Colbert Nails Author of The Purpose Driven Life [Archive]

Dark Jaguar

28th January 2008, 10:40 PM

The idea of that "Who are your writers?" comment, which was said in the tone of him laughing a little, seemed to be that his question was a "bad joke" and that it shouldn't be taken seriously. That is, he was saying his writers were bad.

Colbert's comeback that he had no writers tonight except the inerrant word of god was perfect if you ask me.

I actually muted my TV after listening to more of his rhetoric because it was bringing back some painful memories. Nothing of what he said was "new" at all. It was the same old garbage I listened to in the mid 1990's. The packaging wasn't even new. I recognized it all. The "I used to think this but then I realized that God" story, the "wow isn't God amazing that he made all this just to make us tiny insignificant things?" bit, the jab at atheists and "secularists" as being dogmatic (I guess a few of them are, but I've never met any that were dogmatic about their atheism and secularism itself). Finally the whole concept seemed to be "you can live your life just fine because god made you to like what you were meant to do" stuff, which is great except it still leaves him to come up to people and say "you must be unhappy because I don't think this is what god made you to do". It's all old, it's all garbage, and Steven at least managed to nail him on the point of how the faithful pick and choose what to take literally and what to take metaphorically.

joobz

28th January 2008, 10:44 PM

KingMerv00

28th January 2008, 11:08 PM

I saw it. Not bad. I wish Colbert had pressed him on the stoning gays thing.

halofish2000

29th January 2008, 12:58 AM

Tumblehome

29th January 2008, 01:33 AM

bokonon

29th January 2008, 06:40 AM

The guest wasn't talking about any other cultures/religions. He was talking specifically about the Bible.

I wish I saw it.

ETA: And I like the title of his book, as if only Christians can lead a purpose-driven life.
Comedy Central re-runs the previous day's show about 5 times the following day, so I'm planning to look for it today. Not having yet seen the show, I take the "who are your writers?" question as a comment on the writers' strike -- Colbert is not supposed to be coming up with pre-scripted insights, he's just supposed to be simmering at the "Tell us about your book" level.

There is a book out called "The Reason-Driven Life," which is (obviously) a response to "The Purpose-Driven Life." It takes TP-DL chapter-by-chapter, and shines a light on the fundie foundation it teeters atop.

SirPhilip

29th January 2008, 06:47 AM

A lot, including that author apparently, are not aware Colbert is a Sunday School teacher.

LordoftheLeftHand

29th January 2008, 06:52 AM

Don't think it's fair to soley pick on Judeao laws. What was the punishment for theft, incest, adultery, murder, homosexuality,...in the surrounding cultures of the Babylonians, Egyptians, Sumerians and Assyrians?

It might be callous but I don't care about the fairness of Babylonian, Egyptian, Sumerian and Assyrian law for the simple reason that no one is trying to impose these laws upon me.

LLH

SirPhilip

29th January 2008, 07:13 AM

I saw it. Not bad. I wish Colbert had pressed him on the stoning gays thing. He got his point across, which is simply that the author is an imbecile marketing a book.

Nogbad

29th January 2008, 07:19 AM

Don't think it's fair to soley pick on Judeao laws. What was the punishment for theft, incest, adultery, murder, homosexuality,...in the surrounding cultures of the Babylonians, Egyptians, Sumerians and Assyrians?

Varied hugely - for example the Egyptians had no particular issue with homosexuality whereas the Hittites made the Israelites look like pussycats.

tsg

29th January 2008, 07:30 AM

Foster Zygote

29th January 2008, 07:37 AM

A lot, including that author apparently, are not aware Colbert is a Sunday School teacher.

Why do you say that? Of what relevance is Colbert's Sunday-school teaching to the discussion so far?

tsg

29th January 2008, 08:07 AM

Why do you say that? Of what relevance is Colbert's Sunday-school teaching to the discussion so far?

Not presuming to speak for SirPhilip, but I think the point was that Colbert being a Sunday School teacher means he is more familiar with the bible than the average talk show host, a fact the author, a man touting the bible as the inerrant word of god, perhaps wasn't prepared for.

Dark Jaguar

29th January 2008, 09:29 AM

Wait... seriously?

A Christian Sceptic

29th January 2008, 09:33 AM

It might be callous but I don't care about the fairness of Babylonian, Egyptian, Sumerian and Assyrian law for the simple reason that no one is trying to impose these laws upon me.

LLH

Just curious - but what Old Testament laws are trying to be imposed on you? And is it the laws or the laws and the punishments that are trying to being imposed on you?

joobz

29th January 2008, 09:51 AM

Wait... seriously?
About colbert being a sunday school teacher? I think so.
He's got a very healthy religious view.

from this website http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/07/13/ask-tv-squad-stephen-colbert-teaches-sundayschool/
And while deciding whether or not a joke is appropriate, he said that he asks himself, "'Does it disrespect the concept of their belief?' and if it does, then I really don't think I can do it... Because who am I to say that what they believe is wrong? But if they're doing things, using religion as a tool in some other behavior... y'know, hypocritical or destructive... then it's fair game."

I think he best summed it up with "I don't believe I can't disagree with my church."

cloudshipsrule

29th January 2008, 09:55 AM

At least the author is out there trying to do some good instead of wasting his time typing on an Internet forum which will be read by .00002% of the population.

This Guy

29th January 2008, 09:57 AM

I can never find my irony meter when I really need it :(

Cello Man

29th January 2008, 09:57 AM

The point of Colbert's jab is this:

The verse which Christians use to condemn homosexuality comes from Leviticus, in the Old Testament:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Lev.20:13 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/20.html#13)

That's the same book which condemns eating shrimp and wearing clothing made of mixed fibers. Both are condemned as "abomination". Leviticus doesn't go out of its way to say that homosexuality is a greater abomination, though. They're given equal rank.

You don't see Christians picketing Red Lobster or the GAP. Anytime I've asked a Christian why these old laws aren't enforced, the answer I get is, "The New Covenant did away with many of the old laws." So the questions now are:

1) Why would God change his mind? That implies a previous mistake from a supposedly perfect being.

2) Why cling to one old verse and toss out the others? If you realize how silly it is to think of certains types of seafood and mixed fibers as "abominations", why is it still acceptable to use the same ridiculous source as a justification for anti-gay bigotry?

Nogbad

29th January 2008, 10:02 AM

Just curious - but what Old Testament laws are trying to be imposed on you? And is it the laws or the laws and the punishments that are trying to being imposed on you?

That is a fair point. However, it was only relatively recently that OT leaning laws were replaced with more secular laws. There is therefore a tendancy to view statements by more fundamentalists religious types as somehow heralding an imminent return to branding adulterers, incarcerating homosexuals and burning witches. My own view, and I suspect that of the said fundamentalists, is that such a return is extremely unlikely.

tsg

29th January 2008, 10:23 AM

At least the author is out there trying to do some good instead of wasting his time typing on an Internet forum which will be read by .00002% of the population.

... said the man being forced to read at gunpoint.

Door's that way --------> don't let it hit you in the ass on the way out.

Hokulele

29th January 2008, 10:37 AM

That is a fair point. However, it was only relatively recently that OT leaning laws were replaced with more secular laws. There is therefore a tendancy to view statements by more fundamentalists religious types as somehow heralding an imminent return to branding adulterers, incarcerating homosexuals and burning witches. My own view, and I suspect that of the said fundamentalists, is that such a return is extremely unlikely.

Not to mention that the persecution of homosexuals is well documented in the New Testament.

skeptical

29th January 2008, 10:42 AM

You don't see Christians picketing Red Lobster or the GAP. Anytime I've asked a Christian why these old laws aren't enforced, the answer I get is, "The New Covenant did away with many of the old laws." So the questions now are:

Holy crap Batman, I have used the exact "you don't see anyone picketing Red Lobster" comment many times myself. :)

Usually, the response is either "what the heck are you talking about", because the person has not even read the surrounding verses and doesn't know that shellfish are also an abomination. (among other things)

Or, the person goes away in a huff, because they realize how ridiculous they look.

I was thinking of making a t-shirt with a picture of guy holding a bible and the phrase "Abominating Gays and Lobster since 1500 BC". (and yes, I'm pretty sure "abominating" isn't a real world, I just like the way it sounds)

Cello Man

29th January 2008, 10:57 AM

skeptical, in case you haven't seen it already, you'll get a kick out of www.godhatesshrimp.com (http://www.godhatesshrimp.com).

SirPhilip

29th January 2008, 11:11 AM

Why do you say that? Of what relevance is Colbert's Sunday-school teaching to the discussion so far? His irritation at the author's literalism and salesmanship is because he recognizes that it is an allegory of faith. A rare event and refreshing: a blast of cold fragrant air onto the public and coming from the other fence.

Say, shot of cognac, you who tails me like a terrier?

A Christian Sceptic

29th January 2008, 11:26 AM

skeptical, in case you haven't seen it already, you'll get a kick out of www.godhatesshrimp.com (http://www.godhatesshrimp.com).

Wow- I hope those shrimp haters don't try to impose their beliefs against shrimp on me. :)

Tanstaafl

29th January 2008, 11:33 AM

Just curious - but what Old Testament laws are trying to be imposed on you? And is it the laws or the laws and the punishments that are trying to being imposed on you?

There are a variety of attempts to work the concept of the First Commandment into law.

Mandatory school prayer, for example.

AK-Dave

29th January 2008, 11:48 AM

The video can be found at http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/index.jhtml for those who have not seen it.

-david

LordoftheLeftHand

29th January 2008, 11:58 AM

Just curious - but what Old Testament laws are trying to be imposed on you?

Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination.

Republican Party of Texas Platform - We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.

And is it the laws or the laws and the punishments that are trying to being imposed on you?

I guess I would say laws and not necessarily the punishments.

LLH

shadron

29th January 2008, 11:58 AM

Just curious - but what Old Testament laws are trying to be imposed on you? And is it the laws or the laws and the punishments that are trying to being imposed on you?

That's sort of the point, isn't it? Fundamentalist Christians, as opposed to other sorts, believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. That presumes that it (whatever it was at the time) speaks equally to us as it did to the Jews returning from Assyria and the Jews living under Roman rule. In this, tradition is a very strong force; education and broadening experience (gained with travel and interaction with others) is mush less so. So, the silly rules (measured by our standards) have the same force as the sane ones; they must be obeyed. Fundamentalist Christians have removed the ability of any interpretation of the Bible. Oh, you can argue about translations and such, but interpretation? Nope - no can do. Word of God, remember?

As for the interpretation (for slightly less hidebound fundamentalists) of a new dispensation in the NT, sure, it may be a few hundred years newer but it's still 2000 years old now, and lots of water is under the bridge. St. Paul's admonition that everyone should be like him (that is, unmarried and chaste, presumably) presumes God was soon expected, but that has not been the case. One can see what following that dictum lead the Shakers to.

I can only presume that the question above demonstrates a lack of fundamentalist zeal on your part, CS. I hope that is what you meant to display.

sthomson

29th January 2008, 12:02 PM

His irritation at the author's literalism and salesmanship is because he recognizes that it is an allegory of faith. A rare event and refreshing: a blast of cold fragrant air onto the public and coming from the other fence.

Say, shot of cognac, you who tails me like a terrier?

I read this post 4 times, and it made less and less sence each time. I assume "He" refers to Colbert, the "author" is Mr. Rick Warren. Then, that means that "it" (as in "it is an allegory of faith") refers to "the author's literalism and salesmanship", and not to Colbert's "irritation". Furthermore, this means that Mr. Warren's "literalism and salesmanship" is "a rare event and refreshing."

Umm...yeah, I still don't get it.

Foster Zygote

29th January 2008, 12:10 PM

I read this post 4 times, and it made less and less sence each time. I assume "He" refers to Colbert, the "author" is Mr. Rick Warren. Then, that means that "it" (as in "it is an allegory of faith") refers to "the author's literalism and salesmanship", and not to Colbert's "irritation". Furthermore, this means that Mr. Warren's "literalism and salesmanship" is "a rare event and refreshing."

Umm...yeah, I still don't get it.

It's typical of his posts. The last bit is, I believe, a shot at me: an accusation that I am somehow following him about the forum. I got the same silliness from Plumjam a while back. The price is fail.

A Christian Sceptic

29th January 2008, 12:17 PM

I guess I would say laws and not necessarily the punishments.

LLH

OK - it wasn't clear since you posted your comments when someone was asking how different were the punishments among other cultures in OT times. It made me think that you thought there was a movement to make laws requiring stonings or something. :)

For the Republican Party of Texas Platform - are they talking about Sodomy or Gay Marriage? Do you have a direct link for that quote?

Tricky

29th January 2008, 12:20 PM

Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination.
Now let's be fair. That might not be about homosexuals at all. It could mean that men lie with male buddies about things like fishing and how many women they've had, but they lie with with females about where they were last night and how much they've had to drink.

SirPhilip

29th January 2008, 12:20 PM

I read this post 4 times, and it made less and less sence each time. I assume "He" refers to Colbert, the "author" is Mr. Rick Warren. Then, that means that "it" (as in "it is an allegory of faith") refers to "the author's literalism and salesmanship", and not to Colbert's "irritation". Furthermore, this means that Mr. Warren's "literalism and salesmanship" is "a rare event and refreshing." Umm...yeah, I still don't get it. Well then, you don't get a cookie.

LordoftheLeftHand

29th January 2008, 12:29 PM

OK - it wasn't clear since you posted your comments when someone was asking how different were the punishments among other cultures in OT times. It made me think that you thought there was a movement to make laws requiring stonings or something. :)

For the Republican Party of Texas Platform - are they talking about Sodomy or Gay Marriage? Do you have a direct link for that quote?

http://www.texasgop.org/site/DocServer/Platform_Updated.pdf?docID=2001

LLH

skeptical

29th January 2008, 12:29 PM

skeptical, in case you haven't seen it already, you'll get a kick out of www.godhatesshrimp.com (http://www.godhatesshrimp.com).

Man, that is sweeeet!

That falls into the "things I wish I had thought of category".

Thanks for the link, I had not seen it before.

A Christian Sceptic

29th January 2008, 12:42 PM

http://www.texasgop.org/site/DocServer/Platform_Updated.pdf?docID=2001

LLH

Thanks - that was very informative.

SirPhilip

29th January 2008, 12:54 PM

It's typical of his posts. The last bit is, I believe, a shot at me: an accusation that I am somehow following him about the forum. I got the same silliness from Plumjam a while back. The price is fail. I offered you a shot, but I offered him cookies. Now I offer you both a shot and cookies if you can win this challenge. Many men have died of migraines, some are headless because of it. You must bear the stress of thinking this hard, summon every neuron to attention, and answer what probably qualifies as an allegory:

Item One (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible)

Item Two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purpose_Driven_Life)

Victory is yours for the taking men.

Cello Man

29th January 2008, 12:57 PM

Achán hiNidráne

29th January 2008, 01:08 PM

You don't see Christians picketing Red Lobster or the GAP. Anytime I've asked a Christian why these old laws aren't enforced, the answer I get is, "The New Covenant did away with many of the old laws."

From Luke 16:16

16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of heaven is preached.

(The John in question is John The Baptist)

However in the very next verse, Luke 16:17-18

16:17 It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Then there is this chestnut from Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:14

3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ.

However, Jesus allegedly said in Matthew 5:18:

Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.

So essentially, Jesus did away all that barbarism demanded by God in the Old Testament AND gave them his complete stamp of approval! Jesus essentially invented the concept of Doublethink long before Orwell wrote 1984. Either that, of the "Virgin" (yeah, right) Mary should have named her son "Sybil."

This schizophrenic theology explains how most Christians can call hellfire down on homosexuals, atheists, fornicators, adulterers, and and other "sinners," yet can snack right royally on shrimp cocktail while wearing those tacky polyester suits we often see them sporting. (As I always said: "Find God, loose all taste.")

The Bible is literally, unerring, "Word of God" only when it suits the believer.

Bob Klase

29th January 2008, 01:24 PM

At least the author is out there trying to do some good instead of wasting his time typing on an Internet forum which will be read by .00002% of the population.

And you're trying to do some good by..... ?

Bob Klase

29th January 2008, 01:26 PM

The video can be found at http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/index.jhtml for those

It can be found here without any further clicking:

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=148506&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=/shows/the_colbert_report/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true

joobz

29th January 2008, 01:43 PM

I offered you a shot, but I offered him cookies. Now I offer you both a shot and cookies if you can win this challenge. Many men have died of migraines, some are headless because of it. You must bear the stress of thinking this hard, summon every neuron to attention, and answer what probably qualifies as an allegory:

Item One (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible)

Item Two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purpose_Driven_Life)

Victory is yours for the taking men.
I worry about you. Your posts read like you are trying to emulate the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

We can understand your point or you can write coherently, but we can never both understand your point and have you write coherently.:p

A Christian Sceptic

29th January 2008, 01:45 PM

Christian Sceptic,

Here's another pertinent link. Texas had an anti-sodomy law on the books until the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 2003.

Good

You're curious to know which Old Testament laws are being forced upon people, well there you go.

Well - actually I wasn't sure what was being meant. It's clear now.

The Bible holds so much sway down here that my own home state had managed to pass an unconstitutional religiously motivated law.

Is the Texas GOP argument based on the Old Testament?

Regarding my previous post in this thread: Imagine if Texas banned Red Lobster from operating their business in the state. Imagine that their justification for doing so was adhering to the exact same cultural reference that inspired the anti-sodomy law.

I wish I would have taken advantage of the Red Lobster all you can eat crab legs. But the one summer I passed it by they decided never to do it again. :(

Why do we take one verse of Leviticus seriously, and the others we don't?

I've never gotten a simple answer to this very same question. I personally don't think Christians need to be going back to the OT when they can go directly to what Jesus taught. But that's just me.

fuelair

29th January 2008, 01:50 PM

OK - it wasn't clear since you posted your comments when someone was asking how different were the punishments among other cultures in OT times. It made me think that you thought there was a movement to make laws requiring stonings or something. :)

For the Republican Party of Texas Platform - are they talking about Sodomy or Gay Marriage? Do you have a direct link for that quote?
Almost certain it would be the Gay Marriage thing. What would the Texas Republican Party do if Sodomy were outlawed???:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

sthomson

29th January 2008, 01:54 PM

Well then, you don't get a cookie.

I don't want a cookie; I want forum posters to converse clearly and honestly.

A Christian Sceptic

29th January 2008, 01:57 PM

Almost certain it would be the Gay Marriage thing. What would the Texas Republican Party do if Sodomy were outlawed???:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

haha. Well - actually, according to that link above - Gay Marriage is a seperate issue on their platform.

Although the CNN article describes Texas law as being targetted for homosexuals only.

Tumblehome

29th January 2008, 02:00 PM

Comedy Central re-runs the previous day's show about 5 times the following day...

Looked for it and caught it. Thanks. :) Another priceless interview by the Lincolnish one.

My take on the "Who are your writers?" question was that it was like "Where the hell did you pull that from?", as if the author didn't think the bible said that, or at least didn't want to admit it. Another lie for Jesus, maybe.

Piscivore

29th January 2008, 02:10 PM

I wish I would have taken advantage of the Red Lobster all you can eat crab legs. But the one summer I passed it by they decided never to do it again. :(

My fault, I'm sorry.

bokonon

29th January 2008, 02:16 PM

Why do we take one verse of Leviticus seriously, and the others we don't?
It isn't about Leviticus. It's about in-group and out-group, and using God as a ventriloquist's dummy to say the things you want to say with the reverb cranked up. People who feel threatened by someone else's sexual preferences get to sock-puppet God as their spokesperson to condemn it. The in-group bonds, and the out-group is demonized.

The dietary in-group was once a powerful force too (else, why would it be written in the Torah, the Bible, and the Quran?), but that train has moved on somewhat. Some Jews and Muslims still observe prohibitions on pork (I don't know about shellfish, crustaceans, catfish, and cephalopods), but Christians by and large have outgrown that particular observance.

I know there is a lot of condemnation of "a la carte Christians," both from those who fancy themselves as nonbelievers and from those who fancy themselves as true believers, but I regard the a la carte Christian as more enlightened than his fundamentalist brothers. Granted, many of them don't KNOW they're a la carte Christians -- if you told them the Bible forbade the eating of shrimp, they'd give you a blank stare, followed by the "Jesus said that stuff didn't apply to us" speech, followed by another blank stare when you pointed out that he most certainly did not. Nevertheless, they've taken the first step to ethical maturity, using reason and conscience to determine an ethical course of action, rather than childishly and unthinkingly adhering to a long list of prohibitions that can't be rationally justified.

To me, that's progress. Insignificant, but progress nevertheless.

skeptical

29th January 2008, 02:17 PM

Christian Sceptic,

Here's another pertinent link. Texas had an anti-sodomy law on the books until the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 2003. You're curious to know which Old Testament laws are being forced upon people, well there you go. The Bible holds so much sway down here that my own home state had managed to pass an unconstitutional religiously motivated law.

And for those keeping score at home, that case was 5-4, and was decided when O'Connor was on the bench.

If a similar case came before today's court, there is not a doubt in my mind that it would be 5-4 the other way.

This is the problem with the "police power", it gives states the right to regulate morals, so it can, in theory, reach even private activities between private actors even when there is no demonstrably negative effect to anyone else. So then you have to find a fundamental right in the constitution to overturn it, and there is always a fist fight about what rights are in there.

It would be far better if states were only allowed to regulate demonstrably harmful activities and not just any old thing they think is immoral.(ala Jefferson's "picks my pocket or breaks my leg") But, that is another thread.

A Christian Sceptic

29th January 2008, 02:21 PM

My fault, I'm sorry.

I forgive you.

I've found another source for all you can eat crab legs so all is good. :)

SirPhilip

29th January 2008, 02:28 PM

I worry about you. Your posts read like you are trying to emulate the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. We can understand your point or you can write coherently, but we can never both understand your point and have you write coherently.:p Foster can be Larry, Thompson can be Moe, and you can be Curly. Now If I can get all three of you to pay attention:

"His irritation at the author's literalism and salesmanship"

Colbert clearly takes exception to the author's fundamentalism (literal interpretation of a canonical book (s), that is, an allegory). The author denies he's a fundamentalist, but interprets it literally (a contradiction), Colbert points this out. The author, an imbecile, is clearly embarrassed and acts like Foster, while Colbert manages a straight face, a feat of concentration brother Philip hasn't mastered yet in these situations. This is because Colbert knows it is properly a collection of stories, metaphors, and situations.

"..is because he recognizes that it is an allegory of faith."

If this is the definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allegory) of allegory, I could only be referring to the Bible. Correct? Now if this is correct, then I've only failed to consider reading comprehension difficulties, general laziness, or the need to bicker in my conciseness. Another problem, although not mine, is all three of you have distinguished yourselves as idiots by having me point this out to you for some reason. Thoughts?

thaiboxerken

29th January 2008, 02:30 PM

Is the Texas GOP argument based on the Old Testament?

:rolleyes:

wolfgirl

29th January 2008, 02:33 PM

Foster can be Larry, Thompson can be Moe, and you can be Curly. Now If I can get all three of you to pay attention:

"His irritation at the author's literalism and salesmanship"

Colbert clearly takes exception to the author's fundamentalism (literal interpretation of a canonical book (s), that is, an allegory). The author denies he's a fundamentalist, but interprets it literally (a contradiction), Colbert points this out. The author, an imbecile, is clearly embarrassed and acts like Foster, while Colbert manages a straight face, a feat of concentration brother Philip hasn't mastered yet in these situations. This is because Colbert knows it is properly a collection of stories, metaphors, and situations.

"..is because he recognizes that it is an allegory of faith."

If this is the definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allegory) of allegory, I could only be referring to the Bible. Correct? Now if this is correct, then I've only failed to consider reading comprehension difficulties, general laziness, or the need to bicker in my conciseness. Another problem, although not mine, is all three of you have distinguished yourselves as idiots by having me point this out to you for some reason. Thoughts?Just for the record, I have never communicated with you before (to my knowledge), so I have no reason to be disagreeable. I, however, also have a really hard time understanding what exactly you are trying to say in your posts. They don't seem to make much sense or be very coherent. Just so you have another opinion...

sthomson

29th January 2008, 02:36 PM

If this is the definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allegory) of allegory, I could only be referring to the Bible. Correct?

Incorrect, unless you're ignoring the second definition for allegorical purposes.

Cello Man

29th January 2008, 02:45 PM

This schizophrenic theology explains how most Christians can call hellfire down on homosexuals, atheists, fornicators, adulterers, and and other "sinners," yet can snack right royally on shrimp cocktail while wearing those tacky polyester suits we often see them sporting. (As I always said: "Find God, loose all taste.")

The Bible is literally, unerring, "Word of God" only when it suits the believer.

Exactly my point. Christians shouldn't point to a source of "absolute truth" which is anything but consistent. The Bible is like a Gitmo detainee: After you torture it enough you can get it to say anything.

Is the Texas GOP argument based on the Old Testament?

Is there any rational reason to discriminate against gays that isn't religiously motivated? I defy anyone to come up with a single example.

It isn't about Leviticus. It's about in-group and out-group, and using God as a ventriloquist's dummy to say the things you want to say with the reverb cranked up.

Exactly my point, by way of rhetorical question.

People who feel threatened by someone else's sexual preferences get to sock-puppet God as their spokesperson to condemn it. The in-group bonds, and the out-group is demonized.

Yup. As the saying goes...I think your God is imaginary because he hates all the same people you do.

SirPhilip

29th January 2008, 02:50 PM

Incorrect, unless you're ignoring the second definition for allegorical purposes.

This is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible) an allegory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory).

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purpose_Driven_Life) is not. Not possibly an allegory. It's not an allegory. It's a book a millionaire pastor wrote about one.

It's obvious I wasn't referring to the latter. Any thoughts?

SirPhilip

29th January 2008, 02:54 PM

Just for the record, I have never communicated with you before (to my knowledge), so I have no reason to be disagreeable. I, however, also have a really hard time understanding what exactly you are trying to say in your posts. They don't seem to make much sense or be very coherent. Just so you have another opinion...

(Shrugs)

Try harder? There were no errors on my part.

joobz

29th January 2008, 02:59 PM

Foster can be Larry, Thompson can be Moe, and you can be Curly. Moe, where's the cheese? Where's the cheese?

Oh here it is:
"His irritation at the author's literalism and salesmanship"

Colbert clearly takes exception to the author's fundamentalism (literal interpretation of a canonical book (s), that is, an allegory). The author denies he's a fundamentalist, but interprets it literally (a contradiction), Colbert points this out. The author, an imbecile, is clearly embarrassed and acts like Foster, while Colbert manages a straight face, a feat of concentration brother Philip hasn't mastered yet in these situations. This is because Colbert knows it is properly a collection of stories, metaphors, and situations.

"..is because he recognizes that it is an allegory of faith."

If this is the definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allegory) of allegory, I could only be referring to the Bible. Correct? Now if this is correct, then I've only failed to consider reading comprehension difficulties, general laziness, or the need to bicker in my conciseness. Another problem, although not mine, is all three of you have distinguished yourselves as idiots by having me point this out to you for some reason. Thoughts?

All Kidding aside, I was making a light-hearted jest and wasn't meant to be insulting. I apologize if you were offended.

But realize, that you do have a tendancy to shift tone and context without any warning while simultaneously leaving out key elements of your train of thought. This all makes it rather hard for anyone to interpret what you are saying.

sthomson

29th January 2008, 03:16 PM

You know what else is an allegory? This is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies). So is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm).

SirPhilip

29th January 2008, 03:20 PM

But realize, that you do have a tendancy to shift tone and context without any warning while simultaneously leaving out key elements of your train of thought. This all makes it rather hard for anyone to interpret what you are saying. Valid point, I probably shouldn't so sharply. My paragraphs are compact, omit descriptors, and outline keys. Those on the ball respond with additional valid observations or points. Those aren't are forced to. This is to avoid bickering, very frequent here. It provokes it also, and I'm requested to think for them when they should beforehand.

SonOfLaertes

29th January 2008, 03:20 PM

SirPhilip

29th January 2008, 03:25 PM

You know what else is an allegory? This is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies). So is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm). But I couldn't have been referring to Rick Warren's tripe as one. I assume you know the difference.

Tanstaafl

29th January 2008, 03:36 PM

I forgive you.

I've found another source for all you can eat crab legs so all is good. :)

Whatever you do, don't tell Pisci where it is!!!!

sthomson

29th January 2008, 03:37 PM

Regardless, your point (as it seems to be) is still wrong. Colbert (the actor, not the character) would, I imagine, believe strongly in the importance of faith.

Otherwise, I give up.

SirPhilip

29th January 2008, 03:43 PM

I don't want a cookie; I want forum posters to converse clearly and honestly. Well, then have a drink on me.

Almo

29th January 2008, 03:48 PM

Don't think it's fair to soley pick on Judeao laws. What was the punishment for theft, incest, adultery, murder, homosexuality,...in the surrounding cultures of the Babylonians, Egyptians, Sumerians and Assyrians?

But when people say "The Bible is the literal, correct word of God," then they deserve this. Leviticus says we should stone gays. It only takes one counterexample to disprove a generalization of this type.

SirPhilip

29th January 2008, 04:10 PM

Regardless, your point (as it seems to be) is still wrong. Colbert (the actor, not the character) would, I imagine, believe strongly in the importance of faith. Otherwise, I give up. Hm? I pointed out Colbert, who is privately religious, maturely understands what the Bible properly is. The flamboyant author doesn't, and the interview is a stark contrast on many levels between two sensibilities, the privately religious and the superficially.

slingblade

29th January 2008, 04:10 PM

Thoughts?

Don't worry so. When, if ever, you demonstrate you've had any thoughts worth listening to, we will speedily let you know.

We promise.

Piscivore

29th January 2008, 04:14 PM

Whatever you do, don't tell Pisci where it is!!!!

Hush, you.

So, CS? Shall we do lunch? :D

SirPhilip

29th January 2008, 04:17 PM

Don't worry so. When, if ever, you demonstrate you've had any thoughts worth listening to, we will speedily let you know.
We promise. Before you go, can you explain what those weren't? Apparently I was wrongheaded about something, and I'm very curious.

slingblade

29th January 2008, 04:22 PM

Before you go, can you explain what those weren't? Apparently I was wrongheaded about something, and I'm very curious.

No, don't worry about it, really. It's all right. Someday it will all seem very silly, and we'll all be here to comfort you and laugh together about how silly it really was. Shhhh, now. Shhhh.

A Christian Sceptic

29th January 2008, 04:26 PM

Hush, you.

So, CS? Shall we do lunch? :D

:D

SirPhilip

29th January 2008, 04:33 PM

No, don't worry about it, really. It's all right. Someday it will all seem very silly, and we'll all be here to comfort you and laugh together about how silly it really was. Shhhh, now. Shhhh. Of course that's the problem, taking everything way too seriously. Secularists should learn from Colbert, and that is a valid point to consider.

Sefarst

29th January 2008, 05:03 PM

The point of Colbert's jab is this:

The verse which Christians use to condemn homosexuality comes from Leviticus, in the Old Testament:

That's the same book which condemns eating shrimp and wearing clothing made of mixed fibers. Both are condemned as "abomination". Leviticus doesn't go out of its way to say that homosexuality is a greater abomination, though. They're given equal rank.

You don't see Christians picketing Red Lobster or the GAP. Anytime I've asked a Christian why these old laws aren't enforced, the answer I get is, "The New Covenant did away with many of the old laws." So the questions now are:

1) Why would God change his mind? That implies a previous mistake from a supposedly perfect being.

2) Why cling to one old verse and toss out the others? If you realize how silly it is to think of certains types of seafood and mixed fibers as "abominations", why is it still acceptable to use the same ridiculous source as a justification for anti-gay bigotry?
I believe their reasoning is that the condemnation against homosexuality is again repeated in Romans 1:24-28 of the New Testament. All the dietary laws and others were not.

PBTree

29th January 2008, 05:51 PM

Foster can be Larry, Thompson can be Moe, and you can be Curly. Now If I can get all three of you to pay attention:

"His irritation at the author's literalism and salesmanship"

Colbert clearly takes exception to the author's fundamentalism (literal interpretation of a canonical book (s), that is, an allegory). The author denies he's a fundamentalist, but interprets it literally (a contradiction), Colbert points this out. The author, an imbecile, is clearly embarrassed and acts like Foster, while Colbert manages a straight face, a feat of concentration brother Philip hasn't mastered yet in these situations. This is because Colbert knows it is properly a collection of stories, metaphors, and situations.

"..is because he recognizes that it is an allegory of faith."

If this is the definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allegory) of allegory, I could only be referring to the Bible. Correct? Now if this is correct, then I've only failed to consider reading comprehension difficulties, general laziness, or the need to bicker in my conciseness. Another problem, although not mine, is all three of you have distinguished yourselves as idiots by having me point this out to you for some reason. Thoughts?

Methinks you should investigate your family tree SirPhilip. It would not surprise if you discovered one of your ancestors was one of the 'supposed' bible authors. If you added a few thee's and thou's, plus several begats into that lot above, it could be included just after mathew, mark, luke, john, as philip. ;)

I join the list of those swimming in the river of obfuscation.

Trakar

29th January 2008, 05:54 PM

Varied hugely - for example the Egyptians had no particular issue with homosexuality whereas the Hittites made the Israelites look like pussycats.

That is what so few understand today when an "eye for an eye" seems rather extremist. In the time it was made law, slight offenses (real or perceived) could, and often did, involve retributions that involved not only the slaying of entire families, neighbors and even villages but the destruction of all thier livestock, fouling the wells and salting the fields. Saying that the most a person could do was retribute what they themselves actually lost, was generally considered unusually merciful and lenient, and above all just.

godofpie

29th January 2008, 05:58 PM

You know what else is an allegory? This is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies). So is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm).
I liked yours better.

Trakar

29th January 2008, 06:13 PM

I believe their reasoning is that the condemnation against homosexuality is again repeated in Romans 1:24-28 of the New Testament. All the dietary laws and others were not.

Romans 1:24-28 speaks of some being visited with (among other things) "unnatural desires" as a result of turning away from God, but it does not say anything about whether such are always sinful, nor especially after the context in which you seem to be using them, that such should be punished in any particular fashion. God does not punish them for being homosexual nor does He ordain that other humans punish homosexuals for their actions, what He does is visit this upon some men as a punishment for turning away from Him and lying about His word. To me it rather brings to mind the various "men of the cloth" and "christian" politician who have recently been outted after having distorted God's message of love to their own glorification and worldly enrichment (divine irony if you will).

In context, Romans 1:24-32

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

The sin is the turning away from God and the distortion of His word. The depraved mind etc., is the punishment which God visited upon these men. There is nothing here which indicates that all homosexuality is the result of such punishment, nor that such should ever be treated as a sin or abomination in itself, ...at least not to my reading and understanding of this particular passage.

SirPhilip

29th January 2008, 06:14 PM

Methinks you should investigate your family tree SirPhilip. It would not surprise if you discovered one of your ancestors was one of the 'supposed' bible authors. If you added a few thee's and thou's, plus several begats into that lot above, it could be included just after mathew, mark, luke, john, as philip. ;) I join the list of those swimming in the river of obfuscation. Anyone else want to fail?

joobz

29th January 2008, 07:16 PM

Anyone else want to fail?
Don't take it personally. People here tend to be a bit rough on the unclear or irrational. I had a similar hard time when I first came to the threads. I never really considered my philosophy on life before and never really critically analyzed my faith. I was guilty of similar conceits, and when I first came here I made much the same mistakes as most people who haven't really thought through the arguments. I was rash and had called athiesm a faith, that athiests were arrogant. I thought such an observation was such a novel condemnation. I quickly learned better. I received hostility and derision. It inspired me to learn more about the debates. Having considered them, I reset my position. I still wouldn't call my self an atheist, because I desire a god. But I have no proof of such a being and no reason to think it's there. But I do know that it isn't the god of the bible.

I simply request that you give yourself a chance to learn and realize that nobody is above learning and improvement.

A Christian Sceptic

29th January 2008, 07:31 PM

Having considered them, I reset my position. I still wouldn't call my self an atheist, because I desire a god. But I have no proof of such a being and no reason to think it's there. But I do know that it isn't the god of the bible.

Just wondering - you can PM me if you don't want to post.

What were you before coming here? What depiction of God in the bible are you certain god is not like? Jesus? The OT depiction? Both? A particular denominations opinions of it all? Are you looking at other faiths or religions or have you considered any others or investigated them? What have you found out so far?

NobbyNobbs

29th January 2008, 07:51 PM

Anytime I've asked a Christian why these old laws aren't enforced, the answer I get is, "The New Covenant did away with many of the old laws."

I've heard this several times myself. What I've never heard is exactly where in the NT it says "Hey, you know all that stuff about the shellfish and keeping slaves? Forget about all that. But keep the one about the gays, ok?"

Can anybody cite a verse?

Hokulele

29th January 2008, 07:51 PM

The sin is the turning away from God and the distortion of His word. The depraved mind etc., is the punishment which God visited upon these men. There is nothing here which indicates that all homosexuality is the result of such punishment, nor that such should ever be treated as a sin or abomination in itself, ...at least not to my reading and understanding of this particular passage.

1 Corinthians makes it pretty clear.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

This is from the RSV, but other translations often use homosexuals instead of sexual perverts. The NLT is the most explicit stating that both male prostitutes and homosexuals are unrighteous.

joobz

29th January 2008, 08:02 PM

\'sJust wondering - you can PM me if you don't want to post.

What were you before coming here? What depiction of God in the bible are you certain god is not like? Jesus? The OT depiction? Both? A particular denominations opinions of it all? Are you looking at other faiths or religions or have you considered any others or investigated them? What have you found out so far?
greek orthodox and catholic. I got to see first hand how these two near identical churches could find things to argue over. I had /have friends who were pentacostal, methodist, baptist, "non denominational"... I was most comfortable with greek orthodox, but I just felt the major premise faulty. That you need jesus to go to heaven. That everyone who didn't have jesus would go to hell. Such a thought was horrible beyond imagine to me. Also, I never liked the magical parts of the faith. I've been in science long enough to have seen nothing that could make me think such things as possible.

If I'm anything, it's a diest. Really, shedding my faith was a burden off my shoulders.

fuelair

29th January 2008, 08:36 PM

(Shrugs)

Try harder? There were no errors on my part.
My, we do have a high opinion of ourselves do we not!!! If only it were deserved! Points to slingblade and wolfgirl and others. Your serve.

A Christian Sceptic

29th January 2008, 08:44 PM

\'s
greek orthodox and catholic. I got to see first hand how these two near identical churches could find things to argue over. I had /have friends who were pentacostal, methodist, baptist, "non denominational"... I was most comfortable with greek orthodox, but I just felt the major premise faulty. That you need jesus to go to heaven.

That everyone who didn't have jesus would go to hell. Such a thought was horrible beyond imagine to me. Also, I never liked the magical parts of the faith. I've been in science long enough to have seen nothing that could make me think such things as possible.

If I'm anything, it's a diest. Really, shedding my faith was a burden off my shoulders.

OK - thanks very much for sharing. I've never been to a Greek Orthodox church. My wife and I actually thought it about joining one recently but the closest one is to far away. We went through a period of trying to find a church that better suits our beliefs and coincidently we found out that we believe in alot of the same theology they do - particularly many of their views on the atonement. Before this last summer I had never really known much about them. They have a Greek Festival every year I think we'll attend to try some of their food and some of the dances and shows they put on.

joobz

29th January 2008, 08:50 PM

OK - thanks very much for sharing. I've never been to a Greek Orthodox church. My wife and I actually thought it about joining one recently but the closest one is to far away. We went through a period of trying to find a church that better suits our beliefs and coincidently we found out that we believe in alot of the same theology they do - particularly many of their views on the atonement. Before this last summer I had never really known much about them. They have a Greek Festival every year I think we'll attend to try some of their food and some of the dances and shows they put on.
I found the greek ceremonies beautiful. The easter mass is awesome. But, one thing I remember was that the GREEK part was as important as the christian part. To many, it was more important.

Trakar

29th January 2008, 09:18 PM

1 Corinthians makes it pretty clear. (...)This is from the RSV, but other translations often use homosexuals instead of sexual perverts. The NLT is the most explicit stating that both male prostitutes and homosexuals are unrighteous.

Then I would need to see, and would most likely question, the basis of their translations.

I don't consider two people truly in love with each other, engaging in consensual sexual congress to be perverted, regardless of whether they are man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman.

There are many occassions when sex between a man and a woman can be perverted. Prostitution is a sin (regardless of whether it is hetero or homo) but not a mortal, or an especially grievous one in most cases.

If modern man, even in his most earnest and honorable intent to be true to the spirit of God, is capable of insinuating his personal and cultural biases into the inspirations of the Holy Spirit, I see no reason to think that the authors' of scripture were any less prone. Blasphemous heresies, in some quarters, but nothing I can't live with.

Cello Man

29th January 2008, 09:28 PM

I believe their reasoning is that the condemnation against homosexuality is again repeated in Romans 1:24-28 of the New Testament. All the dietary laws and others were not.

That still leaves my first question: Why would God change his mind? That implies a previous mistake from a supposedly perfect being.
I've heard this several times myself. What I've never heard is exactly where in the NT it says "Hey, you know all that stuff about the shellfish and keeping slaves? Forget about all that. But keep the one about the gays, ok?"

Can anybody cite a verse?

See Sefarst's reply, quoted above here.

Edited to add:

While the New Testament doesn't mention all the bizarre laws about food that Leviticus does, Jesus makes no condemnation of slavery. It's just a-OK with God. Somewhere along the way humanity gradually realized it's not a right thing to do. It boggles my mind how people can break from some habits inherited from centuries of supposedly divinely inspired ideas, but others just won't go away.

Hokulele

29th January 2008, 09:34 PM

Then I would need to see, and would most likely question, the basis of their translations.

I don't consider two people truly in love with each other, engaging in consensual sexual congress to be perverted, regardless of whether they are man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman.

There are many occassions when sex between a man and a woman can be perverted. Prostitution is a sin (regardless of whether it is hetero or homo) but not a mortal, or an especially grievous one in most cases.

If modern man, even in his most earnest and honorable intent to be true to the spirit of God, is capable of insinuating his personal and cultural biases into the inspirations of the Holy Spirit, I see no reason to think that the authors' of scripture were any less prone. Blasphemous heresies, in some quarters, but nothing I can't live with.

I honestly wish more Christians reasoned as you do, but many of the most vocal see the scriptures as the literal word of god, and cannot be reinterpreted due to changes in societal norms. Most of 1 Corinthians tends to be, er, somewhat against the mainstream today. And if everyone followed I Cor. 7 literally, there probably wouldn't be many Christians today. ;)

leonAzul

29th January 2008, 10:01 PM

Link?

It's available here:
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/index.jhtml

In the video box, scroll down for the Rick Warrren interview.

Peace,

paul

halofish2000

29th January 2008, 10:56 PM

What you won't get from most preachers is the reason for the laws in Leviticus. Sure, they will point you to the golden calf and leave it at that. The problems goes way back to when the Isrealites were in Egyptian captivity for over 400 years. God was content to leave them there to self destruct but to save face and honor his promise to Abraham he led them out. On Mt Sinai, Moses was given the 10 commandments with 70 laws. This was confirmed by the elders and when Moses was taken from their presence for 40 days they reneged. God then gives them 613 laws that were not good so they could not live, basically, a delayed death sentence. The kings carried out the sentence.

Skeptic Ginger

29th January 2008, 11:11 PM

Don't think it's fair to soley pick on Judeao laws. What was the punishment for theft, incest, adultery, murder, homosexuality,...in the surrounding cultures of the Babylonians, Egyptians, Sumerians and Assyrians?Right...In 2 minutes Colbert is supposed to give a fair and balanced view of all the criticisms of the Bible. :rolleyes:

It was a great Colbert moment. I really love the guy. He asked a question of this author about this book and the author's inane claims the Bible is inerrant and in 30 seconds with one question exposed "The Purpose Driven Life" for the crap that it is.

Skeptic Ginger

29th January 2008, 11:15 PM

At least the author is out there trying to do some good instead of wasting his time typing on an Internet forum which will be read by .00002% of the population.The author? As in the author making the inane claim the Bible is inerrant?

Skeptic Ginger

29th January 2008, 11:18 PM

skeptical, in case you haven't seen it already, you'll get a kick out of www.godhatesshrimp.com (http://www.godhatesshrimp.com).LOL

Thanks, that made my day. :D

halofish2000

29th January 2008, 11:37 PM

Cloudship, the author should at least have the stones to explain his stance. He was put in a difficult position to answer not by his beliefs but by his need to be seen as a nice guy in order to peddle more books. Just another mega-preacher fleecing the sheeple.

SirPhilip

30th January 2008, 10:18 AM

Doublepost.

SirPhilip

30th January 2008, 10:25 AM

My, we do have a high opinion of ourselves do we not!!! If only it were deserved! Points to slingblade and wolfgirl and others. Your serve. Because I was harsh, a very strong underlying motivation to make anything I wrote wrongheaded was obvious, despite strictly looking over what I wrote. This was intentional misdirection. Yes, I'm being very rude and insensitive. Because it's frequent, not only directed towards me, and depressing. You can relate. If thrown lemons, make lemonade.

billiefan2000

30th January 2008, 11:02 AM

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/index.php?cat=7

has entire articles on Rick Warren and his Purpose Driven death books

NobbyNobbs

30th January 2008, 12:31 PM

That still leaves my first question: Why would God change his mind? That implies a previous mistake from a supposedly perfect being.

See Sefarst's reply, quoted above here.

Edited to add:

While the New Testament doesn't mention all the bizarre laws about food that Leviticus does, Jesus makes no condemnation of slavery. It's just a-OK with God. Somewhere along the way humanity gradually realized it's not a right thing to do. It boggles my mind how people can break from some habits inherited from centuries of supposedly divinely inspired ideas, but others just won't go away.

Ok, so the rationale is that the homosexual law is repeated, but the dietary laws aren't. In a strange way, I can kinda see the "logic".

But then I have to ask, are the Ten Commandments repeated? Do do we get to ignore those as well?

A Christian Sceptic

30th January 2008, 01:34 PM

But then I have to ask, are the Ten Commandments repeated?

yes.

Tanstaafl

30th January 2008, 01:48 PM

But then I have to ask, are the Ten Commandments repeated?

yes.

Really? I don't remember seeing that. Can you point me in the right direction to find that?

A Christian Sceptic

30th January 2008, 02:05 PM

Really? I don't remember seeing that. Can you point me in the right direction to find that?

Mark 10:17-25 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

The Rich Young Man
17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'[a]"

20"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."

21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"

24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is[b] to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Here's six for starters. Can you find the rest on your own?

NobbyNobbs

30th January 2008, 02:19 PM

Here's six for starters. Can you find the rest on your own?

What about the original ten?

And should we assume that any commandments not repeated by the NT are no longer valid?

Ipecac

30th January 2008, 02:21 PM

When I became an atheist, my religious brother asked me to read "The Purpose Driven Life". I told him I would if I could mark it up with my comments and give it back to him to read afterwards. He agreed.

I highlighted every inconsistency, inaccuracy, fallacy and stupidity in that book and left comments in pretty much every margin. It was a lot of work because it's such a bad book. He looked at a few of my comments, but I don't imagine for an instance he read all of them. In fact, I found out later he hadn't even read the whole book himself.

Hokulele

30th January 2008, 02:23 PM

Here's six for starters. Can you find the rest on your own?

The one thing I always found interesting about that passage, is that Jesus omitted all of the "jealous god" commandments. There is pretty much nothing about religion there, unlike the originals.

A Christian Sceptic

30th January 2008, 02:33 PM

What about the original ten?

which original ten? :)

And should we assume that any commandments not repeated by the NT are no longer valid?

Are you a Christian? If so - I'd first study what Jesus says. Then study what the Epistles say. Then probably study what the early christians taught. Then whatever particular denomination you belong to teaches. Then go to the OT yourself and then make up your mind.

If you're not a Christian I'm not sure what it matters except it seems like good ways to live your life.

Personally I like how Jesus summed it all up -

Mark 12:28-34 (New International Version)

The Greatest Commandment
28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' 31The second is this: [B]'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c]There is no commandment greater than these."

32"Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."

34When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

NOTE:
[a]Mark 12:30 Deut. 6:4,5
Mark 12:31 Lev. 19:18

Matthew 22:34-40 (New International Version)

The Greatest Commandment
34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " [B]'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

I'm still working on these two commandments. I'm sure if I can get these two down the rest will fall in place accordingly. ;)

A Christian Sceptic

30th January 2008, 02:38 PM

The one thing I always found interesting about that passage, is that Jesus omitted all of the "jealous god" commandments. There is pretty much nothing about religion there, unlike the originals.

That is interesting. You have any ideas on why?

KingMerv00

30th January 2008, 02:42 PM

which original ten? :)

Are you a Christian? If so - I'd first study what Jesus says. Then study what the Epistles say. Then probably study what the early christians taught. Then whatever particular denomination you belong to teaches. Then go to the OT yourself and then make up your mind.

If you're not a Christian I'm not sure what it matters except it seems like good ways to live your life.

Personally I like how Jesus summed it all up -

I'm still working on these two commandments. I'm sure if I can get these two down the rest will fall in place accordingly. ;)

Not a big fan of that first commandment. The second one is pretty good though. Unless you hate yourself of course.

KingMerv00

30th January 2008, 02:43 PM

That is interesting. You have any ideas on why?

God stopped being jealous?

sthomson

30th January 2008, 02:47 PM

Are you a Christian? If so - I'd first study what Jesus says. Then study what the Epistles say. Then probably study what the early christians taught. Then whatever particular denomination you belong to teaches. Then go to the OT yourself and then make up your mind.

But why the Epistles? Why Paul's letters at all, over anyone else's teachings?

(Disclaimer: I've read the whole NT, from Matt. to Rev., and I found Paul to be, on the whole, fanatical and a little bit sex-obsessed. Now, I'm sure he was a product of his era, but what a product!)

And the way he's interpreted lately! Paul writes, colloquially, "Stop visiting prostitutes! Stop paying boys in the street to suck you off! You've got a family, at home or in your church, that you should be nourishing!" And modern-day Christians interpret that to mean, "Stop forming loving, committed relationships with someone who's got the same genitalia as you do!"

Tanstaafl

30th January 2008, 02:49 PM

Here's six for starters. Can you find the rest on your own?

Probably not. Besides, my laziness may not be my most endearing quality, but it's the one I have in the most abundance. ;)

I also recall him paraphrasing the first commandment, something about love being the greatest commandment.

I suppose he didn't mention the graven images so that we'd be free to put statues of him on the dashboard.

A Christian Sceptic

30th January 2008, 02:57 PM

But why the Epistles? Why Paul's letters at all, over anyone else's teachings?

I didn't say over anyone elses teachings. But they were foundational documents for the early church. And these were written as situations came up in the early church so as a Christian you might want to see what they believed and how they dealt with things and what applications they may have for your life. For the same reason you may also want to read other early christian writings.

Hokulele

30th January 2008, 03:10 PM

That is interesting. You have any ideas on why?

Yep. Being a radical, and most likely a revolutionary, many of Jesus' teachings were about a break with the religious authorities and practices of his time. In a sense, he really was building his own following, and it only made sense to leave out any hint of "competing religions are bad" from his teachings. In several passages, he hints at accepting polytheism or atheism as being as valid as monotheism (John 10).

fishkr

30th January 2008, 09:39 PM

[QUOTE=A Christian Sceptic;3382783]Good

Is the Texas GOP argument based on the Old Testament?

IQUOTE]

Do you ever think about things you say? The answer to this silly question is actually in the GOP Doc., if you would bother to read it. The entire GOP platform statement sounds like something coming out of Islamibad. Substitute infedels with gays and sodomites, it's really worth a big laugh if it weren't for the price all the rest of us are paying for this lurid, unrelenting trash.

A Christian Sceptic

30th January 2008, 10:41 PM

[QUOTE=A Christian Sceptic;3382783]Good

Is the Texas GOP argument based on the Old Testament?

IQUOTE]

Do you ever think about things you say? The answer to this silly question is actually in the GOP Doc., if you would bother to read it.

Really? - because I read the relevant sections and found no specific reasons for their arguments - only their stated platform goals and a general 'this is what we believe'. I never saw one bible verse quoted. Did you read it? So yes - I'm interested to know what their arguments are and if they base it on the Old Testament, The New Testament, or something else. Do you have an answer for me?

SirPhilip

30th January 2008, 11:53 PM

Doublepost.

SirPhilip

30th January 2008, 11:57 PM

Don't take it personally. People here tend to be a bit rough on the unclear or irrational. I had a similar hard time when I first came to the threads. I never really considered my philosophy on life before and never really critically analyzed my faith. I was guilty of similar conceits, and when I first came here I made much the same mistakes as most people who haven't really thought through the arguments. I was rash and had called athiesm a faith, that athiests were arrogant. I thought such an observation was such a novel condemnation. I quickly learned better. I received hostility and derision. It inspired me to learn more about the debates. Humanism isn't compatible with naturalism any more than it is with metaphysical naturalism. Humanists hold their own compass up despite nature, and naturalists eventually their own cross. You were right, by the way.

Having considered them, I reset my position. I still wouldn't call my self an atheist, because I desire a god. But I have no proof of such a being and no reason to think it's there. (Brother Philip closes the window displaying atrociously tasteless pornography his co-worker left on his portable hard drive he's staring at bemusedly, another adjoining browser window showing muslims blown to pieces he atrociously and tastelessly finds thrilling, and additional things anyone from monotheistic religious traditions would recoil or condemn him to eternity in hell for, takes a large toke from his shisha pipe, and shrugs..)

Meet God:

http://images.salon.com/comics/boll/2008/01/31/boll/story.jpg

We all relate to one person's situation, the other we find ridiculous or resent, not caring to comprehend how even more absurd ours really is.

But I do know that it isn't the god of the bible. I think it is astonishing it's even intelligible, considering history.

"Take that one to heart!" - Guns & Roses

thaiboxerken

31st January 2008, 12:23 AM

That is interesting. You have any ideas on why?

Because the bible is written by many different authors and edited, poorly, in attempt to make a continuous story even though the many stories are a collection of different myths about different gods.

UnrepentantSinner

31st January 2008, 12:56 AM

Some Jews and Muslims still observe prohibitions on pork (I don't know about shellfish, crustaceans, catfish, and cephalopods), but Christians by and large have outgrown that particular observance.

I had a Kenyan Muslim co-worker and we were talking about Halal/Haram foods one night and he mentioned he enjoyed shrimp. He was crestfallen when I told him they were shellfish and thus Haram. I tried to convince him if he avoided lobster, etc., he could assuage his guilt, but was insistant that Haram meant Haram.

Poor guy...

UnrepentantSinner

31st January 2008, 01:20 AM

Do you ever think about things you say? The answer to this silly question is actually in the GOP Doc., if you would bother to read it. The entire GOP platform statement sounds like something coming out of Islamibad. Substitute infedels with gays and sodomites, it's really worth a big laugh if it weren't for the price all the rest of us are paying for this lurid, unrelenting trash.

Ummm, two things.

First, the majority of it sounds like the usual Conservative talking points you hear on talk radio, Faux's talk shows and Republican base talking heads. I don't find a whole lon the the Torah or the Koran about getting rid of executive orders, slave reparations, opposing the Endangered Species Act, restaining "activist" judges, union dues, water districts, American English, etc. etc. I mean unless you can find me verses that mention these things.

There are a number of planks in the Texas GOP platform that I disagree with, but using rediculous hyperbole like "The entire ... sounds like something coming out of Islamabad" isn't true. And what does a number of people love to say around here when someone asserts something that isn't true?

Also Perry screwed the political pooch a number of times this term (Garasil, Trans-Texas Corridor, Cig taxes) that I don't think much of the Republican partys agenda is going to get passed any time soon.

Ryan O'Dine

31st January 2008, 07:31 AM

Mark 10:17-25 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'[a]"

20"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."

21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Why isn't the bolded part considered a commandment? It looks like Jesus is equating it with the others.

ponderingturtle

31st January 2008, 10:30 AM

Why isn't the bolded part considered a commandment? It looks like Jesus is equating it with the others.

Well as some take vows of poverty it would seem to be. I guess that means that anyone who does not do that is Dammed to hell as well.

Tanstaafl

31st January 2008, 10:31 AM

Well, I'll be damned!

tsg

31st January 2008, 10:33 AM

Personally, I'm looking for the religion that allows me to take a vow of wealth and promiscuity.

Tanstaafl

31st January 2008, 10:43 AM

Personally, I'm looking for the religion that allows me to take a vow of wealth and promiscuity.

Judging from TBN, that's pretty common.

Trakar

31st January 2008, 11:56 AM

Personally, I'm looking for the religion that allows me to take a vow of wealth and promiscuity.

I don't think any religion could keep you from taking such a vow, but most would probably consider it a "sin."

a few possible Exceptions:

Cult of Bacchus

Satanism

NobbyNobbs

2nd February 2008, 12:55 AM

which original ten? :)

The ones that Moses threw down and broke and ended up putting in the ark.

Are you a Christian? If so - I'd first study what Jesus says. Then study what the Epistles say. Then probably study what the early christians taught. Then whatever particular denomination you belong to teaches. Then go to the OT yourself and then make up your mind.

If you're not a Christian I'm not sure what it matters except it seems like good ways to live your life.

Way to dodge the question. I ask a simple yes or no question, and the answer is to study the bible for an undefined period of time?

It's pretty simple. The claim is that certain commandments from the OT are no longer considered necessary. It was implied that some are still important, and you can tell because they were repeated in the NT. So the question is, does that go for all the laws in the OT that are/aren't repeated in the NT?

If not, how do you pick and choose which are the important ones?

And personally, if I were religious and told to "Love God with all your heart" and "Love your neighbor" and the rest would work itself out, well, I'd be inclined to think that homosexuality was alright, because what kind of God would make it a sin for people to follow a natural compulsion that He put into them in the first place?

A Christian Sceptic

2nd February 2008, 09:35 AM

And personally, if I were religious ...

Oh - so you're not religious. Well then what's it matter?

joobz

2nd February 2008, 09:45 AM

Humanism isn't compatible with naturalism any more than it is with metaphysical naturalism. Humanists hold their own compass up despite nature, and naturalists eventually their own cross. You were right, by the way.
Right about?

And humanist and naturalist philosphies converge in neurobiology.

halofish2000

2nd February 2008, 12:48 PM

The original 10 were never stated the same way again. After they rejected, after vowing to keep them, they were given the Law as a delayed death sentence. You will notice taht Paul leap frogs the monarchy and goes back to Abraham.

Being wealthy was not forbidden in the Bible. Abraham was wealthy and so was Job. Promiscuity...well, that's a different matter.

halofish2000

2nd February 2008, 12:51 PM

Which denomination CS? Aren't there laterally thousands? And they all seem to have a differing view of, well just about everything.

arthwollipot

3rd February 2008, 02:54 AM

Oh - so you're not religious. Well then what's it matter?It matters because lots of religious people think that it's important. And as halofish2000 has pointed out, they all disagree - sometimes violently. So if there is some purpose to life, and it's given to us in the Bible, then:

1) why isn't everyone doing it?
2) why do they all disagree?

NobbyNobbs

3rd February 2008, 07:43 AM

Oh - so you're not religious. Well then what's it matter?

You have still dodged the question. I don't understand. You've been very forthright and open with most of your posts, right up to the point where I ask "Do all laws not repeated in the NT no longer count?" Once I asked that, you became shifty.

Why won't you answer that question as simply and forthrightly as you've answered all the others?

luchog

5th February 2008, 03:49 PM

So essentially, Jesus did away all that barbarism demanded by God in the Old Testament AND gave them his complete stamp of approval!

Nope, not the same. You're isolating quotes and taking them out of context to prove something that scripture doesn't say. Just like the fundies you castigate.

What you're not realize is the context of the Christ's quote; that is, He is the fulfillment of the law. His death, resurrection, and return is the fulfillment of the law. The other bit you're missing is that those comments are typically in response to Rabbis who were seeking to "trap" the speaker into claiming that the Law, or at least part of it, was invalidated. At that time there was a long-running feud between two major factions, the Pharisees and Saducees, and a number of minor factions, over what constituted the Law, how it should be applied, and so on ad nauseum. They were more concerned with minutia than with meaning.

And, like the fundies and other hardcore anti-Christians, you're also missing another important part of the context -- when the Moshiach was asked which was the "greatest", or most important, part of the law (translated "commandment") was.

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?". Jesus replied, " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:36-40 NIV).

The point of all those was to show that the Law still applied, insofar as it was still important to live one's own life according to the spiritual principles contained therein; but that the import of the law was not a series of rigid rules; but an application of the principle of Agape love. It was also to demonstrate that under the Law, there is no one who is not guilty of even the smallest sin, "For all have sinned, and fallen short of the Kingdom of God"; but that through the Moshaich's sacrifice, that no longer mattered, since through acceptance of His mercy and grace, one was no longer guilty of it.

This deftly answered their questions, but in such a way as to show that all the factions involved were wrong, and that they were putting their own personal views of what the Law should mean, based on their personal interpretation of the letter, the sort of argument today we call "sematic nonsense", ahead of it's true purpose, the "spirit" of the law. "For the Letter kills, but the Spirit gives life".

This schizophrenic theology explains how most Christians can call hellfire down on homosexuals, atheists, fornicators, adulterers, and and other "sinners," yet can snack right royally on shrimp cocktail while wearing those tacky polyester suits we often see them sporting. (As I always said: "Find God, loose all taste.")
Nope, it's the same sort of "pick and choose", taking things out of context, and misinterpretation that I noted above. They wish to apply the letter of the law, ignoring it's context and spirit, in accordance with their own prejudices. They've become modern-day Pharisees and turned their back on what the Christ was trying to tell them.

A Christian Sceptic

5th February 2008, 03:56 PM

Nope, not the same. You're isolating quotes and taking them out of context to prove something that scripture doesn't say. Just like the fundies you castigate.

What you're not realize is the context of the Christ's quote; that is, He is the fulfillment of the law. His death, resurrection, and return is the fulfillment of the law. The other bit you're missing is that those comments are typically in response to Rabbis who were seeking to "trap" the speaker into claiming that the Law, or at least part of it, was invalidated. At that time there was a long-running feud between two major factions, the Pharisees and Saducees, and a number of minor factions, over what constituted the Law, how it should be applied, and so on ad nauseum. They were more concerned with minutia than with meaning.

And, like the fundies and other hardcore anti-Christians, you're also missing another important part of the context -- when the Moshiach was asked which was the "greatest", or most important, part of the law (translated "commandment") was.

The point of all those was to show that the Law still applied, insofar as it was still important to live one's own life according to the spiritual principles contained therein; but that the import of the law was not a series of rigid rules; but an application of the principle of Agape love. It was also to demonstrate that under the Law, there is no one who is not guilty of even the smallest sin, "For all have sinned, and fallen short of the Kingdom of God"; but that through the Moshaich's sacrifice, that no longer mattered, since through acceptance of His mercy and grace, one was no longer guilty of it.

This deftly answered their questions, but in such a way as to show that all the factions involved were wrong, and that they were putting their own personal views of what the Law should mean, based on their personal interpretation of the letter, the sort of argument today we call "sematic nonsense", ahead of it's true purpose, the "spirit" of the law. "For the Letter kills, but the Spirit gives life".

Nope, it's the same sort of "pick and choose", taking things out of context, and misinterpretation that I noted above. They wish to apply the letter of the law, ignoring it's context and spirit, in accordance with their own prejudices. They've become modern-day Pharisees and turned their back on what the Christ was trying to tell them.

Hey Luchog - that's not a simple Yes or No answer. ;)

luchog

5th February 2008, 04:07 PM

if you told them the Bible forbade the eating of shrimp, they'd give you a blank stare, followed by the "Jesus said that stuff didn't apply to us" speech, followed by another blank stare when you pointed out that he most certainly did not.
Yes, actually, He did.

"Do not call unclean that which the Lord has made clean." and "For it is not what goes into a man's mouth which makes him impure, but that which comes out of his mouth."

The former was in the context of Peter receiving a vision which was both a literal experience, and a symbolic precursor of a future requirement. By explicitly abolishing the prohibition of ceremonially impure foods, he was also symbolically abolishing the impurity associated with "unclean" peoples such as the Samaritans and the various Gentile groups; since many Jewish sects considered a "defiling" action to associate with non-Jews, and would require the performance of various rituals in order to purify themselves sufficiently to attend the temple worship and other religious ceremonies.

It was a concrete act that had a much greater spiritual implication; and was part of the extension of the Christ's salvation by grace to Gentile peoples, and the breaking of Jewish insularity and exclusionism. This ties into the analogy the "branch" of the Gentiles being "grafted" onto the same tree as the Jews, since the Jews had "ceased to bear fruit"; that is, had become spiritually dead and unproductive.

Such illustrative acts with larger implications were a commonly used device; and were recognized as such by the Jews. Indeed, most of their religion was based on it.

The latter was a similar situation, this time referring to the hypocrisy of the Pharasitical aherence to ritual while ignoring it's meaning. Preferring the "laws of man to the Law of God". He then went on to stress the fact that it wasn't actions -- eating or not eating, washing or not washing, and so on -- that were important, but adherence to the principles. What was important was the heart, the belief, not the act whose sole purpose was to be an expression of that belief.

"After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' """

luchog

5th February 2008, 04:21 PM

Why isn't the bolded part considered a commandment? It looks like Jesus is equating it with the others.

It's really annoying how often anti-Christians (not all atheists are anti-Christian, necessarily, just those that have that particular axe to grind) will take a quote out of a blatantly obvious context, just so they can manufacture some sort of artifical controversy or non-existant contradiction.

If you'd bothered to read the rest of the passage, the meaning would have been completely clear.

22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"

24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is[e] to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

26The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?"

27Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."

28Peter said to him, "We have left everything to follow you!"

29"I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life. 31But many who are first will be last, and the last first."

It wasn't a commandment, because there are, in simplest form, only two commandments (as noted in an earlier post).

The relevant point was clearly made in verse 22; the command was given to him, because he cared more about his money than he did about righteousness. He tried to create an image of himself as a good man under Halachic law, to outwardly act like he deserved the promised rewards; but he had no real love for God, and no real love for the children of God. It was all a show. His real and deepest love was for his money and the power it gave him over others. He wanted eternal life, but on his terms, not God's.

That is why God's responses to different people are different. Each person has something in their life that keeps them from Him, whether it's intellectual pride, sexual lust, temporal power, fear, familial relationships, or anything else. Some one thing that is the most important thing in their lives, that they are most unwilling to give up. Because of that, God will invariably put that person in such as place that they have to recognize what it is that they hold in opposition to Him, and require them to make the decision as to which they will ultimately choose.

bokonon

5th February 2008, 04:42 PM

"Do not call unclean that which the Lord has made clean." and "For it is not what goes into a man's mouth which makes him impure, but that which comes out of his mouth."

The former was in the context of Peter receiving a vision which was both a literal experience, and a symbolic precursor of a future requirement.
Yes, we're speaking of Acts chapter 10 here. It is not a pronouncement of Jesus per se, but a dream which Peter has. He interprets it to mean that he is able to visit "unclean" people (Gentiles), even though that violates Jewish law. Nowhere is there an indication that he interprets it as you have, that it's okay to eat shrimp. The passage doesn't even mention shrimp, and Peter doesn't interpret it to mean food in any case.

Matthew 5, in contrast, DOES record a pronouncement straight from Jesus himself:

17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

The latter was a similar situation, this time referring to the hypocrisy of the Pharasitical aherence to ritual while ignoring it's meaning. Preferring the "laws of man to the Law of God". He then went on to stress the fact that it wasn't actions -- eating or not eating, washing or not washing, and so on -- that were important, but adherence to the principles. What was important was the heart, the belief, not the act whose sole purpose was to be an expression of that belief.

"After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "
So Jesus is doing what he's just told everyone not to do -- breaking the least of the laws, and teaching others to do the same. I guess that means he'll be the least in the kingdom of heaven.

I guess you got me. Thanks for the lesson.

I assume that "nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him unclean," line must also apply to homosexual sex, as long as there's no penetration of the heart.

joobz

5th February 2008, 04:48 PM

That is why God's responses to different people are different. Each person has something in their life that keeps them from Him, whether it's intellectual pride, sexual lust, temporal power, fear, familial relationships, or anything else. Some one thing that is the most important thing in their lives, that they are most unwilling to give up. Because of that, God will invariably put that person in such as place that they have to recognize what it is that they hold in opposition to Him, and require them to make the decision as to which they will ultimately choose.
Much like how god asked Abraham to sacrifice his son to prove his love. What you enjoy, love, or hold dear, you must be willing to sacrifice to prove that you love god over all else?

Doesn't this seem a lot like giving a child a puppy and demanding that that child kill the puppy to prove it's loyalty/love?
Or how about demanding that your wife abandon all contact with her friends as proof of devotion to her husband?
Or how about saying that a person must give away all thier positions to prove loyalty/devotion to scientology?

luchog, I thank you for your explanations. I do not wish to missunderstand or make a strawman out of arguments. and yours actually do make sense and have a logical consistency to themselves.

I unfortunately just am not convinced of their goodness.

A Christian Sceptic

5th February 2008, 04:57 PM

Much like how god asked Abraham to sacrifice his son to prove his love. What you enjoy, love, or hold dear, you must be willing to sacrifice to prove that you love god over all else?

This might seem trivial but I think it wasn't so Abraham could prove his love, but show he has faith in God. In that case - faith that he )God) had a reason for this request of Abraham and that whatever the outcome faith it had a purpose and a reason and would turn out well (and indeed it did). Of course, Abraham also loved God but that was because he had faith in him.

Iamme

5th February 2008, 05:07 PM

Is there any rational reason to discriminate against gays that isn't religiously motivated? I defy anyone to come up with a single example.

I don't know enough about how every world culture handles it.

I'd like to know how some of the indigenous tribespeople that get aired on The Travel Channel view homosexuality. It is doubtful that how they handle it is based on the Bible. Do they allow it if it is between 2 consenting adults? Or?...do they take them out in the woods and do them in?, as say being some freak of nature. [Please, don't argue that animals do it because I know that already. But do THEY? Or, do they CARE? That is what counts. It is how some of these (other)cultures view and deal with it.]

Now. Suppose some of these cultures "discriminated against it". Upon what basis then? Because they feel they are freaks and need to kill off such a gene pool perhaps (based of course on an assumption that even if they don't know about genes, they know enough about character traits being passed down? Or, out of fear that they (the tribespeople that are not gay), as a hetro, may come under attack by such a person?, whether a reasonable fear or not? Or, they have a simple mentality that the 'ugly duckling', so to speak, needs to be done away with?

It be interesting if someone would look into this. Then perhaps we could better answer your question.

joobz

5th February 2008, 05:14 PM

This might seem trivial but I think it wasn't so Abraham could prove his love, but show he has faith in God. In that case - faith that he )God) had a reason for this request of Abraham and that whatever the outcome faith it had a purpose and a reason and would turn out well (and indeed it did). Of course, Abraham also loved God but that was because he had faith in him.
I said love since it was a statement that that was the greatest commandment and I was being consistent with that.

However, if it is a faith thing, it makes it sound much more like some fraternity hazing ritual. The concept of abraham as a pledge of gamma omega delta holding a brick with a piece of string tied to it....well you know the rest.:)

bokonon

5th February 2008, 05:21 PM

This might seem trivial but I think it wasn't so Abraham could prove his love, but show he has faith in God. In that case - faith that he )God) had a reason for this request of Abraham and that whatever the outcome faith it had a purpose and a reason and would turn out well (and indeed it did). Of course, Abraham also loved God but that was because he had faith in him.
It didn't turn out so well for Jephthah -- he actually killed his daughter as a sacrifice to God. No angel stayed his hand. No animal replacement was provided. She was graciously given two months to "bewail her virginity upon the mountains," and then it was slash and burn to the glory of God. (Judges 11)

A Christian Sceptic

5th February 2008, 07:16 PM

It didn't turn out so well for Jephthah -- he actually killed his daughter as a sacrifice to God. No angel stayed his hand. No animal replacement was provided. She was graciously given two months to "bewail her virginity upon the mountains," and then it was slash and burn to the glory of God. (Judges 11)

Maybe Jephthah shouldn't have been so rash and / or careless with his vows and oaths?

A Christian Sceptic

5th February 2008, 07:17 PM

I said love since it was a statement that that was the greatest commandment and I was being consistent with that.

However, if it is a faith thing, it makes it sound much more like some fraternity hazing ritual. The concept of abraham as a pledge of gamma omega delta holding a brick with a piece of string tied to it....well you know the rest.:)

You do have a humerous imagination there joobz.

Skibum

5th February 2008, 08:24 PM

Yes, actually, He did.

"Do not call unclean that which the Lord has made clean." and "For it is not what goes into a man's mouth which makes him impure, but that which comes out of his mouth."

Sounds like an endorsement of homosexuality, as long as certain steps are followed.

bokonon

5th February 2008, 09:17 PM

Maybe Jephthah shouldn't have been so rash and / or careless with his vows and oaths?
Maybe Jephthah knew what he was saying, and was just using God as an excuse to kill someone he wanted dead anyway, like the good people who wrote Deuteronomy 21:18-21, informing us that it is God's will that a stubborn son who eats too much should be stoned to death.

I mean, did Jephthah really expect a cow or a pig or a goat would be there at the door to greet him when he got home from vanquishing the unrighteous?

Or was this a case of (to himself) "Damn it, I really wanted a son!"?

(to his daughter) "Sorry, baby, a promise is a promise. What kind of moral example would I be for the next 4000 years if I went back on a promise?"

Thank FSM for Sock Puppet God...

joobz

5th February 2008, 09:22 PM

You do have a humerous imagination there joobz.
That's the nicest way of say, "Joobz, you're talking out of your butt". :)

thaiboxerken

6th February 2008, 01:14 AM

Luchog. What does "fulfillment of the law" mean? It doesn't make sense that Jesus would say "I am here to fulfill the law" with the intention of abolishing those laws.

Take the 10 commandments... How does one fulfill those "laws?"

Ryan O'Dine

6th February 2008, 06:11 AM

Crossbow

6th February 2008, 09:07 AM

SirPhilip

6th February 2008, 10:25 PM

Right about? Atheist is a general term for someone without theism, the most important being a humanistic presence over nature, which is what everyone associates with it, in one hopes, improving degrees of sanity.

And humanist and naturalist philosphies converge in neurobiology. Humanism is a moral lifestyle without natural justification. They don't actually overlap because science can't make moral judgments. It would be like me basing my outlook on mathematics, visual relationships I work with everyday that are relevant, but intrinsically irrelevant.

luchog

6th February 2008, 11:53 PM

Yes, we're speaking of Acts chapter 10 here. It is not a pronouncement of Jesus per se, but a dream which Peter has. He interprets it to mean that he is able to visit "unclean" people (Gentiles), even though that violates Jewish law. Nowhere is there an indication that he interprets it as you have, that it's okay to eat shrimp. The passage doesn't even mention shrimp, and Peter doesn't interpret it to mean food in any case.

Wow, what a way to completely ignore everything I wrote.

The passage referred to "unclean" animals, which includes all unclean animals. Unlike most modern thinking, there wasn't such a clear divide between literal and the metaphorical in the cultural context where most of the scriptures were written. Literal statements and actions were very often used to illustrate a philosophical, legal, or spiritual principle. There are many similar instances throughout scripture. Second, you're completely ignoring the context of the passage, which was a spiritual revelation from G-D, not a garden variety "dream". The two use completely different literary devices, even the terminology is different. Third, that's been the interpretation of everyone knowledgible enough to to understand the idiom; so I'd like to know where you, or whoever you're getting your information from, got their education in the language and cultural context that particular book was written in.

luchog

7th February 2008, 12:25 AM

Much like how god asked Abraham to sacrifice his son to prove his love. What you enjoy, love, or hold dear, you must be willing to sacrifice to prove that you love god over all else?

Not quite, you've missed an essential part of the story. Unfortunately, I'm far too tired right now to try and go into it in detail, since it would take some explaining. A quick and dirty explanation would be that it was an illustration of trust; that G-D will never ask something of someone without providing a better alternative. It wasn't Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac that G-D wanted, it was an illustration that if Abraham trusted Him, even in the most extreme circumstances, he would always be given something far greater than than he expected. There's a lot more to it than that, but as I say, I'm tired, and can barely touch on the surface at the moment. I'll try to do more when I can, but my current job search is taking a lot of my energy right now.

Doesn't this seem a lot like giving a child a puppy and demanding that that child kill the puppy to prove it's loyalty/love?
Or how about demanding that your wife abandon all contact with her friends as proof of devotion to her husband?
Or how about saying that a person must give away all thier positions to prove loyalty/devotion to scientology?

Not really, no. The key difference is that the friends or puppies do not directly interfere with the love/loyalty/devotion one accords to one's spouse, parents, etc. If they did, then it would be right to demand that one give them up; such as a friend the wife has a strong sexual attraction for, and is frequently tempted to cheat with. A better example would be a wife who insists that her husband stop wearing his ratty, stained old t-shirt and torn-up shorts; so that he can wear the better and more attractive shirt and pants that she's purchased for him.

And in the case of cults like Scientology, it isn't the willingness to make the sacrifice, it's the actual sacrifice that they demand. Not because it empowers the believer, but because it enriches the cult. The Christ never said "give Me all your money and possessions", He said "sell your possessions and give the money to the poor".

luchog, I thank you for your explanations. I do not wish to missunderstand or make a strawman out of arguments. and yours actually do make sense and have a logical consistency to themselves.

I unfortunately just am not convinced of their goodness.
I believe that is because you do misunderstand them to some extent. In the cases I referred to, the thing that G-D causes one to confront has nothing to do with proving anything per se, but with removing an obstacle to living a truly good "holy" life, as G-D defined it in the Law that He gave through Moses and the prophets. Giving up infidelity to develop a deeper and more meaningful relationship with one's spouse, for example. Giving up narrow-minded intellectual pride and dogmatic beliefs, and developing a more open mind in order to learn and understand more about the world and about G-D. And so on.

In the case of the rich man in the previous story, he tried to put on a show of living a holy life according to the law; but it was clear from the context that he didn't. He did only what was necessary to be able to claim that he was holy under the Law, to appear holy to other men. Inside, he was venial, greedy, and self-centered. he didn't really care about G-D or the Law, only about money and power. That is the "lesson" that was being taught in that exchange. When challenged, the man's true being was shown, and it contradicted his claims to holiness. He claimed to love G-D, but when it came right down to it, he preferred his own will to G-D's will.

Had the rich man done with G-D asked him to do, he would have been provided with far more than he had given up.

I forget the chapter and verse, but the Moshiach also states in scripture that G-D will never ask someone to give up anything without providing something substantially greater to replace it; not merely in the next life, but in this one as well.

luchog

7th February 2008, 01:03 AM

I think, actually, that’s part of what’s so frustrating to us “anti-Christians.” So often it's a struggle just getting a coherent answer to our many objections. And this inevitably influences the way we ask them -- often for the worst, I'll admit.

I can certainly understand that. I often become greatly frustrated arguing with others who are ostensibly "Christian"; but violate the greatest commandment and go out on protests and on television proclaiming how much G-D hates certain people, and that natural disasters are G-D's punishment for ending enforced school prayer, tolerating homosexuals, or allowing different "races" to marry. And not just the whackjob pseudo-Christian cultists like Fred Phelps, but people who are supposedly the great leaders of the Church, the highly influential people like Robertson, Falwell, etc., and those who hang on their every word as if they were G-D Himself.

And I most especially deplore the anti-intellectualism and politicization of the faith that has become so prevalent in so many denominations.

But now that we have someone who can speak coherently on these matters, one more ignorant question, if I may. I brought up earlier (maybe in another thread) the point that Jesus did not fulfill the principle attributes which define the OT prophesied Messiah. He did not rebuild the temple, did not gather Jews back to Israel, and his accomplishments did not include bringing the promised temporal -- that is, actual physical -- reign of God on Earth.

Care to comment on that?
Those were never defining characteristics of the prophesies of the Christ. Many sects of the Jews, particularly the Pharisees, wanted to see the Moshiach as a temporal king, who would liberate them from Roman "oppression" ("All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"). But despite their desires, there simply wasn't scriptural support for such an occurrence. Those expectations were based on external tradition and wishful thinking.

In fact, scripture prophesied exactly what did happen to the Moshiach; that he would be despised by the religious leaders, that he would be betrayed for what was a fairly trivial sum of money, and killed; and that when he came, the kingdom he would bring prior to His death would be spiritual, not temporal.

There are further prophesies, both in the Old Testament (Talmud) and the New which point to further actions which will presage or be completed by the return of the Christ after His death. The gathering of the Jews back to Israel (which we've seen) and the rebuilding of the Temple (which has yet to happen) are among those; as is the establishment of a temporal kingdom which will occur at His return.

There are many different points in the Old Testament where such prophesies occur, with the key books being Isaiah, Daniel, Jeremiah, and Zechariah. Isaiah and Daniel in particular contain prophesies which apply both to His first incarnation, and his return during what are often referred to as the "End Times" (erroneously, since they're merely the beginning of the resurrected and rebuilt world).

I'm getting fairly worn out by my recent job search (unemployment sucks big fat hairy goat 'nads); but when I have the energy, I'll try and dig up actual references.

The key, as with everything, is to understand the context and the idiom in which the prophesies are written. The problem of the Pharisee and Saducee sects of the Jews, along with their modern counterparts in the Fundamentalists and Dominionists, is that they they twist or ignore the context and idiom to fit their preferences and prejudices. In the case of the Jews, they engaged in interminable debates on the inclusion and exclusion of various scriptural writings and traditions, and the weight to give any particular writing or tradition; as well as endless semantic debates, and numerous other hair-splitting arguments. Nothing much has changed there even in modern times ("two Jews, three opinions"). To some extent, the Catholic churches are still guilty of this (the schisms over the monophysite, diophysite, and miaphysite viewpoints spawned by the Nestorian heresy is a classic example).

Many of the Protestant churches, by contrast, have gone in exactly the opposite direction and rejected intellectual examination of scripture entirely, relying on tradition and ignoring context and idiom whenever it even appears to contradict their beliefs. Even there, they have their hair-splitting schisms over numerous issues; particularly in the English-speaking world the concept of which is the "one true translation" -- NIV, KJV, NASB, RSV, and so on.

luchog

7th February 2008, 01:12 AM

If you like what Colbert has to say about religion, then I suggest that you read his book I Am America (And So Can You!)

For example, on page 49:

One other thing: Just because you're on a God Train doesn't mean you're
bound for Glory. Only Our Lord's locomotive will carry us to the winner's
Circle, but don't take my for it. Let our God's record speak for Itself.

Great stuff indeed!
Indeed. There are comments from the Christ himself that make this quite clear. "Not all those who come in My name are sent by Me." "In those days, many will come to Me saying 'But Lord, we did great works in your name. We clothed the needy, fed the hungry, and healed the sick.' And I will say to them 'Depart from me, you who do evil, I never knew you.'"

And, of course, far too many who call themselves Christian completely ignore 1 Corinthians Chapter 13. Without the proper attitude of Christian love in all that one does, nothing one does is worth anything. And you certainly aren't showing any love by loudly proclaiming that G-D is sending hurricanes to devastate your homes and businesses because you tolerate homosexuality a bit too much.

bokonon

7th February 2008, 06:07 AM

Wow, what a way to completely ignore everything I wrote.

I didn't ignore everything you wrote, I responded to it.
I notice, however, that you clipped out and ignored this bit of MY post:

Matthew 5, in contrast, DOES record a pronouncement straight from Jesus himself:

17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

So Jesus is doing what he's just told everyone not to do -- breaking the least of the laws, and teaching others to do the same. I guess that means he'll be the least in the kingdom of heaven.

I guess you got me. Thanks for the lesson.

I assume that "nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him unclean," line must also apply to homosexual sex, as long as there's no penetration of the heart.

Why did you pretend the passage from Matthew isn't in your bible?

The passage referred to "unclean" animals, which includes all unclean animals. Unlike most modern thinking, there wasn't such a clear divide between literal and the metaphorical in the cultural context where most of the scriptures were written. Literal statements and actions were very often used to illustrate a philosophical, legal, or spiritual principle. There are many similar instances throughout scripture.
Yes, that seems to be what's happening in the passage you quoted from Acts 10: "unclean" animals are being used to refer to "undesirable" people, just as I said.

Second, you're completely ignoring the context of the passage, which was a spiritual revelation from G-D, not a garden variety "dream". The two use completely different literary devices, even the terminology is different.
Fine, it's the voice of God. It's still referring to people, not making a point about repealing dietary laws.

Third, that's been the interpretation of everyone knowledgible enough to to understand the idiom; so I'd like to know where you, or whoever you're getting your information from, got their education in the language and cultural context that particular book was written in.
I got my education in a series of fine schools, and I got my information from the Bible:

From Acts 10:

12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
Yep, just as I said, no shrimp or shellfish in the list.

18 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Yep, just as I said, Peter interprets it as a message that he should not be shunning PEOPLE, not as a message that he can eat whatever he wants.

Now, care to tackle the more problematic passage from Matthew?

bokonon

7th February 2008, 06:19 AM

I often become greatly frustrated arguing with others who are ostensibly "Christian"; but violate the greatest commandment and go out on protests and on television proclaiming how much G-D hates certain people, and that natural disasters are G-D's punishment for ending enforced school prayer, tolerating homosexuals, or allowing different "races" to marry. And not just the whackjob pseudo-Christian cultists like Fred Phelps, but people who are supposedly the great leaders of the Church, the highly influential people like Robertson, Falwell, etc., and those who hang on their every word as if they were G-D Himself.

And I most especially deplore the anti-intellectualism and politicization of the faith that has become so prevalent in so many denominations.
Thank you for that. Most of the time, when I'm picking on people like you, it's because of people like them. I really don't care what people believe, unless I see that it's hurting people. The anti-intellectualism and politicizing is what I'm really opposed to, not someone's (mistaken but harmless, in my opinion) belief about what happens after they die.

And good luck with your job search.

Ryan O'Dine

7th February 2008, 07:59 AM

Thank you for your interesting and very helpful response, luchog.

Still, I’m a little confused. First you say...
Jesus did not fulfill the principle attributes which define the OT prophesied Messiah. He did not rebuild the temple, did not gather Jews back to Israel, and his accomplishments did not include bringing the promised temporal -- that is, actual physical -- reign of God on Earth.
Those were never defining characteristics of the prophesies of the Christ.

But then you say...
There are further prophesies, both in the Old Testament (Talmud) and the New which point to further actions which will presage or be completed by the return of the Christ after His death. The gathering of the Jews back to Israel (which we've seen) and the rebuilding of the Temple (which has yet to happen) are among those; as is the establishment of a temporal kingdom which will occur at His return.

So they are defining characteristics of Christ. Or... what am I missing?

Actually, I wouldn’t even harp on all this except for your appropriation of the term “moshiach.” As you know, but others may not, “moshiach” is a transliteration of the Hebrew word for “messiah.” It seems clear to me that the Jewish “moshiach” is worlds apart from the Christian “messiah.” They are different entities altogether.

Can we agree that far?

In the case of the Jews, they engaged in interminable debates on the inclusion and exclusion of various scriptural writings and traditions, and the weight to give any particular writing or tradition; as well as endless semantic debates, and numerous other hair-splitting arguments.

I honestly can’t see this as a bad thing. If I thought some scripture was THE VERY WORD OF G-D ITSELF, I, too, would beat my head against it and tear it apart until I thought I had some small grasp. My observant Jewish friends spend much of their free time examining their scriptures in exhaustive detail -- almost as if they actually believed it was of Divine origin! My impression is that many Christians haven’t even read the Bible cover to cover. Is my impression very wrong?

P.S. If you don’t have the time or patience to go down this road, I understand. Looking for a job can be very stressful. And I’m really only a little put off by your use of the term “moshiach.” (Actually, I should probably say something about “anti-Christian” too, but I’m willing to let that one go. Man, I’m a nice guy.)

UnrepentantSinner

7th February 2008, 08:58 AM

Not to try and derail the multiple and inevitable derails that threads like this are bound to take, but, according to some folks here, shouldn't this thread be concentrating on how Colbert is stupid, crazy and woo for being a practicing Catholic?

I mean he believes his magic cookies turn into Jesus in his tum-tum.

Doesn't that mean he's, by definition, stupid, crazy, woo, a child abuser, etc.?

bokonon

7th February 2008, 09:09 AM

Colbert's cool, and being a practicing Catholic is no reason to assume he believes the party line about magic cookies.

Foster Zygote

7th February 2008, 09:10 AM

Atheist is a general term for someone without theism,
This is correct.

the most important being a humanistic presence over nature, which is what everyone associates with it, in one hopes, improving degrees of sanity.
The most important what? What is a "humanistic presence over nature"?

Humanism is a moral lifestyle without natural justification.
Explain, please.

They don't actually overlap because science can't make moral judgments.
However, science can be applied to the study of human moral philosophies and the evolution of human morality, which is what Joobz was talking about.

It would be like me basing my outlook on mathematics, visual relationships I work with everyday that are relevant, but intrinsically irrelevant.
Ignoring your paradox, no, it would would be like you basing your outlook on human behavior and sociology. It would be like saying "If I harm others selfishly then I have no justification to complain if others do the same to me". It would be like you saying "The best hope for humanity's future is for everyone to be healthy, happy and educated".

Science may make no moral declarations, but one can scientifically examine the basis of human morality. And one can use rationality and logic to arrive at a secular humanist moral philosophy that affirms the value of all people.

SirPhilip

7th February 2008, 09:55 PM

This is correct. The most important what? What is a "humanistic presence over nature"? Theism, at best, is humanistic. Ask the average Christian what they think God is, the underlying appreciation is a caring father, the fellowship a relationship, and the trappings and liturgy simply that. Historically, Christianity has been opposed to naturalism for this reason. The reason is, in actuality, correct. They really don't overlap. There is no justification of equity in nature. It's completely self-justifying. Which is why humanism cannot be reconciled with naturalism. Yes, you can be secular and lead a moral life, but you are just as mad as the hatter.

Explain, please. However, science can be applied to the study of human moral philosophies and the evolution of human morality, which is what Joobz was talking about. Gould put it, well, aptly: "The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."

As an artist, I frequently notice that what it is and what justifies it are completely opposite, but complementary things.

Ignoring your paradox, no, it would would be like you basing your outlook on human behavior and sociology. It would be like saying "If I harm others selfishly then I have no justification to complain if others do the same to me". This is comic books 101, clearly you are at liberty to do what you want, although like some unsprung epiphany hiding under ones nose, this seldom is fully appreciated, and gaining at others' expense was, is, and will remain the rule, not the exception. It has it's own perverse gratification, and you can't eliminate it from the human equation. It gets a lot less pleasant with anti-matter and magic wands. You can't channel it into things like sports, steady state social stability theories, or martial arts either. Becoming godlike is inarguably the natural inclination of humans, and the motivation for both science and mysticism, and nothing else.

It would be like you saying "The best hope for humanity's future is for everyone to be healthy, happy and educated".Science may make no moral declarations, but one can scientifically examine the basis of human morality. And one can use rationality and logic to arrive at a secular humanist moral philosophy that affirms the value of all people. It's more ridiculous to pretend science has something to do with moral value than magical thinking. It's incredibly uncomfortable to think morality is self-justifying, and it's only real significance is consensus.

Foster Zygote

8th February 2008, 09:24 AM

Theism, at best, is humanistic. Ask the average Christian what they think God is, the underlying appreciation is a caring father, the fellowship a relationship, and the trappings and liturgy simply that. Historically, Christianity has been opposed to naturalism for this reason. The reason is, in actuality, correct. They really don't overlap. There is no justification of equity in nature. It's completely self-justifying. Which is why humanism cannot be reconciled with naturalism. Yes, you can be secular and lead a moral life, but you are just as mad as the hatter.

Gould put it, well, aptly: "The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."

As an artist, I frequently notice that what it is and what justifies it are completely opposite, but complementary things.

This is comic books 101, clearly you are at liberty to do what you want, although like some unsprung epiphany hiding under ones nose, this seldom is fully appreciated, and gaining at others' expense was, is, and will remain the rule, not the exception. It has it's own perverse gratification, and you can't eliminate it from the human equation. It gets a lot less pleasant with anti-matter and magic wands. You can't channel it into things like sports, steady state social stability theories, or martial arts either. Becoming godlike is inarguably the natural inclination of humans, and the motivation for both science and mysticism, and nothing else.

It's more ridiculous to pretend science has something to do with moral value than magical thinking. It's incredibly uncomfortable to think morality is self-justifying, and it's only real significance is consensus.

I'm sorry I bothered. Your "clarifications" are as muddled and unstructured as ever.

Dark Jaguar

8th February 2008, 02:02 PM

SirPhilip

9th February 2008, 11:27 AM

I'm sorry I bothered. Your "clarifications" are as muddled and unstructured as ever. Well, they are as clear as a bell from what I can tell, and as usual, you are encouraged to make more educated observations, then say that. Alas, you've got it in reverse still for some reason.

SirPhilip

9th February 2008, 11:30 AM

He's only mildly deluded, and thus harmless. In case you wonder where I draw my line, it is basically at whatever point of delusion someone starts making real world decisions based directly on their delusions, such as voting to implement mandatory school prayer, or deciding to forgo evidence based medicine in favor of a miracle (especially in cases where they are deciding the health care of a kid). You provided no observations countering what I said. Now about what. Everyone here is aware of what an ad-hominem is, why do you even bother responding then? Or more tactfully, just say: "I personally disagree.."

Foster Zygote

9th February 2008, 05:32 PM

Well, they are as clear as a bell from what I can tell, and as usual, you are encouraged to make more educated observations, then say that. Alas, you've got it in reverse still for some reason.
It may be seem clear to you, but as a number of people have noted in this thread alone, many of your posts lack coherence to the point that they border on word-salad.

Foster Zygote

9th February 2008, 05:39 PM

You provided no observations countering what I said. Now about what. Everyone here is aware of what an ad-hominem is, why do you even bother responding then? Or more tactfully, just say: "I personally disagree.."

Given the ambiguity of the above post, DJ could have been referring to anyone. You are certainly a likely candidate for the subject of his post, but it also occurs to me that he might have been referring to Stephen Colbert.

At any rate, most of us are indeed aware what constitutes an ad hominem attack, and DJ's post does not qualify.

SirPhilip

10th February 2008, 07:43 AM

It may be seem clear to you, but as a number of people have noted in this thread alone, many of your posts lack coherence to the point that they border on word-salad. Or the opposite, if you actually think.

SirPhilip

10th February 2008, 07:47 AM

Given the ambiguity of the above post, DJ could have been referring to anyone. You are certainly a likely candidate for the subject of his post, but it also occurs to me that he might have been referring to Stephen Colbert. At any rate, most of us are indeed aware what constitutes an ad hominem attack, and DJ's post does not qualify. It sure does. Now what am I deluded about..

Foster Zygote

10th February 2008, 08:38 AM

Or the opposite, if you actually think.

Not really. The problem is that you seem to use definitions and references that have some private meaning to you, but are ambiguous to others. This does not make for effective communication of your thoughts. Insinuating that others are too intellectually inferior to yourself to comprehend you is simply an attempt to mask the problem and does nothing to rectify it.

Foster Zygote

10th February 2008, 08:39 AM

It sure does. Now what am I deluded about..

Please explain how it constitutes an ad hominem attack.

SirPhilip

10th February 2008, 08:33 PM

Not really. The problem is that you seem to use definitions and references that have some private meaning to you, but are ambiguous to others. Nothing that Google can't cure, remember?

Foster Zygote

10th February 2008, 08:48 PM

Nothing that Google can't cure, remember?
I'm using this new shampoo.

Foster Zygote

10th February 2008, 08:51 PM

It sure does. Now what am I deluded about..

Please explain how it constitutes an ad hominem attack.

SirPhilip

11th February 2008, 11:43 AM

Please explain how it constitutes an ad hominem attack. Sure, it's distinguished from personal disagreement or straight taunting by insinuating justification. You needed this clarified, or you are just having fun with me..

SirPhilip

11th February 2008, 11:45 AM

I'm using this new shampoo. Well, that's just great!

Foster Zygote

11th February 2008, 01:09 PM

Sure, it's distinguished from personal disagreement or straight taunting by insinuating justification.
Well let's assume, as you have, that Dark Jaguar was referring to you in the above post, although this is hardly clear: If DJ is stating that your position is based on a delusion then this still does not constitute an argumentum ad hominem. If DJ had said that your position is invalid because you stole a candy bar as a child or had numerous unpaid parking fines you might have a point. As it is, you simply seem to be upset that people are disagreeing with you.

You needed this clarified, or you are just having fun with me..
I wanted clarification as to why you believe you have been the target of argumentum ad hominem. As I've stated, I already know that you have not.

SirPhilip

11th February 2008, 02:09 PM

Well let's assume... Counter, then chastise if appropriate. Not difficult to grasp, otherwise it's very bad form. Colbert isn't 'mildly deluded' in any sense of the word, assuming that was directed at him instead of me, although I support his style of reasoning, so it's valid in either case.

Foster Zygote

11th February 2008, 02:56 PM

Counter, then chastise if appropriate. Not difficult to grasp, otherwise it's very bad form.
It may not be your intent, but you often come off as arrogant while making statement such as the above.

Colbert isn't 'mildly deluded' in any sense of the word,
This would, in my experience, make Mr. Colbert unique among humans.

assuming that was directed at him instead of me, although I support his style of reasoning, so it's valid in either case.
Are you saying that your support, or lack thereof, of someone's style of reasoning is a determining factor in whether you view someone else's differing opinion regarding the validity of said reasoning style as an ad hominem attack?

SirPhilip

13th February 2008, 10:58 PM

It may not be your intent, but you often come off as arrogant while making statement such as the above. Well, don't give me the right. :chores027:

Are you saying that your support, or lack thereof, of someone's style of reasoning is a determining factor in whether you view someone else's differing opinion regarding the validity of said reasoning style as an ad hominem attack? That of course, may have been a misstatement on my part, in which case my apologies.

Foster Zygote

14th February 2008, 12:52 PM

Well, don't give me the right.
What gives you the right? Was it pointing out to you that ancient techniques of retaining semen are medically fallacious. Was it pointing out to you that many people who are curious about the universe have a great sense of joy and amazement resulting from the things they've discovered? Was it pointing out to you that DJ's comment was not by any reasonable definition an ad hominem attack?

That of course, may have been a misstatement on my part, in which case my apologies.
Not a problem. We all make mistakes.

bokonon

14th February 2008, 02:22 PM

We all make mistakes.
Speak for yourslef.

ponderingturtle

14th February 2008, 02:28 PM

Foster Zygote

14th February 2008, 05:18 PM

Speak for yourslef.

I read that and smiled. Then I looked more closely and laughed out loud.:D

arthwollipot

15th February 2008, 02:06 AM

You seem to have just defined Deists as Atheists.No, I think he's just defined atheists as "mad as a hatter".

Which I for one find quite perplexing, since I'm not.

UnrepentantSinner

15th February 2008, 08:43 AM

Foster Zygote

15th February 2008, 08:51 AM

Has this thread gotten away from attacking that crazy, child abusing woo Stephen Colbert for being an inherently bad and evil person because he's a praticing Catholic?

If none of you want to discuss that obvious fact - I mean he is a practicing Catholic after all - we could shake the Sir Phillip dust from our feet and go after Ken Miller.. that woo!

Not to mention that Stephen Colbert has Pat Robertson's right ear. I mean literally, just look at it. Obviously Pat Robertson has made a clone of his right ear and giving it to his most trusted secret lieutenant to wear as a sign of his fealty. Either Robertson is a closet Catholic or Colbert is a closet evangelical. Or maybe they both work for the subteranian Reptilians. Has anyone actually seen either of them eat?

UnrepentantSinner

15th February 2008, 09:27 AM

{channels 1970s SNL Coneheads skit}

I've seen Colbert consume "mass quanities" of some Frito Lay product, IIRC it was Doritos... Otherwise, no. Colbert must stay trim for some reason and Huckabee must have lost 300 or whatever lbs. for some reason... I mean look at how scrawny and titless Lorraine Newman was.

They're all aliens!!!

{Coneheads}

SirPhilip

17th February 2008, 09:32 PM

What gives you the right? Was it pointing out to you that ancient techniques of retaining semen are medically fallacious. Was it pointing out to you that many people who are curious about the universe have a great sense of joy and amazement resulting from the things they've discovered? Was it pointing out to you that DJ's comment was not by any reasonable definition an ad hominem attack? It's valid, but had nothing to do with western medicine. As for the "great sense of joy and amazement", it is like a lot of things naive; and if that was directed at me yes, by definition it was. Anything else?

Not a problem. We all make mistakes. Admittedly, I've been reading and responding to everything in something of a dash this month, so that margin gets opened up..

Foster Zygote

18th February 2008, 09:51 AM

It's valid, but had nothing to do with western medicine.
Typical cop-out. You tried to validate it yourself with medical science. But then you were shown that medical science discredits the idea, so now it "has nothing to do with western medicine".

As for the "great sense of joy and amazement", it is like a lot of things naive; and if that was directed at me yes, by definition it was. Anything else?
How is it naive? And "naive" is not how you last described it. I daresay it seems as though you are making this up as you go along.

SirPhilip

18th February 2008, 10:08 PM

Doublepost

SirPhilip

18th February 2008, 10:11 PM

Typical cop-out. You tried to validate it yourself with medical science. But then you were shown that medical science discredits the idea, so now it "has nothing to do with western medicine". I said Buddhist art illustrates some of it's arcane practices. I also described basic retention, used by some martial artists and athletes, as opposed to expelling it constantly, which most men do. This absorption does in fact occur and is physically noticeable. This is simply what I stated, correct?

How is it naive? And "naive" is not how you last described it. I daresay it seems as though you are making this up as you go along.Which type of reassured naivete do you prefer, remember the price is fail:

1) The natural world is the result of an intelligent designer, that is, nature is not self-sufficient.

2) The intelligent designer does not exist but nature's self-ordering symmetry, which we are a product, somehow validates something besides nihilistic dualism in human terms.

Randi is an excellent example of the latter naivete. He takes cruises to the Galapagos, takes refuge in naturalism and engineering, labels himself an atheist - and then fights who he imitates. Worse, he also looks like a gnome, a wizard, and the God of the Old Testament, making public relations a nightmare. Ah, the human condition! I guess you have to be half evil to understand.

Roboramma

18th February 2008, 11:57 PM

I said Buddhist art illustrates some of it's arcane practices. I also described basic retention, used by some martial artists and athletes, as opposed to expelling it constantly, which most men do. This absorption does in fact occur and is physically noticeable. This is simply what I stated, correct?

Which type of reassured naivete do you prefer, remember the price is fail:

1) The natural world is the result of an intelligent designer, that is, nature is not self-sufficient.

2) The intelligent designer does not exist but nature's self-ordering symmetry, which we are a product, somehow validates something besides nihilistic dualism in human terms.

Randi is an excellent example of the latter naivete. He takes cruises to the Galapagos, takes refuge in naturalism and engineering, labels himself an atheist - and then fights who he imitates. Worse, he also looks like a gnome, a wizard, and the God of the Old Testament, making public relations a nightmare. Ah, the human condition! I guess you have to be half evil to understand.

You've just put six dots on a page and presented it to us as though it were a painting. Could you please connect the dots?

Foster Zygote

19th February 2008, 03:11 PM

I said Buddhist art illustrates some of it's arcane practices. I also described basic retention, used by some martial artists and athletes, as opposed to expelling it constantly, which most men do. This absorption does in fact occur and is physically noticeable. This is simply what I stated, correct?
Physically noticeable except by controlled observation. Have you considered confirmation bias?

Which type of reassured naivete do you prefer, remember the price is fail:

1) The natural world is the result of an intelligent designer, that is, nature is not self-sufficient.

2) The intelligent designer does not exist but nature's self-ordering symmetry, which we are a product, somehow validates something besides nihilistic dualism in human terms.

Randi is an excellent example of the latter naivete. He takes cruises to the Galapagos, takes refuge in naturalism and engineering, labels himself an atheist - and then fights who he imitates. Worse, he also looks like a gnome, a wizard, and the God of the Old Testament, making public relations a nightmare. Ah, the human condition! I guess you have to be half evil to understand.
Do you do a Yoda impression when you say "the price is fail"?

Seriously, part of your argument includes the physical appearance of James Randi.

joobz

19th February 2008, 04:25 PM

I said Buddhist art illustrates some of it's arcane practices. I also described basic retention, used by some martial artists and athletes, as opposed to expelling it constantly, which most men do. This absorption does in fact occur and is physically noticeable. This is simply what I stated, correct?
Vampires have been a feature of lore for hundreds of years. I have even seen seasons of television shows which describe the actions of some. Further, people dress, emulate and practice vamiprism many times with books describing how to be a vampire.

Hmm, vampires must be real.

Which type of reassured naivete do you prefer, remember the price is fail:
1) The natural world is the result of an intelligent designer, that is, nature is not self-sufficient.

2) The intelligent designer does not exist but nature's self-ordering symmetry, which we are a product, somehow validates something besides nihilistic dualism in human terms.

The price is loaded answer mixed with false dichotomy.

Randi is an excellent example of the latter naivete. He takes cruises to the Galapagos, takes refuge in naturalism and engineering, labels himself an atheist - and then fights who he imitates. Worse, he also looks like a gnome, a wizard, and the God of the Old Testament, making public relations a nightmare. Ah, the human condition! I guess you have to be half evil to understand.
argumentum ad you-look-funnium.

articulett

19th February 2008, 04:59 PM

argumentum ad you-look-funnium.
:p

SirPhilip

20th February 2008, 07:58 AM

Seriously, part of your argument includes the physical appearance of James Randi. Argument? Oh, he thinks nature and morality (and by extension secularism) having nothing to do with each other is one. Look, if you ever solve that one I'll be the first to congratulate you. Other things, now what is your point, but as for Yoda, such a contrast of tact might apply here; I suppose I could recite the rules of positive dialogue, then knowing finally what they are this time, you can pretend I'm somehow not aware of them, or I can sit through very boring critiques of statements I've already proofread without having to point them out.

SirPhilip

20th February 2008, 08:02 AM

You've just put six dots on a page and presented it to us as though it were a painting. Could you please connect the dots? Do you also want me to bring out large colored fonts, reading guides, and shove my hand up a muppet's arse, rendering it both dead and alive?

Foster Zygote

20th February 2008, 08:18 AM

Do you also want me to bring out large colored fonts, reading guides, and shove my hand up a muppet's arse, rendering it both dead and alive?
Are we back to your poor understanding of Schrödinger's cat?

Foster Zygote

20th February 2008, 08:25 AM

Argument? Oh, he thinks nature and morality (and by extension secularism) having nothing to do with each other is one.
Whom has stated that nature and morality have nothing to do with each other?

I suppose I could recite the rules of positive dialogue.
Simply acquainting yourself with the rules of dialog would be a positive step.

SirPhilip

20th February 2008, 08:46 AM

Physically noticeable except by controlled observation. Have you considered confirmation bias? Have you considered that you have no actual interest here besides bickering. Like most things involving fitness, explaining it is counterproductive but a lot more so in that case. It was directed to those so inclined. Yes, sigh, I'm aware.

SirPhilip

20th February 2008, 09:50 AM

Whom has stated that nature and morality have nothing to do with each other? Darth Sidious, for one.

Simply acquainting yourself with the rules of dialog would be a positive step.http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/1600/yodarw8.jpg

Foster Zygote

20th February 2008, 11:27 AM

Have you considered that you have no actual interest here besides bickering.
I see, you consider the address of flaws in your claims to be "bickering". Did you come to this forum with the expectation that everyone would agree with what you say?

Like most things involving fitness, explaining it is counterproductive but a lot more so in that case. It was directed to those so inclined.
How is explaining it counterproductive. I'm sure I've asked you before if you think that consuming ground rhinoceros horn has any actual effect on a man's ability to achieve an erection. A great many people truly believe that it does. They are convinced by their experiences that it does.

Yes, sigh, I'm aware.
So you are aware that your insistence that you are experiencing a genuine result contrary to the result indicated by scientific investigation is the same sort of confirmation bias employed by someone who thinks ground rhino horn will give him wood.

Foster Zygote

20th February 2008, 11:29 AM

Darth Sidious, for one.

Evasion noted.

SirPhilip

20th February 2008, 07:22 PM

How is explaining it counterproductive. Because it's hilarious having to, as it's simple to validate. The 'mood lift' effects all males the same way:

OaxTCsS4vmA&rel=1
It's influence on adrenaline and testosterone levels certainly play a role however.

So you are aware that your insistence that you are experiencing a genuine result contrary to the result indicated by scientific investigation (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2457-semen-acts-as-an-antidepressant.html) is the same sort of confirmation bias (http://www.biopsychiatry.com/semen.htm) employed by someone who thinks ground rhino horn will give him wood. You have to admit though, snorting Erzsebet Bathory's ashes would be a superb aphrodisiac.

Foster Zygote

20th February 2008, 07:44 PM

Because it's hilarious having to, as it's simple to validate. The 'mood lift' effects all males the same way:
It's simple to validate the effects of rhino horn too. I mean people think it works, so it must work. Those poor rhinos. If only their phallic features didn't have an obvious effect on men's erectile function.

And I see we're back to posting the same links that were earlier discredited. At least this time you didn't accidentally post a link to a site debunking your claim. But this could go on ad infinitum and I'm getting bored...

SirPhilip

20th February 2008, 09:59 PM

It's simple to validate the effects of rhino horn too. I mean people think it works, so it must work. Those poor rhinos. If only their phallic features didn't have an obvious effect on men's erectile function. Escape from your desk is impossible these days, isn't it.

And I see we're back to posting the same links that were earlier discredited. At least this time you didn't accidentally post a link to a site debunking your claim. But this could go on ad infinitum and I'm getting bored... I don't get the motive here. I mean, anybody reading this you complete utter dolt, can ask Google ("semen and mood") and notice a positive correlation is suggested and nothing exists that discredits it, as no proper studies exist, and wonder what you are talking about. Yes, it's equilibrium in the body can effect mood and physical fatigue. Yes, I actually knew this before I wrote it. Yes, studies if they do continue, will actually affirm it. Yes, if the average person throws it out of their system repeatedly then jogs, spars or works out they will notice a degree of drained fatigue, as opposed to it being retained. This also works in reverse. What else can I say, deal with it?

Foster Zygote

21st February 2008, 08:59 AM

Escape from your desk is impossible these days, isn't it.
Evasion noted.

I don't get the motive here. I mean, anybody reading this you complete utter dolt,...
Awww, are you getting angry? I'm so sorry. I didn't mean to hurt your fragile ego or anything. I was just pointing out that you repeatedly make claims and then ignore all contradictory evidence.

...can ask Google ("semen and mood") and notice a positive correlation is suggested and nothing exists that discredits it, as no proper studies exist, and wonder what you are talking about. Yes, it's equilibrium in the body can effect mood and physical fatigue. Yes, I actually knew this before I wrote it. Yes, studies if they do continue, will actually affirm it. Yes, if the average person throws it out of their system repeatedly then jogs, spars or works out they will notice a degree of drained fatigue, as opposed to it being retained. This also works in reverse. What else can I say, deal with it?
We're going full circle here. Not only do you apparently fail to read the sources that you cite as your supporting evidence, leading you to post a link to a site discrediting one of your claims, but you also seem to ignore the contrary evidence that has been presented to you, such as the medical studies referenced by Slingblade that contradict your claims. Your assurance that medical science will one day validate your assertion (which embarrassingly contradicts you earlier statement that "it has nothing to do with Western medicine") amounts to little more than a god of the gaps argument. You may as well claim that further, proper study of phrenology will lead to its validation by medical science.

SirPhilip

21st February 2008, 02:23 PM

Awww, are you getting angry? I'm so sorry. I didn't mean to hurt your fragile ego or anything. I can certainly be irked, a better word is depressed - generally all it takes is to feign mature interest long enough, then spring you are just trying to get a rise out of me. Congratulations?

I was just pointing out that you repeatedly make claims and then ignore all contradictory evidence. I think this is the first time Foster encountered an actual argument from authority (common in the East, to be sure), that is, someone actually knowing something he doesn't.

We're going full circle here. Not only do you apparently fail to read the sources that you cite as your supporting evidence, leading you to post a link to a site discrediting one of your claims, but you also seem to ignore the contrary evidence that has been presented to you, such as the medical studies referenced by Slingblade that contradict your claims. Your assurance that medical science will one day validate your assertion (which embarrassingly contradicts you earlier statement that "it has nothing to do with Western medicine") amounts to little more than a god of the gaps argument. You may as well claim that further, proper study of phrenology will lead to its validation by medical science. Yes, Foster, there is in fact a correlation that medicine will discover. The reverse also exists, and certain practices will cause dramatic effects, but it's not part of western fitness or sports medicine. It's a statement, but you are making a complete fool out of yourself. Offhand 'studies' that exist clearly suggest a correlation exists, so what are you talking about?

SirPhilip

21st February 2008, 02:34 PM

Evasion noted. Nope, I always note ambiguities in my statements, and if corrected bow immediately. It's good form. I can also tell when someone else has the mentality of a twelve year old but pretends otherwise..

joobz

21st February 2008, 03:53 PM

I think this is the first time Foster encountered an actual argument from authority (common in the East, to be sure), that is, someone actually knowing something he doesn't.Who are you speaking to when addressing FZ in the 3rd person? And are you saying that you are an authority on this semen practice or that FZ's argument is an appeal to authority fallacy?

In regards to his point, Foster clearly stated that you present evidence that was clearly refuted. You represented this information as though it still was valid. Therefore, FZ's assessment is accurate.

Foster Zygote

21st February 2008, 04:04 PM

I can certainly be irked, a better word is depressed - generally all it takes is to feign mature interest long enough, then spring you are just trying to get a rise out of me. Congratulations?
I see that you are given to melodramatics. I, however, am not. Such histrionics strike me as a transparent attempt to deflect the discourse away from matters that make you uncomfortable.

I think this is the first time Foster encountered an actual argument from authority (common in the East, to be sure), that is, someone actually knowing something he doesn't.
Your definition is incorrect. The argument from authority is a type of logical fallacy.

Yes, Foster, there is in fact a correlation that medicine will discover. The reverse also exists, and certain practices will cause dramatic effects, but it's not part of western fitness or sports medicine. It's a statement, but you are making a complete fool out of yourself. Offhand 'studies' that exist clearly suggest a correlation exists, so what are you talking about?
All that you have provided in support of your argument is a single controversial study that has been criticized for using poor methodology. Against this you have been shown medical research that demonstrates that not only is there no demonstrated anti-depressant effect shown in scientifically controlled research, but that semen isn't even absorbed into the bloodstream through the practices you mention, but rather is excreted during urination.

You have yet to make up your mind whether these practices are scientifically verifiable, or are beyond the realm of "western" medicine, both of which mutually contradictory claims you have made. Which is it?

You have in the end only offered your personal experience as evidence. You then seem offended when others are not given to accept this personal experience as convincing. The reason I mention the rhino horn is that your claim that you experience a genuine positive result due to your practice is no different than the claims of those who think that ingesting rhino horn will facilitate an erection. Likewise, people have been given placebos that they believed to be medication and have reported positive results. There are well understood psychological phenomena demonstrating just how this sort of confirmation bias works. I suspect much of your frustration results from the fact that you are being forced to consider this possibility but are unwilling to entertain the idea that your beliefs regarding semen might be erroneous.

Your use of insult does not offend me one bit. The opinion of someone who seems more interested in being perceived as intelligent than in actually learning means little to me. In the end, I do not think that you are an unintelligent person, but I think your immaturity coupled with having to confront the limits of what you thought to be your extensive knowledge have inspired you to react negatively.

Foster Zygote

21st February 2008, 04:07 PM

Nope, I always note ambiguities in my statements, and if corrected bow immediately. It's good form. I can also tell when someone else has the mentality of a twelve year old but pretends otherwise..

Further evasion and resorting to immature insult noted.

SirPhilip

21st February 2008, 04:59 PM

Doublepost.

SirPhilip

21st February 2008, 05:03 PM

(Monotonous garbage flushed) This is like talking to an automated script bot that will eventually be employed to deal with claims. Here, something productive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semen) to do, and it will give me some entertainment this week. Edit the article and remove this:

"Research has demonstrated that semen may have anti-depressant properties. In studies, women who did not use condoms but instead absorbed semen vaginally (as was the norm among humans before the HIV scare) sustained a better mood. Research has not yet demonstrated whether this effect may also be obtained from drinking semen following oral sex, but researchers hypothesize similar benefits."

Go on. Within a week you'll probably be asked why you did that and with what justification, sources and references contradicting it. Tip, don't say: "Well, um, just because Slingblade said...". Slingblade didn't actually say anything worth nothing.

SirPhilip

21st February 2008, 05:09 PM

In regards to his point, Foster clearly stated that you present evidence that was clearly refuted. Oh really.

joobz

21st February 2008, 05:15 PM

Oh really.
ya, really.

http://www.sfsi.org/ask-us/ask257.html (http://www.sfsi.org/ask-us/ask257.html)

Quote:

Is semen absorbed into the bloodstream through unprotected anal/vaginal sex? I am not referring to any virus, STD, or egg fertilization. I am asking if the semen itself is in fact absorbed into vaginal or anal walls and if so, how long would it stay a person's system. (For days? For years?). Thank you.

Semen is made up of seminal fluid (created by the prostate and Cowper's gland) and sperm (created by the testes). When semen is in a rectum, the moisture in the semen gets absorbed by the rectal walls, the sperm die and the proteins from the dead sperm are pushed out with the next bowel movement. When semen is in a vagina, sperm get flushed out by the vagina's natural secretions. Semen does not stay in a person's system and neither do vaginal secretions.

As you mentioned, viruses and other sexually transmitted diseases that can get into the bloodstream and stay for a long time, if not forever. For instance, the HIV virus (the virus that causes AIDS) will likely be in semen of an HIV-infected man, and that virus could get into someone else's bloodstream through sex. However, the sperm and most elements of semen will not absorb into the bloodstream.

Color me dubious

chris epic

21st February 2008, 05:34 PM

Warren is one of those cherry-picking, liberal Christians. But that doesn't suprise me; he's from California.

Wanna see entertainment? Go to a Charismatic church in California! :jaw-dropp

Foster Zygote

21st February 2008, 05:34 PM

ya, really.

Actually, taking into account SirPhilip's use of a double negative, he is correct about the value of Slingblade's contribution to the debate.

Foster Zygote

21st February 2008, 05:48 PM

This is like talking to an automated script bot that will eventually be employed to deal with claims. Here, something productive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semen) to do, and it will give me some entertainment this week. Edit the article and remove this:

"Research has demonstrated that semen may have anti-depressant properties. In studies, women who did not use condoms but instead absorbed semen vaginally (as was the norm among humans before the HIV scare) sustained a better mood. Research has not yet demonstrated whether this effect may also be obtained from drinking semen following oral sex, but researchers hypothesize similar benefits."

Go on. Within a week you'll probably be asked why you did that and with what justification, sources and references contradicting it. Tip, don't say: "Well, um, just because Slingblade said...". Slingblade didn't actually say anything worth nothing.
Wow! Wikipedia! I'm convinced. That is one of the lamest citations I've ever seen. Did you click on the little source link after the paragraph? It links directly to the same discredited study you first linked to. In other words, you still only have a single source that has been criticized for sloppy methodology.

SirPhilip

21st February 2008, 06:01 PM

Wow! Wikipedia! I'm convinced. That is one of the lamest citations I've ever seen. Did you click on the little source link after the paragraph? It links directly to the same discredited study you first linked to. In other words, you still only have a single source that has been criticized for sloppy methodology. Excellent observations. Well, are you going to edit it or not?

SirPhilip

21st February 2008, 06:08 PM

As you mentioned, viruses and other sexually transmitted diseases that can get into the bloodstream and stay for a long time, if not forever. For instance, the HIV virus (the virus that causes AIDS) will likely be in semen of an HIV-infected man, and that virus could get into someone else's bloodstream through sex. However, the sperm and most elements of semen will not absorb into the bloodstream. So?

SirPhilip

21st February 2008, 06:21 PM

Actually, taking into account SirPhilip's use of a double negative, he is correct about the value of Slingblade's contribution to the debate. I don't know why you can't accept I'm right. I encouraged anyone to find out for themselves.

joobz

21st February 2008, 06:47 PM

So?
Simple. Semen doesn't enter the blood.

Foster Zygote

21st February 2008, 07:50 PM

Excellent observations. Well, are you going to edit it or not?

Nope. Not my problem.

Foster Zygote

21st February 2008, 08:17 PM

I don't know why you can't accept I'm right.

I've gathered that. Actually I doubt it's so much that you don't know why as you don't want to know why. But I'll enumerate the main reasons anyway.

1. There is no convincing scientific evidence supporting your claim. In fact there is scientific evidence refuting your claim. This has been presented to you yet you have chosen to ignore it.

2. The evidence that you have tried to present as scientific support, despite also claiming that the matter is not subject to scientific scrutiny, comes from a single highly suspect source.

3. Your claim that science will verify your claims in the future, despite claiming that the matter is not subject to scientific scrutiny, is irrelevant. It is no more valid an argument than claiming that rhino horn will one day be proved to cure erectile dysfunction and it is a tacit admission that you currently have no evidence.

4. "I think it works" does not meet any scientific standard of evidence. There are known psychological reasons why people might think something works when in fact the effect is psychosomatic. Thus there is a very real likelihood that it only "works" because you expect it to work.

Again, your use of insults does me no harm. It is merely confirmation that you are unable to address the points I have made. Such tactics add nothing to the already thin substance of your arguments. What else can I say? Deal with it.

SirPhilip

21st February 2008, 08:53 PM

Simple. Semen doesn't enter the blood. Of course it directly doesn't, but components certainly are during sex. This also doesn't contradict anything, or you can't read? Perhaps you were referring to my initial statement about Buddhists, as to why blood is depicted as whitish, it likely is an entirely different matter altogether.

SirPhilip

21st February 2008, 09:19 PM

Again, your use of insults does me no harm. Correct that article or admit to forum disruption. :chores027:

SirPhilip

21st February 2008, 09:23 PM

Nope. Not my problem. I admit boring me is probably a lot more rewarding in your case than actually clearing the issue you are pretending to contest up, but it would be a lot more humorous to watch and I don't need to participate constructive.

Foster Zygote

21st February 2008, 10:05 PM

Correct that article or admit to forum disruption. :chores027:

What in the world are you on about?

Foster Zygote

21st February 2008, 10:09 PM

I admit boring me is probably a lot more rewarding in your case than actually clearing the issue you are pretending to contest up, but it would be a lot more humorous to watch and I don't need to participate constructive.

Again, it is apparent that you have no intellectual response to the points I and others have made.

articulett

21st February 2008, 10:32 PM

I suspect that Sir Phillip only makes sense to himself.

arthwollipot

21st February 2008, 10:52 PM

This thread used to be interesting.

SirPhilip

21st February 2008, 11:53 PM

Again, it is apparent that you have no intellectual response to the points I and others have made. Like it's my fault you childishly and ineptly invalidate anything you don't like. Ok Foster, semen which contains an abundance of testosterone, can't possibly have any effect on mood and I, or anyone else, can't possibly know this somehow. That settled, now the world needs to know the truth about semen, and New Scientist, psychologists at universities, and the fools that wrote that Wikipedia entry, and various other articles as well as BLTC research who cited it and have no clue what science is about affirming such a correlation very likely exists need to be chastised before women really start using men.

You'd really rather just fight with me though rather than make the world a saner place, and make it seem it isn't for the hell of it, wouldn't you..

SirPhilip

22nd February 2008, 12:14 AM

I suspect that Sir Phillip only makes sense to himself. My dear, you are not expected to understand this conversation, but Foster has ever so no excuse. You are expected to understand phonics on the other hand, and has it improved since last time?

43Ym4GHD8J8

SirPhilip

22nd February 2008, 12:34 AM

What in the world are you on about? I know you don't want to chastise those psychologists and transhumanist biochemists and geneticists. You don't want to school those fools on Wikipedia, and nicely inform editorial writers about evidence and conclusive leaps of fancy. You don't want to make the world a more evidence affirming place. You just want to challenge the emperor's crown. And this type of flattery isn't supposed to elict visible arrogance?

Foster Zygote

22nd February 2008, 06:59 AM

Like it's my fault you childishly and ineptly invalidate anything you don't like.
The above tactic of striking out what you have written seems a bit childish, don't you think?

Ok Foster, semen which contains an abundance of testosterone, can't possibly have any effect on mood and I, or anyone else, can't possibly know this somehow.
Please cite the research that has measured the amount of increase of testosterone in the male blood stream as a result of the technique you practice.

That settled,...
Hardly.

...now the world needs to know the truth about semen, and New Scientist, psychologists at universities, and the fools that wrote that Wikipedia entry, and various other articles as well as BLTC research who cited it and have no clue what science is about affirming such a correlation very likely exists need to be chastised before women really start using men.

Which scientists at which universities? I'm sorry, but you just can't pad it out to make it look like more than it is. And I take it you have, at least for now, abandoned your claim that the matter lies beyond scientific inquiry. And what a terrible world it would be if women were constantly seeking men's semen.:rolleyes:

[QUOTE]You'd really rather just fight with me though rather than make the world a saner place, and make it seem it isn't for the hell of it, wouldn't you..
It is for the hell of it. This is an internet discussion forum. If it upsets you so much (and judging from your loss of any pretense of composure it upsets you very much) then perhaps you should consider avoiding such forums and stick to dazzling you ignorant peers with your knowledge that Irwin Schrödinger showed that they are both alive and dead at the same time.