Threats to Judge Jones and "Challenges" Teaser

Posted 25 March 2006 by Burt Humburg

Via Red State Rabble, we learn that Judge Jones was protected by the US Marshalls back in December, after his Kitzmiller Decision pulled back the curtain from ID and identified it for the warmed over creationism that it is. The reason for that protection? Threatening emails he received following his decision about ID creationism. More details below the fold... Clearly, there was a lot riding on that trial to intelligent design. People had invested countless hours, for one example, trying to advance ID creationism as some sort of legitimate science or as a reason to "unshackle" science from the requirement that its practicioners must test their hypotheses. ID creationism was their wedge and Judge Jones followed the evidence the only place it could have led: identifying it for the retitled creationism of old that it was. But Judge Jones received threatening emails. Although the article linked above left open the matter of what exactly were the nature of the threats he was describing, the Marshalls felt sufficiently concerned to provide him protection back in December. Judge Jones said "We're going to get a judge hurt." If it was creationists who stood to lose the most from Judge Jones' decision, then it's not too much of a stretch to think that angry creationists were the ones who concerned the US Marshalls so. Was it a creationist to whom Judge Jones referred when he said that someone was going to get a judge hurt? Anyone, on this weekend day so far under the influence of mind-altering substances, as to think it was disgruntled atheist creationists who sent those emails? Christians sending threatening letters to judges. Christians lying on the witness stand. I'll have a few more thoughts on this issue, and the topic of misplaced faith and why science is greatly threatened by it, tomorrow. For now, follow the link for the scoop from Pat Hayes. BCH PS - Tune in tomorrow.

268 Comments

Lurker · 25 March 2006

Well, now. This certainly makes Mirecki's story more plausible, doesn't it? After all if someone can feel strongly enough to threaten a federal judge, how much more effort does it take to motivate oneself to assault a lowly professor?

caerbannog · 25 March 2006

[ann coulter]
And if Judge Jones and Prof Mirecki don't get over their America hatred right-quick, they just might find themselves in adjoining chain-link pens down in Gitmo...
[/ann coulter]

Matt Young · 25 March 2006

According to an article in the New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/politics/19scotus.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Justice [Ruth Bader]Ginsburg also revealed that she and Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor, who retired in January, had been the targets of an Internet death threat over their practice of citing the decisions of foreign courts in their rulings.... The threat, passed to the justices by a court security officer, was a February 2005 posting on an Internet chat site addressing unnamed "commandos." "Here is your first patriotic assignment," the message said. "Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg and O'Connor have publicly stated that they use foreign laws and rulings to decide how to rule on American cases. This is a huge threat to our Republic and constitutional freedom. If you are what you say you are, and NOT armchair patriots, then those two justices will not live another week."

A United States Senator, John Cornyn of Texas, is also quoted as making what you might consider a veiled threat concerning the Terry Schiavo case:

Senator Cornyn said afterward that political rulings from judges had fueled public frustration. "It builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in violence," he said. "Certainly without any justification, but a concern that I have."

Jeff G · 25 March 2006

Just so you know, the first link to the article isn't working. You need to put the "l" on the end of the URL.

Burt Humburg · 25 March 2006

Fixed. Thanks for the head's up.

BCH

Andrew McClure · 25 March 2006

Senator Cornyn said afterward that political rulings from judges had fueled public frustration. "It builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in violence," he said. "Certainly without any justification, but a concern that I have."

Hmm. I wonder how likely he would be to describe the origins of radical Islamic violence in similar terms.

steve s · 25 March 2006

Anyone, on this weekend day so far under the influence of mind-altering substances, as to think it was disgruntled atheist creationists who sent those emails?

Under the influence -- check. Enough to imagine a fellow atheist was responsible -- uncheck I would have guessed christians anyway, because christians are not as ethical as atheists: http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/03/americans_and_t.html

normdoering · 25 March 2006

off topic, but Seed magazine has an article on the Clergy Letter project:

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/03/strange_bedfellows.php

It turns out that many of the pastors who signed the letter, when interviewed later, didn't really understand evolution and what they were supporting.

RupertG · 25 March 2006

"it seems that many of the pastors who signed the letter..."

Many? The article quotes one, and goes on to say:

"Several other clergymen interviewed echoed this notion. The responses of these clergy members---while hardly a statistically significant sub-population---cast some doubt as to whether the 10,000 Clergy Letter signers are all the whole-hearted supporters of science, as the Alliance for Science claims."

Several? How many other of the clergymen interviewed did not echo that notion? Let's see some numbers. I don't know Seed, but if that's typical of its journalism I'm not sure I'm inclined to make its aquaintance.

normdoering · 25 March 2006

RupertG wrote:

Several? How many other of the clergymen interviewed did not echo that notion?

They didn't put up numbers on that, or on how many they interviewed to find them. But it does call into question whether all 10,000 of the signers understood what they were signing. It's not the answer -- it's just the question. And it's a very valid question. If you want the answer you'll have to conduct a more rigorous survey. My experience with people who post here is that not all who fight for evolution understand exactly what they're fighting for.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 March 2006

My experience with people who post here is that not all who fight for evolution understand exactly what they're fighting for.

Perhaps they are simply fighting for something different than you are. That has always, of course, been a concept that has been extremely difficult for fundies (of all sorts) to understand.

normdoering · 26 March 2006

Lenny Flank wrote:

Perhaps they are simply fighting for something different than you are.

You might want to read the article: http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/03/strange_bedfellows.php The quote they used was:

---one of only two Mormons to sign the letter---said he believes that God works through science, and he would believe anything that good science "proved" but would have a very hard time accepting that man evolved from another species. Furthermore, Black said he believes Darwinian evolution hasn't yet met the burden of proof. "We believe in creation, and we can also believe in some of the aspects of Darwinism, but not all of them," he said. "We don't necessarily believe that the stages of man are actually what science is saying they are, because there hasn't been a proof yet to substantiate them." Several other clergymen interviewed echoed this notion.

That's something an ID advocate would say and he shouldn't be signing a letter that's anti-ID. It's not the culture-influences-genes argument I had with you awhile back.

Stephen Elliott · 26 March 2006

Posted by normdoering on March 25, 2006 10:19 PM (e) ... My experience with people who post here is that not all who fight for evolution understand exactly what they're fighting for.

That is true. I am one of them. But then again, why does anyone need to understand evolution exactly, to recognise it as science? It does not take too long to recognise: 1. ID as a religious/political movement. 2. Evolution holds itself to scientific methodology while ID does not. 3. The most prominent ID supporters are either dishonest or ignorant (often both). I would conclude that it is not important to thoroughly understand evolution to support it as science. To argue against it as science, people require far more of an understanding (at least they should do, to be honest).

Posted by Lurker on March 25, 2006 01:53 PM Well, now. This certainly makes Mirecki's story more plausible, doesn't it? After all if someone can feel strongly enough to threaten a federal judge, how much more effort does it take to motivate oneself to assault a lowly professor?

They must have been fairly serious threats too. I would be surprised if the authorities hand out armed protection lightly. Sheeesh! What a World we live in.

RBH · 26 March 2006

Jones mentions the threats and comments on the rhetoric that may lead to them late in this interview broadcast on March 24. (Link is to the audio file.) He also comments extensively on Kitzmiller -- the interview is a hour long.

RBH

RupertG · 26 March 2006

I don't understand evolution exactly, but then again I don't understand anything exactly. I can still say what I believe on the balance of probabilities to be the closest to the truth, while leaving open the option that I'm wrong. I've got what I think is a good grasp of the fundamentals of Christianity and scientific thought, and that's one of the reasons I'm so confident which camp ID falls into.

If you want to find large numbers of people who really don't have an idea what they believe but are prepared to defend it vociferously, religion has more than just an edge. If you took an average congregation of a Christian church (doesn't matter what denomination) and asked them all separately whether they believed in dogma such as the Trinity, the resurrection and redemption, they'd say yes. Ask them what they thought the Trinity actually was and why it mattered theologically, and why God had his son killed and how that helped things, and I bet you'd get a different answer each time. (For real fun, ask where the concept of the Trinity comes from. For even more real fun, ask someone nice and cuddly like a Episcopalian priest what they're actually taught in theological college about the Bible, and why they never preach that side of things from the pulpit. I've seen what happens when they do, and it ain't pretty.)

But I digress.

One of the things that came through clearest from Kitzmiller was that the _opponents_ of evolution often cannot describe in the simplest terms what it is. Indeed, some seem to take pride in 'I don't know the details, but I know it's wrong', and I'd be hard pushed to find equivalent 'I don't know the details but I know it's right' evolution-minded people actually involved in the debate.

Michael Hopkins · 26 March 2006

Christians sending threatening letters to judges. Christians lying on the witness stand.

$text =~ s/Christians/fundamentalist Christian fanatics/;

Ed Darrell · 26 March 2006

Regarding the clergy letter project: If a "high priest"* from the Mormons has difficulty with evolution but signs the letter, so what? At least he doesn't preach against his church's theology by saying Darwin is definitely in error.

If all the other signatories of the clergy letter also come from faiths where preaching against Darwin is false doctrine, that's exactly the point.

Fact is that a small minority of Christian sects have serious theology statements that question the science of Darwin's theory. Most of the flapping against Darwin and evolution is extra-theological, not part of the faith.

* In the Latter-day Saints structure, there are no professional clergy. Local wards are headed by lay clergy. Men become priests at about the age of 12, and advance through different priesthoods. Most Mormon men would be a high priest.

Keanus · 26 March 2006
I meet these types every week as an escort for a Planned Parenthood clinic for which about 5% of the patients come for abortions. They (the picketers) call us escorts and the patients "evil", "murderers," "baby killers," and other choice names. The women normally threaten us with damnation in hell (which I regard as theoretical and therefore immaterial) and the men with not so subtly veiled threats in this world. No one has yet tried to shoot anyone, but the potential is sufficient that the clinic employs an armed guard (a retired policeman around 50) and has bullet proof windows that incorporate seven layers of plate glass interleaved with some kind of heavy plastic sheet (about 1-1/2" thick). The religious right, including those opposed to evolution, has within it as much potential for violence as any group on the world, including Islamic fanatics. Anyone who publicly opposes them needs to be careful.
As an aside, several years ago, after a long but dispassionate letter of mine supporting evolution appeared in the local paper as a "guest column", I had a rock thrown through a window in my house and a number of "heavy breathing" phone calls (I'm listed in the phone book). Nothing further has happened, but my wife worries about my willingness to publicly bait the fundies.

Mike Elzinga · 26 March 2006
I see Bill Buckingham still doesn't get it (http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3641366). He seems to be typical of the rest of them.

Ed Darrell · 26 March 2006
Regarding the clergy letter project: If a "high priest"* from the Mormons has difficulty with evolution but signs the letter, so what? At least he doesn't preach against his church's theology by saying Darwin is definitely in error.
If all the other signatories of the clergy letter also come from faiths where preaching against Darwin is false doctrine, that's exactly the point.
Fact is that a small minority of Christian sects have serious theology statements that question the science of Darwin's theory. Most of the flapping against Darwin and evolution is extra-theological, not part of the faith.
* In the Latter-day Saints structure, there are no professional clergy. Local wards are headed by lay clergy. Men become priests at about the age of 12, and advance through different priesthoods. Most Mormon men would be a high priest.

steve s · 26 March 2006
As a legal strategy during the trial, attorneys with the Thomas More Law Center essentially separated Buckingham from the rest of the board members. Numerous times, they mentioned his addiction to painkillers and said the other board members, who voted in favor of intelligent design, shouldn't be held accountable for his remarks. In his closing arguments on the last day of the trial, Dover attorney Patrick Gillen summed up the lawsuit by saying it was "built on a molehill of statements by one board member (Buckingham) fighting OxyContin addiction."
Always nice when your lawyer has to invoke your drug habit to explain your statements.

steve s · 26 March 2006
AHAHA! When I posted that I hadn't read the very next part:
Buckingham said he doesn't understand why the district's attorneys did that, "unless they thought I did something along the way that was detrimental to the case."
Must still have the monkey on his back.

Gorbe · 27 March 2006
Sort of makes you wonder why people distrust atheists, while seeming to naturally trust God-believers. That's not to say a militant atheists would never be capable of sending threatening emails. But, how many crazy religionists does it take until people stop equating religiosity with being good? I'd suggest that ANYONE (secular or religious) who thinks they are in possession of The Truth, is capable of violence towards others.

Greg Peterson · 27 March 2006
When I was invited to debate the existence of God at a Minneapolis area church (for the non-theist side), the nice churchy Christian couple that sat IN FRONT OF MY CHILDREN'S PEW said that if they "had a gun, they'd shoot [me] in the head right now" for my presentation. Which, by the way, was as gentle and respectful a presentation of non-theism I can imagine. So Christians turning homicidal because they've heard something they don't like no longer surprises me in the least.
On another topic, Seed Magazine is actually quite good, generally. It's not perfect--what is--but it does a nice job of addressing the "third culture" aspect of science and society. I read the latest issue over the weekend, and if nothing else, a review in Seed led me to advance-order the book "Intelligent Thought" coming out on May 9. It's a collection of essays on intelligent design from the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Stephen Pinker, and it's only $14, so I'm expecting it to be a worthwhile purchase. Just a heads up.

normdoering · 27 March 2006
Greg Peterson wrote:
... debate the existence of God at a Minneapolis area church (for the non-theist side), the nice churchy Christian couple that sat IN FRONT OF MY CHILDREN'S PEW said that if they "had a gun, they'd shoot [me] in the head right now" for my presentation.
From Andrew Sullivan's blog: http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/
Atheist Email of the Day 24 Mar 2006 07:04 pm A reader writes: "In regards to the whole idea of atheists being untrustworthy, you may find this reviling experience worth relating. My ex-wife and I recently had a nasty custody dispute. In this dispute, I recently came very close to losing serious ground in my ongoing battle to be a central part of my son's life. The entire case for the opposing side had nothing to do with how I am as a parent; in fact, every witness for the other side could say nothing but good about my son's psycholigical health and good about my parenting. Instead, the entire objective of the other side was to smear me in court for being an atheist, or at the very minumum, not attending church regularly. To make a long story short, the judge took away Sunday visitation from me permanently (I have my son every other week rather than every other weekend, so the change could have been much worse), so that the child "could get the religious instruction he needs" via my ex-wife. Similar verbiage actually appears in the court order. The repulsion I felt about all of this can never be described coherently. I was verbally lambasted by a judge in the United States of America for my religious beliefs, and suffered punishment for it (or perhaps, my son did, depending on viewpoint)... This happened in Mississippi, and I know better than to fight it - given that the original lawsuit aimed to reduce my visitation to every other weekend, I could have fared much worse, and the judge rightly guessed I would not wish to appeal and risk losing more ground when the case is sent back for reconsideration. But still, I have never, never felt so violated."
I wonder if more of this goes on than we are aware of. You might want to email your experience to Sullivan.

Bill Gascoyne · 27 March 2006
If you want to find large numbers of people who really don't have an idea what they believe but are prepared to defend it vociferously, religion has more than just an edge.
"Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim." GEORGE SANTAYANA (1863-1952)

Alann · 27 March 2006
Its a sad bit of irony that fundies argue that atheists are evil because they lack any sense of morality.
A good atheist would not resort to violence when there belief is challenged because it is ethically wrong.
On the other hand a good fundie may resort to violence because they do not consider it morally wrong, even if it is clearly ethically wrong.
To be clear I am using ethical to mean right and wrong as determined by society and moral to mean right and wrong as defined by religion.
While the majority of most religions openly oppose any form of violence (For Christians: If you read the new testament, Christ clearly refused to resort to violence even in the face of imminent death). There are still many religious groups which either tacitly or openly support violence in the name of God.

normdoering · 27 March 2006
(For Christians: If you read the new testament, Christ clearly refused to resort to violence even in the face of imminent death).
But Jesus did get violent once. He started kicking over the tables of the "money changers" in the temple calling it a den of theives.

jonboy · 27 March 2006
Alan said;" If you read the new testament, Christ clearly refused to resort to violence even in the face of imminent death)"Not so
Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching.
Jesus says that God is like a slave-owner who beats his slaves "with many stripes"
In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow. The parable ends with the words of Jesus: "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me."
Those who do not believe in Jesus will be cast into a fire to be burned.
Jesus is unqualified to act as the perfect light to lead mankind on the road to morality and is not worthy of the emulation accorded him by millions.

steve s · 27 March 2006
Jesus is unqualified to act as the perfect light to lead mankind on the road to morality and is not worthy of the emulation accorded him by millions.
Truer words were never spoken.

Anton Mates · 27 March 2006
There's also Revelations, of course, in which Jesus comes back and kills folks on a scale normally associated only with giant monsters from Japanese movies. But I think it's still fair to say that he commands us ordinary humans not to commit acts of violence. It's God's job to hand out the eventual beatdowns, which ought to help us have the patience to treat our enemies kindly for the moment.

Bill Gascoyne · 27 March 2006
Pet peeve: It's "Revelation," more specifically "The Revelation of St. John the Divine," no plural.

Raging Bee · 28 March 2006
Once again, a fundie atheist (jonboy in this case) cherrypicks bits of the Bible out of context to portray an obviously incomplete version of Jesus that most actual followers of Jesus clearly don't believe in. In his refusal to recognize the obvious fact that most Christians simply do not behave in the manner he implies, he has revealed himself to be no less blind a bigot than any Klansman. And you wonder why atheists don't get no respect?
Jesus is unqualified to act as the perfect light to lead mankind on the road to morality and is not worthy of the emulation accorded him by millions.
You got a better example to follow, Skippy? If so, I have yet to see it.

jonboy · 28 March 2006
Ranting bee,
Your comments have sunk to a new low, I can't think of any prior post in which you have exhibited more denunciations and vilification's with less proof than this one. Pejoratives and ad hominem denunciations are replacing dispassionate scholarship and open-mindedness. Liquefied hate is dripping onto your writing.I'm reminded of the 19Th century writer who said, "I hear the voice of approbation not in the dulcet sounds of praise but in the savage cries of indignation." Your errors, and irrelevancies are many.
Much of your malediction is little more than opinions and conjectures based on an offended ego.
Don't criticize my position unless you provide chapter and verse with respect to yours. Put your "proof" within the post,otherwise, readers are left guessing as to what's being debated.
You spouted "that most Christians simply do not behave in the manner he implies"how about facts or evidence to support that statement,or do you consider yourself able to answer for all Xtians?
Jesus may be a source of inspiration for you and many more, but he is by no means a fountain of truth for all.
If you are looking for, as long as it looks good, feels good, and seems to make sense, that's all that matters. Remember, a wide variety of chemicals will provide a comparable euphoria.

AC · 28 March 2006
You got a better example to follow, Skippy? If so, I have yet to see it.
— Raging Bee
Actually, I'd say that any person in history who cherrypicked the good of what is written of Jesus and ignored the bad is better.

Raging Bee · 28 March 2006
Hit a nerve, did I, jonboy? The truth tends to do that, especially to people who recognize it but don't want to admit it. If you don't like vilification, then kindly stop vilifying people and beliefs of which you clearly know nothing and care even less.
As for proof of my position, I suppose I could introduce you to the many Christians, Jews and Pagans I have met who simply don't fit your hateful stereotype and have little use for the Bible verses you quote -- but that would only embarrass me in front of them. They may not be a valid representative sample of their respective communities, but is your sample any more valid?
I disprove your bigotry exactly as I disprove that of the Klansman: I have met some of the "enemy" group, and they're not as uniformly evil as the bigots say they are.

Raging Bee · 28 March 2006
Jesus may be a source of inspiration for you and many more, but he is by no means a fountain of truth for all.
Actually, his wisdom is widely respected by people of nearly all faiths, and no faith, all over the globe, much like the wisdom of Lao Tsu. I've met, and read, many non-Christians, but NONE of them flatly said that all of Jesus' teachings were false. How many atheists can say the same? (I'm including you here, because you have not directly questioned or refuted Jesus' actual teachings -- you've just ignored them.)

Raging Bee · 28 March 2006
Here's a bit of an email someone sent to Andrew Sullivan:
...Secondly, I particularly appreciated your support for atheists because I know that you are deeply religious. Acknowledging the dignity and moral beliefs of atheism is not only quite welcome, but I think (dare I say?) the Christian thing to do. In the same way, we atheists should respect believers; too often, many of us are hostile to people of faith.
If an atheist facing real discrimination can show this much respect for persons of fatih -- "doing unto others" just like whatshisname advised about two thousand years ago -- then the atheists here have no excuse whatsoever not to follow the same example.

normdoering · 28 March 2006
then the atheists here have no excuse whatsoever not to follow the same example.
Andrew Sullivan earned the respect he got, you haven't. Your "arguments" have been hostile, insulting and deeply wrong in ways Sullivan isn't. And if Sullivan wanted it, I have a lot I disagree with him on the religion thing. There are arguments against this kind of stuff:
Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. Jesus says that God is like a slave-owner who beats his slaves "with many stripes" In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow. The parable ends with the words of Jesus: "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me." Those who do not believe in Jesus will be cast into a fire to be burned. Jesus is unqualified to act as the perfect light to lead mankind on the road to morality and is not worthy of the emulation accorded him by millions.
But that argument involves looking up the passages and interpreting them -- not making blanket claims. Either you can make a case for Jesus representing the philosophy you think he does or you can't. What you can't do is make bald assertions -- no one will respect that kind of argument -- because it's not an argument, it's preaching. Now, where the hell is that "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me" in the Bible? I don't believe that one.

Eugene Lai · 28 March 2006
As for proof of my position
— Bee
Reading the whole thread from the beginning, I see proof that as far as you are concerned, only religion defenders get the right to yell.
I have met some of the "enemy" group, and they're not as uniformly evil as the bigots say they are.
Mr Hyperbole, can you please point out which bigot said that "they" are uniformly evil?
I've met, and read, many non-Christians, but NONE of them flatly said that all of Jesus' teachings were false.
Again, who suggest otherwise? Is it because if it is not all false, then it is all true? How many atheists can say the same? None. But Jesus can't say the same either. If all his teaching is good then no cherry picking is possible. Cherry picking implies there are good bits and bad bits. This thread is about christians doing immoral things IN THE NAME OF GOD. It is irrefutable that their religious conviction drives people to do evil things. Yet you spend most of your energy arguing with atheists while silent about the actual evil-doers.

Eugene Lai · 28 March 2006
As for proof of my position
— Bee
Reading the whole thread from the beginning, I see proof that as far as you are concerned, only religion defenders get the right to yell.
I have met some of the "enemy" group, and they're not as uniformly evil as the bigots say they are.
Mr Hyperbole, can you please point out which bigot said that "they" are uniformly evil?
I've met, and read, many non-Christians, but NONE of them flatly said that all of Jesus' teachings were false.
Again, who suggest otherwise? Is it because if it is not all false, then it is all true?
How many atheists can say the same?
None. But Jesus can't say the same either. If all his teaching is good then no cherry picking is possible. Cherry picking implies there are good bits and bad bits. This thread is about christians doing immoral things IN THE NAME OF GOD. It is irrefutable that their religious conviction drives people to do evil things. Yet you spend most of your energy arguing with atheists while silent about the actual evil-doers.

Anton Mates · 28 March 2006
[quote author="Bill Gascoyne"]Pet peeve: It's "Revelation," more specifically "The Revelation of St. John the Divine," no plural.[/quote]
Mea culpa.

Anton Mates · 28 March 2006
[quote author="normdoering"]
Now, where the hell is that "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me" in the Bible?
I don't believe that one.[/quote]
Luke 19:27, but from context I think it's still part of the parable, not Jesus' own viewpoint. (The NRSV Bible makes that explicit with its punctuation, but I believe the King James is ambiguous.) It seems very out of character, anyway...Jesus says and does some weird things in the Gospels, but his dispatching roving death squads is a little unlikely.

jonboy · 28 March 2006
Raging Bee,
You arrogantly assume you have the truth, without any evidence what so ever to support your position(religoinist are good at that),where as I provide evidence from the only source we have of the supposedly "respect sage",the bible.Unlike Xtians I am not looking to the Bible for salvation in Christ because it isn't a God's word and Jesus isn't my Savior; and I am not proving my own convictions. I provide facts, evidence, documentation and information,you show nothing but an opinion.
The truth is that Xtians need to be aware of the fact that they have accepted a book, adopted its precepts and expounded its teachings without investigating its validity or performing a reasonable intelligent critique of its contents. Apparently they are so desperate for something to believe in that they are willing to minimize or ignore all contrary information. As I told some college students recently after a protracted discussion, "As long as it looks good, sounds good, feels good, and seems to make sense, you really don't care whether it is true or false.
No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people.
If I am wrong ,lets see the evidence for your position.
Incidentally, in regard to one of your comments, I hope you didn't mean to question my integrity. Neither of us has any reason to doubt the decency of the other. Ad hominen arguments prove nothing, are irrelevant, and only generate ill will.

jonboy · 28 March 2006
You are all missing the point,let me give you a good analogy.
If you owned a book of 100 pages, half of the book 50 pages, contained pictures of flowers, mountains, cute baby's,and puppy dogs, and the other 50 pages contained pictures of mass murder, rape slavery, bestiality and
degrading imagoes of women,would you leave it on your coffee table for people to look at?
The tired old arguments of (out of context or cherry picking) wont wash,it says what it means.
We read;
As he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.2 KINGS--2:23-24
God kills children for name calling?is that out of context/

Raging Bee · 28 March 2006
Eugene Lai challenges me thusly:
...can you please point out which bigot said that "they" are uniformly evil?
And I respond with Eugene's own words from the very same post:
This thread is about christians doing immoral things IN THE NAME OF GOD. It is irrefutable that their religious conviction drives people to do evil things.
There you have it: a blanket statement that the religious convictions of Christians -- referred to here as a homogeneous mass, with no attempt to differentiate -- drives "people" -- again, as a homogeneous group -- to do evil things, and only evil things.
And that's only the most convenient example. There are plenty more, and you all know it. Any further demands for evidence in this matter will be regarded as being on a par with Larry Farfromaman saying he's still not satisfied with the evidence for evolution.
If you owned a book of 100 pages, half of the book 50 pages, contained pictures of flowers, mountains, cute baby's,and puppy dogs, and the other 50 pages contained pictures of mass murder, rape slavery, bestiality and
degrading imagoes of women,would you leave it on your coffee table for people to look at?
I'd cut out the nice pages and make a new book out of them. Anyone here have a problem with that?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 March 2006
Time again for another pointless religious war, I see . . . . .
Why don't y'all just shoot each other until just one side is left. Then maybe we can get some peace.

Raging Bee · 28 March 2006
Crap, I hit the "Post" button too soon. That last pagagraph should read:
I'd cut out the nice pages and make a new book out of them. Anyone here have a problem with that? That is, in fact, what most modern Christians do in their hearts: take the bits that work in their lives, and leave the rest. I, for one, have never even HEARD of most of that stuff. Why have I never heard of that stuff? Because none of the Christians I've encountered have ever quoted it to me. Why have they never quoted it to me? Because they don't share your opinions of its importance.
Now it's your turn to provide some evidence: can you cite examples of significant numbers of Christians imitating the specific vile acts you've quoted here? I'm sure such acts would be all over the TV news, so you shouldn't have much of a problem with this.

Eugene Lai · 28 March 2006
Way to go to use something that is posted after the fact to substantiate your accusation.
By the way which part of it implies "uniformly evil"??? That was my question and I don't see which part of my sentence implies every christian in the world.
Do you really need to see a quantifier in front of the word christian every single time it's used? I have never to see someone write "SOME christian did , but just so you know, some christians are evil". You have no problem when good things are attributed to a homogeneous group. You are doing that throughout your posts, with no exception.
Why the double standard?
And you are still spending your energy argue with atheists who have not threaten a judge.

Eugene Lai · 28 March 2006
Apology for the very crappy english. I cannot multitask at all.

The Moonshield · 28 March 2006
jonboy: As he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.2 KINGS---2:23-24
God kills children for name calling?is that out of context/
Me: Na`ra (translated "children" here) doesn't necessarily refer to children; it can and often times does (as is the case here) refer to adult males as old as thirty. And they weren't killed just because they called someone a name; it's more complicated than that, but seeing as how this isn't really an appropriate place to discuss this sort of thing, I won't delve any deeper.

The Moonsheild · 28 March 2006
Bah, apparently it's been too long since I've done any biblical study.
The greek in question (if anyone here cares) is actually a phrase, namely neurim qetannim. To quote HSOBX:
"Little children' is an unfortunate translation. The Hebrew expression neurim qetannim is best rendered 'young lads' or 'young men.' From numerous examples where ages are specified in the Old Testament, we know that these were boys from twelve to thirty years old. One of these words described Isaac at his sacrifice in Genesis 22:12, when he was easily in his early twenties. It described Joseph in Genesis 37:2 when he was seventeen years old. In fact, the same word described army men in 1 Kings 20:14-15...these are young men ages between twelve and thirty."
Alright, no more Bible related posts from me anymore, I promise ;)

Raging Bee · 29 March 2006
It occurs to me that if you atheists really want to be respected for your intelligence, the easiest solution would be to add one word to your vocabulary. Really, just one. The word is: SOME. Just one syllable, easy to spell, pronounced like SUM but with a totally different meaning.
I'm too lazy to look up the dictionary definition, but I'll stick it into some sentences to show you how radically it can improve the quality of discourse. Check this out...
SOME Christians have a world-view so brittle that they're compelled to reject, deny or ignore any fact that seems to contradict their holy text. [But not all Christians.]
SOME Christians believe it's perfectly okay to ask their God to punish people they don't like in a manner totally out of proportion to the harm done by their "sins." [But some Christians don't.]
And here's an example that might be closer to your hearts...
SOME atheists are pig-ignorant ninehammers who feel that not believing in a god automatically makes them smarter than everyone else, and entitles them to make uninformed generalizations about beliefs they may not fully understand. [But other atheists don't act like this.]
Notice the effect this new word has on the quality of the sentences in which it appears. Statements that seem asinine and insulting suddenly sound not only informed, but even fair-minded. It's almost a miracle. SOME might even say this word was intelligently designed. Then again, SOME others might say it's a product of evolution: those who use it get more mating opportunities than those who don't.

Raging Bee · 29 March 2006
normdoehring wrote:
...And if Sullivan wanted it, I have a lot I disagree with him on the religion thing.
So take it to Sullivan. (Just be warned: Sullivan is a LOT smarter than me, so you'll have a hard enough time just getting him to take you seriously.)
Or, better yet, take it to your fellow atheist who wrote the email: explain to him why he was wrong to treat others the way he wanted to be treated.
Eugene Lai wrote:
You have no problem when good things are attributed to a homogeneous group. You are doing that throughout your posts, with no exception. Why the double standard?
It's called being polite, open-minded and diplomatic. You should try it sometime. Chicks dig it. It's also called "humility."
And AC wrote:
Actually, I'd say that any person in history who cherrypicked the good of what is written of Jesus and ignored the bad is better.
Makes sense to me. People who look for the good, tend to find good, and to be good; while people who look for evil tend to find...evil! Especially if they ignore the good!

Eugene Lai · 29 March 2006
Why the double standard?

It's called being polite, open-minded and diplomatic. You should try it sometime. Chicks dig it. It's also called "humility."
It is simply astonishing to get an education on politeness and humility from you. To top it off you use this to justify double standard ..... well, whatever you want, Mr. Polite. I surely can see that your double-standardness does not end here - To read how you want people to put "some" in front... you sure have VERY thick skin. First make sure you adhere to your own standard, will you? BTW Mr. Humble, do you cherry pick turn the other cheek, or not?

H. Humbert · 29 March 2006
Ok, "some" christians are so detached from reality that they actually think it plausible that a man who lived 2000 years was partially a god, walked on water, miraculously tranformed water into wine, died on a cross and then rose from the grave three days later.
Oh, was that a case where I was supposed to use all?
This is an evolution blog and not all christians are creationists. However, all christians accept fantastical claims without evidence, which means, whether they think they can walk the tight rope or not, they are far more susceptible to pseudo-science and delusions then most men of science. I don't mean subjective ideas like morals, I means claims which clearly defy known laws of physics, which they all accept on an irrational excuse they like to call faith.

Eugene Lai · 29 March 2006
I'd cut out the nice pages and make a new book out of them. Anyone here have a problem with that? That is, in fact, what most modern Christians do in their hearts: take the bits that work in their lives, and leave the rest.
Let's apply it here: "I'd cut out the nice pages FROM THE BIBLE and make a new book out of THE BIBLE. That is, in fact, what most modern Christians do in their hearts: take the bits FROM THE BIBLE that work in their lives, and leave the BITS THAT ARE UNPLEASENT.". There you have it. I'd like to see more xtian sign up to this. Little wonder that "some" xtians consider "some other" xtians non-true-xtians. Fundie xtian fanatics are not Xtians, obviously.
I, for one, have never even HEARD of most of that stuff.
My congratulations on your ignorance. As they say, ignorance is bliss.
Why have I never heard of that stuff? Because none of the Christians I've encountered have ever quoted it to me. Why have they never quoted it to me? Because they don't share your opinions of its importance.
So you can pat each other on the back on how exemplery a xtian you all are. What does the word stand for? Who cares!

Raging Bee · 29 March 2006
However, all christians accept fantastical claims without evidence, which means, whether they think they can walk the tight rope or not, they are far more susceptible to pseudo-science and delusions then most men of science. I don't mean subjective ideas like morals, I means claims which clearly defy known laws of physics, which they all accept on an irrational excuse they like to call faith.
Replace "all" with "some" or "many" in the above quote, and it will sound a lot less stupid. (And stop pretending that "Christians" and "men of science" are two mutually exclusive groups; they're not.) Not all Christians accept the same "fantastical claims," nor do all Christians place the same importance on the same set of claims, nor are all Christians equally "susceptible to pseudo-science and delusions" (what about Christian men of science?); nor are all Christians equally resistant to physical evidence that calls this or that peripheral Bible story into question.
I'm telling you, you only need to learn ONE WORD! It's that easy! What are you waiting for?

normdoering · 29 March 2006
The ranting little Bee doth claim:
However, all christians accept fantastical claims without evidence, ...
Replace "all" with "some" or "many" in the above quote, and it will sound a lot less stupid. Well do all Christians accept the fantastical claim that a God exists? Let's find out. Let's google "atheist christian." You get stuff like this: http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/christian.html It's pretty lame stuff but they exist. So, the annoying insect has a point. However, it's a rather pathetic point since most people get the fact that reality is messier and more complicated than our language useage. Even Raging Bee often breaks his own rule and over generalizes.

JY · 29 March 2006
"This thread is about Christians doing immoral things IN THE NAME OF GOD. It is irrefutable that their religious conviction drives people to do evil things." There you have it: a blanket statement that the religious convictions of Christians --- referred to here as a homogeneous mass, with no attempt to differentiate --- drives "people" --- again, as a homogeneous group --- to do evil things, and only evil things.
— Raging Bee
Let's analyze some English sentences based on the Raging Bee rubric: "English football fans rioted in Rome last night after England won their World Cup qualifier." What! Every English football fan rioted? It must have been quite a riot. "This article is about football fans committing violent acts". Wow, doesn't that imply that all football fans are violent? "Football fever drives people to do crazy things" All people -- every last one of them -- do crazy things because of football fever! Bee, English just doesn't work the way you seem to think it does. A reasonable person would NOT interpret Eugene's sentence the way you describe. Sure, there are times when a broad generalization is implied: "English football fans think Wayne Rooney is the world's best striker." But there's no simple rule, you have to look at context. The idea that someone is asserting that Christians are uniformly evil (on this thread) is purely your invention, and your anti-atheist rhetoric is far more over the top than anything the atheists have said (on this thread). The one genuinely intended incorrect generalization that I've noted is the idea that all Christians believe in ideas like the ressurection, the divinity of Jesus, and so on. It's not true that they universally do, but it certainly isn't an unfair or overbroad generalization (and thus accusing Christians, in general, of being willing to accept fantastical claims without evidence is too broad to be universally true, close enough to the mark to be fair -- assuming you accept the characterization of the idea that God came to earth as a man, and was resurrected, as 'fantastical').

normdoering · 29 March 2006
JY wrote a good analysis of language usage, but then added:
The idea that someone is asserting that Christians are uniformly evil (on this thread) is purely your invention, and your anti-atheist rhetoric is far more over the top than anything the atheists have said (on this thread).
Well, the phrase "uniformly evil" was never used. However, in past threads I have argued that fundamentalism is the core of any religion which has a book like the Bible or Koran at its base. That argument, I must confess, originates with Sam Harris and his book, "The End of Faith." http://www.samharris.org/ But I said something similar decades before Sam Harris in my essays, "Hope is the Bait" and "Fear is the Trap." http://www.totse.com/en/religion/christianity/notcrst1.html Most religions with Sacred Scripture, "the Word Of God," written over a thousand years ago charge their adherents to kill the unbelievers, among other ridiculous directives, admonitions and threats. There is no getting around it while keeping your intellectual integrity intact. The New Testament doesn't, but it was built on the old which does. The meaning of such words depends not on your interpretation of them now, but on how they were interpreted when written, when presumably God was on the job and fire bombing cities and turning women into pillars of salt and washing the Earth of sin with floods. "Moderates" and others are merely cherry pickers of things they like in their religion, things that make them comfortable. Sam Harris says that such "moderates" cannot effectively chastise their fundamentalist brothers because in their wishy-washy hearts moderates know that they need the fundamentalists, that the fundamentalists are the final bulwark in defense of The Faith, should it ever come to that. In the end there is little difference between a moderate Christian and a moderate Muslim and their religion looses all distinctiveness. Moderates will not seriously challenge fundamentalists because, in general, they still base their faith on the same books which make a religion distinct. Most can't seriously challenge them without facing potentially overwhelming guilt about their own timidity in the face of their God. Thus, moderates are enablers and will always be enablers, of fundamentalists. They may wring their hands and bemoan how badly fundamentalists reflect on their religion, but they won't do anything meaningful about it. Never have, never will. Not as long as they endorse the book at the root of the problem. Some atheists hope that the metastasizing tumor that religion is on the body of reason will become so moderate, so ultra-lite, in the face of science that one day they will wake up and realize that the whole enterprise is foolish and counter-productive. But the moderates will fail to do that because they still endorse a bad book. However, this is also a political game with political alliances. For now an alliance with moderates makes sense. But in the long run I don't expect it to last once issues about neuroscience, AI and the way evolutionary algorithms are used in AI come into the picture.

Raging Bee · 29 March 2006
JY: "A reasonable person" would have written their posts more carefully, to prevent misinterpretation in advance, rather than complaining about misinterpretation afterword.
"That wasn't what I meant!" is the standard excuse of idiots like Noam Chomsky and Pat Robertson (not to mention the ID crowd), whenever they're caught blithering or lying. Surely the atheists here can do better than that bunch of feebs.
Another logical fallacy to which some atheists seem prone, is the indiscriminate lumping together of all religious and supernatural beliefs, as if they were all equal. In the real world, they're not all the same: believing in ghosts, channeling, alien abductions, or a six-day creation process would cause far more problems for clear and rational thought than believing in the divinity of Jesus or a supreme Creator.

Raging Bee · 29 March 2006
Sam Harris says that such "moderates" cannot effectively chastise their fundamentalist brothers because in their wishy-washy hearts moderates know that they need the fundamentalists, that the fundamentalists are the final bulwark in defense of The Faith, should it ever come to that. In the end there is little difference between a moderate Christian and a moderate Muslim and their religion looses all distinctiveness. Moderates will not seriously challenge fundamentalists because, in general, they still base their faith on the same books which make a religion distinct.
Who is this Sam Harris guy, a fundamentalist? He sure "reasons" like one -- that's exactly what the fundamentalists want everyone else to believe. So tell us, normdoering, do you believe what the fundamentalists tell you? Whose side are you on?
The idea that moderates can never challenge fundamentalists can be easily refuted with one word: DOVER. Look at the list of plaintiffs in that case: many of them were Christians attacking the dishonesty and power-games of their own fundy wing.
And don't hold your breath waiting for religion to disappear; it won't. Grow up, get used to it, and take a civil tone toward the cherrypicking moderates whose help you need to defeat the extremists.

normdoering · 29 March 2006
The tiny insect, ignoring much, thus spoke:
In the real world, they're not all the same: believing in ghosts, channeling, alien abductions, or a six-day creation process would cause far more problems for clear and rational thought than believing in the divinity of Jesus or a supreme Creator.
I would suggest that believing in the divinity of Jesus necessarily causes lots of problems. If you think Jesus's words are the word of a god who can't lie or be wrong then you're bound to believe in demons that can be cast out of people and thrown into pigs. You get heaven and hell, endorsement of the old testament, an unworkable moral philosophy that demands turning the other cheek and more.

normdoering · 29 March 2006
The insect asked:
Whose side are you on?
I'm on the side of reason. If you want to claim you're a rational person and a Christian (who believes Jesus divine) then you have to read Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason" and explain how his analysis of the Bible is wrong: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/ http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/

Raging Bee · 29 March 2006
Speak for yourself, norm -- maybe YOU "get" all that, but a good many actual Christians -- whose sincerity and committment is shown in their deeds as well as their words -- do not.

normdoering · 29 March 2006
Raging Bee yet again:
Speak for yourself, norm --- maybe YOU "get" all that, but a good many actual Christians --- whose sincerity and commitment is shown in their deeds as well as their words --- do not.
Then such Christians are sincerely irrational in their commitments.

JY · 29 March 2006
Norm, I understand your points; they weren't (until now) made "on this thread", nor do they argue for the proposition that Christians are "uniformly evil", so I'm not sure why you (seem to) hold them up as a contrast to what I said. I've heard Sam Harris's arguments against moderate Christianity before, and though I think some of them are reasonable, some are quite asinine. He has said, for example, that it is the fundamentalist Christians who are "doctrinally correct". This is simply absurd nonsense, it is circular reasoning. I think what he means is that based on a particular view of the Bible (inerrancy, literalism, whatever), the fundamentalists have the correct doctrine. But inerrancy or litarlism or whatever are part of the doctrine. You can't judge a moderate Christians theology by a (portion of) a fundamentalist's doctrine.
The meaning of such words depends not on your interpretation of them now, but on how they were interpreted when written...
— normdoering
In the above quote you are insisting on a point of doctrine: you're telling moderates how they should think about their religion and the Bible. You're telling them what "hermeneutic" to use. Why should they listen? Who, but you, Sam Harris, and the fundies, say they need to be originalists? You don't think their religion makes sense to begin with; I don't know how you can argue that "orgininalism" is more sensible in a senseless worldview than "liberalism" (to borrow terms from con-law). Although I have no problem with the idea of religion as we know it receding in prominence, your analogy to a tumour is not apt -- the tumour was once the entire corpus of Western thought; it has since shrunk quite substantially, not behavior one normally associates with cancer. Sociological evidence seems to indicate that moderates can and have won out over fundamentalists. Indeed, more moderate forms of Christianity still dominate worldwide. So science minded folks should follow the evidence -- fundamentalist, dogmatic Christianity has without question receded over the last half millennium, replaced by moderates -- rather than listening to pontifications about what moderate Christians will or won't do in the future. Raging Bee,
JY: "A reasonable person" would have written their posts more carefully, to prevent misinterpretation in advance, rather than complaining about misinterpretation afterword.
Nonsense. Reasonable people write (at least in blog comments) as they speak, and nobody obsessively sticks in quantifiers when 90% of the audience (the reasonable part) would naturally infer them. Misinterpretations do occur, and it isn't evidence of either the stupidity or the malice of the writer.

Raging Bee · 29 March 2006
norm: I don't "have to" do any such thing. I will no sooner jump through a fundie atheist's hoops than a fundie Christian's.
It's not enough merely to say "I'm on the side of reason." You have to actually BE REASONABLE. There is nothing "reasonable" about false dichotomies and bipolar -- oops, I mean dualistic -- either/or choices between two equally-wrong extremes.

Raging Bee · 29 March 2006
Misinterpretations do occur, and it isn't evidence of either the stupidity or the malice of the writer.
It is when the same respondents make the same mistakes in multiple posts over a period of several months (at least), despite being repeatedly confronted on the subject by other respondents.
Other than that, JY, your post is spot-on. It's good to know I'm not the only one laughing at the idea of atheists telling persons of faith how to interpret beliefs that they themselves rejected wholesale.

normdoering · 29 March 2006
JY wrote:
In the above quote you are insisting on a point of doctrine: you're telling moderates how they should think about their religion and the Bible. You're telling them what "hermeneutic" to use.
In a way -- yes, I am. I'm saying you should think rationally about what is written in that book. For example, in Luke 8: 7-39, there is the story of the demons Jesus put into the pigs. What kind of hermeneutic could you possibly have that would question the existence of demons but not effect your belief in the divinity of Jesus? Supernaturalism and dualism are explicit throughout the Bible. I reject both of those positions for some very good reasons. I don't think you can offer an honest hermeneutic that would deny them. You can claim they exist, but like the rigorous theory of ID, you'll never present such a an honest hermeneutic.

normdoering · 29 March 2006
Raging Bee wrote:
There is nothing "reasonable" about false dichotomies and bipolar --- oops, I mean dualistic --- either/or choices between two equally-wrong extremes.
Not all dichotomies are false.

Raging Bee · 29 March 2006
I didn't say all dichotomies were false; I merely said yours is.

normdoering · 29 March 2006
Whoops, not Luke, Matthew 8:28-34 for the pigs.

Raging Bee · 29 March 2006
What kind of hermeneutic could you possibly have that would question the existence of demons but not effect your belief in the divinity of Jesus?
The kind where "demons" were used as symbolic representations of harmful attitudes, behaviors or thought-patterns that Jesus wanted us to cast out of our minds or spirits? Like maybe addicions?

normdoering · 29 March 2006
Raging Bee wrote:
I didn't say all dichotomies were false; I merely said yours is.
And your only evidence of it is to say that the vast majority of Christians agree with you. In this case the vast majority (if they really are a majority) are wrong and reading the texts I provide can demonstrate it.

normdoering · 29 March 2006
Raging Bee wrote:
The kind where "demons" were used as symbolic representations of harmful attitudes, behaviors or thought-patterns that Jesus wanted us to cast out of our minds or spirits? Like maybe addicions?
That I would say is an example of a dishonest hermeneutic.

Raging Bee · 29 March 2006
"Dishonest" how? Since when was symbolism and metaphor "dishonest?"
You really seem to have a problem with layers of perception and non-literal truth.

normdoering · 29 March 2006
Raging Bee wrote:
"Dishonest" how?
It ignores too many facts of history -- people of the time really did believe in demons and the Catholic church still claims to cast them out with exorcism rituals. It also doesn't fit the facts of the story. It's not presented as a parable or metaphor. It's presented with the same air of actuality that Jesus' death and resurrection are.
... non-literal truth.
Now there's a problematic idea.

Raging Bee · 29 March 2006
It's only problematic for you, norm. You really need to get out more.

JY · 29 March 2006
Supernaturalism and dualism are explicit throughout the Bible. I reject both of those positions for some very good reasons. I don't think you can offer an honest hermeneutic that would deny them. You can claim they exist, but like the rigorous theory of ID, you'll never present such a an honest hermeneutic.
— normdoering
Eh? First we were talking about moderate vs. immoderate Christianity, now we're talking about supernaturalism and dualism? Is the definition of a "moderate" Christian tied to their position on supernaturalism and dualism? But, to answer your question, a Christian could take the position that the Bible is a bunch of stories of things that probably didn't actually happen, but nevertheless contain important insight into the nature of man and his relation to the divine (whatever that is). Such a Christian would have no need to explain anything about pigs and demons. You are in no position to tell that Christian that he is doctrinally incorrect, and there's nothing particularly dishonest about the hermeneutic.

normdoering · 29 March 2006
JY wrote:
...now we're talking about supernaturalism and dualism? Is the definition of a "moderate" Christian tied to their position on supernaturalism and dualism?
Ultimately, yes. It's through the structure of it's supernatural claims that the Bible constructs its psychological poison. That's what leads from the bait to the trap -- what belief in that supernatural structure does to your brain results in fundamentalism. I wrote about this over a decade ago: http://www.totse.com/en/religion/christianity/notcrst1.html What liberal and humanistic Christians don't realize is that they are the inheritors of a philosophy based on rebellion against, and questioning of, the Bible's original purposes. The kind, loving, philosophical, and modernist theology that has evolved out of this was designed to more effectively hide the original psychological poison, not to interpret the Bible correctly. All the kindly, humane, and sensible things that Christian leaders say, even when directly quoted from the Bible, are not what Christianity truly stands for. It is just the bait. It is this desire and hope that draws people, who haven't been indoctrinated from childhood, in. All religions use it. The liberal Christian's imagination and desire for a Utopian world of Christian brotherhood and fellowship is only a half truth. It could never really exist, and what little tid bits of moral behavior, if any, Christianity has contributed to our culture are part of a very mixed blessing. Spreading 'God's word' will not spread any more tolerance and love than it already has. It will spread the psychological poison, for the Bible is psychological poison. I started an outline of how it worked in my essays. Read them or ignore them. The choice is yours.
...a Christian could take the position that the Bible is a bunch of stories of things that probably didn't actually happen, but nevertheless contain important insight into the nature of man and his relation to the divine (whatever that is).
I sort of agree -- there are insights into human psychology there, some very dark insights into human vulnerability, irrationality and wishful thinking.
Such a Christian would have no need to explain anything about pigs and demons. You are in no position to tell that Christian that he is doctrinally incorrect, and there's nothing particularly dishonest about the hermeneutic.
I disagree. I think Christians do have to answer for why such stories are in their books and what they do to the minds of people who take them literally.

Raging Bee · 29 March 2006
norm: my employer's nanny-ware blocks access to sites it thinks may contain porn, on-line gambling, or hate-content. And it blocked access to your site. Care to venture a guess as to why? Judging by your unrelenting spin about "the bait to the trap" and "psychological poison," I'm guessing the latter; but I could be wrong, and the nanny-ware sometimes gets it wrong too. (It once blocked a parody-hate-site.) Maybe it saw similarities between your Christian-bashing and a previous generation's Jew-bashing?
Odd, though, it doesn't happen that often...

Raging Bee · 29 March 2006
And your attitude hasn't changed in TEN YEARS?!! Damn, that's sad...

normdoering · 29 March 2006
If nannyware blocks the first site try this:
http://www.textfiles.com/occult/notcrst1.txt
Or this, but format is horrible:
http://www.matarese.com/matarese-files/7386/fear-istraip-norman-doering-1992/index.html

JY · 29 March 2006
Norm, you aren't defending the ideas I've disputed, your defending other ideas and pretending as if your refuting my points. These are all strawman arguments. Example:
Such a Christian would have no need to explain anything about pigs and demons. You are in no position to tell that Christian that he is doctrinally incorrect, and there's nothing particularly dishonest about the hermeneutic.
I disagree. I think Christians do have to answer for why such stories are in their books and what they do to the minds of people who take them literally. You say you 'disagree', but the following sentence has absolutely no bearing on the argument. You are perfectly within your rights to challenge Christians on the validity of their worldview. That's got nothing whatsoever to do with whether you can judge whether one stripe of Christian is more "doctrinally correct" than another. If my doctrine says I can "cherry pick" the parts I like, and I do, then I'm as doctrinally correct as a fundamentalist. And no (to follow your diversion), moderate Christians don't have to answer for immoderate Christians. I like Shakespeare, I think his collected works provide vital insight into the human condition. I don't have to answer for the possibility that people will take the parts about ghosts and witches literally, or will use Henry V as an excuse to invade France.

Eugene Lai · 29 March 2006

Other than that, JY, your post is spot-on. It's good to know I'm not the only one laughing at the idea of atheists telling persons of faith how to interpret beliefs that they themselves rejected wholesale.
— JV
JV explicitely pointed out that uniformlly evil is purely your invention. Which is how this whole thing start when you misinterpret someone writing about christian. "some" is your other invention that you miraculously invoke mid-thread, for you don't apply that yourself, and equate your double standard as diplomacy and openmindedness (!!!!) You are the only one laughing. JV takes context into account and argues with reason. You, on the other hand, does nothing but yell and scream (and laugh hysterically). The way you behave, I think some of Larry F has imprinted on you.

Raging Bee · 29 March 2006
My goal is to study the
psychological purposes and intentions of the Biblical authors in light of
the theory presented by Abelard Reuchlin and John Duran that claims the New
Testament is the work of Arrius Piso and his conspirators.
Meanwhile, on the distant planet Bolox XII, trouble was brewing...

H. Humbert · 29 March 2006
Raging Bee wrote:
Another logical fallacy to which some atheists seem prone, is the indiscriminate lumping together of all religious and supernatural beliefs, as if they were all equal. In the real world, they're not all the same: believing in ghosts, channeling, alien abductions, or a six-day creation process would cause far more problems for clear and rational thought than believing in the divinity of Jesus or a supreme Creator.
Evidentially speaking, all those claims are equal. If it is "silly" to believe in alien abductions on the basis of anecdotal evidence, then it is equally silly to believe in the divinity of Jesus on evidence of even poorer quality. The only logical fallacy I see is the idea that unfounded religious claims are exempt from the same rules of evidence that apply to any other unfounded claim.

normdoering · 29 March 2006
My goal is to study the psychological purposes and intentions of the Biblical authors in light of the theory presented by Abelard Reuchlin and John Duran that claims the New Testament is the work of Arrius Piso and his conspirators.
Yea, that Abelard Reuchlin theory about Arrius Piso writting the New Testament looks a lot more bogus now. But I don't use it that much. I just ask what is the result of taking all the supernatural claims in the Bible seriously. It's very simple and very obvious.

Eugene Lai · 29 March 2006
Other than that, JY, your post is spot-on. It's good to know I'm not the only one laughing at the idea of atheists telling persons of faith how to interpret beliefs that they themselves rejected wholesale.
— Bee
JV explicitely pointed out that uniformlly evil is purely your invention. Which is how this whole thing started when you misinterpreted someone writing about [some] christian. "some" is your other invention that you miraculously invoke mid-thread, for you don't apply that to your our comments, and bizzarely equate your double standard as diplomacy and openmindedness (?!) You are the only one laughing. JV takes context into account and argues with reason. You, on the other hand, does nothing but yell and scream (and laugh hysterically). The way you behave, I think some of Larry F has imprinted on you.

normdoering · 29 March 2006
JY wrote:
If my doctrine says I can "cherry pick" the parts I like, and I do, then I'm as doctrinally correct as a fundamentalist.
Do you think cherry-picking is an honest hermeneutic? I don't think cherry-picking is an honest hermeneutic.

jonboy · 29 March 2006
Definition of christian "One who believes the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin"(not my quote).
All we know about Jesus comes from Scripture. The validity of Jesus depends upon the validity, reliability and accuracy of Scripture.
You may reply that inerrancy is not important,it is the quibbling about insignificant details. What really matters is a person's relationship with Jesus Christ:"
"... But how do you know Jesus except as he is presented to you in the Bible? If the Bible is not God's Word and does not present a picture of Jesus Christ that can be trusted, how do you know it is the true Christ you are following? You are worshiping a Christ of your own imagination.
Once conceding there are errors in the Bible, you have opened a Pandora's Box. How do you know which parts are true if you admit some parts are false. This position is unsound,how do you tell precisely what parts are from God and are therefore truthful and what parts are not from God and are in error.
As the religious reformer, John Wesley, said:"If there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth."
Call yourself what you will,accept what you will ,but expect to be open for criticism from such as myself if you fail to follow the letter of the faith.

normdoering · 29 March 2006
jonboy wrote:
You may reply that inerrancy is not important,it is the quibbling about insignificant details. What really matters is a person's relationship with Jesus Christ:" "... But how do you know Jesus except as he is presented to you in the Bible? If the Bible is not God's Word and does not present a picture of Jesus Christ that can be trusted, how do you know it is the true Christ you are following? You are worshiping a Christ of your own imagination.
That's what Thomas Jefferson did: http://www.loxafamosity.com/states/0297.html
In putting together his Bible, Jefferson cut out verses from scripture and then pasted them into his volume, organizing them chronologically or topically. Jefferson in fact, used four different translations in the process. Greek, Latin, French and English (King James Version) were all placed side by side, so that Jefferson, who was fluent in all four languages, could better determine the most accurate reading.
It's hard for a rational mind to swallow what the Bible asks you to swallow.

AC · 29 March 2006
Another logical fallacy to which some atheists seem prone, is the indiscriminate lumping together of all religious and supernatural beliefs, as if they were all equal. In the real world, they're not all the same: believing in ghosts, channeling, alien abductions, or a six-day creation process would cause far more problems for clear and rational thought than believing in the divinity of Jesus or a supreme Creator.
— Raging Bee
Actually, I think that if ideas like the divinity of Jesus or a supreme Creator are more dangerous than other irrational beliefs, it may be due to tendancies of human psychology rather than inherent qualities of the ideas. For example, a divinity cult could just sit around all day innocuously praising their figure of choice, and a sufficiently aloof Creator could be (to a serviceable degree) reconciled with science and reason (Deism e.g.). The trouble starts when believers make the divine figure an authority figure. Then everything the figure says and does - real or imagined, truth or tradition - takes on special significance; at worst, it overrides the believer's own conscience. Scripture (the written word) is a particularly powerful vector for divine authority.

Stephen Elliott · 29 March 2006
Posted by jonboy on March 29, 2006 04:23 PM (e) ... All we know about Jesus comes from Scripture. The validity of Jesus depends upon the validity, reliability and accuracy of Scripture. ... "... But how do you know Jesus except as he is presented to you in the Bible? If the Bible is not God's Word and does not present a picture of Jesus Christ that can be trusted, how do you know it is the true Christ you are following? You are worshiping a Christ of your own imagination. Once conceding there are errors in the Bible, you have opened a Pandora's Box. How do you know which parts are true if you admit some parts are false. This position is unsound,how do you tell precisely what parts are from God and are therefore truthful and what parts are not from God and are in error. ... Call yourself what you will,accept what you will ,but expect to be open for criticism from such as myself if you fail to follow the letter of the faith.
Some very interesting points. That is the dilema I find myself in. But why would you criticise someone for not following "to the letter"?

JY · 29 March 2006
I don't think cherry-picking is an honest hermeneutic.
— normdoering
Why not? If you don't assume the Bible is inerrant, and you don't claim your interpretation equates to the authors' intentions, whats wrong with cherry picking? An author (or an artist) may have intended one thing when he wrote or created his work, but that does not prevent an audience from appreciating the work a different way. There's nothing dishonest about this.

normdoering · 29 March 2006

Why not? If you don't assume the Bible is inerrant, and you don't claim your interpretation equates to the authors' intentions, whats wrong with cherry picking? An author (or an artist) may have intended one thing when he wrote or created his work, but that does not prevent an audience from appreciating the work a different way. There's nothing dishonest about this.
So, by that standard, being a Christian is no different than being a Trekkie. Is that what you're saying?

JY · 29 March 2006
So, by that standard, being a Christian is no different than being a Trekkie. Is that what you're saying?
— normdoering
I suppose it depends on the Christian. I think a liberal Christian probably takes the Bible more seriously than a Trekkie takes Star Trek (depending on the Trekkie).

normdoering · 29 March 2006

I suppose it depends on the Christian. I think a liberal Christian probably takes the Bible more seriously than a Trekkie takes Star Trek (depending on the Trekkie).
I once saw a stat that said there are more people who can read Klingon than there are people who can read Hebrew.

H. Humbert · 29 March 2006
The problem with religion, any religion, is that it positions itself as a claim of "truth." It isn't like selecting a favorite TV show or music artist. Some aspects of religion are indeed subjective, but ultimately they all purport to describe an aspect of the reality we all share in a way that is impossible to verify, yet which is presented as a "fact" nonetheless.
Once one accepts one of these principles as a fact--that an invisible, all-powerful, all-knowing god exists, for example--then the ability to determine what actually constitutes factual information is permanently skewed. Once a single claim can be accepted as true without any need of evidence, then any can. And so what can be gleaned from external reality becomes secondary to an entirely subjective internal worldview. But when a person's subjective beliefs begin to trump objective facts, the potential for destructive behavior dramatically increases. We see this again and again.

Jim Harrison · 29 March 2006
Trying to figure out the meaning of a book as complicated, heterogenous, and poorly edited as the Bible is a challenge perhaps best left to those of us who are interested in the problems of reading but not distracted by any religious beliefs whatsoever. Believers cheat: they adjust their system of interpretation so they find whatever they need in scripture; and they oversimplify everything because they are running what is fundamentally a marketing operation aimed at a mass audience.

normdoering · 29 March 2006
H. Humbert wrote:
The problem with religion, any religion, is that it positions itself as a claim of "truth."
So do a lot of novels insist they are telling a truth even though we all know they're kidding. But I suppose it's possible to treat the Bible like a science fiction or fantasy novel and be a Christian the way others are Trekkies. I don't know many people who actually claim to do this and I will generally leave such possibilities out of my rhetoric. In such cases though, differences between Christians and Muslims should be no more serious than differences between Trekkies and "Serenity" Firefly fans.

Raging Bee · 29 March 2006
norm wrote:
So, by that standard, being a Christian is no different than being a Trekkie. Is that what you're saying?
Indeed, a non-sequitur to rival those of the creationists!

David B. Benson · 29 March 2006
"Scientists later look at the religious rants [from the 18th and 19th century] and realize they look pretty similar to a disease like schizophrenia", said psychology professor Dr. Samantha Swindell --- from today's student newspaper.

normdoering · 29 March 2006
Raging Bee, you bring to my mind the immortal words of Hyacinth Bouquet: "People pretending to be superior makes it that much harder for those of us who really are."

AC · 29 March 2006
In such cases though, differences between Christians and Muslims should be no more serious than differences between Trekkies and "Serenity" Firefly fans.
— Norman Doering
As far as the religion goes, sure. But then you'd still have to deal with racial/cultural differences. People would probably still use those as excuses for conflict even if all mankind shared a general humanistic ethic in lieu of our myriad religions. We take such arbitrary distinctions far too seriously.

Arden Chatfield · 29 March 2006
"Scientists later look at the religious rants [from the 18th and 19th century] and realize they look pretty similar to a disease like schizophrenia", said psychology professor Dr. Samantha Swindell
Actually, I've always heard that they think that the famous religious visions that were so prominent back during the middle ages were most likely caused by people's brains misfiring due to vitamin deficiencies and the like.

B. Spitzer · 29 March 2006
Greg Peterson wrote: When I was invited to debate the existence of God at a Minneapolis area church (for the non-theist side), the nice churchy Christian couple that sat IN FRONT OF MY CHILDREN'S PEW said that if they "had a gun, they'd shoot [me] in the head right now" for my presentation. Which, by the way, was as gentle and respectful a presentation of non-theism I can imagine. So Christians turning homicidal because they've heard something they don't like no longer surprises me in the least.
That's appalling. Even if it doesn't mean much, I'd like to apologize on behalf of Christians everywhere, or at least on behalf of those who see their faith as something morally meaningful.

Arden Chatfield · 29 March 2006
When I was invited to debate the existence of God at a Minneapolis area church (for the non-theist side), the nice churchy Christian couple that sat IN FRONT OF MY CHILDREN'S PEW said that if they "had a gun, they'd shoot [me] in the head right now" for my presentation. Which, by the way, was as gentle and respectful a presentation of non-theism I can imagine. So Christians turning homicidal because they've heard something they don't like no longer surprises me in the least.
If you want to see Christians turning homicidal because they've heard something they don't like, check out the Letters section of Religioustolerance.org. Not for the faint of heart.

Steviepinhead · 29 March 2006
Arden Chatfield:
Actually, I've always heard that they think that the famous religious visions that were so prominent back during the middle ages were most likely caused by people's brains misfiring due to vitamin deficiencies and the like.
Ergot, a mold infection of grain kept past its prime, produces a substance that was later synthesized by Hoffman for the drug giant Sandoz and given the name D-lysergic acid diethylamide. Or Alice D, for short.

normdoering · 29 March 2006

Ergot, a mold infection of grain kept past its prime, produces a substance that was later synthesized by Hoffman for the drug giant Sandoz and given the name D-lysergic acid diethylamide. Or Alice D, for short.
If an LSD-like drug in ergot made Christians crazy back then, what is causing it today? Mercury in Friday's fish?

Steviepinhead · 29 March 2006
I'm not sure that I'd call Christians (some, all, a few--math sets are not my specialty, heh heh) "crazy," then or now.
I was responding to the specific phenomenon of those individuals who were subject to intense "visions."
Any number of enhancing substances or emotionally-charged settings can produce "visions" in susceptible individuals. As to the content of such visions, I would agree that that's influenced to a greater or lesser degree by the cultural or sub-cultural expectations of the person having the vision. In the European Middle Ages, therefore, a person might well see visions of angels, Mary, demons--the Hieronymus Bosch kind of things.
A child of more modern times might instead see cartoon characters, anime, superheroes.
Larry FarFromFun might see, oh, stars and bars and swastikas and gelge sterne.
When completely sober individuals can persuade themselves that they are seeing the faces of saints in burnt toast, well, it doesn't take a whole lot more to really start visualizing what you most hope or fear to see.

Steviepinhead · 29 March 2006
Sigh. Make that "gelbe" sterne.

normdoering · 29 March 2006
Mr. Pinhead wrote:
I was responding to the specific phenomenon of those individuals who were subject to intense "visions."
Let's be specific, are you talking about Saint John of the Cross and visions like a dark night of the soul?

Steviepinhead · 29 March 2006
I'm not familiar, at any level of detail, with the specific visions you're referencing, Norman.
I was responding to Arden's phraeology "famous religious visions that were so prominent back during the middle ages." I'm not sure what that conjured up for Arden, of course, but for me it pinged the Joan of Arc neurons.
Friends I know in this day and age (well, I guess I don't have many friends from any other day and age, come to think of it) who have shared with me their own "personal relationship with Jesus" don't usually describe an intenesely-visual experience, or even one in which they had a "realistic simulation" of speaking one-on-one with a 3D SurroundSound full-living-color robes-and-beard deity. They talk more in terms of feeling filled with goodness or acceptance or affirmation.
They may or may not be "crazy." Heck, I may or may not be "crazy." But they don't strike me as holy-rollin', snake handling, take up this sword and lead the charge to kick the English invaders out of France crazy.

Steviepinhead · 29 March 2006
And y'all can just call me "Stevie." No need to get all formal amongst us Panda-rers! That "Mr. Pinhead" guy is my dad.
I mean, after this long acquaintance, I'm sure you wouldn't feel it necessary to call Lenny's Pizza Guy, "Mr. Guy"...

Arden Chatfield · 29 March 2006
Friends I know in this day and age (well, I guess I don't have many friends from any other day and age, come to think of it) who have shared with me their own "personal relationship with Jesus" don't usually describe an intenesely-visual experience, or even one in which they had a "realistic simulation" of speaking one-on-one with a 3D SurroundSound full-living-color robes-and-beard deity. They talk more in terms of feeling filled with goodness or acceptance or affirmation.
Well, that's the kind of lackluster religious visions one will have in the absence of hallucinogens or malnutrition. :-)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 29 March 2006
(pokes head in)
Is the pointless religious war over yet?
Nope, looks like it's not.
(closes door and walks away)

Eugene Lai · 30 March 2006
What a self-important jackass.

Stephen Elliott · 30 March 2006
Posted by Eugene Lai on March 30, 2006 03:33 AM (e) What a self-important jackass.
Who is? Why?

normdoering · 30 March 2006
Stephen Elliott asked:
Posted by Eugene Lai on March 30, 2006 03:33 AM (e) What a self-important jackass.
Who is? Why? I think he means 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank for presumming this thread is a pointless religious war.

Stephen Elliott · 30 March 2006
Posted by normdoering on March 30, 2006 01:53 PM (e) ... I think he means 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank for presumming this thread is a pointless religious war.
That is what I think he means. But not certain. Eugene will need to explain. But to call Lenny a jackass seems silly. So does self-important. IMO. Religious fights here are silly. Most people are religious to some degree. We evolved that way.

Tony · 30 March 2006
Lenny asked: Is the pointless religious war over yet? Nope, looks like it's not.
Given the somewhat limited number of responses following his inquiry, I would have thought that this latest round in the religious wars was over. However, I couldn't tell if it was really over, or if the different sides were simply reloading. But then...
Stephen Elliot opined: Most people are religious to some degree. We evolved that way.
FIRE!!!!!!

normdoering · 30 March 2006
Stephen Elliot opined:
Most people are religious to some degree. We evolved that way.
I think Daniel Dennett would agree with you. (BANG!) His newest book, "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" draws a similar conclusion. (POW!)

Raging Bee · 30 March 2006
Most people are religious to some degree. We evolved that way.
So maybe such spiritual inclinations have given us a bit of an edge over other humans without such inclinations? (ZZZZZZ)

Stephen Elliott · 30 March 2006
LOL.
So which part of my opinining do you disagree with?
Are most people not religious? Did we not evolve?
Bang, Pow, Sock, Wallop etc.

Arden Chatfield · 30 March 2006
Are most people not religious? Did we not evolve?
Are we not men? I think you have to define what 'religious' means. If you're saying it means 'most people believe in god and go to church', it's not true now and it was probably even less true for most of human history. If you're saying 'humans seem to naturally gravitate to supernatural explanations for things', I'd have no trouble getting behind that statement.

Stephen Elliott · 30 March 2006
Posted by Arden Chatfield on March 30, 2006 03:32 PM (e) Are most people not religious? Did we not evolve? Are we not men? I think you have to define what 'religious' means. If you're saying it means 'most people believe in god and go to church', it's not true now and it was probably even less true for most of human history. If you're saying 'humans seem to naturally gravitate to supernatural explanations for things', I'd have no trouble getting behind that statement.
The 2nd 1/2 of what you said most aptly explains what I meant. Most people seem happy to accept supernatural explanations for what they don't understand.

Tony · 30 March 2006
Nice to see that people posting here are keeping their sense of humor!
So which part of my opinining do you disagree with? Are most people not religious? Did we not evolve?
I think that the vast majority of people on this planet hold to some sort of religious belief system. For anything further than that, I'm holding to the belief that "discretion is the better part of valor" and staying out of this one. At least until I can come up with a "thermonuclear" answer. (or is that the "Peacemaker" answer?) I'll admit that the debate has made for some interesting reading.

Steviepinhead · 30 March 2006
Arden Chatfield:
Well, that's the kind of lackluster religious visions one will have in the absence of hallucinogens or malnutrition. :-)
ROFL...!

Eugene Lai · 30 March 2006
Posted by normdoering on March 30, 2006 01:53 PM (e) ... I think he means 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank for presumming this thread is a pointless religious war.
That is what I think he means. But not certain. Eugene will need to explain. But to call Lenny a jackass seems silly. So does self-important. What Norm said, and the fact that he chides people for shooting people on the same side, and then come in and do just that, with a serve of his trademark sarcasm. He needs to remember what the original subject of this thread is about. If he has a problem with pointless religious war, he needs to take that to the original author.

normdoering · 30 March 2006
Stephen Elliot asked:
So which part of my opinining do you disagree with?
I don't disagree with what you have explicitly stated. Yes, most people are religious to some degree. And an atheist like Daniel Dennett would say we evolved that way. His newest book, "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" asks a question about what that means... (I assume -- I haven't read the book yet, only reviews and judging by the way the religious element started buzzing around it angrily it must be good.) In the modern age has religion lost its survival value? Another factor to consider in religion and evolution is that religion is evolving itself. It used to be very different, multiple gods, Egyptian Pharaohs and Roman emperors as gods, then kings crowned by popes to, now in our day, separation of church and state -- something new and unheard of in the ancient past. In the past you wouldn't have a society with religious freedom -- where Buddhists, Christians, Jews and Muslims could live in peace. Alas -- that peace is not holding now. The ancient notions are beginning to creep back with deadly results. So, the question is an important one.

Stephen Elliott · 30 March 2006
Posted by Eugene Lai on March 30, 2006 04:43 PM (e) ... What Norm said, and the fact that he chides people for shooting people on the same side, and then come in and do just that, with a serve of his trademark sarcasm. He needs to remember what the original subject of this thread is about. If he has a problem with pointless religious war, he needs to take that to the original author.
I do not see how Lenny "shot" anyone. He made a general comment, that religious wars between ourselves are stupid. I agree with him. In fact I would go a bit further. I think any religious war is silly. With the possible exception of in defence.

normdoering · 30 March 2006
Stephen Elliott wrote:
I think any religious war is silly. With the possible exception of in defence.
In defense against what? Is ID a defense against the truth? Does it justify threatening a judge? That "defense" concept is still too ambiguous. What do you think you have a right to defend yourself against?

Eugene Lai · 30 March 2006
I do not see how Lenny "shot" anyone. He made a general comment, that religious wars between ourselves are stupid.
Do you mean that: (1) Someone says "Christians are X", that is offensive. (2) Someone else replies "Atheists are Y", that too is offensive. (The order of 1 and 2 is interchangable) (3) A third person (pokes head in and says) "The fact that you are talking about X and Y is stupid" (closes door and leaves). That instead is a general comment and is not offensive. Even if the word "stupid" wasn't used here the connotation was obvious. And it has been used repeatedly to the same audience when he addressed the same issue in numerous other threads. I'll just agree to disagree with you if that's what you think.

Tony · 30 March 2006
What do you think you have a right to defend yourself against?
Speaking for myself, the only hill that I'm willing to die on for any type of "religious war" would be to defend the Article I in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
The US Government, and all the individual state governments, must stay ABSOLUTELY NEUTRAL concerning religion.

Stephen Elliott · 30 March 2006
Posted by normdoering on March 30, 2006 06:24 PM (e) In defense against what? Is ID a defense against the truth? Does it justify threatening a judge? That "defense" concept is still too ambiguous. What do you think you have a right to defend yourself against?
My first comment on this thread was 89829. So no. I do not think threats against Judge Jones are justified. In fact I think Judge Jones decision was spot-on. ID is an excuse to try and get religion taught as science. As for the defence concept. I think that I (or anyone else) has every right to defend what they believe. I do not think I have the right to atack unless atacked.

Stephen Elliott · 30 March 2006
Sorry. 89329

Stephen Elliott · 30 March 2006
(3) A third person (pokes head in and says) "The fact that you are talking about X and Y is stupid" (closes door and leaves). That instead is a general comment and is not offensive. Even if the word "stupid" wasn't used here the connotation was obvious. And it has been used repeatedly to the same audience when he addressed the same issue in numerous other threads. I'll just agree to disagree with you if that's what you think.
Then we dissagree. I find a general comment far less offensive than a personal one. Here is what Lenny said.
Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on March 29, 2006 11:42 PM (e) (pokes head in) Is the pointless religious war over yet? Nope, looks like it's not. (closes door and walks away)
I am in no-way offended by that. He makes a point. It is adressed at nobody in-particular.

speck · 30 March 2006
The problem with the "defense" argument is that it is inversely proportional to the thickness of your skin.
Many IDists probably feel that they are acting in defense.... What we need is a Reasonable Man Theorem that standardizes what constitutes a threat from what constitutes a nuisance, ie: "A reasonable man would feel..."

normdoering · 30 March 2006
speck wrote:
What we need is a Reasonable Man Theorem...
And it might be hard to agree on such a Reasonable Man Theorem when the ID advocates think their own ID proposition is reasonable. Even here in this so called "religious war" of words we have Raging Bee making some assumptions about what is reasonable. For example, Bee thinks it's reasonable to assume the "demons" Jesus cast into the pigs were merely a symbolic representations of harmful attitudes, behaviors or thought-patterns that Jesus wanted us to cast out of our minds or spirits, like maybe addicions. I don't think that is a reasonable interpretation since it seems rather ignorant of the textual and historical content.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 30 March 2006
ID advocates
Um, in case you didn't notice, none of the people you are arguing with are, uh, ID advocates . . . . . .

Lenny's Pizza Guy · 30 March 2006
Given Lenny's self-admitted chintzy tipping habits, I've got no motivation to defend the guy.
But, insofar as people are irked by the ducking-in-and-out aspect of things (as opposed to whatever smart remark he made during said brief appearance), you do gotta realize that the guy does have other important things to do of an evening, besides checking up on the latest "religious war" among subspecies of Pandas. (As to which, please note, I express no opinion whatsoever: in fact, archtypically, my opinion on a religious matter is no more valid than anyone else's, right?)
Anyways, give the guy a small break. After all, he's usually chowing down on some VERY tasty pizza with one hand while he's misspelling his "sarcastic" comments here with the other...

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 30 March 2006
I don't think that is a reasonable interpretation since it seems rather ignorant of the textual and historical content.
So, like Carol, you have unlocked the secret of how the Bible REALLY should be interpreted, in its textual and historical content . . . . ? Interesting . . . . . . Carol says her infallible interpretation comes from God. Where does yours come from?

normdoering · 30 March 2006
Lenny asked:
Carol says her infallible interpretation comes from God. Where does yours come from?
History and context, like I said. Lenny, you and Raging Bee have no idea how ignorant you are of that context and history. You might want to read the book you're attempting to defend. The writers believed in literal demons. It's fairly obvious. The parables were metaphors, but this was no parable. We're talking about a time in history when the Romans are splitting open the belly's of goats and trying to read the future in their entrails. You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 31 March 2006

Carol says her infallible interpretation comes from God. Where does yours come from?

History and context, like I said.
And the reason that your interpretations of this history and context are more authoritative than anyone else's is . . . ? Other than your say-so?
Lenny, you and Raging Bee have no idea how ignorant you are of that context and history.
So the fundies keep telling me. (shrug)
You might want to read the book you're attempting to defend.
Um, let me remind you of something; I am not a Christian. I do not accept any authority or validity for the Bible. I do not accept or assert the existence of any god, gods or goddesses. They are all, without exception, the ivnention of humans.

Raging Bee · 31 March 2006
You might want to read the book you're attempting to defend. The writers believed in literal demons. It's fairly obvious.
You really need a bit more understanding of how people read books. Just because the author believes something, does not mean everyone who reads his book believes the same thing in the same way with the same urgency. Dan Brown, for example, wrote a book about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and the "Divine Feminine;" but many of his readers read it as a cheezy work of fiction. And, in case you haven't noticed, many Christians fought quite a few wars over how to interpret the same passages of the same book.
I hate to burst your bubble, Skippy, but for better or for worse, us persons of faith have just as much ability to think for ourselves, and filter what we read, as atheists and agnostics do.

normdoering · 31 March 2006
Lenny wrote:
And the reason that your interpretations of this history and context are more authoritative than anyone else's is ... ? Other than your say-so?
I don't claim they are more authoritative than anyone's. I claim my interepretations are more accurate than Raging Bee's absurd ideas about the demons Jesus cast into pigs being bad habits.
You really need a bit more understanding of how people read books. Just because the author believes something, does not mean everyone who reads his book believes the same thing in the same way with the same urgency.
Do I have the same freedom to read your posts as the ramblings of an ignorant moron who doesn't really give a shit, or know anything, about the Bible that he claims to base his faith on? Just because you believe something, does not mean I must read your posts as saying what you intended to say. You have taken post modernism too far. Things like "truth" must be irrelevant to you. You're mental disease is quite different from that of the average Bible believing Christian.

Raging Bee · 31 March 2006
Wow, you're sounding about as unhinged as that Witt guy. If you actually understood my posts, you would know that I don't "base my faith" on the Bible (not exclusively at least). And the fact that you totally ignored the examples I cited to prove my point shows you've lost the argument.
And as for your insistent use of fundamentalist logic to support fundamentalist dominance of their respective religions, while pretending to oppose fundamentalism, perhaps you should take this hint from The Lord of the Rings: "It is Sauron's ring. To use it you must become Sauron. I will not touch it."

Stephen Elliott · 31 March 2006
Posted by speck on March 30, 2006 07:42 PM (e) The problem with the "defense" argument is that it is inversely proportional to the thickness of your skin. Many IDists probably feel that they are acting in defense.... What we need is a Reasonable Man Theorem that standardizes what constitutes a threat from what constitutes a nuisance, ie: "A reasonable man would feel..."
OK, you make a good point. I can't see ID (as I understand it) being able able to use a defence argument though. From my perspective it is ID that is doing the atacking. ie Trying to force their religious opinion on-to others. The "Wedge document" is proof (to me) that ID is the agressor here. I am of the opinion that everyone is entitled to their own religious point-of-view. But they are not entitled to force other people in-to the same view. I hope that clears-up what I originaly said.

W. Kevin Vicklund · 31 March 2006
Burt, you said you'd tell us more (presumably the "Challenges" Teaser from the thread title, I presume), but if you have, I seem to have lost it in the pointless off-topic religious flamewar. Is it too late to get the rest?

AC · 31 March 2006
You really need a bit more understanding of how people read books. Just because the author believes something, does not mean everyone who reads his book believes the same thing in the same way with the same urgency. Dan Brown, for example, wrote a book about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and the "Divine Feminine;" but many of his readers read it as a cheezy work of fiction.
— Raging Bee
Then can we all agree that the pig demon story is meant (by its writer) to represent literal evil spirits, but that readers are perfectly free to take a moral lesson from it based on their own metaphorical abstraction? That's how I see it, and your statements and Norman's both seem consistent with it.

Tony · 31 March 2006
Norm wrote: Things like "truth" must be irrelevant to you. You're [Your?] mental disease is quite different from that of the average Bible believing Christian.
I see that Norm possesses the correct interpretation of exactly what THE TRUTH is and that everyone else simply has varying degrees of mental illness. Interesting. Funny how I often hear nearly the exact same arguments from fundamentalist christian leaders, who similarly claim to be the only ones capable of knowing the absolute truth. Take a straight line. On the far right extreme are the fundamentalist Christians. On the far left extreme are the fundamentalist atheists. Now bend that straight line into a circle - interesting how the arguments and accusations begin to sound eerily similar.

normdoering · 31 March 2006
Raging Bee wrote:
Wow, you're sounding about as unhinged as that Witt guy. If you actually understood my posts, you would know that I don't "base my faith" on the Bible (not exclusively at least).
Then what exactly do you have faith in and why do you have faith in it?
And the fact that you totally ignored the examples I cited to prove my point shows you've lost the argument.
I don't think so. I ignored your examples because they are pointless. Dan Brown used some real theories that were based on forgeries. There really is a belief in the "Divine Feminine," but yes his book is a work of fiction. The Catholics are "demonized" by such theories which Brown uses and popularizes and they wish to defend themselves against the accusations that are explicit in such theories. Those theories exist in "fact" books like the one Brown was sued for plagiarizing from. That example you site means nothing. Until Brown wrote the book, most people didn't know such theories existed. It's not the same thing as claiming, as you did, that you can think of New Testament demonic beliefs as bad habits and that would be a legit reading of the Bible. Your way of reading the Bible is stupid and pointless to me. You think you can ignore the in tension of its authors and make it mean what you want it to.
And as for your insistent use of fundamentalist logic...
What exactly do you think fundamentalist logic is? What sets it apart from ordinary logic, or your logic? Can you explain how fundamentalist logic works?
...to support fundamentalist dominance of their respective religions, ...
I don't support fundamentalist dominance. I was trying to explain why it is dominant and why liberal interpretation of the Bible are doomed to fail the test of textual context and history. And why liberal Christianity is ultimately an enabler of fundamentalism.
...while pretending to oppose fundamentalism,...
You can't oppose their sincerity with your wishy washiness and post modernist logic. You'll lose and look like a fool. The fundies do have to be given a certain amount of credit for not thinking the Bible is referring to mere bad habits when it mentions demons.
... perhaps you should take this hint from The Lord of the Rings: "It is Sauron's ring. To use it you must become Sauron. I will not touch it."
That doesn't even make sense. What exactly are you trying to say -- the Bible is like Sauron's ring? Does that make sense to anyone?

normdoering · 31 March 2006
AC wrote:
Then can we all agree that the pig demon story is meant (by its writer) to represent literal evil spirits, but that readers are perfectly free to take a moral lesson from it based on their own metaphorical abstraction? That's how I see it, and your statements and Norman's both seem consistent with it.
A moral lesson? What moral lesson, pray tell, do you think you can take from that story? That's a pathetic interpretation. I think you can get better and more effective moral lessons from "M*A*S*H" and "The Sapranos" than the demons into pigs story. That kind of reading of the Bible makes it no different than a fantasy story. I don't think you're as free to read things as you want and still make logical sense.

AC · 31 March 2006
From my perspective it is ID that is doing the atacking. ie Trying to force their religious opinion on-to others. The "Wedge document" is proof (to me) that ID is the agressor here. I am of the opinion that everyone is entitled to their own religious point-of-view. But they are not entitled to force other people in-to the same view.
— Stephen Elliott
Regarding "who started it", ID stikes me as a suspicious character sneaking around a lawn, perhaps even fiddling with the doors and windows of the house, who, when the owner confronts him and is understandably upset, attacks the owner's reaction as excessive, unfair, or offensive. Then, when the police arrive and arrest him for trespassing, attempted B&E, etc., he attacks the police as fascists who are infringing his freedom.

Raging Bee · 31 March 2006
...And why liberal Christianity is ultimately an enabler of fundamentalism.
This reminds me of the way both fascists and communists used to trash liberals back in the twentieth century. Communists called liberals "enablers of fascism" because they tried to improve society without violent revolution, and supported democratic institutions that communists could not control. And fascists equated liberals with communists in order to avoid addressing the injustices the liberals were trying to fight -- and because liberals supported democratic institutions that fascists could not control.
You're sinking pretty low with your self-serving extremist logic, norm.

normdoering · 31 March 2006
Tony wrote:
I see that Norm possesses the correct interpretation of exactly what THE TRUTH is and that everyone else simply has varying degrees of mental illness. Interesting.
Yea, I'm just like those damn atheist scientists who think that Darwin's theory of evolution is "exactly what THE TRUTH is" and that ID advocates are obviously wrong (and maybe mentally ill too).
Funny how I often hear nearly the exact same arguments from fundamentalist christian leaders, who similarly claim to be the only ones capable of knowing the absolute truth.
And you hear it from scientists who will tell you that Darwin's theory is the real science and that science is the only legit method of knowing the truth of that question about the diversity of life.
Take a straight line. On the far right extreme are the fundamentalist Christians. On the far left extreme are the fundamentalist atheists.
And in the middle is the wishy washy cluelessness of people like Tony who don't believe there is anything called "truth" or any way to know it better.

Raging Bee · 31 March 2006
Yea, I'm just like those damn atheist scientists...
No, norm, you're not: real scientists -- the ones who get the results (and aren't all atheist, by the way) -- continually, actively, seek out new information, which may reinforce, or undermine, their current understanding of the real world; while you simply make up whatever "logic" you can to ignore, deny or belittle any fact that endangers your prejudices.

normdoering · 31 March 2006
Raging Bee wrote:
Communists called liberals "enablers of fascism" because they tried to improve society without violent revolution, ...
I'm not advocating revolution. I'm advocating paying attention to what people believed back in Biblical times when they wrote the Bible. I'm advocating thinking about how that mental map of their world would effect your psychology.
You're sinking pretty low with your self-serving extremist logic, norm.
You're sinking to pointless comparisons and avoiding my questions: 1) What exactly do you have faith in and why do you have faith in it? 2) What exactly do you think fundamentalist logic is? What sets it apart from ordinary logic, or your logic? Can you explain how fundamentalist logic works?

normdoering · 31 March 2006
Raging Bee wrote:
...real scientists --- the ones who get the results (and aren't all atheist, by the way) --- continually, actively, seek out new information, ...
Do you actually have any information? You seem a lot more ignorant than I am. Do you know anything about the recorded belief in demonic possession? I know it dates back as far as Egypt 500 BC. Other civilizations believed in evil spirits but they didn't seem to believe spirits could posses people.
...which may reinforce, or undermine, their current understanding of the real world;
Do you think you have any such information which would alter my interpretations and theories? You have not used information based arguments ever, Bee. All your arguments are merely opinion based and unsupported by any relevant data.
...while you simply make up whatever "logic" you can to ignore, deny or belittle any fact that endangers your prejudices.
What fact? Where are your facts? You just described yourself, not me.

W. Kevin Vicklund · 31 March 2006
Demons to pigs are being discussed on-topic over at the "Finally, someone proposes an ID model" thread. Please take the flamewar over there where it is at least on-topic. I'm still hoping Burt hasn't thrown his hands up in disgust and will actually post the continuation as promised.

Tony · 31 March 2006
And you hear it from scientists who will tell you that Darwin's theory is the real science and that science is the only legit method of knowing the truth of that question about the diversity of life.
I never questioned the accuracy of evolutionary science. I've always held that ID is religious doesn't belong in science.
And in the middle is the wishy washy cluelessness of people like Tony who don't believe there is anything called "truth" or any way to know it better.
OOOHHH!!! Normy-boy really smited me with that one! You're getting a bit unhinged there, Norm.

normdoering · 31 March 2006

I never questioned the accuracy of evolutionary science.
Do you think science has anything to do with truth? Or do you think it's just a game of rules that don't matter and people can believe what they want with no ill effect?

Tony · 31 March 2006
Norm's last response to Raging Bee:
You have not used information based arguments ever, Bee. All your arguments are merely opinion based and unsupported by any relevant data.
I would guess that he means that any argument ever raised by Raging Bee (or anyone else who disagrees with him) have always been irrelevant. Again, Norm is the only one who knowsTHE TRUTH and the rest of us are just mentally ill. To quote a famous Chicagoan... WHO YOU CRAPPIN'?

normdoering · 31 March 2006
Tony wrote:
... guess that he means that any argument ever raised by Raging Bee (or anyone else who disagrees with him) have always been irrelevant. Again, Norm is the only one who knows THE TRUTH and the rest of us are just mentally ill.
You have no idea what you're talking about -- Check Raging Bee's posts. It may sound outrageous but it happens to be true in Bee's case. There isn't a single post on this thread where Bee offered an actual contrary fact against my claims. All his arguments are off base comparisons, unsupported opions, and Ad Hominems.

AC · 31 March 2006
I think this thread is pretty much shot, because people are just fighting for the sake of it at this point, but wasn't Burt going to make a whole new post rather than updating this one?
A moral lesson? What moral lesson, pray tell, do you think you can take from that story? That's a pathetic interpretation.
— Norm
It's not mine though. I'm attempting to represent RB's statement in comment #90445 about the demons not being literal evil spirits. I think it is clear that the writer of Matthew 8 meant the demons to be literal spirits, but a reader is unhindered from coming up with his own metaphorical abstraction for his own purposes. That said, I'm not defending the practice.
I think you can get better and more effective moral lessons from "M*A*S*H" and "The Sapranos" than the demons into pigs story. That kind of reading of the Bible makes it no different than a fantasy story.
More or less, yeah. But people do that for personal gratification, which I think is fine, as long as they don't confuse their own motives or abstractions with the motives of the author or what is in the actual text. For my part, there are countless better fantasy stories than the bible in my opinion, and a historical reading of it only reminds me how fortunate I am to live in a more enlightened era, and how important it is to maintain (and improve) that enlightenment.
I don't think you're as free to read things as you want and still make logical sense.
Like I said, as long as one doesn't confuse his own motives or abstractions with the motives of the author or what is in the actual text, I don't think personal use of texts is necessarily illogical. Of course, you or I might still think it silly, or pointless, etc.

Tony · 31 March 2006
I think this thread is pretty much shot, because people are just fighting for the sake of it at this point, but wasn't Burt going to make a whole new post rather than updating this one?
I hope that he does start up a new post to update this story. Religion aside, this is a very serious issue when it comes to threatening judges over rulings that one doesn't agree with. Judges are people who are exercising their best judgment to interpret our laws. If we, as voting citizens, don't agree with the laws, then there is are both legislative and constitution processes to enact change. This is not related to science, but I personally think that SCOTUS blew it with the recent eminent domain case. However, we are now reading about how the various state legislatures are attempting to address this issue.

normdoering · 31 March 2006
A new thread, no comments on Panda though, go here:
http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=146

normdoering · 31 March 2006
Like I said, as long as one doesn't confuse his own motives or abstractions with the motives of the author or what is in the actual text, I don't think personal use of texts is necessarily illogical.
When it is personal enjoyment of Bible stories fine -- but not as a definition of "religion" and not as Raging Bee was using it as an argument against my theory which I started here at post #90422 Synopsis and intro to that theory as simply as possible: 1) The Bible is grounded in specific supernatural beliefs. 2) Those supernatural beliefs are psychologically damaging. The Bible has become psychological poison. 3) Demonic possesion is one example of a psychologically damaging belief. Not taking demonic possesion seriously when you read the Bible is not an argument against the fact that large parts of our Christian culture do take it seriously and are damaged by that belief. To read the Bible that way, as nothing but moral stories, is to treat it as if it were a work of fiction and it completely misses dealing with my claims -- my theory.

AC · 31 March 2006
Then it looks to me like RB was attempting to present a cure, or inoculation perhaps, for the poison by suggesting that one could reject literal demons and still "get something out of" the story by abstracting metaphorical demons. If you see that more as a doomed sidestepping of your theory rather than dealing with it, hopefully he will return and discuss it further. I tend to be conflicted about the issue, because it ultimately becomes a matter of the individual right to believe versus ill effects on society caused by exercising that right in dangerous ways (usually by the beliefs being sufficiently disconnected from objective reality).

Stephen Elliott · 31 March 2006
Posted by normdoering on March 31, 2006 01:55 PM (e) When it is personal enjoyment of Bible stories fine --- but not as a definition of "religion" and not as Raging Bee was using it as an argument against my theory which I started here at post #90422 Synopsis and intro to that theory as simply as possible: 1) The Bible is grounded in specific supernatural beliefs. 2) Those supernatural beliefs are psychologically damaging. The Bible has become psychological poison. 3) Demonic possesion is one example of a psychologically damaging belief. Not taking demonic possesion seriously when you read the Bible is not an argument against the fact that large parts of our Christian culture do take it seriously and are damaged by that belief. To read the Bible that way, as nothing but moral stories, is to treat it as if it were a work of fiction and it completely misses dealing with my claims --- my theory.
I suppose that you believe all that. I don't.

Raging Bee · 31 March 2006
Actually, AC, I was pointing out that there was more than one way to interpret certain Bible stories, the "demon" bits in particular, which readers may find useful, whether or not the original authors (whoever they were) intended them to be so used.
In the larger sense, the validity, relevance and usefulness of a holy text depends on what its readers get out of it, which may or may not be what the writers knowingly put into it.
I could argue further, but I'm running out of time. My girlfriend is coming over this weekend, and there's cherries to be picked...

normdoering · 31 March 2006
Stephen Elliott wrote:
I suppose that you believe all that. I don't.
Yes, I think the Bible outlines an elaborate but vague supernatural belief system that is destructive to rational thought and free thought -- it makes you fear reason and your natural doubts for one. Why don't you believe that? It seems so glaringly obvious to me.

normdoering · 31 March 2006
AC wrote:
Then it looks to me like RB was attempting to present a cure, or inoculation perhaps, for the poison by suggesting that one could reject literal demons and still "get something out of" the story by abstracting metaphorical demons.
That can only be done by people who have already decided that demons don't exist because when they read the Bible it will explicitly tell them that demons exist. Once you've decided demons don't exist you are into cherry-picking and wishful thinking to take anything else in the Bible seriously. When you do that you no longer have rational arguments for your belief. That is no more a cure than atheism or deism except atheism and deism avoids the irrationality of wishful thinking and cherry picking the Bible. Ultimately, suggesting there is anything worthwhile in the Bible, as our culture insists, is a form of enabling the fundamentalism and supernaturalism at the Bible's core.

Stephen Elliott · 31 March 2006
Posted by normdoering on March 31, 2006 04:03 PM (e) Yes, I think the Bible outlines an elaborate but vague supernatural belief system that is destructive to rational thought and free thought --- it makes you fear reason and your natural doubts for one. Why don't you believe that? It seems so glaringly obvious to me.
I also think that the bible seems to be laying out a primitive belief system. That was not really my point. To me it appears that most humans have a religious point of view. You seem to be claiming that being religious=mental illness. That is what I do not believe. Is there any empirical evidence for God? No, I don't think there is. Is there empirical evidence for materialism? No, I don't think there is.

normdoering · 31 March 2006
Stephen Elliott wrote:
You seem to be claiming that being religious=mental illness.
That's over simplistic. JY said my analogy to a tumour was not apt because "the tumour was once the entire corpus of Western thought." That is a fair criticism of what I said. But I did say that religions evolve (and not just evolve, they speciate). Sociological evidence, JY claims, indicates that moderates have won out over fundamentalists. On this point JY may be wrong. It's the fundamentalists who are growing and the moderates who are shrinking back now. Fundamentalist, dogmatic Christianity had receded over the last half millennium, but now it's starting to gain ground. (At least politically.) I think this is because the moderate position is extremely weak, based on more obvious cherry-picking and wishful thinking. The fundies know what the moderates have to ignore to hold their veiws. I think if you look at what happened in the Middle East you would see a similar phenomena -- the Islamic states there were once more liberal and moderate and are now sinking back into an extreme fundamentalism. The health of the system can be seen in Islam's laws against apostasy and in their willingness to die for a suicidal cause that will more likely destroy their culture than preserve it. It can be seen in number of Catholic priests who are being accused of molesting children -- a percentage higher than in the general population. It can be seen in president Bush's wishful thinking in sticking to a failed war policy. It can be seen in Pat Robertson's calls for the death of foreign leaders... The madness of the whole system seems quite apparent to me.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 31 March 2006
I don't claim they are more authoritative than anyone's. I claim my interepretations are more accurate than Raging Bee's absurd ideas about the demons Jesus cast into pigs being bad habits.
Interesting. How, again, do we determine whose Biblical interpretations are "more accurate" than others . . . ? Other than someone's say-so? Have you been talking to Carol again?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 31 March 2006
Fundamentalist, dogmatic Christianity
Um, in case you didn't notice, none of the people you are arguing with here are, uh, fundamentalist dogmatic Christians. Perhaps you should look a little harder to see who is your enemy and who is not. Unless, of course, like every other fundie, you simply assume that anyone who doesn't accept your religious opinions, must be your enemy.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 31 March 2006
That can only be done by people who have already decided that demons don't exist because when they read the Bible it will explicitly tell them that demons exist.
I'm curious, Norm --- when you read George Orwell's "Animal Farm", did you think it was a story about talking pigs that lived in England?

normdoering · 31 March 2006
Lenny wrote:
I'm curious, Norm ---- when you read George Orwell's "Animal Farm", did you think it was a story about talking pigs that lived in England?
No, I did not. I'm curious, Lenny -- did you eat paint chips when you were a child?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 31 March 2006
I'm curious, Norm ---- when you read George Orwell's "Animal Farm", did you think it was a story about talking pigs that lived in England?

No, I did not.
Then perhaps there's hope for you after all.

Sir_Toejam · 31 March 2006
I think if you look at what happened in the Middle East you would see a similar phenomena --- the Islamic states there were once more liberal and moderate and are now sinking back into an extreme fundamentalism.
interestingly, but not suprisingly, the introduction of democratic systems to the middle east has sped up the political dominance of extremeist factions, rather than minimized it. This is why we used to prop up dictatorships in the 70's and 80's (less likely to allow extremist viewpoints to dominate, and very much more likely to value the "enlightened self interest" that is capitalism). Introduce democracy in Palestine, and what do you get? Hamas. Introduce democracy in Iraq and what do you get? Civil war. Nobody who actually knew anything about the socio-political history of the region expected anything else. A little democracy can be a dangerous thing; freedom requires responsibility and stability requires contentment. If you are lacking in both...

normdoering · 31 March 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
Then perhaps there's hope for you after all.
Unfortunately I can't say the same for you if you're still asking ignorant and basic questions like this:
How, again, do we determine whose Biblical interpretations are "more accurate" than others ... ? Other than someone's say-so?
I can't explain all the verification methods to you (not enough time and space) but here are a few that will clue you in: 1) You can look to see how the earliest church fathers, writers and theologians, of the first centuries of the Christian era interpreted the texts (this is what I meant by history and context -- something you apparently know nothing of). The church fathers are further divided into Apostolic Fathers, who wrote in the first century, and the Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, who wrote before and after the Council of Nicea. We can start here with an assumption that because they were closer to the writing of the New Testament that they were closer to the intentions of the writers who wrote the New Testament. They are called the "Apostolic Fathers" because of their close connection with the apostles, and they include Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Hermas, Polycarp and Papias, as well as the unknown authors of the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle of Diognetus, 2 Clement, and the Didache. Of course, interpretation arguments started as soon as the first theologians started interpreting the texts. So that only gives you a range of possibilities. Raging Bee's idea is nowhere in that range of arguments. They all took demonic stuff seriously. Origen is one example of the sanity of these church fathers: Matthew 19:12
For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.
Origen, was eighteen when he castrated himself as a result of the above passage. 2) You can pay attention to archaeological findings in Biblical lands when they touch on the time of the Bible. Strangely, many "biblical archaeologists" today are open enemies of the Bible. Not all of them started out that way. From such studies you can get an idea of the everyday lives of the people who would be the first Christians and writers of the book. Again, a wide belief in the demonic can be seen. Now, Lenny, any more questions?

normdoering · 31 March 2006
Sir_Toejam wrote:
Nobody who actually knew anything about the socio-political history of the region expected anything else.
Well, I think a few knowledgeable people were caught off guard by the civil war (why didn't the Shiites overthrow Saddam before if they hated the Sunnis so?) I myself did expect "another Vietnam." However, I'm thinking longer term -- Do you know about the Moors, about the Muslims in Spain. My recollection of that history is that is was fairly moderate and liberal -- they worked with their Christian neighbors, I don't think they executed people for apostasy... That's what Islam once was. The Moors, Sufi wisdom, erotic dance, math and science... Now look at it?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 31 March 2006
Now, Lenny, any more questions?
Yes. Why is it that different Christians apply exactly and precisely the same methods that you do to the Bible, and come up with completely different interpretations? And what makes your interpretations any better than theirs?

normdoering · 31 March 2006
Yes. Why is it that different Christians apply exactly and precisely the same methods that you do to the Bible, and come up with completely different interpretations?
First, because they believe it they have to make that square peg fit into the round hole that is the modern scientific world. Some trim off nonsense like demons and round the square (moderates and liberals who accept evolution), others try to carve the round hole into a more square shape and thus reject large parts of the modern scientific world view (fundamentalists who believe in demons and creationism). Second, the Bible is vague. There were arguments (but not about demons existing) as soon as the book was written. The supernatural structure of the world is not given enough detail to be clear and a large amount of invention is needed to make sense of it if you're going to believe it.
And what makes your interpretations any better than theirs?
I don't have to fit the square peg into the round hole. It's not part of my world view -- so I can see it unaltered. I don't need a complete and detailed understanding of its supernatural structures to know that it has supernatural structures. My interpretation doesn't argue about silly things like if the wine becomes Jesus' blood when you drink it. I don't know or care what Jesus meant -- my focus is different, thus large parts of church conflict are irrelevant to me. And I don't need to know everything -- I just need to know that if Origen of Alexandria castrated himself because of the Bible, he probably wasn't quite sane.

Sir_Toejam · 31 March 2006
Now look at it
indeed.
Well, I think a few knowledgeable people were caught off guard by the civil war (why didn't the Shiites overthrow Saddam before if they hated the Sunnis so?)
that was part of my point. dictatorships allow easy control of military and economic resources. hence, it is far easier to supress any kind of brewing internal conflicts (especially when the threat of having your hometown gassed comes up). surely you didn't think that the shiites didn't hate the sunnis before the overthrow of Sadaam? Or were you referring to "experts" that were apparently so clueless about the historical conflicts between the two sects? one could say that removing Sadaam was like removing a cork out of a champagne bottle (that someone had shaken up first!).

normdoering · 31 March 2006
Toe man wrote:
Or were you referring to "experts" that were apparently so clueless about the historical conflicts between the two sects?
Actually, I didn't know half of what I know now when the war started. I expected guerrilla war like Vietnam though, our weaknesses are revealed by our history and their ability by Afghan history and Vietnam examples. However, I did have in mind Bush's experts. Rummy used to deal friendly with Saddam when Saddam was gassing Kurds. He should have known more -- it was his duty and implied by his experience.

Sir_Toejam · 31 March 2006
our weaknesses are revealed by our history
now if only we could learn from our revealed weaknesses, rather than repeating the same errors over and over. *sigh* here's hoping for more rational times. cheers

Stephen Elliott · 1 April 2006
Posted by Sir_Toejam on March 31, 2006 11:01 PM (e) ... here's hoping for more rational times. cheers
Throw in "and tolerant" then the World might become a better place.

Eugene Lai · 1 April 2006
When one reads into scientific data and draws conclusion X, thereby rejecting arbitrary conclusion Y by (some) religious sects, the person is a open-minded scientist and deserves our support.
When one reads into biblical data and draws conclusion X, thereby rejecting arbitrary conclusion Y by (some) religious sects, the person is a close-minded fundamentalist and deserves our contempt.
Bible and scientific data are both open to interpretations, but neither is as arbitrary as some "open-minded" religious people would have you believe. This has nothing to do with tolerance, nothing to do with seperating fundamentalists from moderates. It is about analysing religious artifacts the exact same way as every other subject in the world.

Eugene Lai · 1 April 2006
As an example, if one wants to convince you in literature that demons exist, they could not make that point any more explicit than what the bible writers had written. It is simply not possible.
On the other hand, if one wants to convince you that demons do not exist, but harmful demonic thoughts and behavior do exist, there are dozens of ways to make it more obvious than what the bible writers had written.
Therefore it is simply wrong to argue that the bible does not tell you demons exist, and all reference to demon can be legitimated explained as metaphors. The theory that different opinions are equally valid is as vacuous as Intelligent Design.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 April 2006
Therefore it is simply wrong to argue that the bible does not tell you demons exist, and all reference to demon can be legitimated explained as metaphors.
Says who.
The theory that different opinions are equally valid is as vacuous as Intelligent Design.
Because you say so, right? Spoken like a true fundie. "My interpretation of the Bible is the only legitimate one". Says who?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 April 2006
As an example, if one wants to convince you in literature that demons exist, they could not make that point any more explicit than what the bible writers had written.
They were wrong. (shrug) So what? Is it your argument that every "jot and tittle" of the Bible has to be accepted in its entirety or none of it can be accepted? There's only one legitimate interpretation of the Bible and all the rest are invalid? And anyone who doesn't accept the "One True Interpretation(c)(tm)" isn't a "True Christian(c)(tm)"? Gee, there's some OTHER group of people who make that very same argument . . . . . . . . . . . Maybe you and Carol should co-author a book together.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 April 2006
Throw in "and tolerant" then the World might become a better place.
Yeah verily.

Eugene Lai · 1 April 2006
Do you have a reading problem?
Do you realise that just you cut and paste my last two sentences and pretend that I wrote them without argument?
Do you even consider yourself rational anymore?

Eugene Lai · 1 April 2006
They were wrong. (shrug) So what? Is it your argument that every "jot and tittle" of the Bible has to be accepted in its entirety or none of it can be accepted? There's only one legitimate interpretation of the Bible and all the rest are invalid? And anyone who doesn't accept the "One True InterpretationÂ©â„¢" isn't a "True ChristianÂ©â„¢"?
Are you out of your mind? If you think that the bible writers were wrong than you concede that the bible is wrong. That is your interpretation as well as mine. "Other" interpretations only come into play if one tries to argue that the bible is not wrong, e.g. demons are metaphors. These interpretations are not relevent to you. Are you just a crank? So what are you objecting to? Don't even try to equate my argument to "One True Interpretation". Two posts ago I explicitly said that it is open to interpretation. I am saying interpretations cannot be arbitrary, just like every thing else in the world. You are *very* dishonest in framing me a fundamentalist.

Eugene Lai · 1 April 2006
For a certain Rev Dr who has apparently lost his marbles, I'll re-post my previous post only two screenfuls above, one he chose to ignore just so he can call me a fundie:
When one reads into scientific data and draws conclusion X, thereby rejecting arbitrary conclusion Y by (some) religious sects, the person is a open-minded scientist and deserves our support. When one reads into biblical data and draws conclusion X, thereby rejecting arbitrary conclusion Y by (some) religious sects, the person is a close-minded fundamentalist and deserves our contempt. Bible and scientific data are both open to interpretations, but neither is as arbitrary as some "open-minded" religious people would have you believe. This has nothing to do with tolerance, nothing to do with seperating fundamentalists from moderates. It is about analysing religious artifacts the exact same way as every other subject in the world.

Sir_Toejam · 1 April 2006
As an example, if one wants to convince you in literature that demons exist, they could not make that point any more explicit than what the bible writers had written. It is simply not possible.
Eugene- your entire premise in using this analogy is predicated on what the definition of demon is. if you define a demon as that elucidated in biblical texts, then, er, of course the biblical texts will be authoritative on the subject. can you see that how you framed your argument is a bit circular? Moreover, there are lots of cultures that define "demon" entirely differently that that described in biblical texts. Are their "demons" incorrect? I think you are attempting to create a dichotomy with religion as based on biblical texts on one side, and everything else on the other. that doesn't really work unless you assume there ARE no other religious texts or belief structures in the world.

jonboy · 1 April 2006
I am with Lenny on this one,I have posted this many times regarding the "Bible"
Quoting from a work is fruitless unless you first prove the book is valid, truthful and reliable.Many scholars have provided evidence that the Bible fails this test.
Once conceding there are errors in the Bible, you have opened a Pandora's Box. How do you know which parts are true if you admit some parts are false. People who think like this speak of Biblical authority, but at best they have partial Biblical authority since the parts containing errors obviously cannot be authoritative. What is worse, they cannot even tell us precisely what parts are from God and are therefore truthful and what parts are not from God and are in error.
The Jewish OT canon, finalized at the end of the first century CE, was based on, among other things, the mistaken attribution of authorship, political considerations and haphazard selections of the "authoritative" textual versions.
The Christian OT canon, is similarly confused. With the various denominations unable to agree on even which books are inspired!
Some canonical New Testament books even refer to books not in the Old Testament Canon as though they are authoritative scripture. The canonization process was a hodgepodge of mistaken authorship attribution, faulty logic and the politics of heresy.As the religious reformer, John Wesley, said:"If there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth." Debating the semantics of the bible makes about as much sense as debating Alice in Wonderland,and much less intriguing

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 April 2006
If you think that the bible writers were wrong than you concede that the bible is wrong.
So what? What difference does it make whether a 2000 year old book is right or wrong about demons? Here's what the conversation sounds like to me so far: Atheist: Believing in demons is stupid. Christian: I, uh, don't believe in demons. Atheist: The Bible says you HAVE to believe in demons, so if you don't, you're stupid. Me: Huh . . . . ?
Two posts ago I explicitly said that it is open to interpretation.
Then why are you bitching about someone else's interpretation? What difference does it make to you?
I am saying interpretations cannot be arbitrary,
Why not? Says who? Who decides what those limits are, and which interpretations are allowed and which aren't? You? The Pope?
You are *very* dishonest in framing me a fundamentalist.
Am I. It seems to me that you simply can't tolerate anyone else holding religious opinions that are different from yours. Not only that, but you've made it your mission in life to alter everyone else's religious opinions so they agree with yours -- whether they like it or not. Sounds pretty funamentalist to *me*. Indeed, I have explicitly and clearly stated, repeatedly, that (1) I do not grant the Bible any authority whatsoever, (2) I think all gods and goddesses, without exception, are the product of humans, and (3) no one's religious opinions are any better than anyone else's. And that STILL apparently isn't good enough for you or Norm. One wonders what WOULD be good enough. What is it, exactly, that you'd want me to think, say or believe, before you would be able to conclude "Lenny and I are on the same side"? You guys sound like the Maoists I used to know. No matter HOW pure one's Mao Zedong Thought was, it was never pure enough to suit them. (shrug)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 April 2006
your entire premise in using this analogy is predicated on what the definition of demon is. if you define a demon as that elucidated in biblical texts, then, er, of course the biblical texts will be authoritative on the subject. can you see that how you framed your argument is a bit circular?
Indeed, his argument is precisely and exactly the same as the fundies. "Whatever the Bible says must be true, and if you don't accept ALL of it then you can't accept ANY of it." Odd, isn't it.

normdoering · 1 April 2006
Sir_Toejam wrote:
your entire premise in using this analogy is predicated on what the definition of demon is.
I suspect that was just worded badly. Demons and evil spirits are older than Christianity. The polytheistic Egyptians had demon possession -- probably had it before the time of Moses. Generally, demons have the names of your enemy's gods. Ideas about them are in an evolutionary flux. The Bible carries many tales of Jesus driving demons out of various people. He then, supposedly, passed on the power and right of exorcism to his disciples. In the early days priests were more like primitive shaman or witch-doctors in African tribes and they'd try to cure everything. As time goes on what is attributed to demons shrinks as science finds more and better cures. Soon it's just mental illness and heresy that's demonic. Then just some forms of mental illness. Medicine was the first science to move onto theology's turf. As early as 1583, the Church recognized that some forms of mental illness could cause a person to seem possessed when they were not. In fact, the "Roman Ritual," shown in that film, "The Exorcist" and first published in 1614, cautions its users to make sure the case cannot be explained by normal psychological means. Today the targets for exorcism seem to be highly suggestible border line schizophrenics. (but that's not an expert opinion) At any rate -- it has become rare.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 April 2006
Once conceding there are errors in the Bible, you have opened a Pandora's Box. How do you know which parts are true if you admit some parts are false.
Of course, this only becomes a problem if you accept the fundie premise that (1) the Bible must be absolutely correct in every jot and tittle or (2) none of it is valid. Let's apply this same principle to something else: If a registered Republican rejects ANY of the Republican Party platform, does that mean he must reject ALL of it? Once he admits there are errors anywhere in the platform, how does he know if ANY parts of it are right, if some of them are wrong? If he rejects the Party platform plank in favor of teaching "alternatives to evolution", does that mean he's not really a Republican? If he rejects Bush's rationale for the Iraq War, does that mean he's not really a Republican? If he rejects the "Right to Life" Amendment, does that mean he's not really a Republican? If he rejects tax cuts for the rich, does that mean he's not really a Republican? If he rejects ALL of these things simultaneously, does that mean he's not really a Republican? If he rejects ALL of these things simultaneously and still votes for Bush, does that mean he's not really a Republican? Who gets to decide who is or isn't really a "True Republican(c)(tm)"? The entire argument, of course, is premised upon the fundie "all or nothing" mantra (which, ironically, is echoed just as enthusiastically by our fundie atheist friends here). If that initial premise is invalid, then the entire argument evaporates. And, of course, the vast majority of Christians, worldwide, do not accept that initial premise as valid. (shrug) But then, neither the fundie Christians nor the fundie atheists are willing to drop the intial premise. That, after all is what separates fundies from all the others.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 April 2006
Bible and scientific data are both open to interpretations, but neither is as arbitrary as some "open-minded" religious people would have you believe.
And I'll re-post my reply: Says who?

Stephen Elliott · 1 April 2006
Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 1, 2006 08:43 AM (e) ... Indeed, his argument is precisely and exactly the same as the fundies. "Whatever the Bible says must be true, and if you don't accept ALL of it then you can't accept ANY of it." Odd, isn't it.
Not really. People like to identify themselves as a member of a group/gang/tribe. Unfortunately most then seem to think they are right and everyone else wrong. Then the "evangelism" starts. I really don't mind what religious (or lack of) opinion anyone has. It only irks me when/if they try to force it onto other people.

Sir_Toejam · 1 April 2006
Demons and evil spirits are older than Christianity..
indeed, that was my point, if you want to talk demons, you also have to look at the mythos of "demons" in African, Asian, Native American, etc., cultures, and not just the Judeo-Christian concept. Just because there are different ideas of what a demon is, does that make one right and the other wrong? That's why I still can't see the point Eugene is trying to make. is he really trying to say that anything different from the literal judeo-christian biblical texts is an interpretation? Hope not.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 April 2006
I really don't mind what religious (or lack of) opinion anyone has. It only irks me when/if they try to force it onto other people.
My view exactly. In a democracy, people are free to believe whatever religious opinions (or lack of them) that they want to, no matter HOW stupid or idiotic anyone else might believe them to be. As long as they are not attempting to push their views onto others, their beliefs are simply nobody else's business. Alas, both the fundie Christians and the fundie atheists seem to have made it their mission in life to change everyone else's religious opinions to match theirs, whether everyone else likes it or not. When I hear people talking like that, I reach for my gun.

Stephen Elliott · 1 April 2006
Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 1, 2006 09:05 AM (e) ... When I hear people talking like that, I reach for my gun.
Eek Squeek. I don't have a gun so find your action alarming whilst agreeing with the sentiment.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 April 2006
indeed, that was my point, if you want to talk demons, you also have to look at the mythos of "demons" in African, Asian, Native American, etc., cultures, and not just the Judeo-Christian concept. Just because there are different ideas of what a demon is, does that make one right and the other wrong? That's why I still can't see the point Eugene is trying to make.
Oddly enough, the "demons" in Asian traditions are indeed just symbolic representations of various human vices. The same interpretation that Raging Bee offered. The same interpretation that Eugene seems to say can't exist. But does. I find it extremely odd that the fundie atheists seem to worship the Bible just as avidly as the fundies do, and consider it the final word on everything. Odd.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 April 2006
Eek Squeek. I don't have a gun so find your action alarming whilst agreeing with the sentiment.
I'm no pacifist. ;) A few years ago, some kooks at work who were members of Aryan Nations were talking smack to me (seems they objected to the fact that I hung around with some African-American co-workers during lunch breaks). I politely informed them that, if they had the balls for it, they were entirely welcome to come for me at my house any time they wanted to. But they had better make sure there were at least 31 of them, since my Kalashnikov holds 30 rounds, and I never miss.

normdoering · 1 April 2006
jonboy wrote:
I am with Lenny on this one,I have posted this many times regarding the "Bible" Quoting from a work is fruitless unless you first prove the book is valid, truthful and reliable.Many scholars have provided evidence that the Bible fails this test.
You're missing an important distinction. Your reading of this thread must be spotty. This has been explained already. While it's true that the Bible we have today is a hodge podge created by politics with lots of stuff edited out -- like the Gospel of Thomas and the gnostic texts -- those differences and varied interpretations all happen in a range of supernatural beliefs held by everyone arguing. Even the believers in demons argued about many things except the existence of demons. They might argue about whether communion wine really became Jesus' blood or how many angels danced on the heads of pins -- but they didn't argue about the existence of demons. No one here has said they know the absolute truth in that religious sense. But we can know for certain that belief in demonic possession was pretty much universal before and after Christianity came on the scene. The Greeks and Romans even thought they could be possessed by their gods. Bee seems to think you can just ignore whatever the original authors meant and invent your own interpretation and it would be as valid as any. No, that's wrong. Valid interpretation of the author's intent can only happen in a range of possibilities -- not all possibilities. Bee seems to think that the author's intent is irrelevant and you can make up your own meaning. My guess is that Bee doesn't even bother to read the Bible.

Stephen Elliott · 1 April 2006
I'm no pacifist. ;) A few years ago, some kooks at work who were members of Aryan Nations were talking smack to me (seems they objected to the fact that I hung around with some African-American co-workers during lunch breaks). I politely informed them that, if they had the balls for it, they were entirely welcome to come for me at my house any time they wanted to. But they had better make sure there were at least 31 of them, since my Kalashnikov holds 30 rounds, and I never miss.
LOL! I am no pacifist either. 24 years in the British army. This I do know. Nobody can hit 30 targets with 30 rounds with a weapon set on automatic. ;)

Jon Fleming · 1 April 2006
Once conceding there are errors in the Bible, you have opened a Pandora's Box. How do you know which parts are true if you admit some parts are false.
You don't. There's no guaranteed get-out-of-hell-free card. You have to think and make decisions. Oh, the horror! You don't get salvation served on a silver platter with no effort or commitment required from you!

Stephen Elliott · 1 April 2006
Posted by normdoering on April 1, 2006 09:25 AM (e) ... Bee seems to think you can just ignore whatever the original authors meant and invent your own interpretation and it would be as valid as any...
Is that how you read RB's response? I read it a bit different. I thought RB was saying that the people who wrote about "demons" believed in them. But they was mistaken. What the authors considered demons (as they saw it) was actually something else.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 April 2006
Bee seems to think you can just ignore whatever the original authors meant and invent your own interpretation and it would be as valid as any. No, that's wrong.
Really. The original authors of the US Constitution meant (and wrote) that only white male property-owners would get to vote, and that people of African ancestry would be kept as slaves. We, uh, seem to have a different interpretation today. Is it your opinion that this made-up interpretation isn't valid because it contradicts what the original authors meant? What about Mr Newton --- he assumed that the tiny inconsistencies he found in his cosmology would be dealt with by God and the angels. We seem to have a different interpretation today. Is it your opinion that this made-up interpretation isn't valid because it contradicts what the original author meant? Can you think of any reason why people today should be obligated to accept in toto the words of a book written 2000 years ago? I can't. But then, I'm not a fundie who asserts that this 2000 year old book can't be wrong, and that we have to believe every single word in it. You, apparently, are.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 April 2006
You have to think and make decisions. Oh, the horror!
Indeed, for fundies that *IS* a horror. The one thing they hate and fear the most is independently-minded people who think and make their own decisions. Fundies very much prefer sheep (their own term) who just shut up and think whatever they're told, then bleat it on demand.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 April 2006
My guess is that Bee doesn't even bother to read the Bible.
Nor should he necessarily, since he, unlike fundies, doesn't worship it. (shrug) But Norm, *YOU* seem to be just as fixated on the Bible as the fundie Christians are. Why is that?

normdoering · 1 April 2006
Sir_Toejam wrote:
... if you want to talk demons, you also have to look at the mythos of "demons" in African, Asian, Native American, etc., cultures, and not just the Judeo-Christian concept.
If you want to talk demons, yes -- but is that what we were talking about? The original question was: What did the people who wrote the gospels think demons were? And... Can Raging Bee call himself a Christian (or defend Christians) by claiming that one can interpret demons any way he wants? Well, if you treat it as fiction and don't claim to believe in the Bible as a literal truth you can certainly do whatever you want -- but if you think that is an attempt to get at the truth of things you are pathetically delusional. The first question you have to ask is what kind of truth are you trying to find. If you want to know what the original Bible writers believed about demons you should mostly ignore African, Asian and Native American views because the New Testament writers were in all probability Jews and Romans, not Indians. I say ignore because you won't be able to handle just the information we have for Biblical times and places. There is a vast amount of literature on Jewish demonology -- I've only read a tiny fraction of it. It's pretty weird stuff. Some ancient Jews believed that when a person who didn't believe in God died that in time their head and spine would detach from their body and become a snake. (An easily falsifiable hypothesis.) We can know that their beliefs were not just symbolic metaphors because they used to practice all sorts of physical rituals to keep demons away.

normdoering · 1 April 2006
Lenny asked:
But Norm, *YOU* seem to be just as fixated on the Bible as the fundie Christians are. Why is that?
Because you won't be able to defeat fundamentalism by being an ignorant shithead who thinks they can make the Bible mean anything you want and call that equally true. You and Bee are enablers of fundie irrationality the way you try to fight it.

Stephen Elliott · 1 April 2006
Posted by normdoering on April 1, 2006 10:03 AM (e) ... Can Raging Bee call himself a Christian (or defend Christians) by claiming that one can interpret demons any way he wants? ...
Why not? We are talking personal beliefs here right? If RB was trying to impose a religious view onto anyone else I would object. But that does not seem to be the case. From my perspective, it is you that wants people to conform to your religious POV. I am not claiming your POV is wrong btw. Just that it is wrong to try and impose it on others.

normdoering · 1 April 2006
Lenny wrote:
The original authors of the US Constitution meant (and wrote) that only white male property-owners would get to vote, and that people of African ancestry would be kept as slaves.
Off the top of my head... They didn't claim to be divinely inspired by God. They didn't talk to burning Bushes. They didn't make any claims about the supernatural structure of the world. They were just outlining how to put certain governing principles into practice. It's those principles that we can see and practice in new and better ways. A constitution is a legalistic document based on principles of justice and fairness and ideas about effective government. A Bible and its religion is a claim about the supernatural structure of the world. There is no doubt much more to say about the differences between Bible's and constitutions. But lastly -- I don't want the Christian Bible to be my constitution.

Stephen Elliott · 1 April 2006
Posted by normdoering on April 1, 2006 10:33 AM (e) ... But lastly --- I don't want the Christian Bible to be my constitution.
Nor do I. It is also doubtfull that "Raging Bee" does.

normdoering · 1 April 2006
Why not? We are talking personal beliefs here right?
What's the difference between a personal belief and a belief? Do you want to believe things that aren't true? Do you want to believe that a falling object on Earth accelerates at 12 feet per second per second or do you want to know that a falling object accelerates at 32 feet per second per second? There is this thing called truth. It's not relative. It's not personal.
If RB was trying to impose a religious view onto anyone else I would object. But that does not seem to be the case.
If RB wants to be a crazy who lives in his own delusional world -- well, he can do that -- but he might as well shut up about it because he can't argue about what is true.
From my perspective, it is you that wants people to conform to your religious POV. I am not claiming your POV is wrong btw. Just that it is wrong to try and impose it on others.
Was it wrong for Newton and Galileo to impose the rule that a falling object accelerates at 32 feet per second per second?

Stephen Elliott · 1 April 2006
Ok Norm. The examples you gave are true. They can be measured.
What I don't see is why you wish to entangle science and religion.
Would you wish to merge science with art/ethics or well anything else really?

Stephen Elliott · 1 April 2006
Oops looks like I missed a question. The one about personal belief/belief.
I suppose ther is not much difference untill you move into the realm of science.
Then beliefs are required to be backed up with verifiable evidence.
To be "scientific" evidence/experiments are required. They also need to be repeatable.

normdoering · 1 April 2006

What I don't see is why you wish to entangle science and religion.
The reason Panda's Thumb exists is because the Discovery Institute wants to entangle science and religion. It's not my choice. If you want to participate in that debate the first thing you're going to have to learn is that they are already entangled and you can't unentangle them by denying it.

Stephen Elliott · 1 April 2006
Damn! I missed another.
Posted by normdoering on April 1, 2006 10:48 AM (e) ... Do you want to believe things that aren't true?...
Well I did once. I enjoyed believing in "Santa" when young. It made Christmas more enjoyable. I don't believe it now, but at the the time it was fun.

Stephen Elliott · 1 April 2006
Posted by normdoering on April 1, 2006 11:06 AM (e) The reason Panda's Thumb exists is because the Discovery Institute wants to entangle science and religion. It's not my choice. If you want to participate in that debate the first thing you're going to have to learn is that they are already entangled and you can't unentangle them by denying it.
Oh no. I think that the DI is dead wrong in trying to entangle religion and science. I also think that you are wrong for the same reason. Now I do not accept that the two are already entangled. I just believe wrong-headed people are trying to make it so.

normdoering · 1 April 2006
Stephen Elliott wrote:
I suppose there is not much difference until you move into the realm of science. Then beliefs are required to be backed up with verifiable evidence.
When is it ever a good idea to believe something you have no evidence for? Or, even evidence against?
I wish to propose for the reader's favorable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. -Bertrand Russell

normdoering · 1 April 2006
Stephen Elliott wrote:
I think that the DI is dead wrong in trying to entangle religion and science. I also think that you are wrong for the same reason. Now I do not accept that the two are already entangled. I just believe wrong-headed people are trying to make it so.
What exactly do you think religion is that it gets to be free of evidence?

Stephen Elliott · 1 April 2006
Posted by normdoering on April 1, 2006 11:16 AM (e) ... When is it ever a good idea to believe something you have no evidence for? Or, even evidence against?
The example I gave was believing in "Santa" as a child. My memories of Christmas are that they were far more fun because of that belief. Was it true?: No! Was it a good experience for me?: Yes. Do I believe it now?: No.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 April 2006
Can Raging Bee call himself a Christian (or defend Christians) by claiming that one can interpret demons any way he wants?
Sure he can. Who the hell are YOU to tell him he can't? After all, you're not the arbiter of who is or isn't a True Christian(c)(tm) (though, like the fundies, you certainly TRY to be). I'm curious --- can John McCain call himself a Republican (or defend Repbulicans) by claiming he can interpret "torture" any way he wants?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 April 2006
What exactly do you think religion is that it gets to be free of evidence?
I think religion is "non-science". It requires no more "evidence" than does any other non-scientific ethical/moral system.

Stephen Elliott · 1 April 2006
Posted by normdoering on April 1, 2006 11:21 AM (e) .. What exactly do you think religion is that it gets to be free of evidence?
A view of the World that might let someone cope with harsh realities a little easier.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 April 2006
The reason Panda's Thumb exists is because the Discovery Institute wants to entangle science and religion.
But that's not why YOU are here, is it. After all, none of the people you are arguing with here are supporters of Discovery Institute or ID, and none of them are trying to entangle science and religion. And that isn't your complaint about them, is it.

normdoering · 1 April 2006
Stephen Elliott wrote:
I enjoyed believing in "Santa" when young. It made Christmas more enjoyable. I don't believe it now, but at the the time it was fun.
If you liked it so much -- what made you stop believing? Why don't you just decide to believe in Santa now?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 April 2006

I don't want the Christian Bible to be my constitution.
Um, nor do I. Nor does anyone else you're arguing with here. The people you are arguing with here are on your side, Norm. Not only don't they want the Christian Bible to be our Constitution, but they are here fighting against that, just as you are. So what the hell are you bitching about? Is it just that you don't like their religious opinions? If so, go join the fundies. They also enjoy bitching about everyone else's religious opinions. You'd fit right in.

Stephen Elliott · 1 April 2006
Posted by normdoering on April 1, 2006 11:27 AM (e) If you liked it so much --- what made you stop believing? Why don't you just decide to believe in Santa now?
Because I can't norm. It has been well proven to me (mostly by myself) that it is not true. I can't just willy-nilly decide what to believe. Can you?

normdoering · 1 April 2006
Lenny asked:
And that isn't your complaint about them, is it.
No, my complaint is with you and Bee and Elliot. Your arguments against Intelligent Design become counter productive and encourage DIers when you use that ignorant post modern relativism to justify religion.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 April 2006
Why don't you just decide to believe in Santa now?
Let's assume that he does. What's it to you? Why the hell should you care? What on earth makes you think that it's your duty to stamp out his belief? Who appointed you God?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 April 2006
No, my complaint is with you and Bee and Elliot. Your arguments against Intelligent Design become counter productive and encourage DIers when you use that ignorant post modern relativism to justify religion.
(sigh) Norm, maybe you're hard of hearing. Maybe you're just not terribly bright. Or maybe you're just another fundie ideologue who only hears what he wants to hear. So I will say this again, one more time, just for you, and I'll say it vveerrryyy ssslllooowwwllllyyyy. Pay attention: *ahem* I do not grant the Bible any authority at all whatsoever in any way shape or form. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. None at all. I do not assert or accept the existence of any god, gods, goddesses or any supernatural entities whatsoever. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Not a single one. None. Is there any part of that which you don't understand, Norm? If so, I'll repeat it again, and I'll try to use smaller words next time. Geez.

Stephen Elliott · 1 April 2006
Posted by normdoering on April 1, 2006 11:31 AM (e) No, my complaint is with you and Bee and Elliot. Your arguments against Intelligent Design become counter productive and encourage DIers when you use that ignorant post modern relativism to justify religion.
Do you seriously believe I am a post-modernist? I do not believe every single argument has equal validity just because someone believes it. I do believe everyone is entitled to a POV. That is not the same thing. I do not want religion taught as science. There are obvious differences. I do not want every single POV treated equaly in science classes. I just want people to be able to live as they want. Not impose stuff onto others.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 April 2006
Your arguments against Intelligent Design become counter productive and encourage DIers
That's pretty funny, Norm. Would all the IDers here who have been encouraged by my posts to them, please raise your hands? Norm, I'm not the one telling the fundies that their view -- the Bible must be correct in every jot and tittle or NONE of it is correct -- is right, and thus encouraging them to continue that view. That would be, uh, YOU, Norm.

normdoering · 1 April 2006
Stephen Elliott wrote:
Because I can't norm. It has been well proven to me (mostly by myself) that it is not true. I can't just willy-nilly decide what to believe. Can you?
Not really. I can suspend my disbelief long enough to play with my sister's kids and act as if Santa were real. You're not the only one who can't just willy-nilly decide what to believe. IDers and fundamentalists can't do that either (at least the ones that aren't bald faced liars). The question is why can't they?

Stephen Elliott · 1 April 2006
Posted by normdoering on April 1, 2006 11:40 AM (e) Not really. I can suspend my disbelief long enough to play with my sister's kids and act as if Santa were real. You're not the only one who can't just willy-nilly decide what to believe. IDers and fundamentalists can't do that either (at least the ones that aren't bald faced liars). The question is why can't they?
That answer surprised me. TBH I had you pegged as somebody who would just tell them the truth and banish any idea of "Santa". Now, why do you consider me a post-modernist? The 2nd part of your 2nd paragraph following into the 3rd is hard to answer. I do not know.

normdoering · 1 April 2006
Lenny wrote:
Norm, I'm not the one telling the fundies that their view --- the Bible must be correct in every jot and tittle or NONE of it is correct --- is right, and thus encouraging them to continue that view.
No, what you do is say ignorant post modern relativit crap like this:
Can Raging Bee call himself a Christian (or defend Christians) by claiming that one can interpret demons any way he wants?
Sure he can. Who the hell are YOU to tell him he can't? After all, you're not the arbiter of who is or isn't a True ChristianÂ©â„¢ (though, like the fundies, you certainly TRY to be). I'm curious ---- can John McCain call himself a Republican (or defend Repbulicans) by claiming he can interpret "torture" any way he wants? And Bush can call himself a conservative and then spend us into bankruptcy and increase the size of government. Calling yourself something doesn't make you into that something. I can call myself a god -- who are you to argue with me? Your argument is in Alice in Wonderland: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean" -- Humpty Dumpty. No it doesn't not when you want to communicate shared ideas in a culture.

normdoering · 1 April 2006
Elliot wrote:
I do not know.
Do you want to know? If so, how do you propose to learn? I offered my take: http://www.totse.com/en/religion/christianity/notcrst1.html http://www.totse.com/en/religion/christianity/notcrst2.html And no one has a good argument against it -- just pomo crap. I propose that my early experiences with being raised Christian are similar to any fundies and you can learn something about what being a fundy means from that. But you're on your own now -- I've wasted too much time here today. Bye all.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 April 2006
Calling yourself something doesn't make you into that something.
What does, Norm.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 April 2006
I propose that my early experiences with being raised Christian are similar to any fundies
When do you plan on giving it up, Norm?

Stephen Elliott · 1 April 2006
Posted by normdoering on April 1, 2006 12:07 PM (e) Elliot wrote: I do not know. Do you want to know? If so, how do you propose to learn? I offered my take: http://www.totse.com/en/religion/christianity/no... http://www.totse.com/en/religion/christianity/no... And no one has a good argument against it --- just pomo crap. I propose that my early experiences with being raised Christian are similar to any fundies and you can learn something about what being a fundy means from that. But you're on your own now --- I've wasted too much time here today. Bye all.
Sorry If I have offended you. I did not intend to. Those links you gave sound exactly like what I was saying a few years ago.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 April 2006
Sorry If I have offended you.
Norm, of course, would not be sorry for offending YOU.
Those links you gave sound exactly like what I was saying a few years ago.
Sounds to me like Norm just traded one religion for another, and is still just as eager as before to lead everyone down to the river. Same river, even -- just the other bank. (shrug)

W. Kevin Vicklund · 1 April 2006
I see the pointless, off-topic religious flamewar is still going on. Since I don't care to waste my time reading through another 75 posts of this stupidity, can someone tell me if Burt has given us his promised update yet?
I now return you to the breathtaking inanity.

Stephen Elliott · 1 April 2006
Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 1, 2006 12:31 PM (e) Sorry If I have offended you. Norm, of course, would not be sorry for offending YOU.
Well I was assuming he was deliberately trying to offend at some points. No big deal. I was once exactly the same. Just phases of life.

normdoering · 1 April 2006
Back one more time... I missed something relatively important when I was frustrated by you all this morning: Stephen Elliott wrote:
I wrote: Bee seems to think you can just ignore whatever the original authors meant and invent your own interpretation and it would be as valid as any...
Is that how you read RB's response? I read it a bit different. I thought RB was saying that the people who wrote about "demons" believed in them. But they was mistaken. What the authors considered demons (as they saw it) was actually something else. You actually make an important point about what Bee's views might be (not that I think Bee meant what you said): What the authors considered demons (as they saw it) was actually something else. Yes. I agree with that. It was something else. What pissed me off about Bee's take on the demons was that he was trying to put a positive spin on the demon story. "Just think of it as metaphor." No. You shouldn't think about it as a metaphor. It's bad as a metaphor. It was not meant as a metaphor. What you should do, if you're interested in the truth, is ask what the hell is going on here? Are there really demons or is something like mental illness involved... or even something else. I think it's important to think about what that "something else" is and not brush it off. The something else looks to me like a very nasty bit of psychological manipulation that happens when you accept the Bible's supernatural structure. Think about what it means to feel and believe there is another personality inside you, driving you. That sounds like a personality that is disintegrating, splitting apart. What was once a part of you is rejected and no longer a part of you, it has become alien and evil. And who gets possessed -- believers. So what is really happening? I offer the fact that demons are literal to some Christians as evidence that the Bible's supernatural structures might be psychologically unhealthy. Saying you can ignore that and call them metaphors or symbols is a way to not see an obvious bit of evidence. Does belief in the Bible's supernatural structures cause a psychological phenomena that resembles demonic possession? If so, then are those Christian beliefs damaging to your psyche? If you ignore such questions -- are you an enabler of the psychological poison?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 April 2006
You shouldn't think about it as a metaphor. It's bad as a metaphor. It was not meant as a metaphor.
The Great Oz has spoken, huh.

normdoering · 1 April 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
The Great Oz has spoken, huh.
Lenny, can you offer a case with evidence and facts that would suggest the demon possession stories in the New Testament are metaphors? Can you refute any of the historical evidence I presented earlier? If you can't, might I humbly suggest you shut-the-fuck-up?

Sir_Toejam · 1 April 2006
Does belief in the Bible's supernatural structures cause a psychological phenomena that resembles demonic possession? If so, then are those Christian beliefs damaging to your psyche?
that's an interesting question. The STEP research program recently published an article on the study of the efficacy of prayer, and perhaps the only significant detraction that reviewers had was that the study of the efficacy of prayer also should include the study of the efficacy of curses. Interestingly, the reviewers focused on the part of the study that showed an INCREASE in surgical complications after heart surgery when the patients KNEW they were being prayed for. they chastised the authors for not pursuing the obvious; that these belief structures might actually be psychologically damaging. I started a thread on this topic over on ATBC; I thought you specifically might be interested Norm. cheers

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 April 2006
Lenny, can you offer a case with evidence and facts that would suggest the demon possession stories in the New Testament are metaphors?
Who cares if they are or aren't, Norman? Why on earth do you think everyone is under some sort of obligation to accept every single jot and tittle of a 2000 year old book? Can YOU offer a case with evidence and facts that would suggest Newton's writings about angels pushing the planets into proper orbits are metaphors? No? Does that mean the Newtonian laws of motion are wrong? It's just a book, Norm. No need to get so obsessed about it. Looks like you still have some work to do to get rid of all your fundie upbringing.
If you can't, might I humbly suggest you shut-the-fuck-up?
I can always tell when I'm getting a fundie's goat. And I rather enjoy it.

Eugene Lai · 1 April 2006
When one reads into scientific data and draws conclusion X, thereby rejecting arbitrary conclusion Y by (some) religious sects, the person is a open-minded scientist and deserves our support.
When one reads into biblical data and draws conclusion X, thereby rejecting arbitrary conclusion Y by (some) religious sects, the person is a close-minded fundamentalist and deserves our contempt.

normdoering · 1 April 2006
Eugene Lai wrote:
When one reads into scientific data and draws conclusion X, thereby rejecting arbitrary conclusion Y by (some) religious sects, the person is a open-minded scientist and deserves our support. When one reads into biblical data and draws conclusion X, thereby rejecting arbitrary conclusion Y by (some) religious sects, the person is a close-minded fundamentalist and deserves our contempt.
I trust you are being satirical because what you say means that if someone claims the "Bible never said Jesus cursed a fig tree" and then I point to a passage where Jesus did curse a fig tree I would, according to your categorical syllogism, be a a close-minded fundamentalist for pointing out the error. Sorry the satire isn't obvious after reading some really mind blowingly dumb comments here.

Eugene Lai · 1 April 2006
I trust you are being satirical
— norm
Your trust has not been misplaced. The truly mind-blowing thing is the number of people on this board who do this way day after day without blinking, and think they are intelligent and fair minded. I used to think they belong to UD.

W. Kevin Vicklund · 2 April 2006
To summarize: still more off-topic inanity.

Carol Clouser · 3 April 2006
Lenny,
Did you not "close the door and walk away" on this conversation some 100 posts ago (#90632)? Why are you still here?
Also, please stop bringing up my name in vain, particularly if you continue to deliberately and repeatedly misrepresent what I have been saying.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 3 April 2006
Also, please stop bringing up my name in vain
Are you God now, Carol . . . . . ?

AC · 3 April 2006
When one reads into scientific data and draws conclusion X, thereby rejecting arbitrary conclusion Y by (some) religious sects, the person is a open-minded scientist and deserves our support. When one reads into biblical data and draws conclusion X, thereby rejecting arbitrary conclusion Y by (some) religious sects, the person is a close-minded fundamentalist and deserves our contempt.
— Eugene Lai
In either case, I think you'd need to know what kinds of conclusions are being drawn. If one has an ulterior motive (which may or may not be malicious), he may draw a conclusion that is not reasonable based on the data - a practice which undermines serious study and understanding of any subject.