin. * He was a great traveling teacher and master. * He had 12 companions or disciples. * He performed miracles. * He was buried in a tomb. * After three days he rose again. * His resurrection was celebrated every year. * He was called "the Good Shepherd." * He was considered "the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah." * He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb. * His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day." * His religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."

# Was born of a virgin. # His father was a carpenter. # His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gold, frankincense and myrrh. # He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants. # He was of royal descent. # He was baptized. # He worked miracles and wonders. # He raised the dead and healed lepers, the deaf and the blind. # Used parables to teach the people about charity and love. # He lived poor and he loved the poor. # Was crucified between two thieves. # He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. # He is the second person of the Trinity, and proclaimed himself the "Resurrection" and the "way to the Father." # He is to return to do battle with the "Prince of Evil," who will desolate the earth.

* He was born of a virgin. * He was descended of royalty. * He was baptized. * He had 12 disciples. * He lived poor and with the poor. * He performed miracles and raised one man from the dead. * He walked on water. * He was transfigured on the Mount. * He was crucified, buried in a tomb and resurrected. * He was the son of "the father." * He was called the fisher of men and the lamb of God.

Calling TomKat! Calling TomKat! I can't wait to see TomKat lecture Mister Matt how the Scientologist theory of origin of the species should be included in high school bio classes and call Matt glib again.

So much for ID? Hell, so much for theology. No evidence and no predictive power

Yes, but the Hindus are wrong and going straight to hell. So there! /sarcasm

At least the Space Aliens Theory might actually be testable in some way since we would be presumably dealing with material entities. But, until such a theoretically falsifiable model exists and taken seriously, it no more belongs in a science class than other faith-based ideas.

the fact of the matter is that no Hebrew priests ever claimed a 6000 year age for the earth. The Hebrew Bible says no such thing, nor does it imply any such thing anywhere. This is nothing but a discredired and disproven falsehood perpetrated by athiests, such as PZ, who refuse to become informed about a book they cannot read themselves.

I'm sure William Jennings Bryan (that atheist who apparently could not understand the Good Book) is spinning in his grave over that remark.

Moses,

Lipskar is an individual and is entitled to his opinion. My comment above, which you quoted and should have read, referred to organizations. Not even the Chabad Hasidic movement, one of the most extreme within the Jewish landscape, is actively pushing for ID or any religious views to be taught in public schools.

But nowhere does the Bible claim that Adam was the first human, despite what people who cannot read the Hebrew Bible say or believe.

— Carol

Ms. Clouser has told us time and again that the Bible, properly translated and understood, is fully consistent with science. Maybe it is, but I don't read Hebrew and have too many other demands on my time to undertake the effort, especially when experts through the centuries have created translations I have so far had little reason to doubt in their essentials.
But I could be wrong. I ask Ms. C., in good faith and in good will, to tell us what some of the relevant portions of the Bible say, chapter and verse, and explain what she thinks they mean and why she thinks they are consistent with the evidence of science.
I am not being snarky here. I really want to know.

Forget Xenu -- kids need to learn about Xena first. There's no better example of "intelligent design!"

And anyone else can join into this game of comparative savior mythologies. Feel free to test your knowledge of the 'one true faith' verses the 'pagan' religions that it doesn't (wink) resemble or borrow from at all...

Ms. Clouser has told us time and again that the Bible, properly translated and understood, is fully consistent with science...

Looking for scientific insight in the Bible is a bit like watching "Brokeback Mountain" to learn about the trees in the background: you might get some good bits of data, but you'd be MISSING THE POINT!

Does Carol actually believe the Bible was written -- by whoever -- to teach people about natural phenomena? Does anyone, of any or no faith, really believe that the Bible is about anything other than Man's relationship to God?

It sounds to me like Carol's entire field of study is one long hijacked thread...

Carol should take it over to After the Bar Closes, instead of junking up threads.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SF;f=14

Moses
I think there are a few more savior myths you could call up
by all accounts the virgin birth was de rigour for old time heroes, heck anyone important conveniently replaced mommy's hairy helper with the old penetrating shaft of light. Roman Emperor Augustus, Alexander the Great just to name 2 well known historical figures.

Even your namesake was repeating an old cliche when he did the baby in the basket in the water thingy 'borrowed' from an Egyptian myth that had itself been borrowed it from an old Persian myth.

Those common threads are all symbols that were understood by the originators of these stories as a tried and true 'common understanding' popular in those days as a method for organizing the masses into the service of the state through a socio-religious reality.

That method is alive and well ...Israel, Iran and some may argue the US although the narrative may be different the reality is 'reality' is a social construct. Whoever gets to define that reality can choose to make whatever they like 'real' the funny thing is 'Darwinism' seems to test the honesty of the current crop of social realists.

Each Hero you mention followed the archetypal 'heroes journey' best described, by yes an American, Joeseph Campbell in amongst other publications "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" quite interesting stuff really.

Go to a 3rd world country and scratch the surface and magic is more real to the uneducated there than daylight.
It would seem parts of the US have more in common with those countries than the first world.

One would wonder if downgrading of education would provide an advantage to those in power and in a democracy, what would it take to bring this to the attention to people who may object to that. Does it matter ?

Moses, As Arden said "You my be wasting your time with Carol"
YOU ARE, We now have to wait to see if David Heddle shows up to rescue fair Carol. He can tell you all about the Xtian bible point of view, and why bats are birds insects have 4 legs, and talking snakes and donkeys are the norm.

David Gehrig, You are wrong.

— Carol Clouser

The Hebrew calendar works its way backward through the chronological history of the Jews, as depicted in the Bible, all the way to Adam.

— Carol Clouser

If ID is devoid of evidence and predictive power then how is it that you have such an awareness of it? Are you able to dissociate from your scientific self to an "unknown" state to discuss something scientifically "unknown?" Please elaborate?

The whole basis of "Yahweh" is a manufactured falsehood, as is "Jehovah", (a name invented in the 12th century). If anyone cares to investigate, you'll find that Judaism is a rip-off of other religions, primarily Sumerian. Interesting reading, which fully documents that this religion, (and the Christianity religion that evolved from it), are both bogus war god worshiping nonsense.
This site, http://www.bibleorigins.net/index.html,
is actually one of many I've been reading that factually documents the development of the "Yahweh Cult". I have discussed this information with informed Christian theologians, and they very quickly fall into the "you just gotta have the faith and believe" mode. Facts and evidence are meaningless. Very sad.......

Yeah yeah I know. But try that challenge on a fundy. It'll throw 'em for at least a little loop. It could quite possibly turn them gay.

Yeah BWE
again we arrive

riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of
shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius
vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and
Environs.

Fundamentalist sexual repression

Its all there

C.J. Colluci,

Unfortunately, there just is too much to discuss and analyze and it cannot be adequately treated in a few lines by posting on this thread. I have a few great books to recommend to you, but I do not wish to encourage the false but persistent accusation repeated here ad nauseam that I am interested in selling books. So you are on your own. Or, contact me via email.

AC,

I assume your question pertains to why the Bible shines a spotlight on Adam. The short answer to that is that the story in the garden and what follows occur with him.

David Gehrig,

You are apparently as clueless of what the Bible says as that tiny minority of orthodox Jewish fanatics who (still)interpret the days literally. The Hebrew word for what God creates in Genesis 1:26 is NOT, as you state, "adam", but "the human", referring to the species, humankind, both male and female, as the Bible explicitely states a mere few words later. Your translation renders the verse as "And God created the Adam" (HA-AUDUM). Are you referred to as "the David"?

First inform yourself of the facts, get an education, then you will be entitled to post. Right now your successive posts on this topic just reveal more and more of your ignorance.

You know Carol I think you ARE ONTO something there !

Adam IS the "Missing link" !
Which species of hominid did gOD created ?

Dang ....that's the birds and the bees out the door.

mere projection Carol

Make up anything you like it's just noise.

First inform yourself of the facts, get an education, then you will be entitled to post. Right now your successive posts on this topic just reveal more and more of your ignorance.

There was no Adam, again, it's all a myth, stolen from elsewhere......

Professor Blenkinsopp of Notre Dame University on Atrahasis and Gilgamesh motifs in Genesis:
"...just as Genesis 1-11 as a whole corresponds to the structure of the Atrahasis myth, so the garden of Eden story has incorporated many of the themes of the great Gilgamesh poem." (pp. 65-6. "Human Origins, Genesis 1:1-11:26." Joseph Blenkinsopp. The Pentateuch, An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. New York. Doubleday. 1992. ISBN 0-385-41207-X)
I understand that Genesis' Adam is -in part- drawing from Gilgamesh and Enkidu. Adam's sleep in Eden is Gilgamesh's sleep of 6 days and 7 nights in Dilmun, an earthly paradise like Eden. Adam's change of clothes, animal skins for fig leaves upon leaving paradise, is Gilgamesh's change of clothes upon leaving Dilmun (animal skins [his clothes having worn-out, he slays a lion and makes his clothes of its body] being replaced by man-made woven garments). Gilgamesh's failure to attain a new lease on life due to a serpent's actions, it eating the life rejuvenating herb he obtained, mirrors Adam's failure to attain immortality because of a serpent's actions. Adam's change of clothes also is drawing from Enkidu being naked and then clothed by the harlot before leaving "the steppe" called in Sumerian Edin and in Akkadian/Babylonian Edinu. Also mirrored is Adapa's change of clothes before leaving Anu's heavenly abode in the myth titled "Adapa and the South Wind".
Adam's companions being animals is drawing from Enkidu having only animal companions until the hunter brings a harlot or temple prostitute called Shamhat to the watering hole, enticing Enkidu to lay with her. When, after 6 days and 7 nights of sex, he attempts to return to his animal companions they flee. The harlot, a temple prostitute, asks him, "Why seek companionship with animals, he now possesses knowledge like a god", she provides him "food fit for a god" instead of the grass he ate with the animals, and shares her garments to cover his naked hairy body and they leave the steppe, called Edin in Sumerian, and go to meet Gilgamesh in Uruk (biblical Erech of Genesis 10:10). The harlot most likely lies behind Eve, for later, when Enkidu is dying, he curses the harlot for robbing him of his innocence. Before her appearance he roamed naked with animals for companions and ate grass and was not ashamed of his nakedness, just as Adam and Eve were naked and unashamed in Eden. She introduced him to civilization, teaching him that nakedness was wrong, men must be clothed, and to "eat food fit for the gods", perhaps an allusion to the myths that stress that the gods made man to plant, harvest and present food to them so that they need not toil anymore on the earth for their food. Perhaps Enkidu's cursing of the harlot, blaming her for his impending death is behind God's cursing of Eve, telling her she will bear her children in pain and sorrow and that her husband will bear rule over her ? We are informed by the Epic of Gilgamesh that the harlot takes Enkidu by the hand "like a MOTHER" and leads him to civilization. Perhaps the biblical notion of Eve meaning "MOTHER of all living" (Ge 3:20) recalls this epithet originally bestowed on the harlot Shamhat ? The god Enki is also another Adam prototype. In an edenic garden of Dilmun, in the east where the sun rises, Enki eats 8 plants belonging to his wife without her permission in order to "acquire wisdom and to know" them. Enraged, she curses him with death, but relents later. When he complains of her curse causing his rib to ache, she makes a goddess called Nin-ti to heal his rib (Nin-Ti means "Lady of the rib"). Some scholars have proposed Eve's being made of Adam's rib may lie as a "twist" to this myth.

old Hebrew super dooper errorless, perfect, holy, divine version, new testament excluded

referring to the species, humankind, both male and female, as the Bible explicitely states a mere few words later

— Carol Clouser

You are apparently as clueless of what the Bible says as ...

— Carol Clouseau

First inform yourself of the facts, get an education, then you will be entitled to post. Right now your successive posts on this topic just reveal more and more of your ignorance.

— Carol Clouseau

So carol, will you help me with the correct translation of:

Deuteronomy 33:11 (New International Version)
Bless all his skills, O LORD, and be pleased with the work of his hands. Smite the loins of those who rise up against him; strike his foes till they rise no more.

I'm sorry carol I have one more to translate:

Genesis 19:5-8

5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

Thank you.

To the rest of the Panda's Thumb types --- this is the first I've bumped into Carol; is she usually this rhetorically duplicitous, or was she saving it all up for me?

I especially love quoting stuff like this from people I've just proved wrong. Please post more examples of your arrogant invective; they've been delightful so far, in a Charles X. Kinbote "I am the world's leading scholar of John Shade" kind of way.

Ms. Clauser:
Not even one small verse, with commentary? How about the one commonly translated "each according to its kind?"

To the rest of the Panda's Thumb types --- this is the first I've bumped into Carol; is she usually this rhetorically duplicitous, or was she saving it all up for me?

Are these guys (on-topic) really hindus? I read those linked pages and they remind me of a lot of groups that engage in wishful thinking. None of the substantive claims have direct links to scholarship for example. Is there any scholarly interest in these flying machines they talk about? And what about the levitation thing. Can yogi's (not the bear) levitate for real? I mean, I'd think that would be a big deal if you could use anti-gravity to float around. I would. I mean, that's peter pan. I'd be right on that stuff. You know, I have read a lot of thinking and science around the christian magical claims, but I've not found much on hindu yogi claims of supernatural ability. Anyone?

The short answer to that is that the story in the garden and what follows occur with him.

— Carol

Are these guys really hindus?

— BWE

David Gehrig,

You have proved me wrong?! I think you are jumping a bit too fast to conclusions there.

Oh, before I forget, please do spell my name correctly. Or do you read names as sloppily as verses?

Now, back to Genesis. First God converses (not stated with whom, but that's another matter) and says, "Let us make..AUDUM.", then the act occurs, "And God made THE AUDUM", then "male and female made He them". These verses are right near each other so it is most reasonable that they speak of the same thing. Now, which is more reasonable, "Let us make humans",(same plural as singular here), followed by, "and God made the human", followed by "male and female made He them", or "let us make David" (for emphasis I replace Adam the name with David) followed by, "and God made THE David", followed by, "male and female made He THEM"?

I rest my case Mr prove me wrong.

There's a funny parallel between all these off-topic discussions of Biblical exegesis and the argument between the ID/Creationists and the biologists about abiogenesis. The biologists focus on evolution, what happened after the origin of life, while their opponents obsess about how life began as if everything important happened at the origin. The meta-message here is that what counts is the beginning, just as traditional believers imagine that they can answer all questions if they recover the original sense of the canonical texts. In both cases, people are bemused by a Master myth, what might be justly called the Myth of Myth--the false notion that things are understood when we identify their Source. Hence the recurrent, but incredibly unintelligent obsession with finding an actual flood at the root of the Noah story as if that would explain anything.

It's perfectly possible to trace some of the origins of the Jewish Bible to the traditions of other people just as the God of the Jews and Christians is obviously an amalgam of several tribal deities (Yahweh, Baal, El, etc.). This kind of research, though legitimate, may not be particularly important, however, since what the various religions became depended far more on what the sucessive generations made of the old traditions than on some miraculous potency of the textural source. Truth told, a lot of the original material of Judaism is not very promising--you have to be faithful indeed to be inspired by Leviticus--but some of the structures of thought, feeling, and imagination that have been erected on these dubious foundations are rather impressive. By the same token, don't you just love what natural selection did to the barely activated sludge of the Proterozoic era?

Carol is here mostly to try and sell Landa's book, one which, according to her, contains the ultimate correct translations of the Bible and incidentally demonstrates that there is no conflict between the literal Bible and science. The one person I know to have bought the book remained utterly unconvinced, though.

— Grey Wolf

Now, which is more reasonable

— Carol Clouseau

David Gehrig: "Anyway, arguing with fundies who can't admit it when they're wrong is boring."

They're usually humorless, too, and tend not to pick up on the jokes.

OH NO, I SAID MINKEY!!

:-)

(Almost) off-topic, re: the bit about Hinduism in the esteemed PZ's statement.

Apparently, Hinduism IS (technically) a monotheistic religion - On the grounds that all the gods and goddeses in the Vedic pantheon are essentially facets of the same, awesome One Being.

Bisecting rabbits in my opinion, but then notions like that are why I'm an atheist in the first place. (The rest of the ideas expressed are, of course, complete nonsense).

Why aren't people who post bible rants completely unrelated to the thread topic not INSTANTLY sent to BW??????

THIS IS GETTING BORING!

Can you give us your translations carol?
Genesis 19:5-8 and Deuteronomy 33:11
You see, those verses are among a few from the old testament that seem like they would point to a provincial god, one that does, in fact contradict scientific findings. I can explain further but I might just have a bad translation so I am waiting for a good one first.

Wow, an entire religion founded on incorrect data. Like cloning human stem cells.

Good point. Please stop responding to Clouser -- she has nothing of interest to say. And if I have to go through each new comment and manually dispatch them to the bathroom wall, I will get very peevish.

On the subject of Hindu Fundamentalism (Hindies?), more of the same.

They'll end up in the same boat with the ID people at trials like Dover, and walk the same plank regarding a verdict.

Thank God our court system, as of yet, has not gone insane.

Why aren't people who post bible rants completely unrelated to the thread topic not INSTANTLY sent to BW??????

What is BW?

Oh. Never mind.

'Bathroom Wall'.

Here:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=43d7b6e1c6eaecd4;act=ST;f=14;t=155

It probably wasn't deleted, but simply moved to the BW.

As has been explained several times.

Moved is not gone (most of my funniest recent posts, er, IMHO that is, seem to be ending up there...) and PT is not DaveScott's playpen.

Apparently, Hinduism IS (technically) a monotheistic religion - On the grounds that all the gods and goddeses in the Vedic pantheon are essentially facets of the same, awesome One Being.

Look, everyone, right up there I asked you all to ignore that nitwit Clouser...and then what happened? A whole bunch of posts replying to Clouser. I have to manually shift those things around, and it is a pain in the butt, so if you keep it up, I'm simply going to close all comments.

There is no "god" in Hinduism, in the sense that we usually mean in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim traditions. The One Being that you refer to is Brahma, and Brahma is not a god, not a person, not a divine ruler. It answers no prayers, it interferes in nothing, it produces nothing by itself. Brahma is, simply, everything. In Hinduism, everything in the universe is seen as a part of everything else --- and Brahma is the totality of those inter-relationships. So Hinduism is NON-theistic, rather than MONO-theistic. Just like Buddhism and Taoism and Zen.

It's quite impossible to say exactly what a religion is or isn't since, as I like to put it, religions have no bones in 'em since they are unstiffened by extra-imaginary content. That said, Hinduism in practice is probably more like monotheism than anything else, which is why, the many Muslims were historically able to assimilate Hinduism to the religions of the Book rather than to paganism. The notion that most practicing Hindus pay much attention to highly abstract notions about Brahma is a bit misleading. Just as most Buddhists don't spend much energy trying to achieve Enlightenment--good karma or relying on Amida Buddha suffices--most Hindus practice a religion of devotion (Bhakti) to a personal God. There are umpteem temples to Kali, Vishnu, and Siva. Brahma is mostly found in books on comparative religion. Of course educated Indians know all about the transcendent one, just as educated Buddhists can tell you about nirvana. The transcendent mysticism is a real part of the tradition, but probably not a big part. By the same token, the fact that Jewish, Islamic, and Christian mystics experience something beyond or beneath God doesn't mean they aren't monotheistic most of the time. (Maybe we should talk about these beliefs like chemists talk about chemical bonds: 90% monotheistic, 5% mystical monism, 5% paganism on the analogy with 80% covalent, 20% ionic or even 70% pinot noir, 15% merlot, 5% cab.)

I agree that Buddhism/Zen and Taoism are nontheistic, but why don't you think Hinduism is polytheistic? You know, Shiva, Krishna, Ganesh...

most Hindus practice a religion of devotion (Bhakti) to a personal God.

Ok, I just consulted my uncle who has studied yoga for decades and has a shrine in his house to hanuman, a hindu monkey god. He agrees with lenny. He is now(lenny), as far as I'm concerned, the authority on these matters so you should all just believe him. All these different meditations they learn are all to connect with different aspects of reality (or unreality as the case may be) and the different gods are sort of a jumping off point. He claims that godless buddism is only slightly off the mark from hinduism. One caveat: the caste system.

He agrees with lenny. He is now(lenny), as far as I'm concerned, the authority on these matters so you should all just believe him.

I understand what you are saying, but giving these people a little finger will result in them grabbing the arm. We cannot allow them one inch of leniency. If they get a foothold into the door then there will be no stopping them. Look at history to calculate what will happen.

- You didn't quite understand what I meant, I am asking a hypothetical question, if various lies in a school ciricullum did increase tolerance and compassion, would it be okay to include them, it's a sort of do the ends justify the means question.

Are you able to dissociate from your scientific self to an "unknown" state to discuss something scientifically "unknown?" Please elaborate?

- What I think thordaddy is trying to do here is make a verifiability arguement, if ID has no observable effects than how can it be comprehensible ( I've got to say, this is the first time I've ever seen someone try to make a verifiability arguement IN FAVOUR of a theological propostion). The problem with verifiability arguements like these is that no theories have observable effects without auxiliary hypotheseses, so we can't equate meaning with emprical effects.

Rule 6 kicks in for IP address 207.200.116.136, which has had comments from "Larry Fafarman", "thordaddy", "M", and "the pro from dover". If it is just a number in a dynamic pool, it shouldn't cause anyone too much discomfort.

He is now(lenny), as far as I'm concerned, the authority on these matters

Carol,
Why do you not start a thread on AtBC all about biblical translations?

Just a note for administration: 207.200.116.136 is one of the main AOL web cache servers. As much as I appreciate a Larry Farfel-free environment, this might be entirely too dire.

Rule 6 kicks in for IP address 207.200.116.136, which has had comments from "Larry Fafarman", "thordaddy", "M", and "the pro from dover".

Lenny,

What was the motivating factor behind your extensive study of Hinduism and Buddhism?

Just curious. Hope you don't mind my asking.

What was the motivating factor behind your extensive study of Hinduism and Buddhism? Just curious. Hope you don't mind my asking.

I am still a bit angry, both with myself and the ID movement, because I originally fell for their hoax.

As far as I can tell, it's not really religion at all. It's more of a method.

As far as I can tell, it's not really religion at all. It's more of a method.

I imagine Lenny didn't choose his girlfriends on the basis of their knowledge of Hinduism.

Re your statement, "they (Hindus) hope to symbolically invoke this or that portion of reality to help them with this or that thing they want to do." How does one invoke "symbolically"? Something is either invoked or not invoked. What does it mean to "invoke symbolically" and what effect is that supposed to have?

I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they did not set out to deceive anyone.

If I understand this all correctly, it seems that many of the posters here feel it (the real deal, not the crackpot stuff) is more symbology to relate to the universe around us, and ultimately to ourselves. Would that be close as a synopsis?

If this is so, is it really religion, then?

There is nothing in science that contradicts ID.

"are they really Hindus?"

Posted by Lenny's Pizza Guy Oooh! Carol and Lenny, sitting in a tree...!

He claims that godless buddism is only slightly off the mark from hinduism.

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 27, 2006 07:12 PM (e) ... To try and explain it another way, certain mental or emotional states naturally produce specific physical markers ---- when we are angry or aggressive, we naturally, without thinking about it, breathe rapidly from high in the chest and tense the muscles of the hands; when we are relaxed, we naturally, without thinking about it, breathe deeply from the lower abdomen and have loose muscles in the hand. Hindu practice teaches one to consciously direct one's self in this way, by concentrating on a set of traits symbolized by this or that god using specific breathing or muscular actions, therefore reversing the process, and allowing controlled physical markers to in turn produce the mental or emotional state desired. ...

Nepal has a sort of hybridized form of Hinduism and Buddhism which probably isn't all that different from straight Hinduism.

Theravada, which I practice, is what I know best, and it seems to me that two fundamental concepts within Theravada that really couldn't be smoothly reconciled with Hinduism (without just sort of practicing two different things at the same time) are anatta, or not-self, and anicca, impermanence.

without just sort of practicing two different things at the same time

Theravada, which I practice, is what I know best

Right
......can I interupt this moon fingering love fest.

Q: Why don't Buddhists vacuum in the corners?
A: Because they have no attachments.

Q: What did a Buddhist say to the hot dog vendor?
A: Make me one with everything.

Q: What is the name of the best Zen teacher?
A: M.T. Ness

Q: How many Zen Buddhists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Three -- one to change it, one to not-change it and one to both change- and not-change it.

Q: What happens when a Buddhist becomes totally absorbed with the computer he is working with?
A: He enters Nerdvana.

Q: How do I become a Lama?
A: Go to a monastic university and study for twenty-five years. Begin by memorizing Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosha with its commentary (500 pages or so). Then study what you have memorised by hearing lectures on it and debating the contents with other candidates until you can argue every side of every controversy equally well. Then memorise several works of Nagarjuna, along with their commentaries. Then memorise the seven treatises of Dharmakirti. In additional to that study, you must master several forms of meditation and study tantric rituals for about two or three years.

Alternatively, you can come to America and just call yourself a lama. Billions of nubile virgins will follow you everywhere and give you money.

That's IT there are too may here to retain ANY credibility I'm renouncing it all and becoming a Menippean satirist

Ankh if you love Isis!!

Alternatively, you can come to America and just call yourself a lama. Billions of nubile virgins will follow you everywhere and give you money.

Q: Why don't Buddhists vacuum in the corners? A: Because they have no attachments. Q: What did a Buddhist say to the hot dog vendor? A: Make me one with everything. Q: What is the name of the best Zen teacher? A: M.T. Ness Q: How many Zen Buddhists does it take to change a light bulb? A: Three --- one to change it, one to not-change it and one to both change- and not-change it. Q: What happens when a Buddhist becomes totally absorbed with the computer he is working with? A: He enters Nerdvana.

Q: How do I become a Lama? A: Go to a monastic university and study for twenty-five years. Begin by memorizing Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosha with its commentary (500 pages or so). Then study what you have memorised by hearing lectures on it and debating the contents with other candidates until you can argue every side of every controversy equally well. Then memorise several works of Nagarjuna, along with their commentaries. Then memorise the seven treatises of Dharmakirti. In additional to that study, you must master several forms of meditation and study tantric rituals for about two or three years.

After the Gautama Buddha's death, the practice of Buddhism split into three major branches. The Himayana, or "Lesser Vehicle",

emphasized personal meditation as the way to Nirvana. The Mahayana, or "Greater Vehicle", developed the concept of the Bodhisattva, a person who is on his way to Buddhahood but who has sworn to help others reach Nirvana. The Mahayana school held up many Buddhas and emphasized reliance on these saints as the way to achieve enlightenment. The Vajrayana, or "Diamond Vehicle", emphasized the complete immersion of the individual in natural surroundings and training in natural abilities as the Path to enlightenment.

By 1200 CE, Buddhism in India had been almost completely obliterated, having been mostly absorbed into Hinduism.

Mahayana Buddhism became the largest branch, and spread to China and Japan. Vajrayana Buddhism had become established in Tibet and Nepal. Himayana Buddhism had become established in Southeast Asia and Sri Lanka.

Hmmm... I wonder if this will get bounced to the Bathroom Wall?

If you're intertested, a superb source for modern Theravada is: http://accesstoinsight.org/

Re #75612:

So these guys were the same concept?! I feel as cheated by christianity and apparently useless comparative religion classes all over again as when I discovered that the Golden Rule was knicked from other religions.

One would think that both should 'fess up to the similarities first thing and then bring out the distinctive traits. Nah, better to obfuscate. The drawback is when anyone finds you out...

> Please correctly match these names Horus (Egyptian), Jesus (Christian), Mithra (Persian), Buddha (Indian), Krishna (Indian) to the following profiles:

And your source is? Acharya S crank, or someone similar?

i am happy mostly - though terribly sick at times - the medicine is not a perfect fix - i think some weed would help but caant find any - Kant find any...