← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis

Thread 8697

Thread ID: 8697 | Posts: 216 | Started: 2003-08-02

Wayback Archive

Walter Yannis [OP]

2003-08-02 12:30 | User Profile

This appeared in [url=http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2003/feature1.htm]Crisis Magazine.[/url]

Walter

By Benjamin D. Wiker

It may well be the most important intellectual movement to occur in the last 200 years, if not the last half-millennium. Its roots are in the sciences, but when it reaches full flower, it may branch into nearly every discipline, from theology, philosophy, and the social sciences to history and literature, and redefine almost every aspect of culture, from morality and law to the arts.

It’s the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, and it’s reshaping the face of science.

The revolution began in the latter half of the 20th century as a result of discoveries in the various sciences that seemed to point to an intelligent being as the cause of nature’s amazing intricacies. The aim of ID is included in its origin: the ever-deeper investigation of nature to uncover every aspect of its stunningly contrived complexity. Such complexity is the sure sign of intentional design, and the discovery and contemplation of it is also the natural delight of our intellect.

The ID movement directly contradicts the modern secularist intellectual trend that has so thoroughly dominated Western culture for the last two centuries (even though this trend began 500 years ago, in the early Renaissance). Although this secularization has reached nearly every aspect of our culture, its source of authority has always been in a kind of philosophic and scientific alliance.

In philosophy, the secularized intellect denies the existence of any truth beyond what is humanly contrived, and this denial (a kind of intellectual non serviam) manifests itself in the wild, manic-depressive intellectual swings so characteristic of modernity, between self-congratulatory claims of omniscience and self-pitying lamentations of complete skepticism. The secularization of science manifests itself in the belief that nature has no need for an intelligent designer but is self-caused and self-contained. Secularized science has as its aim the reduction of apparent design, whether cosmological or biological, to the unintelligent interplay of chance and brute necessity (either the necessity of law or of the physical constituents). Since nature itself has no intrinsic order, then (by default) the human intellect is the only source of intellectual order. Secularized science thus supports secularized philosophy, and secularized philosophy functions as the articulate mouthpiece of the alliance.

The ID movement seeks to restore sanity to science, philosophy, and hence culture by investigating the possibility that nature, rather than being the result of unintelligent, purposeless forces, can only be understood as the effect of an Intelligent Designer. But again, to say that the ID revolution contradicts the claims of secularized science does not mean that the contradiction arises from some contrariety or conspiracy on the part of ID proponents. It arises from the evidence of nature itself, and the ID movement is merely pointing to the evidence nature has provided (even while, as an active mode of scientific inquiry, it seeks to uncover more). In science, it points to the growing evidence of intelligent fine tuning, both cosmological and biological, and to the various failures of secularized science to make good its claims that the order of nature can be completely reduced to unintelligent causes. As more and more evidence is gathered, secularized philosophy will be forced to confront the scientific evidence that truth is not, after all, a mere human artifact, because a designing intellect has provided the amazingly intricate beings and laws to which the scientific intellect must conform if it is truly to have scientia—a knowledge of nature. Soon enough, secularized culture will be compelled to realign.

That is not, however, the story you will hear from the critics of ID, who seek to declaw it by denying that it is, at heart, a scientific revolution. According to its most acerbic adversaries, ID is merely a religious ruse wearing a scientific facade. For philosopher Barbara Forrest, “The intelligent design movement as a whole…really has nothing to do with science,” but is rather “religious to its core…merely the newest ‘evolution’ of good old-fashioned American creationism Zoologists Matthew Brauer and Daniel Brumbaugh charge that the ID movement “is not motivated by new scientific discoveries” but “entirely by the religion and politics of a small group of academics who seek to defeat secular ‘modernist naturalism’ by updating previously discredited creationist approaches.” The most outspoken critic of ID theory, philosopher Robert Pennock (who has published two anti-ID books), likewise asserts in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics that ID is merely a “theological movement” with a “game plan…little different than that of the ‘creation scientists’” and suspects that at the heart of the ID urge is a regrettable and benighted “tendency to anthropomorphize the world,” to see design in nature only because we are designers ourselves.

As should be clear from the incessant cry of alarm—“Creationist! Creationist!”—the source of the critics’ ire is that ID has dared to enter the realm of biology and raise questions concerning the near sacrosanct canons of Darwinism. (And if one starts questioning the Darwinian account of man’s origin and nature, what aspect of our secularized culture could escape uprooting?) ’Tis all fine and good, they say, to investigate cosmological fine-tuning but anathema to consider biological fine-tuning. Indeed, such critics seem to think that doubting evolutionary theory’s claims to have eliminated design from biology could only occur if one has either lost one’s mind or placed it on an out-of-the-way shelf marked “Do Not Disturb” (the embarassing result of irrational adherence to an entirely mytho-theological account of creation). They seem—to get to the bottom of it—to agree with the words of zoologist and evolutionary spokesman laureate Richard Dawkins: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”

Against this, I argue not only that it is quite reasonable to have doubts about evolutionary theory, but that the rise and development of ID theory, as an antidote to Darwinism, is both intellectually welcome and historically inevitable. It is intellectually welcome because Darwinism is too small to fit the facts it claims to explain, and ID is large enough to include a modified form of Darwinism. ID is historically inevitable because it is part of a larger, cosmological revolution that has already forced itself upon physics and astronomy. Let’s begin with the latter claim because it is, perhaps, both most startling and most obvious.

The Design Revolution in Cosmology

Allow me to point out to Pennock that the “tendency to anthropomorphize the world” is coming from the world itself, or more accurately, from the entire cosmos. In fact, in physics it is called the anthropic principle. In short form, it is the discovery that the universe appears rigged, astoundingly fine-tuned, suspiciously calibrated as part of some kind of a conspiracy of order to produce life—indeed intelligent life. This fine-tuned conspiracy occurs on all levels, from the fundamental constants governing the formation of all the elements in the cosmos, to the extraordinarily precise relationship of planets in our solar system, to the delicate balances on our own planet.

If, for example, the strong nuclear force that holds together the protons and neutrons in the nucleus of atoms were a tad weaker, elements other than hydrogen would either be unlikely or impossible; if a tad stronger, you wouldn’t have hydrogen. Change the ratio of the mass of the electron to the proton just a mite and molecules cannot form. If gravity were made just a bit weaker, stars large enough to produce the heavier elements necessary for biological life would not exist; a bit stronger, and stars would be too massive, producing the necessary elements but burning too rapidly and unevenly to support life. Fiddle a smidgeon with the expansion rate of the universe, and you either cause it to collapse or exceed the ideal rate at which galaxies, and hence solar systems, can form.

Or to focus on our own home in the Milky Way, it has become increasingly clear that the conditions of our solar system are wonderfully intricate. For example, our sun is not a typical star but is one of the 9 percent most massive stars in our galaxy, and it is also very stable. Further, the sun hits the Goldilocks mean for life—neither too hot (like a blue or white star) nor too cold (like a red star)—and its peak emission is right at the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum—the very, very thin band where not only vision is possible but also photosynthesis. Earth just “happens” to have the right combination of atmospheric gases to block out almost all the harmful radiation on the electromagnetic spectrum but, strangely enough, opens like a window for visible light. Jupiter is deftly placed and sized so that it not only helps to balance Earth’s orbit but also acts as a kind of debris magnet keeping Earth from being pummeled. Our moon is just the right size and distance to stabilize Earth’s axial tilt so that we have seasonal variations but not wildly swinging temperature changes.

This article is too short to summarize the already vast but continually growing literature on such cosmic fine- tuning. I have given just a taste so that I could return to an earlier point and make it more explicit: The ID movement, understood in its proper and widest context, is cosmological in scope, looking for evidence of design in all of nature, and biology is just one aspect of nature where it seeks evidence of fine-tuning. Against those who would so jealously guard biology from ID, one must ask: How could the fundamental physical constants be fine-tuned, our solar system be fined-tuned, the atmospheric and geological features of our planet be fine-tuned, but all biological beings and processes be the result of unintelligent, purposeless forces?

In addition, the ID approach is both quite natural and scientifically fruitful. The discovery of such exceedingly precise fine-tuning not only draws one to the conclusion that a designer is behind it all but also leads to further scientific discovery. As a famous instance of the first, astronomer and mathematician Fred Hoyle was so astonished at the remarkable chain of “coincidences” necessary for the production of oxygen and carbon in the universe, he concluded that “a commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.” That statement was uttered mid–20th century as a result of Hoyle discovering the wildly improbable presence of just the right nuclear resonance levels in carbon and oxygen to allow for the formation of these most necessary elements for life. For Hoyle, such wonderful calibration could not be an accident: “I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside the stars.”

But as the growing anthropic evidence attests, the conviction that the universe is not just accidentally pitched together, but finely tuned, has led many scientists to look for additional instances of fine-tuning—and they have not been disappointed. (Have a go at the incredibly dense Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John Barrow and Frank Tipler, if you have doubts, or simply browse Amazon.com for books on the anthropic principle or cosmology.) Thus, the common charges made by critics of ID that it is mere religion disguised as science, and that the assumption of ID has led to no scientific discoveries, is misplaced. Since the last half of the 20th century, the discovery of fine-tuning has been the impetus leading to the discovery of more fine-tuning, and the inference to a designer (as we see from Hoyle) is quite natural and quite respectable on the cosmological level.

In fact, one of the leading scientists using this mode of scientific discovery is astronomer and ID proponent Guillermo Gonzalez, who extends the anthropic principle to its logical conclusion, arguing that human beings are an intended effect of an intelligent cause. This has led him to question the so-called Copernican Principle or Principle of Mediocrity, that Earth-like planets are as common as dandelions in spring. Against this assumption, Gonzalez has found that the parameters for life are very finely drawn, and that means that they are rarely met. He has published his work about the rarity of these conditions in both technical and popular scientific journals (see, for example, the October 2001 Scientific American cover story defining the limited zones in galaxies capable of sustaining life) and is credited with the discovery of the high mean metallicity of stars hosting giant planets (stars that lack sufficient metallicity could never host a habitable planet). He and fellow ID proponent Jay Richards are finishing up a book titled Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery, demonstrating that the rare parameters that allow for life (which, of course, Earth meets), oddly enough, allow for the development of science.

Rather than the ID movement being mocked as some kind of creationist backlash, then, it should be understood as part of a larger revolution within science that began on the cosmological level in physics and chemistry. What raises the hackles of ID critics, as we have seen, is that ID proponents have taken the next logical step, daring to enter the biological domain and question Darwinian orthodoxy. But again, the move from cosmology to biology is inevitable. The larger cosmological question “Is the universe so finely tuned that it must have had a designer?” entails the more local question “Are biological entities and systems so finely tuned that they must have had a designer?”

The Design Revolution in Biology

To understand the design revolution as it applies to biology, we need to step back a bit from the heat and dust currently being generated by ID/anti-ID arguments about evolution and look more closely at evolutionary theory itself. Contrary to popular belief, the notion of evolution was not discovered by Charles Darwin. As I argue in Moral Darwinism, evolution is an inference from a larger theoretical framework, a particular kind of materialism, the historical roots of which can be traced all the way back to the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (d. 270 b.c.). In fact, about 50 years before the birth of Christ, the Roman Epicurean Lucretius provided the first extended evolutionary account in the fifth book of his philosophic poem, De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things). All who think Darwin discovered evolution are amazed when they read it.

The materialist inference to evolution runs something like this: Despite what most people think, the universe has no designer. It has no need of an external cause of its existence because the universe itself is eternal. It has no need for an external cause of its order because the random motions of its material components, given infinite stretches of time, bring about all that appears to have been designed by an intelligence—the stars, the sky, the earth, rocks, sand, water, plants, animals, and even human beings.

Note, in this string of assertions, that the “evolution” of living things is just a special case of the larger materialist explanation of how everything, living and non-living, came to be as we see it. In such a universe, the need for (and hence the existence of) intelligent fine-tuning has been replaced by the slow and sloppy meanderings of unintelligent chance acting on the brute necessities of matter.

If the larger materialist account of the designer-free universe sounds familiar, there’s a reason. Historically, a revived form of Epicurean materialism provided the theoretical foundation of modern scientific materialism. As part of the Renaissance recovery of ancient texts, Epicurean materialism was reintroduced to the West in the 15th century and became, in slightly modified form, the reigning scientific view by the 18th century. The materialist universe, thus accepted, provided the fuel for the engine of secularization that steamed so headily through Darwin’s century.

Darwin, working in the 19th century, was handed the materialist universe in which evolution was already an inference. He had no need of discovering it. The general inference to evolution was already available in Lucretius’s well-known poem and in the 18th- and early 19th-century writings of Benoit de Maillet; the comte de Buffon; Jean Lamarck; Geoffrey St. Hilaire; Darwin’s own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin; William Wells; Patrick Matthew; Robert Grant; and Robert Chambers. Darwin’s task was to refine it, by providing it with the particular “mechanisms” that would transform the general inference to a well-formed theory, so as to allow for a designer-free account of biology (again, see my Moral Darwinism for the complete argument).

As should be clear, the designer-free cosmos is the cosmos according to the secularized view of science (as buttressed by the secularized view of philosophy). But that is the view of the cosmos that the growing evidence of cosmological fine-tuning is calling into question. Therefore, it’s both legitimate and inevitable that the designer-free inference in biology should likewise be called into question. Now there are, in science, two intimately related ways of calling a theory into question: First, you notice its defects, and then you go about the more difficult secondary task of demonstrating that another approach has more merit. Given this, it’s no surprise, then, that ID theorists concerned with things biological would first spend significant efforts on a negative critique of Darwinists’ claims, before hammering out a full-scale alternative.

What then are the most significant defects in Darwinism? Not that it has provided an account of descent with modification—that’s one of its merits—but that its proposed mechanisms allowing it to eliminate intelligence as a cause are woefully insufficient. To understand this, let’s return to the cosmological level.

ID theory affirms the universe to be 15 billion years old (more or less) and endorses the generally accepted account of the wonderful unfolding of stellar and planetary evolution, but it makes clear that it is the original and inherent fine-tuning that allows the unfolding to occur. ID proponents look at the wonderful and wonderfully strange history of life the same way. They do not deny many of the marvelous things that Darwinism has uncovered, and so an ID account of biology would include much of what Darwinists have discovered. What they question, however, is the Darwinian assertion that such things are explicable solely as the result of purposeless, unguided mechanisms. Just as stellar (and hence planetary) evolution requires finely tuned parameters written into nature in order to bring about all the necessary material conditions for life, so also biological evolution will require finely tuned parameters written into nature. ID critics overlook the obvious. Since biological evolution depends on stellar evolution—where else would all the necessary chemical elements to make those incredibly complex molecules come from?—the necessity of fine-tuning for biological evolution has already been proven. Even now, Darwinism cannot claim to be designer-free.

But ID proponents suspect that the necessity for biological fine-tuning is more immediately and intimately necessary for evolution, and that means an investigation of the mechanism proposed by Darwin to eliminate design completely from biology. If the elimination of design in biology was wrongheaded, then the mechanism by which Darwin tried to exclude it must somehow be faulty or incomplete. To that mechanism we must now turn.

The initial evidence for design-free evolution provided by Darwin is powerful, especially if one understands the particular context of belief reigning at the time of Darwin. The common belief about species at the time was that God created all the stunning varieties of plants and animals as they now appeared (and did so, a mere 6,000 years prior). Darwin effectively demolished this particular belief in the Origin by beginning with incontrovertible evidence of the malleability of species right under the English nose. After all, he noted, we must admit that breeders of animals, through the artifice of selecting for desired traits and breeding to exaggerate them, are able to produce, in comparatively few generations, radically different looking stock. Obviously, these very different breeds were created by man and did not come, ready-made, from the hand of God.

From the example of the plasticity of breeds under domestication, Darwin then asked: “Can the principle of selection, which we have seen is so potent in the hands of man, apply under nature?” How could it not? the reader asks himself. “Can it, then, be thought improbable,” Darwin mused, that “variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should occur in the course of many successive generations? If such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind?” Yes, of course, the reader concludes, natural selection, the source of the endless varieties we find within natural species—innumerable varieties of sparrows, oodles of turtles, countless variations of snakes!

A brilliant step forward in the history of science, for which we owe Darwin a great debt. Had he stopped there, Darwin would have successfully defeated the particular belief that God had immediately created every variety of plant and animal. Of course, that small victory could not, by itself, establish the larger claim that biology was designer-free. In order to eliminate a designer completely Darwin had to make the great inferential leap from partial, legitimate insight to an all-encompassing theory, from change within limits, to unlimited change: “Slow though the process of selection may be,” Darwin intoned, “if feeble man can do much by artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of change…which may have been effected in the long course of time through nature’s power of selection, that is by the survival of the fittest” (emphasis added). Small changes add up to distinct varieties; with time, the varietal branches become more distinct until they rank as species; with yet more time, the changes become so pronounced that we class them as being in distinct genera, and so on, until voilà, we have the famous evolutionary tree.

The test of this great leap is, of course, whether or not what it predicts, according to its assumptions, pans out if we study nature under its rubric for a sufficient length of time. Has everything unfolded smoothly according to the assumptions, or has Darwinism found its critical assumptions ramming into stubbornly recalcitrant facts?

Where has Darwinism succeeded grandly? Exactly where it succeeded at first, in describing relatively small-scale evolution, often called microevolution. So where has it failed? In those precise places where it would need to have succeeded in order to make good on the great daring inference. We will look at two: (1) the need for a gradual appearance of the highest biological taxa and (2) the extension of design-free biology backwards to a gradual nondirected rise of the first cells from prebiological materials. Both of these are necessary to exclude ID from biology.

The sharpest rocks to dash the expectations of Darwinism were quarried in Canada at the beginning of the 20th century, and the fossils taken from this wonderful site, called the Burgess Shale, lay entirely misinterpreted for almost three-quarters of a century. They provide us with a most illuminating window into the Cambrian explosion, where, in evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould’s words, “in a geological moment near the beginning of the Cambrian [about 570 million years ago], nearly all modern phyla made their first appearance, along with an even greater array of anatomical experiments that did not survive very long thereafter” (emphasis added). This appearance is not the result of a gradual rise (through innumerable intermediate species) of increasingly more complex life leading up to the Cambrian period. Rather, in Gould’s words, it occurs “with a bang” in a “geological flash” as a “gigantic burp of creativity.”

Why is the Cambrian such a stick in the craw of Darwinism? Darwin’s principle natura non facit saltum (nature does not make a leap) is the principle by which evolutionary theory can eliminate intelligence as a cause. How so? Intelligence, as a cause, can create elaborate order quickly and efficiently:_ratio facit salta (reason does make leaps), we might well say. If the unintelligent meanderings of natural selection are to displace an Intelligent De­signer, then, as Darwin realized, all big differences must be the result of the addition of countless very little differences. The sudden appearance of nearly all modern biological phyla completely contradicts the expectations of Darwin’s theory. The taxonomic hierarchy in biology, from greatest difference to least, is kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. As Darwin well understood, the greater the difference, the greater the number of transitional species required, and the greater amount of time natural selection will need, working through slight variations, to produce the far greater differences characteristic of phyla. For Darwin, phyla simply cannot appear abruptly but must be the result of a long, arduous, winding path of slight variations among a discrete population leading, by natural selection, to new varieties, which in turn, lead to new species, which in turn…and so on, until one reaches the level of divergence indicative of phyla. If Darwin were right, the fossil evidence would support him.

The sudden appearance of all known phyla in the Cambrian, therefore, represents a first-order theoretical crisis for Darwinism. For an ID approach, it indicates the presence of causal intelligence. While nature itself non facit saltum, such leaps are the hallmark of a designing intellect, especially since the phyla level acts as a kind of plan allowing for future evolutionary development (in a somewhat analogous way that fine-tuning of physical constants allows for stellar evolution).

Does that prove that ID theory has won in biology by default? No. It only proves that (1) it is reasonable to doubt that natural selection, powerful as it may be in certain domains, can displace intelligence as a cause in the origin of animal design, and more particularly, (2) it is reasonable to investigate the fossil evidence from the perspective of design.

To turn to the question of the origin of life, Darwin, for whatever reason, dodged the question of origins by attaching a hasty deus ex machina evolutionis at the very end of the Origin: “There is a gran­deur in this view of life, with its several powers having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”

Fairly soon, of course, evolutionists began to wonder if a deus was really all that necessary to the machina evolutionis and betook themselves on a search for a purely material origin to life. If such could be found, then an intelligent designer would not only be locked out of the ongoing flow of nature but would no longer even be needed as a first cause. Biological evolution could then be subsumed under design-free cosmic evolution.

As it turns out, there are insuperable problems in trying to explain, via some mode of design-free evolutionary theory, how the first cells could have arisen. Nobel laureate biochemist Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the helical structure of DNA, has even remarked, “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” The enigma drove Crick to offer a nonevolutionary solution to the origin of life, the theory of panspermia, the belief that intelligent aliens seeded life on earth.

Others, such as Dawkins, lapse into an irrational faith in the powers of chance to avoid an ID inference. While Dawkins agrees with Crick that the origin of life is a miracle, by that he means a miracle of chance. But Dawkins believes that anything can be explained by chance, even a miracle. Speaking of a marble statue, Dawkins (with a straight face) argues that “if, by sheer coincidence, all the molecules [in the hand of the statue] just happened to move in the same direction at the same moment, the hand would move. If they then all reversed direction at the same moment the hand would move back. In this way it is possible for a marble statue to wave at us. It could happen.”

Of course, one would have to be insanely wedded to materialism and have more faith in the powers of chance than any theist has in the powers of God to believe an actual waving statue was not a miracle. With this faith in the random jostling of molecules, Dawkins sees no trouble in believing (even without evidence) that a materialist miracle occurred, albeit he knows not how, allowing for the rise of the first living cells. Such faith, however, is not evidence itself but a telling lapse into a materialist credo quia absurdum est.

Now What? Now Where?

I have spent quite a few words trying to show that the ID movement is both larger than its well-publicized and strongly criticized attempts to question Darwinism and also that it is justified in publicly and strongly criticizing Darwinism. I believe that this analysis allows us to see the merit of the work done so far by ID proponents Michael Behe and William Dembski. Behe’s wonderful arguments about the irreducible complexity of biological structures (Darwin’s Black Box) show clearly that biological fine-tuning is a real problem for Darwinism precisely because of the discovery of the unfathomable complexity of even the smallest biological structures. Dembski (most recently, No Free Lunch) has declared war, so to speak, on the kind of irrational reliance on chance all too characteristic of Darwinism and seen all too clearly in Dawkins. Such reliance, we recall, is rooted in the desire to eliminate the design inference in biology, and Dembski’s arguments are essential to removing such irrational obstacles.

Where is the ID revolution headed? Time will tell. But it’s a young movement, after all. As with all scientific and philosophical revolutions—so also with ID—one is not able to predict what this mode of scientific inquiry will discover.

Of course, I have not answered all questions one might have about ID theory. Exactly how is it related to theology? To philosophy? To morality? Happily, the kind editors of this fine magazine have given me the opportunity to answer those questions in a future issue.

Benjamin D. Wiker is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and the author of Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists. He is a lecturer in theology and science at Franciscan University of Steubenville.

Walter Yannis

2003-08-02 12:32 | User Profile

Here's [url=http://www.crisismagazine.com/julaug2003/feature1.htm]Part II[/url]

Walter

Does Science Point to God? Part II: The Christian Critics By Benjamin D. Wiker

Author’s note: In the first part of this article, “Does Science Point to God? The Intelligent Design Revolution” (April 2003), I focused on Intelligent Design (ID) as a scientific revolution. In this article, I will get at the importance of the ID movement from a different angle. What happens if we just ignore the ID challenge to evolutionary theory, accept the status quo, and accommodate ourselves to Darwinism? As we shall see, the price of indiscriminate accommodationism to Darwinism is rather high indeed.

No scientific theory should have the status of sacred revelation. Unfortunately, evolutionary theory, for a variety of nonscientific reasons, has become sacrosanct. To express doubts by bringing up the most glaring counterevidence to the theory is to brand oneself an intellectual infidel, fit only to be cast into the consuming fires of public humiliation. Rather than evolutionary theory being forced, for its own health, to face the most difficult counterevidence, Darwinism becomes a dogma using any stigma within reach to beat those legitimately agnostic about its grand claims.

Haunted by such fear, all too many—including all too many Catholics—have ignored the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, especially its trenchant criticisms of Darwinism. Better to submit to Darwin, they surmise, than find ourselves tossed into the public square, ignominious objects of igneous scorn. Accommodationism, so it seems, is the better part of valor.

But is it? The problem with Darwinism is that it is not merely a scientific theory. As I argued in the first article, it is a full-blown materialist cosmology, an account of everything, a biological theory with presuppositions reaching all the way back to the origin of the universe and conclusions stretching all the way through nature and into every aspect of human nature. Like it or not, indiscriminate accommodationism to the full blows of this cosmology means submitting everything to inspection and consequent reformulation or disposal according to the materialist canons of Darwinism. There is no such thing as partial surrender.

As I already sense that the wood is being gathered for the pyre of my public roasting, I had better clarify. I do not mean to herd readers toward indiscriminate rejection of evolutionary theory, so as to avoid the dangers of indiscriminate acceptance. Surrendering one’s critical faculties by either form of indiscrimination is equally noxious. As opposed to either extreme, the ID movement asks that we not surrender our critical faculties at all and therefore proposes that the only rational mode of procedure is to examine very carefully the strongest arguments both for and against Darwinism.

Since Darwinism is not merely a theory of biology, it is quite rational then to examine not only the scientific difficulties of the biological theory but also the theological, philosophical, and moral difficulties entailed in the Darwinian materialist cosmology. Again, since I have dealt in outline with the scientific difficulties in Part I, we may now focus our attention on the theological, philosophical, and moral problems inherent in Darwinism.

Where Darwin Leads

One of the most outspoken critics of ID theory, biologist Kenneth Miller, famously proclaims, “I am an orthodox Catholic and an orthodox Darwinian.” This “all-is-well, look-at-me” approach is meant to convey his conviction that Christians must indeed embrace Darwinism and that it is foolish to fear any theological damage. In doing so, he neglects to mention that a persistent effect of embracing Darwinism is atheism. Since the mechanism of natural selection was designed by Darwin to eliminate the need for a designer, to retain a deity seems to be entirely superfluous. Why keep a redundant cause on the cosmic payroll?

This chain of reasoning is intrinsic to Darwinism and explains why atheism has been a persistent reflex. In evolutionist Richard Dawkins’s oft-quoted words: “Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist” (The Blind Watchmaker). More to the point are the words of Cornell historian and Darwinian advocate William Provine: “The destructive implications of evolutionary biology extend far beyond the assumptions of organized religion to a much deeper and more pervasive belief, held by the vast majority of people, that non-mechanistic organizing designs or forces [a.k.a., deities, inter alios, the Judeo-Christian God] are somehow responsible for the visible order of the physical universe, biological organisms, and human moral order” (as quoted by Phillip Johnson in Robert Pennock’s Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics). To cut through the circumlocution, evolution not only implies but demands atheism.

These are not the thoughts of those who’ve wandered off the path of Darwinism. As made amply clear in the illuminating biography of Darwin by Adrian Desmond and James Moore (Darwin, 1991), Darwin himself realized the dread implications of his theory for theology—especially Christian theology—at least two decades before the publication of the Origin of Species (in 1859). He remained publicly circumspect, however, not only because he knew it would undermine acceptance of his theory (evolutionary theory was already associated with and championed by atheists in the first half of the 19th century) but also for the sake of his believing wife, Emma. At best, Darwin embraced a reluctant and weak, content-less, doctrine-less theism—the merest vapor of belief.

Darwinism Before Darwin

That atheism is the natural effect of embracing evolutionary theory should come as no surprise. The end is present in the beginning. As I said in Part I, the first Darwinian was not Darwin, but a rather notorious Greek, Epicurus, born on the Island of Samos about 341 b.c. It was he who provided the philosophical underpinnings of Darwinism, because it was he who fashioned an entirely materialistic, god-proof cosmology, where the purposeless jostling of brute matter over infinite time yielded, by a series of fortunate accidents, not only the Earth, but all the myriad forms of life thereon. He fashioned the cosmology, not out of evidence but from his desire to rid the world of brooding deities. As with many a modern, Epicurus thought religion the source of all the world’s woes. This common disdain for religion unites Epicureanism and mod-ernity because we moderns are the heirs of Epicurus. Through a long and winding path, a revived form of Epicurean materialism became the founding creed of modern scientific materialism—the very materialist cosmology that Darwin assumed in the Origin and that still grounds the materialist dismissal of design in nature (see my book, Moral Darwinism, for the complete account).

Here, then, is an important lesson for those who believe that theology, and especially Christian theology, can be accommodated to evolutionary theory. Its ancient founder, Epicurus, and its modern father, Darwin, understood—and its contemporary champions, Dawkins and Provine, understand—that the implications of evolutionary theory are corrosive for theology. It should go without saying, then, that those buying wholeheartedly and uncritically into evolutionary theory, and who expect to survive with theology intact, had better heed the ancient warning, caveat emptor.

The Folly of ‘Two Truths’

Such would seem obvious, but attempts to reconcile theology with evolutionary theory are not in short supply, chief among them the two-truths approach and the approach of theistic evolution.

The two-truths approach, in its modern form, has been around at least since Benedict Spinoza (1634-1677) and was set forth most recently by the late Stephen Jay Gould. The gist of it is this: Science and theology cannot conflict because they deal with different realms or spheres of truth, each happily impermeable to the other so that never the twain shall clash. This approach rests, or appears to rest, on a truth accepted by both sane science and sane theology that science as science is directed to the investigation of changeable things and theology as theology is directed to eternal things.

But appearances are deceiving, and the deception becomes clear as soon as we ask, what exactly are the two truths? For both Spinoza and Gould, science deals with reality and theology deals with morality. The respective domains of the two spheres, so defined, are even reducible to the form of patronizing jingles—“Science deals with the nature of the heavens and theology with how to get to heaven,” or “Science is concerned with the age of rocks and theology with the rock of ages.” But the contemptuous odor curling around these soothing ditties should be our first hint of the dubious pedigree of the two-truths approach. If that isn’t enough, we may simply note its falsity.

If we research the pedigree, we find that Spinoza put forth the two-truths approach as a way to neutralize religion. For Spinoza (following in Epicurus’s footsteps), religious claims have one intractable nasty effect: Doctrinal differences escalate, all too quickly, into bloody religious wars. By contrast, science is demonstrable, universal, serene, and beneficent. The cure offered by Spinoza? As set forth in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (published anonymously in 1670), we must “separate faith from philosophy,” and by philosophy, Spinoza meant philosophy as defined by the new materialist science. Philosophy “has no end in view save truth,” while “faith…looks for nothing but obedience and piety.” Thus, between the two, “there is no connection, nor affinity.”

However attractive this détente might appear, if we dig more deeply, we find that Spinoza’s reasons for allowing a few moral bones to be thrown to theologians was less than flattering. Simply put, for Spinoza, most people are too stupid to understand a purely rational account of ethics. For them, we have the nice moral tales in the Bible (as cleaned up and reformulated by the Enlightened intelligentsia, that is). Spinoza, therefore, allows theology to have the moral sphere, not out of respect but because it would be “folly to refuse…what has proved such a comfort to those whose reason is comparatively weak.” The real folly, however, would be rejecting religion as a way to control the stupid but restless masses, for “there are but very few, compared with the aggregate of humanity, who can acquire the habit of virtue under the unaided guidance of reason.”

A less than comforting pedigree, to say the least. And now, we may view its falsity. It is false in two senses, moral and intellectual. By moral falsity, I mean that the two-truths approach is not being presented genuinely but duplicitously, for no such distinction between truth and morality is possible, and both materialists in general and Darwinists in particular know it. This should be obvious. The truth about human nature—what we are—is the foundation of moral truth, how we should act. As will soon become quite clear, Darwinism necessarily entails moral Darwinism.

Survival of the Fittest Truth

Stephen Jay Gould, the greatest and most endearing spokesman for Darwinism in the last half of the 20th century, proposed anew the two-truths doctrine in his Rocks of Ages (1999). As with Spinoza, Gould argued that there are two realms of truth and therefore two Non-Overlapping Magisteria (hence, the snappy acronym NOMA), each with its own authority. NOMA was put forth as a kind of peace settlement: Scientists won’t say anything about morality if theologians and religious adherents will quit meddling with reality. If both behave, we’ll have peace in our time.

Whatever Gould’s intentions might have been, one thing should be quite clear from the history of evolutionary theory: Darwinism has always meant to cross the borders into the moral domain, treaties to the contrary, and will continue to do so until only one truth is left—Darwinism.

Such has been true from the very beginning. For Epicurus, the founder of evolutionary theory, and Lucretius, the greatest Roman proponent of Epicureanism, materialist explanations were universal in scope. They not only explained how chance (and not an intelligent deity) produced everything in the cosmos but also provided a new materialist foundation for morality. A materialist view of nature necessarily yielded a materialist view of human nature, wherein human beings have no immortal, immaterial soul but are entirely bodily. Since we have no immaterial soul, there’s no afterlife to fear or hope for, and all questions of good and evil may safely and scientifically be reduced to a continual balancing of bodily pleasures and pains. On this account, then, there’s no good and evil, justice and injustice by nature. Because nature, including human nature, is itself the result of the random jostling of brute atoms, then nature is itself amoral. Morality, then, is purely human-made, defined only by pleasures and pains, and entirely relative to time and place.

Leap ahead about 2,000 years, and we find the same thing in Darwin himself, a fact all too often covered up by Darwinists. Read only Darwin’s Origin, and it seems as if he’s keeping within NOMA-esque bounds. Read Darwin’s Descent of Man (1871), and it’s startlingly clear that, in regard to the extent evolutionary explanations reach, Darwin knew no such bounds. In the Descent, Darwin offered an evolutionary account of the rise of morality and religious belief, solely in terms of natural selection. He also drew out the obvious moral implications. Since human nature is the product of evolution, as with any product of natural selection, it can be improved on by artificial selection. Just as a pigeon fancier takes what nature gives him and selectively breeds for traits he desires, so also human beings should take their own evolution into their own hands. It’s no accident, then, that Descent’s finale is a call to eugenics, a science to which Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, gave the name but to which Darwin gave the foundation.

Nor is it an accident, at present and for the foreseeable future, that evolution provides the support for genetic manipulation and the removal—via the combination of screening and abortion—of the genetically unfit. Once human nature is understood to be an accident of chance, it can no longer be the inviolable locus of moral claims. We, the clay, now lay claim to be the potters as well. To repeat, Darwinism inevitably leads to moral Darwinism. The lesson? NOMA is nonsense.

A sure sign that Darwinism knows no moral bounds is that nearly all the moral controversies we face today (and we will face tomorrow) hinge on a single disagreement: whether human beings are fundamentally distinct from all other animals or whether human beings are simply one more kind of animal; that is, whether we have an immortal, immaterial soul as created in the image of God, or whether we’re one more indistinct and unintended form of animal life provisionally occupying the ever-changing evolutionary landscape.

To take a most illustrative moral quandary, if we’re merely another kind of animal, then euthanasia should not be a moral issue at all. Rather, euthanasia would merely be the long-overdue application to human beings of a service long-available at all veterinary clinics for our pets. We don’t let our pets suffer when they’ve contracted some painful, irremediable malady or are ravaged by old age. We consider it humane to put them down, and that’s why advocates of euthanasia consider its prohibition not only irrational but inhumane.

Nor again do we become morally queasy when we only let the best horses, cattle, sheep, and goats breed. Further, farmers and breeders do not coddle retarded or malformed animals, supplying them with comfortable pasturage. They eliminate the unfit without delay and without remorse. Why should the biologically challenged be a drain on already strained resources?

Well, why not? The only support for the “why not” in regard to human beings is the conviction that we are indeed fundamentally distinct, created in the image of God, and not fashioned as an unintended effect of natural selection. This truth claim grounds our moral arguments against euthanasia and eugenics, and it is a claim about reality that directly overlaps Gould’s cherished evolutionary magisterium.

When First Principles Go Wrong…

This leads us to the second kind of falsity, intellectual falsity. It’s simply false to assert that science as defined by Darwinism either is the only way to understand science or merely uses an innocuous and neutral method that makes no ontological claims (or, at least, makes no ontological claims that could conflict with theology or Christian morality). To the contrary, every view of science rests on some view of reality, explicitly or implicitly; or, to put it another way, every view of science rests on explicit or assumed first principles. At bottom, then, with any view of science, we’ll always find metaphysics. For this reason, it’s legitimate to ask which philosophy is actually providing the metaphysical undergirding of a particular view of science. In the case of Darwinism, it is materialism—the materialism that can be traced all the way back to Epicurus. But that view, by self-definition, is inimical to theology.

Since materialism is neither neutral nor the only way to understand science, it cannot be innocently offered as defining science as such. It begins by defining everything that exists as bodily and by determining that the only causes allowable are material causes, and then infers that apparent biological design can only be the result of material causes as tilted occasionally by chance. As a consequence, it only searches for evidence that fits the materialist grid. Small wonder if that’s all it should find. One of the great services that ID proponents have performed has been shining a strong and inquisitorial light on Darwinism’s metaphysical presuppositions.

Many of the critics of ID, such as Robert Pennock, have attempted to evade this light by claiming that one may legitimately distinguish between methodological naturalism and ontological naturalism (naturalism being roughly equivalent to materialism). On this tack, someone may adhere to the materialistic approach to science as a method, while remaining neutral in regard to (or simply avoiding) any metaphysical materialist claims. Even if ontological materialism is madness, we’re not to worry. There’s no madness in the method.

Well, if there’s no madness, then we have a rather strange schizophrenia being advocated as sanity. To wit, in order to understand the rise and complex structure of biological beings we must assume, just for the sake of method, that these beings are entirely the result of a series of evolutionary accidents and so avoid, as intellectual poison, evidence of ID. But ontologically, we’re free as a bird to hold whatever we want about reality.

We’re offered, then, an interesting variation of Gould’s NOMA, where the two spheres, science and theology, are split according to method (the domain of science) and reality (a domain theology can now, in part, claim). This seems, at first blush, a vast improvement over Gould’s allowing materialist science alone to define reality.

But is it? What if ID proponents argued that an ID approach should be assumed methodologically but not ontologically? In other words, as a method, we look for evidence of ID in biology, but such a method makes no ontological claims either about the ultimate causes of biological entities or about a designer. And so, we may happily distinguish between methodological theism and ontological theism, and science is defined according to methodological theism. As for ontology, Darwinists are free as an archaeopteryx to hold that chance and material necessity are, in reality, behind it all.

Any takers? It should be clear, then, that no such compromise is possible, because no such compromise is coherent. Every method in science begins and ends with a metaphysic, and in operation, each method will seek only what its particular metaphysical foundations claim to be real. Methodological naturalism thus begins with ontological naturalism and ends there as well, defining reality as purely material and intelligent causation in nature as impossible.

Christian Evolution?

So much for the two-truths approach. We have yet to examine the mode of accommodationism that baptizes evolutionary theory. This, of course, was Teilhard de Chardin’s approach. In it, evolutionary theory is declared victorious, but rather than disposing of theology or cordoning it off, as in the first two approaches, theology conforms itself completely to evolutionary theory like a barely detectable second skin.

The difficulty with this approach? In wholly conforming itself to evolutionary theory, theology gains a rather embarrassing Pyrrhic victory. It submits to a self-inflicted reductio ad absurdum, or better, redundantia ad absurdum, by trying to piggyback a deity on a mode of explanation designed to eliminate any recourse to divine causation. This wholehearted capitulation leads immediately to complete redundancy.

Rather than examining the dated efforts of de Chardin, let us take a look at the more current attempt by Howard Van Till, professor emeritus of physics and astronomy at Calvin College. Van Till clearly believes that we must accommodate ourselves to Darwinism completely and therefore counsels that the only respectable route for Christians is to make a theological virtue out of material necessity—a necessity, we remind ourselves, that was originally designed by Epicurus to eliminate theology.

Van Till’s theological strategy is to take umbrage, on behalf of the divine, against those who would dare suggest that God is a second-rate deity, incapable of creating a world that cannot function on its own. For Van Till, as quoted in Pennock’s Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics:

The world created by the God who reveals himself in Scripture is a world characterized by what I shall call functional integrity. By this term I mean to denote a created world that has no functional deficiencies, no gaps in its economy of the sort that would require God to act immediately, temporarily assuming the role of creature to perform functions within the economy of the creation that other creatures have not been equipped to perform.

Translation? A top-rate deity stands aloof and lets the dirty work of creation to the vagaries of evolution. For Van Till, then, we must affirm that chance, and not ID, is the cause of all biological order and that no effects of God’s creative intelligence are detectable, or we shall be guilty of sullying the dignity of the Creator. In sum, denying Darwinism is tantamount to affirming idolatry. Paradoxically, we must take the side of the atheist so as to avoid the greatest impiety and so must hold that the world is a closed system with no trace of its cause.

This defense of God’s honor seems both harmful and contrived. To begin with, it would deny any possibility of miracles, which appear quite frequently in Scripture, and, for that matter, would wreak havoc with the doctrine of the Incarnation, since in Jesus Christ, God was “temporarily assuming the role of creature to perform functions within the economy of the creation that other creatures have not been equipped to perform.”

But even aside from all this, approaches like Van Till’s confuse God’s working a miracle above and beyond what can occur in nature with God’s creating the variety of things that act according to their particular natures. In the second case, a biological creature has functional integrity—that is, it can truly exist and act according to its nature as a result of God’s creative power, not in violation of it. A wonderfully complex organism—too complex to have been caused by chance; irreducibly complex, we might say—is evidence, as an effect, of an intelligent cause, yet it still has functional integrity. Its complex functional integrity is the source of our inference of an intelligent cause; it is not, as Van Till seems to suggest, the very reason we must deny such an inference. The only reason to exclude the design inference, I am afraid, is that Van Till takes, as the starting point, not the canons of Scripture but the canons of Darwinism.

As a kind of variation to this approach, it is often urged (e.g., by Kenneth Miller) that we accept Darwinism because advocating design means that we impiously attribute natural imperfections and evils to the designer. Better to blame natural selection and let God off the hook.

A moment’s reflection reveals that, in regard to the questions of theodicy, this is simply moving the hook back a bit further. If God is the creator of the conditions that allow for natural selection, then He is still the ultimate cause of natural imperfections and evils entailed in natural selection. So to the extent that evil and imperfection are a problem for belief, Darwinism provides no help at all.

So, then, we have seen what happens when one refuses to take a critical look at evolutionary theory or take seriously the possibility that there’s scientific evidence of ID, legitimately culled from nature. By such indiscriminate accommodationism, we end with either atheism or deformed theology, locked into philosophical materialism, and headed toward unrestrained moral Darwinism.

Even so, the most these unpleasant effects can do is push us toward examining the scientific evidence for and against Darwinism; undesired effects are not, in and of themselves, an argument that a particular scientific theory is wrong. But these ill effects do make us painfully aware of the price of surrendering our critical faculties. Just as we should not uncritically reject evolutionary theory, so also we should not uncritically accept it. I’m not arguing that the case is closed against Darwinism, but rather that the case for Darwinism should be reopened because it has been prematurely closed against the possibility of ID. All that is desired is a fair hearing, both for Darwinism and for ID.

Benjamin D. Wiker is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and the author of Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists. He is a lecturer in theology and science at Franciscan University of Steubenville.

Okiereddust

2003-08-02 12:46 | User Profile

I'm sure the knuckle-draggers and occultists will disagree. :rolleyes:

NeoNietzsche

2003-08-02 14:20 | User Profile

"Allow me to point out to Pennock that the 'tendency to anthropomorphize the world' is coming from the world itself, or more accurately, from the entire cosmos. In fact, in physics it is called the anthropic principle. In short form, it is the discovery that the universe appears rigged, astoundingly fine-tuned, suspiciously calibrated as part of some kind of a conspiracy of order to produce life?indeed intelligent life. This fine-tuned conspiracy occurs on all levels, from the fundamental constants governing the formation of all the elements in the cosmos, to the extraordinarily precise relationship of planets in our solar system, to the delicate balances on our own planet."

"In addition, the ID approach is both quite natural and scientifically fruitful. The discovery of such exceedingly precise fine-tuning not only draws one to the conclusion that a designer is behind it all but also leads to further scientific discovery. As a famous instance of the first, astronomer and mathematician Fred Hoyle was so astonished at the remarkable chain of 'coincidences' necessary for the production of oxygen and carbon in the universe, he concluded that 'a commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.' That statement was uttered mid?20th century as a result of Hoyle discovering the wildly improbable presence of just the right nuclear resonance levels in carbon and oxygen to allow for the formation of these most necessary elements for life. For Hoyle, such wonderful calibration could not be an accident: 'I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside the stars.' "

Unless we know the number of universes that have been, are, and will be, all of this awe is misplaced.

We cannot exclude an infinite number of universes as the universe of possibilities for purposes of accounting probabilities.

Further, as nothing can be excluded as impossible in principle, all that is improbable - whatever the extremity of the degree - is thus accountable as inevitable.

Also, none of what is observed here is indicative of design or intention - Hoyles "consequences" are simply an instance of that which is the case, in its interesting complexity, lacking any evidence of predetermination.

The anthropic principle is a marvelous piece of stupidity which illustrates only the measure of the pathetic will to believe. For if a card deck of a zillion distinctive cards is presented and someone imagines and then picks a specific card (i.e., a point in the "phase space" of the universe of possible combinations of fundamental constants), the picking of that specific card evidences the intent of the picker - evidences his "design" (of constants for the universe). If a specific card is not selected for picking, the mere taking of any card - though it be one in a zillion - is completely unremarkable. Our universe has not been shown to be other than a non-specified card, by analogy. This is the essential point that the CS'ers and ID'ers cannot grasp - they who note the picking of our particular card after the fact and "prove" their point by conveniently making the unsupported claim of some deity's intention to pick that card before the fact. It's called assuming that which is to be proven.

I would be interested in having affirmations by any of the OD'ers who have managed to grasp these obvious points. I find it interesting that the primitive elements of the brain so powerfully obstruct the functioning of otherwise intelligent mentators.

Okiereddust

2003-08-02 14:26 | User Profile

Unless we know the number of universes that have been, are, and will be, all of this awe is misplaced.

We cannot exclude an infinite number of universes as the universe of possibilities for purposes of accounting probabilities................

I would be interested in having affirmations by any of the OD'ers who have managed to grasp these obvious points. I find it interesting that the primitive elements of the brain so powerfully obstruct the functioning of otherwise intelligent mentators.

I will agree that sometimes we seem to be in different universes. :rolleyes:

But eventually, life will hit you.

NeoNietzsche

2003-08-02 14:43 | User Profile

Unless we know the number of universes that have been, are, and will be, all of this awe is misplaced.

We cannot exclude an infinite number of universes as the universe of possibilities for purposes of accounting probabilities................

I would be interested in having affirmations by any of the OD'ers who have managed to grasp these obvious points.* I find it interesting that the primitive elements of the brain so powerfully obstruct the functioning of otherwise intelligent mentators.

I will agree that sometimes we seem to be in different universes. :rolleyes:

But eventually, life will hit you.

If, by "life," you mean indulgence in intellectual intoxication via theology and/or ideology, thanks a sh*t-load, Okie, but I've been there, done that, gotten the T-shirt and the SkyMiles credit.

If, however, I misunderstand your evident intention to cutely deflect my otherwise unanswerable objection to Walter's contribution, please take this opportunity to clarify.

[And congratulations on the uncharacteristically mistake-free spelling.] :punk:

NeoNietzsche

2003-08-02 15:00 | User Profile

The idea that evolution is completely blind and random is an insult to our intelligence.

OK, show us The Plan.

And please don't insult our intelligence.

[In re: America v. Europe, see below.]

NeoNietzsche

2003-08-02 15:13 | User Profile

The Plan:

[url=http://www.sgi.com/fun/gallery/images/dna.jpg]http://www.sgi.com/fun/gallery/images/dna.jpg[/url]

Please provide authoritative dating of this image pre-dating 15 billion years BCE or it is disqualified as other than an insult.

NeoNietzsche

2003-08-02 16:01 | User Profile

Please provide authoritative dating of this image pre-dating 15 billion years BCE or it is disqualified as other than an insult.

** What would be the point of that? Speaking of points, I think you missed mine.**

The point would be avoidance of the error of assuming that which you wish to prove, as explained above.

To illustrate: people die every day in falls, accidental and intentional. If I show you a picture of an ostensibly accidental fatal fall after the fact, nothing is proven of anyone's intention to perpetrate the fall. If, however, I produce an exact depiction of the incident datable to before the fact, I would be reasonably suspected of clairvoyance or, pertinently to our discussion, of an evil design to perpetrate the fall. Your burden is in this showing of intent/design - not merely by illustrating, as above, a marvelous functional complexity, but by dating its depiction to a time before the fact of its emergence. For this complexity otherwise merely manifests an aspect of one of the zillion possibilities (in phase space) for the characteristics of a universe evidently not predetermined for a combination productive of life and which might well have contained other, greater marvels, or no marvels at all, had it emerged with other fundamental constants).

In brief, you must show the precedent plan itself - not merely the putative product in which the plan is disputably held to be implicit.

Please be more explicit regarding the "point" which has been missed.

NeoNietzsche

2003-08-02 16:23 | User Profile

Please be more explicit regarding the "point" which has been missed.

Do you wish to argue that organisms are watches? That DNA was literally fabricated, watch-like, in a heavenly factory, in order to serve specific mechanical purposes?

If, on the other hand, you wish to argue the mysterious spontaneous generation, in natural context, of organic molecules in the remote past, how is this to be distinguished from the action of impersonal forces, which may or may not have been merely otherwise than those presently operative and/or yet to be understood?

Oklahomaman

2003-08-02 19:52 | User Profile

**The anthropic principle is a marvelous piece of stupidity which illustrates only the measure of the pathetic will to believe. **

Not nearly as marvelous a piece of stupidity as you're about to vomit forth.

For if you have a card deck of a trillion distinctive cards and ask someone to pick, sight unseen, a specific card, the picking of that specific card strongly suggests the analog of "design". If a specific card is not designated for picking, the mere taking of any card - though it be one in a trillion - is completely unremarkable. Our universe is a non-specified card, by analogy. This is the essential point that the CS'ers and ID'ers cannot grasp - they who pick a card after the fact and "prove" their point by claiming intention to pick that card before the fact. It's called assuming that which is to be proven.

You know Neo, you really ought to stick to your post-modernist cryptic essays schtick. If you really believe what you wrote, test your theory by investing your entire life-savings in the lottery. The analogy is as bogus because it assumes that the other trillion - 1 cards are equally meaningful for our purposes. You need to prove that a significant number of other chances are equally meaningful to advance that claim.

To illustrate: people die every day in falls, accidental and intentional. If I show you a picture of an ostensibly accidental fatal fall after the fact, nothing is proven of anyone's intention to perpetrate the fall. If, however, I produce an exact depiction of the incident datable to before the fact, I would be reasonably suspected of clairvoyance or, pertinently to our discussion, of an evil design to perpetrate the fall. Your burden is in this showing of intent/design - not merely in illustrating, as above, a marvelous functional complexity, but by dating its depiction to a time before the fact of its emergence. **

That argument doesn't have the wings to fly either. It excludes inductive reasoning. What if the victim in the picture had bruises consistent with a golf club, rope burns around his wrist and car trunk carpet fibres in his hair? From your own observations about human behavior, what does this evidence strongly suggest to you?

We are basing our argument on the observation that complex coordinated systems, such as life do not randomly generate.

** how is this to be distinguished from the action of impersonal forces, which may or may not have been merely otherwise than those presently operative and/or yet to be understood? **

Complex systems being designed and created by intelligent beings has been demonstrated and proven. The impersonal forces theory has not been demonstrated. To believe that impersonal forces that ceased to exist or are not presently understood created life is a matter of faith that I will leave you atheists to debate.

NeoNietzsche

2003-08-02 20:07 | User Profile

Before the scientific "proofs" (in quotations because nothing can be truly proven by scientific method) you want can be obtained, DNA must first be decoded and translated. What's already clear is that DNA contains the plan for all life on earth.

Evolution can't be reasonably explained by chance alone. Life and its consistent push for greater complexity goes against the general entropic tilt of the universe. The observable laws of evolution are always indicative of will: the will to survive, to fight, to reproduce one's kind, to power and dominion. Willpower indicates intent, even intelligence. And this same general impulse is evident in all life--even the most primitive forms. This was written into DNA from the very beginning. It goes against reason that machines and languages of unmatched complexity could simply self-assemble.

Such immense sophistication and deliberate intent should not be found in a sea of chaos. Not if chance is the only factor.

Before the scientific "proofs" (in quotations because nothing can be truly proven by scientific method) you want can be obtained, DNA must first be decoded and translated. What's already clear is that DNA contains the plan for all life on earth.

It is clear that it does not contain the plan in the sense which is required for the indication of intent/purpose/design - as has been explained.

Evolution can't be reasonably explained by chance alone.

I have already done so, above.

** Life and its consistent push for greater complexity goes against the general entropic tilt of the universe.**

As is to be expected in vanishly rare microcosmic instances, such as our solar system, amidst the incredibly vast disorder elsewhere. This is according to thermodynamic expectation, which specifies the "general," overall tendency and which anticipates small pockets of order appearing merely by chance.

It goes against reason that machines and languages of unmatched complexity could simply self-assemble.

If one incorrectly speaks of the events as "self-assembly". Atoms and molecules are magnets of a sort which attract one another in selective fashion. Though the accidental assembly, thus, of fantastically-complicated DNA molecules is wildly improbable - it is nevertheless not impossible. If not impossible, however, it is inevitable - given an infinitude of opportunites which we cannot exclude as the universe of possibilities.

Such immense sophistication and deliberate intent should not be found in a sea of chaos. Not if chance is the only factor.

To the contrary, and again, this is what is to be anticipated amidst chaos, because chaos is imperfectly chaotic, for lack of any agency insuring its perfection. Thus the universe would require the intervention of a deity to prevent the eventual emergence of life.

Okiereddust

2003-08-02 20:32 | User Profile

Thus there must be a creator for C2. This creator must have complexity C3 greater than or equal to C2.

It's clear that this recursion doesn't terminate.

Au contraire. Your argument proves the need for the existance of God.

God is by definition, an absolute. An absolute is something which does not depend on something else for its existance. Thus C2 needs C3 is negated, because what would need C3 by definition is not God.

Note I did not say demonstrates the existance of God. Just demonstrates the need for his existance. Arguably ID merely demonstrates the need for God, it of course does not demonstrate his actual existance, except in a negative sense (i.e. that explanations without God make no sense). By themselves they are not positive evidence, merely negative evidence.

Oklahomaman

2003-08-02 20:52 | User Profile

If not impossible, however, it is inevitable - given an infinitude of opportunites which we cannot exclude as the universe of possibilities.

1) There is not an infinitude of opportunites for the Earth (which contains all observable life) is only a finite number of years old.

2) If you claim it is inevitable for one particular permutation of chances to arise out of an infinite number of possiblities then it is just as inevitable for billions of the exact same permutations to arise. Are you going to claim next that there are billions of replicas of Earth as we know it out there?

NeoNietzsche

2003-08-02 21:02 | User Profile

**The anthropic principle is a marvelous piece of stupidity which illustrates only the measure of the pathetic will to believe. **

Not nearly as marvelous a piece of stupidity as you're about to vomit forth.

For if you have a card deck of a trillion distinctive cards and ask someone to pick, sight unseen, a specific card, the picking of that specific card strongly suggests the analog of "design". If a specific card is not designated for picking, the mere taking of any card - though it be one in a trillion - is completely unremarkable. Our universe is a non-specified card, by analogy. This is the essential point that the CS'ers and ID'ers cannot grasp - they who pick a card after the fact and "prove" their point by claiming intention to pick that card before the fact. It's called assuming that which is to be proven.

You know Neo, you really ought to stick to your post-modernist cryptic essays schtick. If you really believe what you wrote, test your theory by investing your entire life-savings in the lottery. The analogy is as bogus because it assumes that the other trillion - 1 cards are equally meaningful for our purposes. You need to prove that a significant number of other chances are equally meaningful to advance that claim.

To illustrate: people die every day in falls, accidental and intentional. If I show you a picture of an ostensibly accidental fatal fall after the fact, nothing is proven of anyone's intention to perpetrate the fall. If, however, I produce an exact depiction of the incident datable to before the fact, I would be reasonably suspected of clairvoyance or, pertinently to our discussion, of an evil design to perpetrate the fall. Your burden is in this showing of intent/design - not merely in illustrating, as above, a marvelous functional complexity, but by dating its depiction to a time before the fact of its emergence. **

That argument doesn't have the wings to fly either. It excludes inductive reasoning. What if the victim in the picture had bruises consistent with a golf club, rope burns around his wrist and car trunk carpet fibres in his hair? From your own observations about human behavior, what does this evidence strongly suggest to you?

We are basing our argument on the observation that complex coordinated systems, such as life do not randomly generate.

** how is this to be distinguished from the action of impersonal forces, which may or may not have been merely otherwise than those presently operative and/or yet to be understood? **

Complex systems being designed and created by intelligent beings has been demonstrated and proven. The impersonal forces theory has not been demonstrated. To believe that impersonal forces that ceased to exist or are not presently understood created life is a matter of faith that I will leave you atheists to debate.**

The analogy is as bogus because it assumes that the other trillion - 1 cards are equally meaningful for our purposes.  You need to prove that a significant number of other chances are equally meaningful to advance that claim.

Evidently, you misunderstood a simple explanation which requires no qualification. Your reference to "meaningful"-ness indicates you are committing the error which this demonstration excludes. Please examine the explanation in context, attempting therein to divine its easily accessible relevance and intent.

That argument doesn't have the wings to fly either.  It excludes inductive reasoning. What if the victim in the picture had bruises consistent with a golf club, rope burns around his wrist and car trunk carpet fibres in his hair?  From your own observations about human behavior, what does this evidence strongly suggest to you?

The specification was for a photograph of an "ostensibly accidental" fatal fall. Your objections are thus excluded by this premise.

We are basing our argument on the observation that complex coordinated systems, such as life do not randomly generate.

I think your argument is properly that no such generation has been observed. Your phrasing suggests an observation of exclusion in principle, which cannot be the case.

Complex systems being designed and created by intelligent beings has been demonstrated and proven.  The impersonal forces theory has not been demonstrated.  To believe that impersonal forces that ceased to exist or are not presently understood created life is a matter of faith that I will leave you atheists to debate.

Do you wish to argue, as was asked before of Octopod, that organisms were originally, literally, fabricated - like the "complex systems" to which you refer. If not, your observation is irrelevant as to a decision between the alternatives. For our experience of organisms, rather, is that they are not fabricated and are the product of impersonal forces once conception takes over.

Oklahomaman

2003-08-02 21:26 | User Profile

Evidently, you misunderstood a simple explanation which requires no qualification. Your reference to "meaningful"-ness indicates you are committing the error which this demonstration excludes. Please examine the explanation in context, attempting therein to divine its easily accessible relevance and intent.

Let me dumb this down a bit. You need to demonstrate that every other permutation has an equal chance to produce a system of comparable complexity to our own. Any system will do. You're argument as it stands is a version of the someone must win the lottery fallacy.

The specification was for a photograph of an "ostensibly accidental" fatal fall. Your objections are thus excluded by this premise.

I predicted this avenue of defense. It will avail you not, for everything I reported can be observed in high quality photographs of the type produced by coroners.

In any event, you've just proven your analogy is worthless with the photograph premise because a photograph of an event is not the same as an event. The premise is disanalogous. We are talking about observing actual complex systems not depictions of complex systems.

• For our experience of organisms, rather, is that they are not fabricated and are the product of impersonal forces once conception takes over. *

Please reread the argument and get a dictionary. Designed is not the same as fabricated.

NeoNietzsche

2003-08-02 21:32 | User Profile

Originally posted by Oklahomaman@Aug 2 2003, 14:52 * > If not impossible, however, it is inevitable - given an infinitude of opportunites which we cannot exclude as the universe of possibilities.*

1) There is not an infinitude of opportunites for the Earth (which contains all observable life) is only a finite number of years old.

2) If you claim it is inevitable for one particular permutation of chances to arise out of an infinite number of possiblities then it is just as inevitable for billions of the exact same permutations to arise. Are you going to claim next that there are billions of replicas of Earth as we know it out there?**

1) There is not an infinitude of opportunites for the Earth (which contains all observable life) is only a finite number of years old.

And there has been no showing of an a priori specification of the predestination of the Earth for the presence of life. You continue to be unable to assimilate this essential point. Out of an infinitude of places in which life might have emerged, the Earth happens to be merely one of those places where it was favored by chance - as some few were inevitably, though randomly, to be favored by the patterns of chance.

2) If you claim it is inevitable for one particular permutation of chances to arise out of an infinite number of possiblities then it is just as inevitable for billions of the exact same permutations to arise.  Are you going to claim next that there are billions of replicas of Earth as we know it out there?

We cannot reasonably exclude this as the case, which case would involve past, present, and future universes in unlimited number. I trust you are familiar with the "many-worlds" hypothesis/interpretation of QM, which lends strength to this argument.

NeoNietzsche

2003-08-02 22:00 | User Profile

Originally posted by Oklahomaman@Aug 2 2003, 15:26 * *Evidently, you misunderstood a simple explanation which requires no qualification. Your reference to "meaningful"-ness indicates you are committing the error which this demonstration excludes. Please examine the explanation in context, attempting therein to divine its easily accessible relevance and intent.

Let me dumb this down a bit.  You need to demonstrate that every other permutation has an equal chance to produce a system of comparable complexity to our own.  Any system will do.  You're argument as it stands is a version of the someone must win the lottery fallacy.

The specification was for a photograph of an "ostensibly accidental" fatal fall. Your objections are thus excluded by this premise.

I predicted this avenue of defense. It will avail you not, for everything I reported can be observed in high quality photographs of the type produced by coroners.

In any event, you've just proven your analogy is worthless with the photograph premise because a photograph of an event is not the same as an event. The premise is disanalogous. We are talking about observing actual complex systems not depictions of complex systems.

• For our experience of organisms, rather, is that they are not fabricated and are the product of impersonal forces once conception takes over. *

Please reread the argument and get a dictionary. Designed is not the same as fabricated.**

Let me dumb this down a bit.  You need to demonstrate that every other permutation has an equal chance to produce a system of comparable complexity to our own.  Any system will do.  You're argument as it stands is a version of the someone must win the lottery fallacy.

You failed to take my patiently-administered and detailed advice. The explanation was as to the question of a demonstration of intent/purpose/design in the emergence of life - not as to a reckoning of the probability of its emergence. Your objection is yet another irrelevant contribution. Try again.

I predicted this avenue of defense. It will avail you not, for everything I reported can be observed in high quality photographs of the type produced by coroners.

Again the failure to understand the point, which involves the obviously-intended exclusion of this consideration by use of the qualification "ostensibly". If that does not suffice, I will stipulate that my explanation excludes such considerations for the sake of making the point about intent/specification/design/purpose, which does not involve any dispute about, by analogy with your suggestion, resolving the details of Octopod's photograph/representation of DNA into proof of intent. Octopod thus failed to provide The Plan, even in the terms which you suggest.

In any event, you've just proven your analogy is worthless with the photograph premise because a photograph of an event is not the same as an event.  The premise is disanalogous.  We are talking about observing actual complex systems not depictions of complex systems.

No, we are talking about the evident intent, or lack therof, manifest in an event. Please pay attention.

Please reread the argument and get a dictionary.  Designed is not the same as fabricated.

Same considerations apply to "designed" as to "fabricated". I restrain myself from reciprocal sarcasm.

NeoNietzsche

2003-08-04 00:48 | User Profile

"Allow me to point out to Pennock that the 'tendency to anthropomorphize the world' is coming from the world itself, or more accurately, from the entire cosmos. In fact, in physics it is called the anthropic principle. In short form, it is the discovery that the universe appears rigged, astoundingly fine-tuned, suspiciously calibrated as part of some kind of a conspiracy of order to produce life—indeed intelligent life. This fine-tuned conspiracy occurs on all levels, from the fundamental constants governing the formation of all the elements in the cosmos, to the extraordinarily precise relationship of planets in our solar system, to the delicate balances on our own planet."

AY,

Do you understand the point I am trying to make about the illogicalness of the anthropic principle?

The point is so obvious - yet seemingly so difficult to grasp - even by otherwise brilliant individuals.

It seeks to prove that the existence of life was intended, by finding a remarkably "rigged, fine-tuned, suspiciously-calibrated conspiracy," which can be adjudged a rigged, finely-tuned, suspiciously-calibrated conspiracy only by virtue of the implicit mere assumption that the existence of life was intended! One notes that the emphasized terminological abuse, in taking the figurative literally, assists in this self-deceptive error in logic.

If the universal constants had been other than they are, the same claim could be made, in all such instances, that these alternate universes were "rigged" to produce whatever phenomena of interest emerged therein as well. [But the faithful will protest that our one-and-only universe has the constants that allow production of life, and that this is a ridiculously improbable arrangement. (sigh)]

Neo

Happy Hacker

2003-08-04 02:48 | User Profile

Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 4 2003, 00:48 * ** It seeks to prove that the existence of life was intended, by finding a remarkably "rigged, fine-tuned, suspiciously-calibrated conspiracy," which can be adjudged a rigged, finely-tuned, suspiciously-calibrated conspiracy only by virtue of the implicit mere assumption* that the existence of life was intended! One notes that the emphasized terminological abuse, in taking the figurative literally, assists in this self-deceptive error in logic. **

Let see if I can put that in simple English:

If I find something that perfectly fits something else, I would be wrong to think that something was desigend to fit the something else?

It could be reasonable coincidence when a nut matches a bolt or when a computer program runs on a computer?

NeoNietzsche

2003-08-04 03:52 | User Profile

Originally posted by Happy Hacker@Aug 3 2003, 20:48 * *Let see if I can put that in simple English:

If I find something that perfectly fits something else, I would be wrong to think that something was desig[ne]d to fit the something else?

It could be reasonable coincidence when a nut matches a bolt or when a computer program runs on a computer?**

I'm sorry, HH, but the words were "rigged," tuned," and "calibrated". The word "fitted" was not included and does not apply. The emergence of life in the universe is merely permitted by the allegedly rigged/tuned/calibrated circumstances - it is not fitted thereto. This is just more of the self-deceptive terminological abuse referred to, above.

In fact, the argument of the Faithful is that, even given the suitability for life of the fundamental parameters, etc., the emergence was nevertheless wildly improbable and of a singular instance. So improbable, in fact, that even given the favorable fundamentals by design, a specific act of the implicated deity would have been required. By implication, then, the universe is basically a stupendously vast, lifeless wasteland of no evident purpose and of admittedly insufficient "design" - stunningly contrary to any suggestion of a "perfect fit" between life and the vessel wherein it is improbable, infinitesimal, and inconsequential.

Your attempt to contribute is appreciated nevertheless.

Texas Dissident

2003-08-04 06:40 | User Profile

*Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Aug 3 2003, 12:36 * ** In fact, I find the old-school "Earth is 6000 years old because the Bible says so" much more honest and less disingenuous than the ID people. Certainly their approach relies on less sophistry and rhetorical sleights of hand. **

Alright! I'm part of the old school. That is, at least until somebody can prove otherwise. I won't hold my breath.

Texas Dissident

2003-08-04 07:03 | User Profile

*Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 4 2003, 01:56 * ** The Bishop Usher, October Sunday the 23rd, 4004 B.C. school? **

I hear he was a good man, but I hesitate at pinpointing exact dates and times for these sort of things.

NeoNietzsche

2003-08-04 16:28 | User Profile

Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 3 2003, 21:52 * In fact, the argument of the Faithful is that, even given the suitability for life of the fundamental parameters, etc., the emergence was nevertheless wildly improbable and of a singular instance.  So improbable, in fact, that even given the favorable fundamentals by design, a specific act of the implicated deity would have been required.  By implication, then, the universe is basically a stupendously vast, lifeless wasteland of no evident purpose and of admittedly insufficient "design" - stunningly contrary to any suggestion of a "perfect fit" between life and the vessel wherein it is improbable, infinitesimal, and inconsequential.*

So the implication, Boys and Girls, is that we are on our own.

Jesus does not love us little children - we have to grow up, at long last, and find real, living leadership.

[ 1) What is the name of the God of War of the White Nationalists?]

NeoNietzsche

2003-08-05 02:08 | User Profile

Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Aug 4 2003, 16:12 * To illustrate, imagine you throw an imaginary dice with a billion sides and the number 10013742 comes up. That number has a one in a billion probability of coming up. Is it "miraculous" that 10013742 came up? Does the low probability mean that the dice is unfair? Of course not, because you only rolled it once. Some one number, however improbable it is individually, had to come up. If it came up repeatedly, one the other hand, you could argue that the game is rigged.*

AY,

I appreciate having your response.

If it came up repeatedly, one the other hand, you could argue that the game is rigged.

And - if I may apply a pertinent variation on this exercise: the single roll itself (of 100137442, the analog of the actual case of which we have firm knowledge) would also be adjudged an instance of "rigging" if 10013742 was specified before the roll. It is this lack of a showing of prior specification that invalidates the literal claim of "rigging/tuning/calibration" in the arrangement of fundamental constants.

But the Faithful can't get past the "watch" analogy. It just can't be an accident.

Happy Hacker

2003-08-06 15:27 | User Profile

*Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Aug 4 2003, 22:12 * ** If there were many alternative universes in existence, each of which had very different physical constants than the ones we experience in ours, it would make sense to argue that our state of affairs is "improbable."

**

So, you believe in totally unevidenced many alternative universes just to justify rejecting the scientific observation that nature appears designed with life in mind. And, you think Theists are long on faith?

To illustrate, imagine you throw an imaginary dice with a billion sides and the number 10013742 comes up. That number has a one in a billion probability of coming up. Is it "miraculous" that 10013742 came up? Does the low probability mean that the dice is unfair? Of course not, because you only rolled it once. Some one number, however improbable it is individually, had to come up. If it came up repeatedly, on the other hand, you could argue that the game is rigged.

All science is ultimatly probability. If you take the temperature of a room, there is a probability, depending on the random movements of molecules, that the temperature could read boiling hot or ice cold. If you follow your reasoning through, you'd have to reject science.

Texas Dissident

2003-08-06 23:24 | User Profile

Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 6 2003, 18:10 * *If Christians here decry the use of reason and skepticism, they should recant their various calumnies against the Divine Plato. **

Why? Did Plato rise from the grave? Not to disparage him, mind you. He was the teacher of Aristotle, I believe, and a brilliant mind. But if I recall my history, despite all the knowledge that Plato and Aristotle brought forth, was not Greece on the precipice of outright barbarism with the advent of the Stoics and Ecumenicists and only saved, if you will, by the spread of civilizing Christianity?

Nevertheless, as a Christian I do not decry reason, for it is given by God, and skepticism is a consequence of faith.

NeoNietzsche

2003-08-07 01:02 | User Profile

Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Aug 6 2003, 17:24 * *But if I recall my history, despite all the knowledge that Plato and Aristotle brought forth, was not Greece on the precipice of outright barbarism with the advent of the Stoics and Ecumenicists and only saved, if you will, by the spread of civilizing Christianity? **

Please define "barbarism" and "civility" - without resort to tautology by merely equating the latter with Christianity.

Paleoleftist

2003-08-07 01:45 | User Profile

*Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Aug 4 2003, 00:40 * ** Alright! I'm part of the old school. That is, at least until somebody can prove otherwise. I won't hold my breath. **

Tex, I have to agree with the infidels :lol: on this one.

Earth is beyond reasonable doubt millions of years old. I can look the precise explanation up, but the gist of it is that we can date certain radioactive materials with precision, and we know they must be a lot older than 6.000 years.

Now how about this conversion of yours to Catholizism? :D We avoid a lot of trouble with NeoNietzsche, AntiYuppie and others by flat-out stating that 1) the Bible is full of metaphors, and 2) we do not even necessarily understand all of them :lol: ; that is to say, if science discovers something totally unforeseen tomorrow that is at odds with our current interpretation of the Bible, we are not going to burn the scientists (that we did so earlier was a bit over-zealous, most Catholics agree), rather we will change the interpretation.

NeoNietzsche

2003-08-07 02:28 | User Profile

Originally posted by Paleoleftist@Aug 6 2003, 19:45 * Earth is beyond reasonable doubt millions of years old. I can look the precise explanation up, but the gist of it is that we can date certain radioactive materials with precision, and we know they must be a lot older than 6.000 years.*

But the radioactive materials could have been created partially expended, thus deceiving foolish skeptics.

Paleoleftist

2003-08-07 02:44 | User Profile

*Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 6 2003, 20:28 * ** But the radioactive materials could have been created partially expended, thus deceiving foolish skeptics. **

This is made unlikely by God´s All-goodness. He wouldn´t be prone to practical jokes of this sort.

However, there may be a truly compelling reason for the trick you are having in mind. In that case, I would have to admit God fooled me. :)

Texas Dissident

2003-08-07 07:29 | User Profile

Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 6 2003, 19:41 * *As to the interesting question of resurrection, there is always the possibility that Jesus was part of a general 'resurrection event' in that part of the world:

**(Mat 27:50 NRSV) Then Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last.

(Mat 27:52 NRSV) The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised.

(Mat 27:53 NRSV) After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many. **

So the whole question of resurrection in that part of the world in the first century will have to be expanded. Clearly it was not as uncommon as it is today. **

Not a part, rather the cause. When our Saviour breathed his last, it literally rocked the heavens and hell and our world in-between.

And let's not forget verse 54:

When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!"

Indeed, surely he was, is and forevermore will be. You too can share in His glory, wintermute. Just repent and be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. The Truth is right there staring you in the face and working upon your conscience at this very moment. Heed the call and put-on the New Man.

Texas Dissident

2003-08-07 07:51 | User Profile

Originally posted by Paleoleftist@Aug 6 2003, 20:45 * Earth is beyond reasonable doubt millions of years old. I can look the precise explanation up, but the gist of it is that we can date certain radioactive materials with precision, and we know they must be a lot* older than 6.000 years. **

I don't necessarily believe that the days of creation described in Genesis are presented from our point in space and time, and as such are not days as we know them. Hence, the literal account of creation in Genesis is true, but given from a different vantage point in the universe.

Admittedly, the science is beyond my simple mind, but Jewish physicist, Gerald Schroeder, in his book "The Science of God" goes into such things as the space/time continuum and the use of the Hebrew language in the Genesis account. It makes a compelling read.

Now how about this conversion of yours to Catholizism?

No, that would be Lutheranism of the Missouri-Synod flavor. Sola scriptura remains a dividing line for me.

that is to say, if science discovers something totally unforeseen tomorrow that is at odds with our current interpretation of the Bible

I don't think that will ever happen. Not that I discount new revelation via the Holy Spirit, but it will never conflict with God's written Word already given to us.

NeoNietzsche

2003-08-08 01:03 | User Profile

Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Aug 6 2003, 20:44 -->

QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Aug 6 2003, 20:44 )

<!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Aug 6 2003, 20:28 * ** But the radioactive materials could have been created partially expended, thus deceiving foolish skeptics. ** This is made unlikely by God´s All-goodness. He wouldn´t be prone to practical jokes of this sort.** You mean like choosing the Jews? NeoNietzsche 2003-08-08 01:15 | User Profile Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Aug 7 2003, 01:29 * You too can share in His glory, wintermute.  Just repent and be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.  The Truth is right there staring you in the face and working upon your conscience at this very moment.  Heed the call and put-on the New Man.* Jesus calls the children dear, “Come to me and never fear, For I love the little children of the world; I will take you by the hand, Lead you to the better land, For I love the little children of the world.” Jesus loves the little children, All the children of the world. Red and yellow, black and white, All are precious in His sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world. Jesus is the Shepherd true, And He’ll always stand by you, For He loves the little children of the world; He’s a Savior great and strong, And He’ll shield you from the wrong, For He loves the little children of the world. Jesus loves the little children, All the children of the world. Red and yellow, black and white, All are precious in His sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world. I am coming, Lord, to Thee, And Your soldier I will be, For You love the little children of the world; And Your cross I’ll always bear, And for You I’ll do and dare, For You love the little children of the world. Jesus loves the little children, All the children of the world. Red and yellow, black and white, All are precious in His sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-08 02:44 | User Profile Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Aug 7 2003, 01:29 * *And let's not forget verse 54: When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!"** Which "God" might that be in the belief system of a Roman centurion? I remembered the radioactive-rock rationale, but I forget the maneuver one pulls on this one. Must be something like: "By God's grace he was granted profound insight into this earth-shaking, epochal event." Seems that once you believe anything, you can believe anything. Texas Dissident 2003-08-08 06:29 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 7 2003, 20:15 * *Jesus calls the children dear, “Come to me and never fear, For I love the little children of the world; I will take you by the hand, Lead you to the better land, For I love the little children of the world.” ** "At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." Texas Dissident 2003-08-08 06:32 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 7 2003, 21:44 * ** Seems that once you believe anything, you can believe anything*. ** Seems that once you doubt everything, you won't believe in anything. A foundation built on sand. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-08 14:04 | User Profile Originally posted by Texas Dissident+Aug 8 2003, 00:32 --> QUOTE (Texas Dissident @ Aug 8 2003, 00:32 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Aug 7 2003, 21:44 * ** Seems that once you believe anything, you can believe anything*. ** Seems that once you doubt everything, you won't believe in anything. A foundation built on sand.** Good point. War is won by maneuver. No fortress can withstand perpetual assault. The Jews are nimble - we must be more so. Wintermute and I are attempting to enhance you (and others) in this regard. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-08 14:13 | User Profile Originally posted by Texas Dissident+Aug 8 2003, 00:29 --> QUOTE (Texas Dissident @ Aug 8 2003, 00:29 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Aug 7 2003, 20:15 * *Jesus calls the children dear, “Come to me and never fear, For I love the little children of the world; I will take you by the hand, Lead you to the better land, For I love the little children of the world.” ** "At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."** Is it any wonder, Boys and Girls, that the mature Jews so easily manipulate the arrested Christians? All Christians go stand in the corner until you decide to grow up. And no peeking back at the grown-ups. Texas Dissident 2003-08-08 14:24 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 8 2003, 09:04 * *No fortress can withstand perpetual assault. ** The Church can. The Jews are nimble...Wintermute and I are attempting to enhance you (and others) in this regard. Indeed. I do feel like I am better able to counter the ADL/B'nai B'rith's playbook because of y'all's parroting their anti-Christian argument here. Thank you for your sacrifice and for being so very patient with us, NN. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-08 14:51 | User Profile Originally posted by Texas Dissident+Aug 8 2003, 08:24 --> QUOTE (Texas Dissident @ Aug 8 2003, 08:24 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Aug 8 2003, 09:04 * *No fortress can withstand perpetual assault. ** The Church can. The Jews are nimble...Wintermute and I are attempting to enhance you (and others) in this regard. Indeed. I do feel like I am better able to counter the ADL/B'nai B'rith's playbook because of y'all's parroting their anti-Christian argument here. Thank you for your sacrifice and for being so very patient with us, NN.** The Church can. It has not. The enemy is within the walls. Or hadn't you noticed? I do feel like I am better able to counter the ADL/B'nai B'rith's playbook because of y'all's parroting their anti-Christian argument here. Forgive me for being blunt, Tex, but I see no evidence of this in your refusal or inability to respond with substantive finality to substantive arguments. Many are the threads where my last remarks have gone unanswered, presumably because they are unanswerable in terms of marshalling logic and evidence. But I think you are not insulted by the observation that those elements do not represent your ultimate criteria. Hence the unenhanced capacity to which I refer - unless by your "countering" you mean merely the nursing of your inward convictions. Thank you for your sacrifice and for being so very patient with us, NN. Then harken: You will never recover "America" from the Greater Judeans until you combine the Classical virtues of strength and intellect. The collaborationist Weenies are hopeless because they are physical and emotional cowards - you Morons of the resistance have the strength and courage, but lack the inward guidance of mature, unencumbered intellect. Grow up. Texas Dissident 2003-08-08 15:09 | User Profile It is my fervent hope that one day I might grow up to be the man you are, NN. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-08 15:36 | User Profile Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Aug 8 2003, 09:09 * It is my fervent hope that one day I might grow up to be the man you are, NN.* You are insincere and insubstantial in saying so, Tex. You will have made progress in becoming the man that you can be when you accept the discipline of logic and evidence as all that the grown-ups have toward mastering the world in which the subordinates wallow in their passions and illusions. Texas Dissident 2003-08-08 16:13 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 8 2003, 10:36 * *You are insincere and insubstantial in saying so, Tex. ** Insincere? Yes. Insubstantial? No. You will have made progress in becoming the man that you can be when you accept the discipline of logic and evidence as all that the grown-ups have toward mastering the world in which the subordinates wallow in their passions and illusions. Whatever you say, NN. Your criteria as to what constitutes a 'man' completely differs from mine own, and I see no need to keep discussing it. But I tell you what, let's revisit the subject once you have some children of your own. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-08 16:33 | User Profile Originally posted by Texas Dissident+Aug 8 2003, 10:13 --> QUOTE (Texas Dissident @ Aug 8 2003, 10:13 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Aug 8 2003, 10:36 * *You are insincere and insubstantial in saying so, Tex. ** Insincere? Yes. Insubstantial? No. You will have made progress in becoming the man that you can be when you accept the discipline of logic and evidence as all that the grown-ups have toward mastering the world in which the subordinates wallow in their passions and illusions. Whatever you say, NN. Your criteria as to what constitutes a 'man' completely differs from mine own, and I see no need to keep discussing it. But I tell you what, let's revisit the subject once you have some children of your own.** I agree as to the issue of criteria and the implication for further discussion. The subject, however, will not be revisited, as I have made the responsible decision not to subject children to the future that awaits those now having been thoughtlessly brought to life. I could say much more of an insulting character in this regard, but I will respectfully leave the matter with this denial of your presumption of some superior perspective in regard to manhood by virtue of having merely reproduced. Paleoleftist 2003-08-08 17:25 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche+Aug 7 2003, 19:03 --> QUOTE (NeoNietzsche @ Aug 7 2003, 19:03 ) QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Aug 6 2003, 20:44 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Aug 6 2003, 20:28 * ** But the radioactive materials could have been created partially expended, thus deceiving foolish skeptics. ** This is made unlikely by God´s All-goodness. He wouldn´t be prone to practical jokes of this sort.** You mean like choosing the Jews? ** They were given a chance, made bad use of it, and were superceded. Where´s the problem? Paleoleftist 2003-08-08 17:30 | User Profile *Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 8 2003, 08:04 * ** No fortress can withstand perpetual assault. . ** You are now getting into the "Which is stronger? The irresistible force, or the immovable object?" argument. But, just perhaps, scholastic discussions of this sort are not the order of the day. Strange that I, the Catholic, should be the one to say so. :D Paleoleftist 2003-08-08 17:34 | User Profile *Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 8 2003, 08:51 * ** The enemy is within the walls. ** Are we behind their lines, or they behind ours? Sure, this question has to be decided, but it is not yet decided, and I agree with Tex that your input in this regard is not helpful. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-08 19:56 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Aug 8 2003, 11:25 --> QUOTE (Paleoleftist @ Aug 8 2003, 11:25 ) QUOTE (NeoNietzsche @ Aug 7 2003, 19:03 ) QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Aug 6 2003, 20:44 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Aug 6 2003, 20:28 * ** But the radioactive materials could have been created partially expended, thus deceiving foolish skeptics. ** This is made unlikely by God´s All-goodness. He wouldn´t be prone to practical jokes of this sort.** You mean like choosing the Jews? ** They were given a chance, made bad use of it, and were superceded. Where´s the problem?** God's little prank got out of hand. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-08 20:10 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Aug 8 2003, 11:34 --> QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Aug 8 2003, 11:34 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Aug 8 2003, 08:51 * ** The enemy is within the walls. ** Are we behind their lines, or they behind ours? Sure, this question has to be decided, but it is not yet decided, and I agree with Tex that your input in this regard is not helpful.** If you are not equipped to discern whose is the present advantage, there is no mystery in your failure to profit by my "input". Paleoleftist 2003-08-08 21:09 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche+Aug 8 2003, 14:10 --> QUOTE (NeoNietzsche @ Aug 8 2003, 14:10 ) QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Aug 8 2003, 11:34 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Aug 8 2003, 08:51 * ** The enemy is within the walls. ** Are we behind their lines, or they behind ours? Sure, this question has to be decided, but it is not yet decided, and I agree with Tex that your input in this regard is not helpful.** If you are not equipped to discern whose is the present advantage, there is no mystery in your failure to profit by my "input". ** Perhaps, with all your brilliance, you failed to "discern" that I was not talking about deciding the question you are referring to in a theoretical sense. Paleoleftist 2003-08-08 21:13 | User Profile *Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 8 2003, 14:10 * ** ...there is no mystery in your failure to profit by my "input". ** No mystery, indeed. As your input consists in sniping at those who are trying to throw the enemy back out of the castle of the Christian Republic. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-08 22:34 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Aug 8 2003, 15:13 --> QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Aug 8 2003, 15:13 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Aug 8 2003, 14:10 * ** ...there is no mystery in your failure to profit by my "input". ** No mystery, indeed. As your input consists in sniping at those who are trying to throw the enemy back out of the castle of the Christian Republic.** My dear PL, whereas you do not approach the excellence of our Oklahomaman in the employment of the argument ignoratio elenchi, your inattentiveness to the discussion hereabouts challenges his collateral supremacy therein. If by "Christian Republic" you mean the physical polity you imagine you once had and would have again, you have failed to note my explanation of how, when, and why you lost it as such [see below for references]. If by "Christian Republic" you mean a spiritual polity, you mis-speak (so-to-speak) - for any such dominion rightfully referred to as Christian is an autocracy, a kingdom - not a "Republic". But since you thus implicitly concede my argument that you are without a king to lead you, the explanation for your failure to repel the invader and for the prospect of his inevitable victory does not escape us. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-08 22:51 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Aug 8 2003, 15:09 --> QUOTE (Paleoleftist @ Aug 8 2003, 15:09 ) QUOTE (NeoNietzsche @ Aug 8 2003, 14:10 ) QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Aug 8 2003, 11:34 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Aug 8 2003, 08:51 * ** The enemy is within the walls. ** Are we behind their lines, or they behind ours? Sure, this question has to be decided, but it is not yet decided, and I agree with Tex that your input in this regard is not helpful.** If you are not equipped to discern whose is the present advantage, there is no mystery in your failure to profit by my "input". ** Perhaps, with all your brilliance, you failed to "discern" that I was not talking about deciding the question you are referring to in a theoretical sense.** Indeed, PL, there is always the danger that one's discernment may fail one, and a precautionary reminder of that possibility is a worthy contribution, thanks. Fortunately, that danger was avoided in this instance. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-08 23:06 | User Profile [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=25&t=3288&hl=plutocrats&view=findpost&p=17385]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...indpost&p=17385[/url] [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=25&t=3288&hl=plutocrats&view=findpost&p=18007]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...indpost&p=18007[/url] [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=11&t=3287&hl=plutocrats&view=findpost&p=18105]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...indpost&p=18105[/url] [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=7&t=7948&hl=plutocrats&view=findpost&p=41252]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...indpost&p=41252[/url] [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=7&t=8530&hl=plutocrats&view=findpost&p=44949]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...indpost&p=44949[/url] [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=14&t=9456&hl=plutocrats&view=findpost&p=53066]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...indpost&p=53066[/url] Paleoleftist 2003-08-08 23:24 | User Profile *Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 8 2003, 16:34 * ** If by "Christian Republic" you mean the physical polity you imagine you once had and would have again, you have failed to note my explanation of how, when, and why you lost it as such [see below for references]. ** First, last, and always, it would be our government - the form of the government being largely irrelevant and the staffing of the government with comrades in arms and spirit being the paramount consideration. I disagree with your belief in the possibility of total separation between form and content. But yes, staffing the government with Christians (real, not caricature) would certainly be appreciated. If you mean stuffing it with Nietzscheans or Hitler-style Nationalsocialists, this would be very far from being my government. But I note this is not your intent, and we agree now on the desirability of the Christian Republic. :th: NeoNietzsche 2003-08-08 23:57 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Aug 8 2003, 17:24 --> QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Aug 8 2003, 17:24 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Aug 8 2003, 16:34 * ** If by "Christian Republic" you mean the physical polity you imagine you once had and would have again, you have failed to note my explanation of how, when, and why you lost it as such [see below for references]. ** First, last, and always, it would be our government - the form of the government being largely irrelevant and the staffing of the government with comrades in arms and spirit being the paramount consideration. I disagree with your belief in the possibility of total separation between form and content. But yes, staffing the government with Christians (real, not caricature) would certainly be appreciated. If you mean stuffing it with Nietzscheans or Hitler-style Nationalsocialists, this would be very far from being my government. But I note this is not your intent, and we agree now on the desirability of the Christian Republic. :th:** You ejaculate with joy prematurely, PL. I do mean to stuff "our" government with the alert Teutonic types, should multiple miracles occur. Lucky for you, these are so few and so improbable, respectively, that no such prospect reasonably exists. The preponderance of the bovine Christian type, despite my efforts, means that the catastrophe implicit in the Jewish Messianic vision of our future will not be avoided. Paleoleftist 2003-08-09 00:10 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche+Aug 8 2003, 17:57 --> QUOTE* (NeoNietzsche @ Aug 8 2003, 17:57 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Paleoleftist@Aug 8 2003, 17:24 * ** I disagree with your belief in the possibility of total separation between form and content. But yes, staffing the government with Christians (real, not caricature) would certainly be appreciated. If you mean stuffing it with Nietzscheans or Hitler-style Nationalsocialists, this would be very far from being my government. But I note this is not your intent, and we agree now on the desirability of the Christian Republic.  :th:** You have ejaculated with joy prematurely, PL. I do mean to stuff "our" government with the alert Teutonic types, should multiple miracles occur. Lucky for you, these are so few and so improbable, respectively, that no such prospect exists. The preponderance of the bovine Christian type, despite my efforts, means that the catastrophe implicit in the Jewish Messianic vision of our future will not be avoided. ** Ahhh, but Atheists are not entitled to miracles. And both catastrophes -the Zionist one, and the NS dacapo-, deo concedente, WILL be avoided. Christianity has been around for over 2 millennia. Do not underestimate our cunning and intransigence. B) NeoNietzsche 2003-08-09 00:23 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist@Aug 8 2003, 17:24 * I disagree with your belief in the possibility of total separation between form and content.* I disagree with your implicit equation of the terms "largely" and "completely". Of course, Nationalism is inconsistent with such as Oriental Despotism, hence the qualification "largely". ["First, last, and always, it would be our government - the form of the government being largely irrelevant and the staffing of the government with comrades in arms and spirit being the paramount consideration."] NeoNietzsche 2003-08-09 00:39 | User Profile Ahhh, but Atheists are not entitled to miracles. Like I said, I'm not expecting one. And both catastrophes -the Zionist one, and the NS dacapo-, deo concedente,  WILL be avoided. Not if such avoidance is left to the employment of gifts such as yours. No offence intended - just a realistic assessment. Christianity has been around for over 2 millennia. Do not underestimate our cunning and intransigence.  B) I do not. Christians will endure as the subjects of whatever masters emerge from the catastrophe. Paleoleftist 2003-08-09 00:41 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche+Aug 8 2003, 18:23 --> QUOTE (NeoNietzsche @ Aug 8 2003, 18:23 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Paleoleftist@Aug 8 2003, 17:24 * I disagree with your belief in the possibility of total separation between form and content.* I disagree with your implicit equation of the terms "largely" and "completely". ** Noted your disagreement. :) However, I also disagree with your belief in the viability of largely separating the questions of form and content. Paleoleftist 2003-08-09 00:55 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 8 2003, 18:39 * ** > And both catastrophes -the Zionist one, and the NS dacapo-, deo concedente,  WILL be avoided.* Not if such avoidance is left to the employment of gifts such as yours. No offence intended - just a realistic assessment. ** I do not consider your assessment as an offense. But nor do I consider it as realistic. > Christianity has been around for over 2 millennia. Do not underestimate our cunning and intransigence.  B)** **I do not. Christians will endure as the subjects of whatever masters emerge from the catastrophe. ** ** We will see. Given your crude, materialistic viewpoint (also not meant as an offense, but a philosophic description), you would not likely have predicted Christianity to triumph over the likes of Severus and Trajan. But it did. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-09 00:56 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist@Aug 8 2003, 18:41 * However, I also disagree with your belief in the viability of largely separating the questions of form and content.* Yes, I believe I was saying something about the employment of gifts such as yours. I would otherwise be eager to assail you with a demonstration of principle in this regard, rather than snidely dismissing you thus - but you display a tendency shared with TD (though not in the same regrettable measure) to disregard such demonstrations. So I won't bother. But your disagreement is noted, nevertheless. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-09 01:19 | User Profile I do not consider your assessment as an offense. But nor do I consider it as realistic. What a surprise. Given your crude, materialistic viewpoint (also not meant as an offense, but a philosophic description), you would not likely have predicted Christianity to triumph over the likes of Severus and Trajan. But it did. No - it didn't. A "Christian" triumph, in the terms we are discussing, didn't happen until Innocent III, long after "the likes" were dead and gone. And a century later, Boniface VIII was in captivity. The secular authorities indeed made many a Devil's Pact with the emerging Whore over the centuries, but only Innocent had the regal boys under the whip. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-09 03:01 | User Profile "Finally, I would appreciate it if I weren't lumped into some imagined NeoNietz[s]che bandwagon [color=blue] even though I'm responding to points directed at him[/color]. Obviously, this request includes NN[color=blue], who understandably suffers under the same mis-impression gathered by others as to my sympathies and antipathies[/color]. As a Platonist, I don't think PaleoN would have thought much of me, and as an OD'er, I find his descendant's style unnecessarily abrasive, especially towards Christians on this board [color=blue] like that goddamned liar, Patrick[/color]. If I had to summarize my 'message', it would be only this: love Truth better than Christianity. In that way, nothing you do will be offensive to Christ[color=blue], only offensive to Christians[/color]." Paleoleftist 2003-08-09 14:33 | User Profile Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 8 2003, 20:07 * ** > *Indeed. I do feel like I am better able to counter the ADL/B'nai B'rith's playbook because of y'all's parroting their anti-Christian argument here. ** Let the ADL reprint my quotes and interpretation of the Old Testament, and I'll grant your point. Given your crude, materialistic viewpoint (also not meant as an offense, but a philosophic description), you would not likely have predicted Christianity to triumph over the likes of Severus and Trajan. But it did. Well, given my sophisticated, idealist viewpoint, and my knowledge of Christian theology, I am not surprised that it triumphed via the 'likes' of Constantine and Justinian. Christianity has been around for over 2 millennia. Do not underestimate our cunning and intransigence. I wouldn't do this. As the Messianic Age comes into plain view, I expect Christianity to split into four cunning, intransigent, factions: those who become Jews (Messianics, Noahides), those who support the Jews fervently, a la the Christian Zionists, those who support the Jews implicity, but who will quietly and not-so quietly withdraw from the common culture (home schoolers, Trad Catholics, Christian Patriots etc.), and the remainder - those who see the Jews for what they are. This group will either lose their Faith entirely or reconsitute Christian practice on an explicitly Hellenic ground. It will not be a Christianity you recognize. Did you really expect that the centuries of desecrated temples, murdered Europeans, and outright Jew worship would proceed without incident? The "Church" you claim will stand against Hell itself is now Jewish property. It denies the necessity of belief in Christ for the Jews, and is therefore spiritually null and void, a belfrey filled with empty shells. You will notice that the much-anticipated "Passion" film is being made by a man who, in any other century, would be accounted a Heretic. I suppose he is now the 'touchstone' for 'true Christianity'. I'll take your word for it, but the target is always moving. The Protestant, Christian Republic of America is now in ruins and subject to an undeclared invasion. What remains of its assets (physical and intellectual) are now under Jewish control. Christian anti-semitism, which might have helped Charles Lindburgh, or made some difference, failed to appear. In these, the final stages of infection, I suspect that we will see some of this much vaunted phenomena, but now there is no way to widely present the true nature of Jews without there also being widespread suspicion as the accuracy of holy books written by the same. I know many people whose faith dropped away - almost overnight - when they fully internalized the implications of 'The Jew Thing'. I am prepared to help these folks maintain and salvage what they can from the wreckage. But the Old Testament, barring the absolute victory of our opponents, is just so many dead letters. As a weight around your necks, I suggest abandoning it posthaste. It will not offer spiritual aid and assistance in the years to come. Your own testaments, to my mind half good and half bad, are more promising. Luckily, the contributions of Christian mystics over the last two millenia will more than make up for what will have to be pitched out. So you might have to let go of Revelations (is it really a loss?), but the riches you'll recieve from Tauler, Eckhardt, Hildegard, Julian, St. John of the Cross, and Teresa will result in a purer Christian revelation. Even Simone Weil, the best respected Christian Mystic of the century just past, has called Jehovah outright 'a false god'. Her interesting question, "how do the promises of YHVH to the Jews differ from the offer Satan makes Jesus?" remains unanswered on this board, though I have posed it before. It is entirely possible that 'true Christianity' was buried under the ashes of a corrupted and dying Roman Empire, and will only now be born for the first time, so this isn't a Gospel of Sorrows I'm preaching here. Finally, I would appreciate it if I weren't lumped into some imagined NeoNietzche bandwagon. Obviously, this request includes NN. As a Platonist, I don't think PaleoN would have thought much of me, and as an OD'er, I find his descendant's style unnecessarily abrasive, especially towards Christians on this board. If I had to summarize my 'message', it would be only this: love Truth better than Christianity. In that way, nothing you do will be offensive to Christ. Wintermute ** :o Wait a moment! The first of your quotes is not from me, and the other two were -clearly!- directed at NN. I am not denying your viewpoint is -by an order of magnitude!- more sophisticated than NN´s (not saying I totally agree, but that´s another topic), and I must admit, precisely for this reason, I DO feel offended if you imply I am lumping you together with NN. Where did I ever do this? :( :( Paleoleftist 2003-08-09 14:40 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 8 2003, 19:19 * ** > Given your crude, materialistic viewpoint (also not meant as an offense, but a philosophic description), you would not likely have predicted Christianity to triumph over the likes of Severus and Trajan. But it did.* No - it didn't. A "Christian" triumph, in the terms we are discussing, didn't happen until Innocent III, long after "the likes" were dead and gone. And a century later, Boniface VIII was in captivity. The secular authorities indeed made many a Devil's Pact with the emerging Whore over the centuries, but only Innocent had the regal boys under the whip. ** This is what I mean by crudeness of viewpoint. You imply that what Christians want is a Theocracy. Christian triumph was achieved with Constantine, and consisted in spiritual/metapolitical/philosophical and emotional -quite important!- Christian leadership of Western Culture, a leadership that was not really dislodged even by the French Revolution, but only by the pernicious counter-cultural 60s movement on the left and its neo-conservative allies on the right. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-09 14:42 | User Profile I object to your pairing your uncalled for and personal abuse with my posts here by making claims that "both wintermute and I" are trying to "enhance you". I am tempted to respond by acknowledging, as such, what appears to be your concession that you are not trying to enhance Tex. You are at liberty to clarify. Perhaps you intend merely to have such enhancement not paired with what you characterize as "uncalled for and personal abuse". In any case, I will not presume to speak for you in the future. Also, I do have some concern that atheists and pagans aren't lumped together. My beliefs and your beliefs do overlap on occasion, but they are not coterminous. Your concern is noted. I would be interested in the significance of this distinction for the Christian interlocutors of the present instance. My sympathies and antipathies are made plain in my posts. If you desire clarification, please ask. See above for ambiguous statement of position. Your aspiration is commendable, nevertheless. The key word in in the phrase 'unnecessarily abrasive' is unnecessary. While you do have a right, as do I, to present reason and facts to anyone on this board, I find your practice of mocking people by posting hymns sung in childhood, or your terminol[o]gy of 'morons' and so forth, to be objectionable. A vicious dig at someone's childhood memories, combined with the imputation that that person has not advanced mentally since, is bad form. Interestingly, however, a form which elicits, as seen by Tex's response, a concession that the imputation is correct. I must confess to being somewhat taken aback by these reservations as to terminology, etc., by someone who has here referred to personally-confronted Christians as "donkeys," in honor of their intellectual proficiency. I would hardly expect a milder reference to "Morons" and to arrested development to raise objections from that quarter. Nevertheless, I note the speck in mine own eye, as I do have qualified regrets about the acrimony which arises from these frank reproaches to the children. For the sake of Thomas Jefferson's memory, it was necessary. You can see I've adopted the moniker 'Speaker for the Dead', and I intend to stand by it. If someone here falsifies historical data that I am aware of, I will correct them. If they've done so in an especially obstinate way, I have no reason not to call them 'liars'. I see. So you, too, have a rationale for being unnecessarily abrasive. Also - Patrick, IAH, Golfball, and Sojourner, in my opinion, are not Christians. Even if, in some wider sense, they can be said to be such, they are not our allies, and I cannot class them with Tex, Walter Yannis, Perun, Faust, madrussian, paleoleftist and others on this board who I do regard as friends, and whom I respect. Good to see that we are as one in our sentimental attachments. You always hurt the ones you love. Though I sense that PIGS have been given little reason to join us in such fraternity, thanks to your well-rationalized efforts. Some of the Bible verses and chapters from Christian History that I present will be offensive. But they are not needlessly personal, and they are not intended to be a source of suffering for the reader, though of course we discuss many painful things on this forum. [cough, cough] Do pardon my sh*t-eating amusement at this effort at hair-splitting. I don't doubt that my little prognostication regarding the next century, above, can be seen as 'offensive'. However, it is not a personal attack primarily intended to cause pain. It is not an uncalled for reprinting of 'Jesus loves the little children' as some sort of mocking, leering taunt. Hence, I would not want it to be classified as such under the rubric 'enhancement'. I think this last is the real extent of your problem. I absolve you. Paleoleftist 2003-08-09 14:55 | User Profile *Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 8 2003, 20:07 * ** Well, given my sophisticated, idealist viewpoint, and my knowledge of Christian theology, I am not surprised that it triumphed via the 'likes' of Constantine and Justinian. ** Your sophisticated, idealistic viewpoint is not doubted, and indeed highly appreciated -the only thing that vexes me is that you seem to think otherwise, and thereby indirectly deny the sophistication of my own viewpoint. :) At least concerning Justinian I agree that evidence strongly indicates that he possibly supported Christianity for reasons best called "Macchiavellistic". But there is still the question if he got the better of us, or we got the better of him. B) NeoNietzsche 2003-08-09 14:57 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Aug 9 2003, 08:40 --> QUOTE (Paleoleftist @ Aug 9 2003, 08:40 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Aug 8 2003, 19:19 * ** > Given your crude, materialistic viewpoint (also not meant as an offense, but a philosophic description), you would not likely have predicted Christianity to triumph over the likes of Severus and Trajan. But it did.* No - it didn't. A "Christian" triumph, in the terms we are discussing, didn't happen until Innocent III, long after "the likes" were dead and gone. And a century later, Boniface VIII was in captivity. The secular authorities indeed made many a Devil's Pact with the emerging Whore over the centuries, but only Innocent had the regal boys under the whip. ** This is what I mean by crudeness of viewpoint. You imply that what Christians want is a Theocracy. Christian triumph was achieved with Constantine, and consisted in spiritual/metapolitical/philosophical and emotional -quite important!- Christian leadership of Western Culture, a leadership that was not really dislodged even by the French Revolution, but only by the pernicious counter-cultural 60s movement on the left and its neo-conservative allies on the right.** I state forthrightly that Christians want a Theocracy. The Papacy was a continuing attempt thereat, which briefly succeeded during the reign of Innocent. Remember the Investiture Controversy? Remember Canossa? How about Calvin in Geneva? Hello! Christians deny the want of Theocracy merely for the remoteness of the opportunity to impose it. Why stop with Blue Laws when there is so much other Law by which to guide us in the Path of Righteousness? NeoNietzsche 2003-08-09 15:18 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 9 2003, 08:42 * > Also, I [WM] do have some concern that atheists and pagans aren't lumped together. My beliefs and your [NN's] beliefs do overlap on occasion, but they are not coterminous.* Your concern is noted. I would be interested in the significance of this distinction for the Christian interlocutors of the present instance.** I [PL] am not denying your [WM's] viewpoint is -by an order of magnitude!- more sophisticated than NN´s (not saying I totally agree, but that´s another topic), and I must admit, precisely for this reason, I DO feel offended if you imply I am lumping you together with NN. Where did I ever do this? Your [WM's] sophisticated, idealistic viewpoint is not doubted, and indeed highly appreciated -the only thing that vexes me is that you seem to think otherwise, and thereby indirectly deny the sophistication of my own viewpoint.** Thanks to PL, the distinction is now evident: Daddy NeoNietzsche spanks :crybaby: - little Christians run to Mommy Wintermute for consolation :hyp: . Paleoleftist 2003-08-09 15:19 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche+Aug 9 2003, 08:57 --> QUOTE (NeoNietzsche @ Aug 9 2003, 08:57 ) QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Aug 9 2003, 08:40 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Aug 8 2003, 19:19 * ** A "Christian" triumph, in the terms we are discussing, didn't happen until Innocent III, long after "the likes" were dead and gone.  And a century later, Boniface VIII was in captivity.  The secular authorities indeed made many a Devil's Pact with the emerging Whore over the centuries, but only Innocent had the regal boys under the whip. ** This is what I mean by crudeness of viewpoint. You imply that what Christians want is a Theocracy. Christian triumph was achieved with Constantine, and consisted in spiritual/metapolitical/philosophical and emotional -quite important!- Christian leadership of Western Culture, a leadership that was not really dislodged even by the French Revolution, but only by the pernicious counter-cultural 60s movement on the left and its neo-conservative allies on the right.** I state forthrightly that Christians want a Theocracy. The Papacy was a continuing attempt thereat, which briefly succeeded during the reign of Innocent. Remember the Investiture Controversy? Remember Canossa? How about Calvin in Geneva? Hello! Christians deny the want of Theocracy merely for the remoteness of the opportunity to impose it. Why stop with Blue Laws when there is so much other Law by which to guide us in the Path of Righteousness? ** I state forthrightly that Christians want a Theocracy. I state fortrightly that your statement is nonsense. And what gives you the idea that you are CHOSEN to set forth OUR goals? This approximates the presumption of the Zionists. Remember Canossa? Remember there is presently no Emperor? Your allegation that we might wish to reinstate an Emperor for the purpose of making him go to Canossa again borders the surreal, to say the keast. :jest: Why stop with Blue Laws when there is so much other Law by which to guide us in the Path of Righteousness? I do not deny there is some case to be made for guiding you toward the Path of Righteousness by other means than gentle persuasion and general spiritual Christian Leadership of Western Society, but I am not making that case, since the Common Good generally recognized by Christians of intellectual ability as an important, if not the most important, consideration in the purely political sphere demands some insurance against the possibility of abuse of such means. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-09 16:01 | User Profile I state fortrightly that your statement is nonsense. And what gives you the idea that you are CHOSEN to set forth OUR goals? This approximates the presumption of the Zionists. It was, of course, an imputation of obvious motive rather than a setting forth of goals. Do you pretend not to understand an obvious point for the sake of playing to the gallery? **Remember there is presently no Emperor? Your allegation that we might wish to reinstate an Emperor for the purpose of making him go to Canossa again borders the surreal, to say the keast.  :jest: ** Yes, I think I have it now. You can't be this profoundly stupid. We are no longer having a dialogue - you are merely dishonestly re-inventing my position into a straw man, on-the-fly. How very Christian of you! Worthy of the Fathers, if only in inspiration and not in cleverness. I do not deny there is some case to be made for guiding you toward the Path of Righteousness by other means than gentle persuasion and general spiritual Christian Leadership of Western Society, but I am not making that case, since the Common Good generally recognized by Christians of intellectual ability as an important, if not the most important, consideration in the purely political sphere demands some insurance against the possibility of abuse of such means. I am profoundly reassured - and so impressed by this warrant of unprecedented Christian good faith, intellectual ability, and self-imposed restraint - that I am going to use it as my new signature. Paleoleftist 2003-08-09 16:36 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 9 2003, 10:01 * ** > I state fortrightly that your statement is nonsense. And what gives you the idea that you are CHOSEN to set forth OUR goals? This approximates the presumption of the Zionists.* It was, of course, an imputation of obvious motive rather than a setting forth of goals. Do you pretend not to understand an obvious point for the sake of playing to the gallery? **Remember there is presently no Emperor? Your allegation that we might wish to reinstate an Emperor for the purpose of making him go to Canossa again borders the surreal, to say the keast.  :jest: ** Yes, I think I have it now. You can't be this profoundly stupid. We are no longer having a dialogue - you are merely dishonestly re-inventing my position into a straw man, on-the-fly. How very Christian of you! Worthy of the Fathers, if only in inspiration and not in cleverness. I do not deny there is some case to be made for guiding you toward the Path of Righteousness by other means than gentle persuasion and general spiritual Christian Leadership of Western Society, but I am not making that case, since the Common Good generally recognized by Christians of intellectual ability as an important, if not the most important, consideration in the purely political sphere demands some insurance against the possibility of abuse of such means. ** Do you pretend not to understand an obvious point for the sake of playing to the gallery? Did the notion occur to you that I pretend not to understand an obvious -if deplorably silly- allusion for the sake of irony? :) You can't be this profoundly stupid. Gosh, thanks. :wub: I am profoundly reassured - and so impressed by this warrant of unprecedented Christian good faith, intellectual ability, and self-imposed restraint - that I am going to use it as my new signature. Given that your posts are as outstandingly ubiquitous as they are astonishingly profound, I can only say a hearty "thank you!" for advertising my opinion so consistently. :heart: NeoNietzsche 2003-08-09 16:53 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist@Aug 9 2003, 10:36 * > Do you pretend not to understand an obvious point for the sake of playing to the gallery?* Did the notion occur to you that I pretend not to understand an obvious - if deplorably silly - allusion for the sake of irony? :)** It occurs to me that you have now exposed yourself, with little effort, as capable of the rankest stupidity or dishonesty, in view of this reference to an "allusion" - where no such thing was involved: [NN:] I state forthrightly that Christians want a Theocracy. [PL:] I state fortrightly that your statement is nonsense. And what gives you the idea that you are CHOSEN to set forth OUR goals? This approximates the presumption of the Zionists. [NN:] It was, of course, an imputation of obvious motive rather than a setting forth of goals. Do you pretend not to understand an obvious point for the sake of playing to the gallery? [PL:] Did the notion occur to you that I pretend not to understand an obvious - if deplorably silly - allusion for the sake of irony? :) So - which is it, PL - Christian stupidity or Christian dishonesty? Paleoleftist 2003-08-09 17:00 | User Profile *Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 8 2003, 20:07 * ** But the Old Testament, barring the absolute victory of our opponents, is just so many dead letters. As a weight around your necks, I suggest abandoning it posthaste. ** Unnecessary. It has been superceded by the New, and is therefore more or less what the lawyers call "dead law" already. Finally, I would appreciate it if I weren't lumped into some imagined NeoNietzche bandwagon. Your fears and superstitions are unfounded. (Sorry, I couldn´t resist. :D But seriously: Who would be so crude as to mistake you for NeoNietzsche?) If I had to summarize my 'message', it would be only this: love Truth better than Christianity. This goes toward the deep topic of exactly how to imitate Christ. In-depth discussion of this topic would lead too far away from the purpose of this forum, but your point is appreciated. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-09 17:02 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist@Aug 9 2003, 10:36 * > I am profoundly reassured - and so impressed by this warrant of unprecedented Christian good faith, intellectual ability, and self-imposed restraint - that I am going to use it as my new signature.* Given that your posts are as outstandingly ubiquitous as they are astonishingly profound, I can only say a hearty "thank you!" for advertising my opinion so consistently. :heart:** No, no, NO, my dear PL! It is I who must effusively thank you! I insist upon the priority of my thanks to you - for I could not have dreamed of so exquisite a sacrifice on your part. Paleoleftist 2003-08-09 17:09 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche+Aug 9 2003, 10:53 --> QUOTE (NeoNietzsche @ Aug 9 2003, 10:53 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Paleoleftist@Aug 9 2003, 10:36 * > Do you pretend not to understand an obvious point for the sake of playing to the gallery?* Did the notion occur to you that I pretend not to understand an obvious - if deplorably silly - allusion for the sake of irony? :)** It occurs to me that you have now exposed yourself, with little effort, as capable of the rankest stupidity or dishonesty, in view of this reference to an "allusion" - where no such thing was involved: [NN:] I state forthrightly that Christians want a Theocracy. [PL:] I state fortrightly that your statement is nonsense. And what gives you the idea that you are CHOSEN to set forth OUR goals? This approximates the presumption of the Zionists. [NN:] It was, of course, an imputation of obvious motive rather than a setting forth of goals. Do you pretend not to understand an obvious point for the sake of playing to the gallery? [PL:] Did the notion occur to you that I pretend not to understand an obvious - if deplorably silly - allusion for the sake of irony? :) So - which is it, PL - Christian stupidity or Christian dishonesty? ** I say it is NeoNietzschean dishonesty. :( You did of course not originally state that Christians, according to your feverish belief, want a Theocracy. You only implied it by saying: **A "Christian" triumph, in the terms we are discussing, didn't happen until Innocent III, long after "the likes" were dead and gone.  And a century later, Boniface VIII was in captivity.  The secular authorities indeed made many a Devil's Pact with the emerging Whore over the centuries, but only Innocent had the regal boys under the whip. ** The idea you allude to -that we could want a Theocratic world state ruled by the Pope :rolleyes: - is so absurd that any other treatment but an ironical seemed out of the question. Your quote insincerely mixes up the order of time in which the diverse posts occurred. Unless you mixed them up by sheer carelessness. So, incompetence or dishonesty -what is it? :rolleyes: NeoNietzsche 2003-08-09 18:18 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Aug 9 2003, 11:09 --> QUOTE (Paleoleftist @ Aug 9 2003, 11:09 ) QUOTE (NeoNietzsche @ Aug 9 2003, 10:53 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Paleoleftist@Aug 9 2003, 10:36 * > Do you pretend not to understand an obvious point for the sake of playing to the gallery?* Did the notion occur to you that I pretend not to understand an obvious - if deplorably silly - allusion for the sake of irony? :)** It occurs to me that you have now exposed yourself, with little effort, as capable of the rankest stupidity or dishonesty, in view of this reference to an "allusion" - where no such thing was involved: [NN:] I state forthrightly that Christians want a Theocracy. [PL:] I state fortrightly that your statement is nonsense. And what gives you the idea that you are CHOSEN to set forth OUR goals? This approximates the presumption of the Zionists. [NN:] It was, of course, an imputation of obvious motive rather than a setting forth of goals. Do you pretend not to understand an obvious point for the sake of playing to the gallery? [PL:] Did the notion occur to you that I pretend not to understand an obvious - if deplorably silly - allusion for the sake of irony? :) So - which is it, PL - Christian stupidity or Christian dishonesty? ** I say it is NeoNietzschean dishonesty. :( You did of course not originally state that Christians, according to your feverish belief, want a Theocracy. You only implied it by saying: **A "Christian" triumph, in the terms we are discussing, didn't happen until Innocent III, long after "the likes" were dead and gone.  And a century later, Boniface VIII was in captivity.  The secular authorities indeed made many a Devil's Pact with the emerging Whore over the centuries, but only Innocent had the regal boys under the whip. ** The idea you allude to -that we could want a Theocratic world state ruled by the Pope :rolleyes: - is so absurd that any other treatment but an ironical seemed out of the question. Your quote insincerely mixes up the order of time in which the diverse posts occurred. Unless you mixed them up by sheer carelessness. So, incompetence or dishonesty -what is it? :rolleyes:** It is obvious, even from internal reference in the quote itself, that the order is proper. The "allusion" as you have invented it is not implied within the remark referenced - the question of contemporary intent was not on point - rather, the nature and history of Christian "triumph" was in question. And your objection as to prior allusion was irrelevant, in that the point was your mistaken attribution to me of a "presumption" as to the setting of Christian goals. I state, again, that Christians want a Theocracy. It is known once to have been of the Papist variety - the desiderata of future such I leave to Christian specification. The general intent is evident in any case. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-09 18:30 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 9 2003, 12:18 * It is obvious, even from internal reference in the quote itself, that the order is proper.* [NN:]...I state forthrightly that... [PL:]....I state forthrightly that...set forth OUR goals... [NN:]...setting forth of goals...pretend not to understand an obvious... [PL:]....pretend not to understand an obvious... But let not our hearts and minds be troubled with orderly thoughts, my Brethren - let us pray for our deliverance from our clever masters. Paleoleftist 2003-08-09 19:41 | User Profile *Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 9 2003, 12:18 * ** I state, again, that Christians want a Theocracy. ** I state again that this is so ridiculous my fingers nearly refuse typing another rebuttal. As I have already alluded to, in the quote you had the goodness to elevate to your sig, Christians do not want their Church to be corrupted. For this reason alone, those of us who are thoughtful wouldn´t want a Theocracy. And of course, "give to Caesar that which is Caesar´s" is to be read as advice, if not as an order, not to try establish a Theocracy. As I stated, there may be a case for such a proposal, but the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages. You can therefore rest assured that you will be allowed to undermine the most important pillar of Western Civilisation without fear of reprisal in the future, just as you are doing now with such happy enjoyment. Though you start to resemble Franco, or, as second thought, I actually prefer Franco´s "Name the Jew" to your "Blame the Christian". :rolleyes: NeoNietzsche 2003-08-09 21:42 | User Profile As I have already alluded to, in the quote you had the goodness to elevate to your sig, Christians do not want their Church to be corrupted. For this reason alone, those of us who are thoughtful wouldn´t want a Theocracy. Those of you who are thoughtful are too few - even if we include you. And of course, "give to Caesar that which is Caesar´s" is to be read as advice, if not as an order, not to try [to] establish a Theocracy. This is incorrect, and irrelevant in any case. Run your own regime and the coin is your own. No Scriptural prohibition of that. As I stated, there may be a case for such a proposal, but the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages. Such innocence. You can therefore rest assured that you will be allowed to undermine the most important pillar of Western Civilisation without fear of reprisal in the future, just as you are doing now with such happy enjoyment. Poisoned in its cradle, and ever since, with various Judaic intoxicants - I seek to bring to it sobriety in avoidance of catastrophe. But with no prospect of success, you will be happy to hear. **Though you start to resemble Franco, or, as second thought, I actually prefer Franco´s "Name the Jew" to your "Blame the Christian".  :rolleyes: ** What would be your suggestion for my attachment of blame to the Christians? Paleoleftist 2003-08-09 21:54 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 9 2003, 15:42 * ** > And of course, "give to Caesar that which is Caesar´s" is to be read as advice, if not as an order, not to try [to] establish a Theocracy.* This is incorrect, and irrelevant in any case. Run your own regime and the coin is your own. No Scriptural prohibition of that. ** "Caesar" stands for the worldly power. In that sense, Theocracy is not scriptural. The Church running the State is also without precedence. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-09 22:27 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist@Aug 9 2003, 15:54 * "Caesar" stands for the worldly power. In that sense, Theocracy is not scriptural. The Church running the State is also without precedence.* No - "Caesar," whose image is on the coin, is the alien, occupying, tax authority. Yeshua is challenged to answer, perhaps criminally, whether the resisted tax should be paid, and he cleverly sidesteps his dilemma by having Caesar's property returned to him. There is no proscription of Theocracy here, and, as I pointed out above, minting the coin of your own regime obviates the problem of allegiance which confronted Yeshua. Also, Innocent ran the armies of several polities during his reign. An army is a pillar of the State, BTW. Paleoleftist 2003-08-09 22:35 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 9 2003, 16:27 * ** No - "Caesar," whose image is on the coin, is the alien, occupying, tax* authority. Yeshua is challenged to answer, perhaps criminally, whether the resisted tax should be paid, and he cleverly sidesteps his dilemma by having Caesar's property returned to him. ** Yes, I know your de-spiritualized interpretation. :y I say Christ gave a general answer to a general question. (Should we obey worldly authority?) And his answer seems to imply a separation of spiritual and worldly authority. (Given the fact that the spiritual authority was he himself.) NeoNietzsche 2003-08-09 22:51 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Aug 9 2003, 16:35 --> QUOTE (Paleoleftist @ Aug 9 2003, 16:35 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Aug 9 2003, 16:27 * ** No - "Caesar," whose image is on the coin, is the alien, occupying, tax* authority. Yeshua is challenged to answer, perhaps criminally, whether the resisted tax should be paid, and he cleverly sidesteps his dilemma by having Caesar's property returned to him. ** Yes, I know your de-spiritualized interpretation. :y I say Christ gave a general answer to a general question. (Should we obey worldly authority?) And his answer seems to imply a separation of spiritual and worldly authority. (Given the fact that the spiritual authority was he himself.)** You can say that you're a blue-nosed gopher - doesn't make it true, however much it suits your purpose to say so, in the face of an obviously superior account. Paleoleftist 2003-08-09 22:54 | User Profile *Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 9 2003, 16:51 * ** ...in the face of an obviously superior account. ** Where is the obviously superior account? :) NeoNietzsche 2003-08-09 22:56 | User Profile BTW, do Christian contracts involve permission by any or all parties thus to self-servingly reinterpret a text according to the principle, "it means what I say it means"? NeoNietzsche 2003-08-09 22:59 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Aug 9 2003, 16:54 --> QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Aug 9 2003, 16:54 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Aug 9 2003, 16:51 * ** ...in the face of an obviously superior account. ** Where is the obviously superior account? :)** Lost to your inability or convenient refusal to follow a discussion. Paleoleftist 2003-08-09 23:01 | User Profile *Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 9 2003, 16:56 * ** BTW, do Christian contracts involve permission by any or all parties thus to self-servingly reinterpret a text according to the principle, "it means what I say it means"? ** Using metaphors in contracts is not advisable to anybody, but that´s beside the point, as the Bible is not a contract. Campion Moore Boru 2003-08-09 23:11 | User Profile *Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 9 2003, 16:56 * ** BTW, do Christian contracts involve permission by any or all parties thus to self-servingly reinterpret a text according to the principle, "it means what I say it means"? ** Lofl. What do you think Contracts law is? :lol: NeoNietzsche 2003-08-09 23:12 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Aug 9 2003, 17:01 --> QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Aug 9 2003, 17:01 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Aug 9 2003, 16:56 * ** BTW, do Christian contracts involve permission by any or all parties thus to self-servingly reinterpret a text according to the principle, "it means what I say it means"? ** Using metaphors in contracts is not advisable to anybody, but that´s beside the point, as the Bible is not a contract.** And a metaphor was not involved in the dilemma which faced Yeshua. Also, considering the stakes involved, the Bible should have been the model of precision which it is not. It does propose a form of contract ("believe in me and have everlasting life") - the terms of which are subject to various interpretations. The answer to my question appears, then, to be in the affirmative. Paleoleftist 2003-08-09 23:54 | User Profile *Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 9 2003, 17:09 * ** Or, maybe I won't retire, given that provocative statements that demand a reply continue to be made. but that´s beside the point, as the Bible is not a contract. The OT is. Foreskins-for-land. Look it up. Wintermute ** :lol: Wintermute, I expect you to do much better than falling into a trap left over from the Guelph-Ghibbelline conflict. Truth to be told, I expected this argument from NN who, with unusual aptness, avoided it. The Jewish Religion, insofar as it assumes a contract of sorts with God, must definitely be based on mis-interpretation. An all-powerful being is not going to make a contract with you, the Jew, me, or anybody else. This would be like me making a contract with an Ant. If the Jews believe God made a contract with them, they must be kidding themselves. Paleoleftist 2003-08-09 23:59 | User Profile *Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 9 2003, 17:12 * ** And a metaphor was not involved in the dilemma which faced Yeshua. ** But in his answer to the dilemma. Also, considering the stakes involved, the Bible should have been the model of precision which it is not. What stakes were involved for God? :rolleyes: NeoNietzsche 2003-08-10 00:52 | User Profile That they understand that I am not part of your personal attacks. Also, that they understand that not all critiques of Christianity are grounded in materialist worldviews. It is very easy for Christians to dismiss such attacks, as they are aware that the "atoms and the void" does not accurately describe the world that they live in. In other words, NN, making a distinction between us maximizes the force of critique. I find inattentive and unsophisticated this repeated imputation of materialism. That I do not cartoonishly fill that "void" with the heart's desire does not mean that I deny that something may be there. I have made this point in past exchange - now evidently lost to you - with your ownself in particular, WM. The implication of this, however, is that until someone can produce the "something" for examination according to materialist criteria, the pertinent discussion is self-deceptive bullshit at best. Wisdom concerning the "spiritual" is that "whereof one does not know, one cannot speak." The pretense of "knowing" - in mortal conflict with other convicted "knowing" - is the source of an irrational maximization, rather than the sensible minimization, of the suffering and damage that humanity must inevitably endure. I take it from your online name and frequent posts from PaleoN's works indicates that you mean to present his untimely wisdom to the members of this board, which is all to the good. However, as you are aware, PaleoN holds Plato responsible for Christianity, and the "life-denying" logic of Western religion. It does not accurately represent Plato or Nietzche to pretend that they were two peas in a pod. If you will refer me to instances of what must have been inadvertent maintenance of this pretense, I will make suitable corrections. ** Do you begin to see the essential difference in our outlook? From the Nietz[sch]ean standpoint, your imputation of childishness also applies to me. Thus, you should not be surprised that I insist that there is a distinction.** You are mistaken regarding the "Nietzschean standpoint". Nietzsche bitterly regretted the failure of the Germans to reproduce native gods. Thus my imputation does not apply to you. I'm all for having a War God - AS I HAVE TIRESOMELY EMPHASIZED. I'm rather fond of our Goddess of Love, BTW. I think that this [Tex's agreeable concession characterized as confirmation of a correct imputation] is false and offensive. Hence I will again insist that my critiques and your attacks are not the same. I will so stipulate. You are his mentor and champion as against my hectoring and bullying. Also, I have not called them donkeys but donkey worshippers, which is a supportable position You forget a much earlier, quite memorable confession, regarding previous confrontations, which was as I describe. Speaking as one the 'children' you address, I am glad to see that my complaints and the complaints of others have brought about qualified regret. I have discussed the issue of addressing you, above. The "complaints" of others do not come to mind, if you would be so kind as to offer refreshment. My regret is the product of the evident acrimony to which I referred - the participants having been manly enough not to call upon indignant Mommy Wintermute for intercession with the bully. I remember the 'donkey' post, but not a PIGS effort. Perhaps a link would help me remember. You missed it that PIGS was an acronym for Patrick and the others as you listed them. No hair splitting. Consider: if there is no difference between personal attacks and fact based critique, you can keep to the latter without regret. So, calling Patrick a "liar" to his face (so-to-speak) climaxes a "fact-based" "personal attack" - which is permissible. Since I responded to Tex's babbling with other, melodic, Christian babbling, to which Tex, in his turn, babbled affirmatively - I am guilty of a factless, and so impermissible, "personal attack". I see. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-10 01:04 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Aug 9 2003, 17:59 --> QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Aug 9 2003, 17:59 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Aug 9 2003, 17:12 * ** And a metaphor was not involved in the dilemma which faced Yeshua. ** But in his answer to the dilemma. Also, considering the stakes involved, the Bible should have been the model of precision which it is not. What stakes were involved for God? :rolleyes:** But in his answer to the dilemma. No - his answer is render unto Caesar what is Caesar's - the coin with Caesar's image on it. The coin belongs to Caesar - give it back to him in tax. Completely concrete. So, mint your own Theocratic coin and collect it from the Faithful without resistance. No metaphor to complicate the issue. What stakes were involved for God?  :rolleyes: Exalted worship. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-10 13:12 | User Profile But as for your calls for a war god, I did take this as metaphorical. In fact, given your explanation, I do not see how the deity in question could fail to be more than bullshit, as you say. So you may not have been clear on this point. I am prepared to pretend the existence of, and to suitably worship, Huitzilopochtli - for example. Give me a God of War and it won't be long before I believe in him. Simple enough. No emetic self-abasement alternating with psychotic self-inflation. I'll take your word for it. My most recent use of the term donkey was as I presented it, and I think it's understandable that I thought that was what you were referring to. Please don't ever feel shy about making me eat my words, unless it was in a private message to you. Remember this little gem from February 4?: "Good luck on this crusade. I don't know if you've ever argued with Christians, face to face. I have. They're like donkeys. Utterly immune to fact. The only direct approach that works with them is sheer force of personality. When Jesus comes back and performs miracles, they'll probably all say he's 'of Satan', and put him down." Tex is not a liar, nor a babbler, nor a child. I was profoundly offended with your reprints of hymns that most of us sung as children, in such an obviously vicious way. All of us have tender feelings towards happy days in our own youth, which we should be able to count on others to recognize. They are not permissible materials in a debate with friends. We disagree. I do not think of Tex as a "liar" - but he falls short of that merely by being a childish babbler (in my book) with his nonsensical and presumptuous invitations to conversion/intoxication such as prompted my reproduction of the hymn. I felt that I was merely responding in kind - after having been provoked, if not offended - and indeed (as I will indicate again as fact despite your offense-taking) he creditably rose to his own defense in affirmation of my contribution. Tex presumes to participate in what must ultimately be comparisons, here, of logic and evidence toward a consensus among the officers rather than rhetorical exhortations to the ranks, but yet retreats into silence when repeatedly overmatched and returns in sometimes merely petulant posture with no evident impression of having substantively participated (though he is merely the worst in this regard). But you say that they are not permissible materials and so presume to tell me how I may not fraternally address anyone else here, even though you have not been so addressed and Tex seems to have handled the specific matter of the hymn(s) well enough. So, I take fraternal note of your sentiments, but do not refer to you for permission, and I make a final note that your happy days as children have been purchased at an obscenely terrible price for the future of children now living and yet to come, which makes those days suitable objects for derision by those alert to their implication. If you can't see the difference between Tex and Patrick, where one is an honorable man who is your friend, and the other, someone who must falsify not only his own existence, but that of his ancestors as well -  who in addition is not your friend, then you are beyond my help. You and I have talked before about this, when I admonished you to take the protocol, introduced by Walter Yannis, of referring to each other as 'Brother'. I often felt, and said to you publicly, that you might wish to take this convention in other than a sarcastic way. I repeat that advice on this occasion. I see no basis for imputing to me this failure of vision in making a distinction. I see my interaction with Tex as an intervention and an exhortation. I care not about Patrick and, unlike others, wasted little time with him. It is yourself who fails to note this distinction. Regarding "Brothers" - my Brothers are men and not boys, and I use the term as an exhortation to performance as the former. Christians affirm themselves as children, hence the element of sarcasm. And you make too much of the Mommy Wintermute thing. He who thinks of you, and Tex, with great fondness, Neo NeoNietzsche 2003-08-10 13:49 | User Profile It has been too long since we have had a squabble, NN. I delight in taking up correspondence with you again. My reciprocal sentiments, exactly. In your last post, some our previous disagreement does not carry over. Should I therefore assume that my clarification regarding standpoint has taken root? I think enough phosphor-dots have been spilled on that matter. Yes, and I agree. If this is your stance, I have indeed misread you. I will update the NN file to include this data. Thank you. You may have noticed that I, too, have a file. Works better than yours. ;) NeoNietzsche 2003-08-10 14:44 | User Profile Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 10 2003, 04:06 * By my own admission, you can now see that I identify* with Tex, regarding your altercation with him. Hence, my 'protection' is actually 'self-defence'. But, once you made the 'protection' assumption, that was rapidly followed by the imputation of an older and stronger woman. I've been in the schoolyard, and the bullies, if they are repulsed, are usually repulsed by a male figure, often an older boy. However, in a household, this dynamic does not obtain. Was Mother your protector? Or did she protect someone else - a sibling, perhaps, one who deserved punishment? And if a sibling, was it a younger brother? These answers, if the questions are even well asked, are obviously not for the board. But the current circumstance certainly offers opportunities for your own development. If this is the case, may I suggest you avail yourself of them. If you do, I will see about getting the milk turned back on.** I see no reason not to be publicly forthright in answer to your "questions". You may find my account of some clinical interest: My Mother was not a protector. I had no protector. I needed no protector. The family circumstance was such that the neighborhoods in which I grew up cultivated martial self-reliance in anyone who hoped to have the respect of his peers. In fact, because of my father's own mild upbringing and professional pursuits, I was a far more formidable performer in this capacity than was he - long before I approached him in physical stature. To recount my pivotal confrontation with my father: I was long ago, one Sunday afternoon, confined to waiting with my younger brother while my parents, inconsiderately of us children, interminably deliberated about the disposal of some outdoor property on which we were all having to stand. I became bored and characteristically started picking on my younger brother (my one source of shame about my past). My father decided to teach me a lesson about picking on someone smaller than myself (by picking on someone smaller than himself). So he grabbed me and got himself thrown down the hill, ruining his trousers in the bargain. I heard my mother sarcastically remark to him, as he dragged himself back up the hill while trying to wipe off the grass stains, that, "now you'll never be able to control him." So, contrary to the usual experience of young men striving to match up to dear old Dad and to become men in inward estimate - I was there at a very early age, in all respects. Physically capable and with a genius IQ, I had my own father and everybody else's overmatched by the time I was 14. No wonder I have a superiority complex, eh? Hope this was interesting and helpful. Paleoleftist 2003-08-10 22:12 | User Profile *Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 9 2003, 19:04 * ** The coin belongs to Caesar - give it back to him in tax. Completely concrete. ** Are you now trying to be a living caricature of "bible-thumpers", pretending not to see a metaphor where it is obvious? What stakes were involved for God?  :rolleyes: Exalted worship. So you can imagine an all-good, all-knowing, all-mighty being that is vainglorious? So telling. :rolleyes: NeoNietzsche 2003-08-11 02:40 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Aug 10 2003, 16:12 --> QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Aug 10 2003, 16:12 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Aug 9 2003, 19:04 * ** The coin belongs to Caesar - give it back to him in tax.  Completely concrete. ** Are you now trying to be a living caricature of "bible-thumpers", pretending not to see a metaphor where it is obvious? What stakes were involved for God?  :rolleyes: Exalted worship. So you can imagine an all-good, all-knowing, all-mighty being that is vainglorious? So telling. :rolleyes:** Thanks for having participated in this discussion of the issue. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-11 13:16 | User Profile Originally posted by IAH@Aug 10 2003, 23:20 * Didn't your Mommy, who raised you in the Christian belief from what I understand, explain to you that it is wrong to bear false witness? Yet, you continue to do just that, even in this thread whereby I (and Patrick) had not even joined the discussion. That is how people usually prefer to bear false witness, behind the backs of those that they're stabbing. While you hurl out false hoods that we're "liars" and serving satan, let's go over your lies once again...  :rolleyes:* Would you be so kind as to summarize, in a paragraph or two, the views which have aroused the controversy in which you are entangled? I take it that one significant point, fairly clearly presented, is that the Welsh are allegedly derived directly from Hebrew immigration - but the claims regarding the Nordic/Teutonic/Gothic peoples seem to be less straightforward. There is, for example, the very broad use of the term "Phoenician" by one of the prime sources, as well as the failure to show that English/Hebrew similarities are not merely borrowings rather than of common root. Evidently, however, these considerations are supportive of a larger thesis which has escaped my notice and which has generated allegations against your position suggestive of an agenda not made explicit in your postings. Please clarify the point of your contributions, with my apology for having not paid the closest of attention to your very extended presentations. Texas Dissident 2003-08-11 14:40 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 10 2003, 08:12 * I do not think of Tex as a "liar" - but he falls short of that merely by being a childish babbler (in my book) with his nonsensical and presumptuous invitations to conversion/intoxication such as prompted my reproduction of the hymn.  I felt that I was merely responding in kind - after having been provoked, if not offended - and indeed (as I will indicate again as fact despite your offense-taking) he creditably rose to his own defense in affirmation of my contribution.  Tex presumes to participate in what must ultimately be comparisons, here, of logic and evidence toward a consensus among the officers rather than rhetorical exhortations to the ranks, but yet retreats into silence when repeatedly overmatched and returns in sometimes merely petulant posture with no evident impression of having substantively participated (though he is merely the worst in this regard)...I see my interaction with Tex as an intervention and an exhortation...Regarding "Brothers" - my Brothers are men and not boys, and I use the term as an exhortation to performance as the former.  Christians affirm themselves as children, hence the element of sarcasm.* I am beginning to worry that I may not be able to afford enough bandwidth to contain your massive ego, NN. You assume way too much and I'll leave it at that in order to keep it diplomatic. Hope you have a good life. Patrick 2003-08-11 19:27 | User Profile ”No - his answer is render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s - the coin with Caesar’s image on it. The coin belongs to Caesar - give it back to him in tax. Completely concrete. So, mint your own Theocratic coin and collect it from the Faithful without resistance. No metaphor to complicate the issue.” ”And of course, “give to Caesar that which is Caesar´s” is to be read as advice, if not as an order, not to try establish a Theocracy.” Actually... .....As distasteful as I find at least one participant of this thread for obvious reasons, and at the risk of interrupting, I would like to address this point; this explanation fails to take into account The Law... .....By virtue of his Scripturally illegal taxation on the people, Caesar had established himself a thief; Our Christ was not advising that the “earthly” powers were to be paid their tribute, (nor even allowed to rule once they stepped out of the realm of the Godly), regardless the tandem of the tortured reading of Romans thirteen that has been hammered into the softened heads of supposed Christians... He was merely saying that we should “rend unto Caesar” that which was his, thus, the penalty of the thief that he had earned, albeit, saying so in a roundabout fashion; that which should be rendered unto YHVH was the obedience to His Law, which would therefore require the penalty of thief to be extracted from Caesar... this had nothing to do with a coin, other than by way of illustration... .....Please spare me the “Law was nailed to the ‘cross’” diatribe, as I’ve heard, and long-since dismissed it as the nonsense that it is; for a bonus point, I’ll throw in that there was no “cross” in Scripture, as that was not brought into the “church” until 326 A.D. by Helena, Constantine’s mother, who was a sun-worshipping looney toon... Christ was hung upon a stauros in the Greek, which was merely a stake... Paleoleftist 2003-08-11 22:32 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche+Aug 10 2003, 20:40 --> QUOTE (NeoNietzsche @ Aug 10 2003, 20:40 ) QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Aug 10 2003, 16:12 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Aug 9 2003, 19:04 * ** The coin belongs to Caesar - give it back to him in tax.  Completely concrete. ** Are you now trying to be a living caricature of "bible-thumpers", pretending not to see a metaphor where it is obvious? What stakes were involved for God?  :rolleyes: Exalted worship. So you can imagine an all-good, all-knowing, all-mighty being that is vainglorious? So telling. :rolleyes:** Thanks for having participated in this discussion of the issue. ** M´pleasure. Paleoleftist 2003-08-11 22:52 | User Profile Originally posted by Patrick@Aug 11 2003, 13:27 * ** ”No - his answer is render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s - the coin with Caesar’s image on it. The coin belongs to Caesar - give it back to him in tax. Completely concrete. So, mint your own Theocratic coin and collect it from the Faithful without resistance. No metaphor to complicate the issue.”* ”And of course, “give to Caesar that which is Caesar´s” is to be read as advice, if not as an order, not to try establish a Theocracy.” Actually... .....As distasteful as I find at least one participant of this thread for obvious reasons, and at the risk of interrupting, I would like to address this point; this explanation fails to take into account The Law... .....By virtue of his Scripturally illegal taxation on the people, Caesar had established himself a thief; Our Christ was not advising that the “earthly” powers were to be paid their tribute, (nor even allowed to rule once they stepped out of the realm of the Godly), regardless the tandem of the tortured reading of Romans thirteen that has been hammered into the softened heads of supposed Christians... He was merely saying that we should “rend unto Caesar” that which was his, thus, the penalty of the thief that he had earned, albeit, saying so in a roundabout fashion; that which should be rendered unto YHVH was the obedience to His Law, which would therefore require the penalty of thief to be extracted from Caesar... this had nothing to do with a coin, other than by way of illustration... .....Please spare me the “Law was nailed to the ‘cross’” diatribe, as I’ve heard, and long-since dismissed it as the nonsense that it is; for a bonus point, I’ll throw in that there was no “cross” in Scripture, as that was not brought into the “church” until 326 A.D. by Helena, Constantine’s mother, who was a sun-worshipping looney toon... Christ was hung upon a stauros in the Greek, which was merely a stake... ** ...scripturally illegal taxation... Cannot really follow you here. The Caesar was a Pagan who was, for all we know, hardly aware of the existence of the OT. By implying Christ considered him a thief according to the OT, you make Christ seem unreasonable, one might even say: A kook. ...the penalty of the thief that he had earned... Your interpretation is too roundabout for me to believe it. You also can´t explain why Christ pointed to Caesar´s picture on the coin. Furthermore, you make Christ seem a worldly revolutionary, which he wasn´t. If your interpretation were right, then capital punishment (for treason to Rome!) might have been justified. You couldn´t design your argument better, were you working at an acquittal for Pilate, and at proving that Christ did deserve his fate. Your over-zealousness seems to me a greater threat to the Faith than NN´s ramblings which, Deo gratias, convince no one anyway. I am not accusing you of bad intentions, but even good intentions can go astray. :( NeoNietzsche 2003-08-12 00:42 | User Profile Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Aug 11 2003, 08:40 * *I am beginning to worry that I may not be able to afford enough bandwidth to contain your massive ego, NN. You assume way too much and I'll leave it at that in order to keep it diplomatic.  Hope you have a good life.** Thank you, Tex, for the well-wishes. I, on the other hand, sincerely wish you the continuation of what evidently is a good life as the father of a beautiful family. I also wish that you would do me the kindness of not being "diplomatic" and of giving full expression to your thoughts and sentiments - though I sense that your concluding remark is a kiss-off and that we are no longer on speaking terms, so-to-speak. Perhaps the matter is not worth pursuit, in any case. In any case, nevertheless, I think I will divert myself for awhile this evening by analyzing your brief message - asking, then, what we may learn from it. The first and most obvious thing is that you feel insulted, rather than challenged, even though you render no objection to any point made in the passage which you quoted from the message to Wintermute. In fact, you amuse by further illustrating the point about petulance, on top of reappearing with insincerity and without substance. The impact of your response, upon me, is one of disappointment in my failure to elicit anything beyond characteristic (mis)behavior. We also learn that your facility with the hurling of insults needs some updating and energizing. My recollection is that the assume witticism was thought clever back when the first installment of "Bad News Bears" was in the theaters. I suppose it speaks to your good breeding that you are as ill-equipped in this respect as appears to be the case from this, your brief attempt at indignant requital. Il Ragno might be consulted on putting a little "pepper" on that "zinger" you are struggling to deliver (as we continue to enjoy indulging in the employment of our antique terminology). Finally, we have implicit confirmation that you are a good Christian, in that you evidently regard as a reproach your reference to my lack of humility. I would have thought it evident that I consider my arrogance, conceit, pomposity (call it what you will) a virtue to be emulated. Your proclamation suggesting the dimension of my achievement in this regard is warmly received on my part, and I suspect that your expression of distaste has been inwardly affirmed by others here who might have noticed your comment. Thus have you managed to spread a little ecumenical joy amidst the universal acrimony. Holding you in fond regard, Neo NeoNietzsche 2003-08-12 03:45 | User Profile But just as a general sort of 'focus group' datum - how do you feel about Athena? Between Pericles and Shakespeare, I think she has proven Her goodwill towards the Western imperative. I am favorably disposed toward Athena - but I have a soft place in my heart for Hummingbird Feather. I like the human-sacrificial sincerity of his cult. Also, I much prefer a God to a Goddess for the War Ministry. However, this does not mean that the tactics you use on the board are the ones most likely to bring about changes in the thinking of others. I agree. You and Tex can go at it, with my only provision being a request to observe the decent consideration which should always obtain among friends. A fair request. My main point is that I don't want to be unthinkingly paired with you, or the NA, or 'atheists', or the ADL, by the readers and posters on OD. You say that I've made myself clear on this point, so I hope this understanding is similarly clear for Tex. I'm sure that I'm just as reluctant to be unthinkingly paired with you, as my own preference is for well-endowed females. Patrick 2003-08-12 04:13 | User Profile QUOTE ...scripturally illegal taxation... "Cannot really follow you here. The Caesar was a Pagan who was, for all we know, hardly aware of the existence of the OT. By implying Christ considered him a thief according to the OT, you make Christ seem unreasonable, one might even say: A kook." First off... ......I capitalize the word Scripture; secondly, The Law says "the land shall never be taxed"... Why? "The land is Mine, saith YHVH"; it is to be left as an inheritance, with the more going to the more, and the lesser, unto the lesser... Our Christ took a cat o' nine to the backs of these vermin and ran them out of the Temple... How much more revolutionary do you require, Sir? He was not some pansy-toting wannbe hippie that today's whores would have you believe; that is a goodly portion of the serpent's tale... Our Christ pointed fingers and named names; you don't get that from today's Abbie Hoffmans and Jerry Rubins, (sorry communist whores that they are)... QUOTE ...the penalty of the thief that he had earned... "Your interpretation is too roundabout for me to believe it. You also can´t explain why Christ pointed to Caesar´s picture on the coin. Furthermore, you make Christ seem a worldly revolutionary, which he wasn´t. If your interpretation were right, then capital punishment (for treason to Rome!) might have been justified. You couldn´t design your argument better, were you working at an acquittal for Pilate, and at proving that Christ did deserve his fate." .....Caesar was the "object" within the illustration drawn; it was merely a means of pointing him out... the point was, he was guilty of being a thief, according to The Law; Scripture is not broken, Sir... what it says is often contrary to that which man takes from it; one need only study to understand, (after asking for said understanding, that is), and "prove all things"... how could Our Father possibly, in one breath, state that taxation is not allowed, and in another, give instruction to pay tribute? It is man's defiled understanding that stands "broken"; this is due to today's ba'al priests, standing in the Temple where they ought not... sitting in the "seat of Moses", dispensing The Word of YHVH, as though they had been called by someone other than their own errant daddy, and they never proved a thing to themselves, instead, relying upon those same "traditions" that Our Christ came against most vehemently... "Your over-zealousness seems to me a greater threat to the Faith than NN´s ramblings which, Deo gratias, convince no one anyway." .....Excuse me? My over-what? I care not one whit whether you understand my first point; I don't beat you over the head with a thing... I'm speaking to those to whom this makes sense; those who have yet to harden their heart beyond hearing... If you call this "overzealousness", then so be it, but the truth stands, with you, or without you; all you need do is determine whether I speak the truth... You won't so do reading Scripture in "English", as this is the main vehicle by which it has been corrupted for you; believe as you will, and rest easy in the knowledge that it is of no consequence to me either way... Were I not speaking the truth, I would have long since been silenced by the vipers I've encountered on these boards... "I am not accusing you of bad intentions, but even good intentions can go astray." .....Understood; I have yet to find a compelling argument to the contrary, and I have been challenged by those that consider themselves "big-brained"... each of whom were completely out of their element in such a discussion, if not only their league... Zoroaster 2003-08-12 12:26 | User Profile Wintermute, sad to say but you're not worth a hair on Neo-Nietzsche's ass. When it comes to the self-righteous Christian, say Tex, you're a pathetic, suckpoop pagan. What a waste! -Z- NeoNietzsche 2003-08-12 13:32 | User Profile I suggest that everyone have a cool drink - the heat of the summer seems to be getting to us. Texas Dissident 2003-08-12 15:49 | User Profile Originally posted by Zoroaster@Aug 12 2003, 07:26 * *When it comes to the self-righteous Christian, say Tex, you're a pathetic, suckpoop pagan. ** Actually, that's not at all true, Z. I consider wintermute a friend. A pagan heathen, sure, but still a friend. :) As to my being self-righteous, well, let me tell you that if that were indeed the case, then alot of members wouldn't still be here posting their anti-God diatribes. That's for sure. How come I've never seen you criticize self-righteous atheists and agnostics? Or is it that only Christians are capable of being self-righteous? weisbrot 2003-08-12 16:40 | User Profile *Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 12 2003, 09:32 * ** I suggest that everyone have a cool drink - the heat of the summer seems to be getting to us. ** Drink up: Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. Never use a long word where a short one will do. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. Never use the passive [voice] where you can use the active. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous. (Orwell) Zoroaster 2003-08-12 16:59 | User Profile As you know, Tex, I'm Gnostic. Since I haven't rejected Christ, I consider myself a Gnostic Christian. If you haven't already done so, and if you have the time, you might read Jung's Answer to Job for a better understanding of where I'm coming from. As far as my belief in God is concerned, Aristotle's "Prime Mover" explains it best, at least for me. Aristotle wrote almost 200-years before the Septuagint, which was the translation from Hebew to Greek of the Jewish writings that became the Old Testament. I perfer Aristotle's Prime Mover to the big Jew in the sky version. I know you'll disagree, but I feel the conventional Christian belief in the OT is the primary reason for Jewish supremacy in America. I suppose my instincts more than anything causes me to believe in God. Agnostics propbably outnumber atheists, but their beliefs, or lack thereof, are of little concern to me. If challenged, I'll defend my belief in the Prime Mover. Best Regards, -Z- Paleoleftist 2003-08-12 17:20 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 11 2003, 21:45 * ** > But just as a general sort of 'focus group' datum - how do you feel about Athena? Between Pericles and Shakespeare, I think she has proven Her goodwill towards the Western imperative.* I am favorably disposed toward Athena - but I have a soft place in my heart for Hummingbird Feather. I like the human-sacrificial sincerity of his cult. Also, I much prefer a God to a Goddess for the War Ministry. ** Thank you for making your deep understanding of the matter in question available to us. Paleoleftist 2003-08-12 17:32 | User Profile *Originally posted by Patrick@Aug 11 2003, 22:13 * ** how could Our Father possibly, in one breath, state that taxation is not allowed, and in another, give instruction to pay tribute? ** Because successful foreign invaders (the Romans) are not bound by the Law of the Land? :blink: Zoroaster 2003-08-12 18:13 | User Profile Weisbrot, While we're at it, let's add Mark Twain's advice to your Orwell quotes: "Never use a-dollar word when a nickel word will do." -Z- Patrick 2003-08-12 18:27 | User Profile "Because successful foreign invaders (the Romans) are not bound by the Law of the Land?" .....This was The Law of the Israelites, (read: caucasians); had they not been successfully removed from their Father by the lies of the serpent race, (read: "jews"), they would have known what to do with the likes of Caesar, as well as any other Caesar wannabes that came along thereafter... Texas Dissident 2003-08-12 18:54 | User Profile Originally posted by Zoroaster@Aug 12 2003, 11:59 * *As you know, Tex, I'm Gnostic.  Since I haven't rejected Christ, I consider myself a Gnostic Christian. ...If challenged, I'll defend my belief in the Prime Mover. ** Hello Z, Yes, I am familiar with gnosticism. Perhaps one day we should have a thread devoted to it. As to the "Prime Mover" and "primary Tetrads" that surpass all thought and speech, I like what early Church theologian Irenaeus wrote: But along with it there exists a power which I term Gourd; and along with this Gourd there exists a power which again I term Utter-Emptiness. This Gourd and Emptiness, since they are one, produced...a fruit, everywhere visible, eatable, and delicious, which fruit-language calls a Cucumber. Along with this Cucumber exists a power of the same essence, which again I call a Melon. :) Just out of curiousity, do you believe that Jesus did not make footprints when he walked? IOW, the doctrine of docetism? NeoNietzsche 2003-08-12 19:29 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist@Aug 12 2003, 11:20 * Thank you for making your deep understanding of the matter in question available to us.* You are most welcome to my summary statement of sentiment, such as I understood Wintermute to have requested. Please take this opportunity to offer up "deep understanding," if you suspect Wintermute of lacking satisfaction in this regard. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-12 19:47 | User Profile Originally posted by weisbrot+Aug 12 2003, 10:40 --> QUOTE* (weisbrot @ Aug 12 2003, 10:40 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Aug 12 2003, 09:32 * ** I suggest that everyone have a cool drink - the heat of the summer seems to be getting to us. ** Drink up: Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. Never use a long word where a short one will do. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. Never use the passive [voice] where you can use the active. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous. (Orwell)** Sooner blow your worthless Weenie brains out than punctiliously follow these rules. Have a cool drink. (NeoNietzsche) Paleoleftist 2003-08-12 20:49 | User Profile Originally posted by Patrick@Aug 12 2003, 12:27 * ** "Because successful foreign invaders (the Romans) are not bound by the Law of the Land?"* .....This was The Law of the Israelites, (read: caucasians); had they not been successfully removed from their Father by the lies of the serpent race, (read: "jews"), they would have known what to do with the likes of Caesar, as well as any other Caesar wannabes that came along thereafter... ** However that may be, I do still have myself convinced that Christ was too reasonable to even consider holding the Caesars and Caesar-wannabees responsible for keeping a Law they knew nothing about... Paleoleftist 2003-08-12 21:06 | User Profile *Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 12 2003, 13:29 * ** You are most welcome to my summary statement of sentiment, such as I understood Wintermute to have requested. Please take this opportunity to offer up "deep understanding," if you suspect Wintermute of lacking satisfaction in this regard. ** As I already indicated, I am perfectly satisfied with your answer; I also believe that Wintermute will be as satisfied as I am, given that, as you rightly observed, the general intent of the question seems to have been to establish a rough assessment of your own understanding or feeling rather than the absolute and final estimation of the worth of Athena, the result of which I am quite certain Wintermute does not need my reassurement about. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-12 21:29 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Aug 12 2003, 15:06 --> QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Aug 12 2003, 15:06 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Aug 12 2003, 13:29 * ** You are most welcome to my summary statement of sentiment, such as I understood Wintermute to have requested. Please take this opportunity to offer up "deep understanding," if you suspect Wintermute of lacking satisfaction in this regard. ** As I already indicated, I am perfectly satisfied with your answer; I also believe that Wintermute will be as satisfied as I am, given that, as you rightly observed, the general intent of the question seems to have been to establish a rough assessment of your own understanding or feeling rather than the absolute and final estimation of the worth of Athena, the result of which I am quite certain Wintermute does not need my reassurement about.** As I already indicated, I am perfectly satisfied with your answer;... You mischaracterize your "indication" by reference to it in these terms. You also mislead by suggesting that a question regarding your satisfaction survives my statement, above. ...I also believe that Wintermute will be as satisfied as I am, given that, as you rightly observed, the general intent of the question seems to have been to establish a rough assessment of your own understanding or feeling rather than the absolute and final estimation of the worth of Athena,... There was no mention of "understanding or feeling" - Wintermute used the unqualified term "feel". ...rather than the absolute and final estimation of the worth of Athena, the result of which I am quite certain Wintermute does not need my reassurement about. Please continue, thus, to exemplify Christian integrity in discussion. weisbrot 2003-08-13 00:00 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 12 2003, 17:29 * ** You mischaracterize your "indication" by reference to it in these terms.  You also mislead by suggesting that a question regarding your* satisfaction survives my statement, above... Please continue, thus, to exemplify Christian integrity in discussion.** Reading through this thread I'm struck by NeoN's apparent desire for all to be scrupulously honest and genteel. I'll note that on at least one occasion, such devotion to honesty and a sense of honor has been overshadowed by an apparent desire to maintain appearances of intellectual superiority. In the thread, linked below, not only was an attempt made to erase all evidence of a mistake that was noted- [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=8530&st=40&#entry51915]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...=40&#entry51915[/url] -but also all the followup imprecations, assurances of accuracy and offers to "correct" me for my notice of the error were erased and re-edited in quick and seemingly desperate haste. Several of the followup posts were simply vanished, and the mistake that was noted was corrected without documentation. A small thing, perhaps, but somewhat revealing- especially when dealing with a self-professed superior. In order to preserve the record, while providing an example of hubris on a colossal scale- or perhaps a pathetic example of a deteriorating psyche- I'll copy this earlier post, below, before it disappears. The cold light of day accompanied by the leftover effects of the previous nights indulgences often prompt a rethinking leading to self-indulgent if unprincipled revisions. Enjoy. *NeoNietzsche,Aug 12 2003 [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=9933&st=100]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...pic=9933&st=100[/url] **(wintermute @ Aug 10 2003, 04:06 ) By my own admission, you can now see that I identify with Tex, regarding your altercation with him. Hence, my 'protection' is actually 'self-defence'. But, once you made the 'protection' assumption, that was rapidly followed by the imputation of an older and stronger woman. I've been in the schoolyard, and the bullies, if they are repulsed, are usually repulsed by a male figure, often an older boy. However, in a household, this dynamic does not obtain. Was Mother your protector? Or did she protect someone else - a sibling, perhaps, one who deserved punishment? And if a sibling, was it a younger brother? These answers, if the questions are even well asked, are obviously not for the board. But the current circumstance certainly offers opportunities for your own development. If this is the case, may I suggest you avail yourself of them. If you do, I will see about getting the milk turned back on.** I see no reason not to be publicly forthright in answer to your "questions". You may find my account of some clinical interest: My Mother was not a protector. I had no protector. I needed no protector. The family circumstance was such that the neighborhoods in which I grew up cultivated martial self-reliance in anyone who hoped to have the respect of his peers. In fact, because of my father's own mild upbringing and professional pursuits, I was a far more formidable performer in this capacity than was he - long before I approached him in physical stature. To recount my pivotal confrontation with my father: I was long ago, one Sunday afternoon, confined to waiting with my younger brother while my parents, inconsiderately of us children, interminably deliberated about the disposal of some outdoor property on which we were all having to stand. I became bored and characteristically started picking on my younger brother (my one source of shame about my past). My father decided to teach me a lesson about picking on someone smaller than myself (by picking on someone smaller than himself). So he grabbed me and got himself thrown down the hill, ruining his trousers in the bargain. I heard my mother sarcastically remark to him, as he dragged himself back up the hill while trying to wipe off the grass stains, that, "now you'll never be able to control him." So, contrary to the usual experience of young men striving to match up to dear old Dad and to become men in inward estimate - I was there at a very early age, in all respects. Physically capable and with a genius IQ, I had my own father and everybody else's overmatched by the time I was 14. No wonder I have a superiority complex, eh? Hope this was interesting and helpful.* Paleoleftist 2003-08-13 00:31 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 12 2003, 15:29 * ** You also mislead by suggesting that a question regarding your* satisfaction survives my statement, above. ** I have certainly no intention to mislead, though I admit I sometimes have no clue what you´re talking about. This is doubtlessly due to the fact that, given your genius IQ, you sometimes may fail to properly take into account -or take into account enough- the distance intellectually separating you from your unhappy co-participants in discussion. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-13 01:20 | User Profile Originally posted by weisbrot@Aug 12 2003, 18:00 * *Reading through this thread I'm struck by NeoN's apparent desire for all to be scrupulously honest and genteel. I'll note that on at least one occasion, such devotion to honesty and a sense of honor has been overshadowed by an apparent desire to maintain appearances of  intellectual superiority. In the thread, linked below, not only was an attempt made to erase all evidence of a mistake that was noted- [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=8530&st=40&#entry51915]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...=40&#entry51915[/url] -but also all the followup imprecations, assurances of accuracy and offers to "correct" me for my notice of the error were erased and re-edited in quick and seemingly desperate haste. Several of the followup posts were simply vanished, and the mistake that was noted was corrected without documentation. A small thing, perhaps, but somewhat revealing- especially when dealing with a self-professed superior. ** Before correcting the record in regard to this trivial episode, Weisbrot, let me express, again, a curiousity, in which I suspect I am not alone, regarding this, your bizarre pursuit. You evidently have a problem which you imagine to be merely NeoNietzsche's persona, but which I will suggest, for what little effect it may have, must seriously involve a disturbing something else, in view of your mendacious inflation of the episode which I will recount for the record: In summary: you, Weisbrot, noticed and pointed out that I had misspelled "fiduciary" as "fudiciary" in the first of my "What We Have Learned" paragraphs, after my having taunted Okie about his repetitive mis-spelling. Your motive was obvious in so doing. I initially thought that you yourself had erred thus, and I sought, in a message subsequently deleted but essentially reproduced by yourself immediately thereafter, to taunt you in the same malicious spirit. I had second thoughts immediately after posting this message and checked my references, where I found an astounding pattern of misspelling of fiduciary as fudiciary in official documents and authoritative sources, such as I had relied upon in believing in the correctness of my own spelling of the word. I quickly, then, deleted my embarrassing reciprocation of your own ill-spirited reference to my error and composed the message which survives, thanking you for prompting me to correct my error, linking to the Google resource which illustrates the reason for my error, and asking if you wished further to pursue me in song. I searched for all instances of my having misspelled "fiduciary" and corrected them, as I had some days earlier noticed that I had been systematically misspelling the word "judgment" as "judgement" and so made systematic corrections. This is the extent of the episode. There has been no "vanishing of subsequent posts," if this is a reference to any of mine, and the "correction without documentation" of a single transposition of letters in one word seems a very precious charge to bring. Finally, the message to Wintermute, now reproduced out of evidently disturbed motives, is a factual account which I regard as responsive to WM's odd remarks, and is one by which I stand - but regard as a matter of friendly and light-hearted banter now mildly sullied by involvement with your, Weisbrot's, rather sordid project. weisbrot 2003-08-13 01:58 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 12 2003, 21:20 * *You evidently have a problem which you imagine to be merely NeoNietzsche's persona, but which I will suggest, for what little effect it may have, must seriously involve a disturbing something else... ** Don't flatter yourself. Just noting your rather pathetic tendency towards self-serving prevarication heaped upon self-inflated grandiosity. ...in view of your mendacious inflation of the episode which I will recount for the record I'll stand by everything I wrote, but thanks for the effort involved in the creative response nonetheless. Finally, the message to Wintermute, now reproduced out of evidently disturbed motives, is a factual account which I regard as responsive to WM's odd remarks, and is one by which I stand - but regard as a matter of friendly and light-hearted banter... Of course some might regard this tale as friendly and light-hearted banter. Others of a different nature might regard your tale as the genesis of a tormented soul. I try but fail to find humor in a story of a bully who, upon being corrected for intimidating his sibling, proceeds to thrash his obviously timid and inadequate father and then revel in his embarrassment. For some, it is light hearted banter. For others, it's a peek into a deservedly miserable existence. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-13 02:42 | User Profile Originally posted by weisbrot+Aug 12 2003, 19:58 --> QUOTE (weisbrot @ Aug 12 2003, 19:58 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Aug 12 2003, 21:20 * *You evidently have a problem which you imagine to be merely NeoNietzsche's persona, but which I will suggest, for what little effect it may have, must seriously involve a disturbing something else... ** Don't flatter yourself. Just noting your rather pathetic tendency towards self-serving prevarication heaped upon self-inflated grandiosity. ...in view of your mendacious inflation of the episode which I will recount for the record I'll stand by everything I wrote, but thanks for the effort involved in the creative response nonetheless. Finally, the message to Wintermute, now reproduced out of evidently disturbed motives, is a factual account which I regard as responsive to WM's odd remarks, and is one by which I stand - but regard as a matter of friendly and light-hearted banter... Of course some might regard this tale as friendly and light-hearted banter. Others of a different nature might regard your tale as the genesis of a tormented soul. I try but fail to find humor in a story of a bully who, upon being corrected for intimidating his sibling, proceeds to thrash his obviously timid and inadequate father and then revel in his embarrassment. For some, it is light hearted banter. For others, it's a peek into a deservedly miserable existence.** Don't flatter yourself. Just noting your rather pathetic tendency towards self-serving prevarication heaped upon self-inflated grandiosity. Please reproduce the alleged instances of self-serving prevarication so that I might make suitable corrections and apologies. I'll stand by everything I wrote, but thanks for the effort involved in the creative response nonetheless. Then you and I, at least, will know you for (how did Wintermute put it in regard to Patrick?) - oh yes - a "liar". Thanks for relieving me of any question in this regard. And just to make sure that I do no injustice by judging the Faith in terms of your example, may I have your profession of allegiance? I try but fail to find humor in a story of a bully who, upon being corrected for intimidating his sibling, proceeds to thrash his obviously timid and inadequate father and then revel in his embarrassment. For some, it is light hearted banter. For others, it's a peek into a deservedly miserable existence. Yours seems to be a habit of mendacious inflation, Weisbrot. You might check into having that medicated. I was not a "bully" by the usual meaning of that term. I was not being "corrected" in the sense you intend. My father was not timid and inadequate. I did not revel in his embarrassment. The flavor which you give to the account indicates that you are a Weenie. Hope you are enjoying life as such. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-13 03:00 | User Profile P.S. Not that Tex could be expected to be in any mood to do me any favors, but I'm curious as to whether he can detect the past deletion of posts. If so, he could confirm that the thread in question involved but the one deletion on my part, referred to as such in my account, and thus confirm you, our beloved but troubled Weisbrot, as a "self-serving prevaricator" in standing by an allegation of subsequent post deletions. Just a thought. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-13 03:09 | User Profile As it was a posting of personal information, which NN later decided he would not rather have circulating in public, we are honor bound to respect that. I saw the post come and go,... Wintermute, You give the impression of thinking that the post was deleted. weisbrot 2003-08-13 03:33 | User Profile When you posted background info on Todd Fahey, I believed at the time that you were motivated by malice. Actually, it was in response to assertions made regarding the desirability of a certain lifestyle. I'd suggest you review the exchange, and perhaps note from where the profanity and disparagement that was a feature of that conversation was produced. If an individual wishes his life to remain private, it would follow that he should refrain from publishing his private information on the internet- and he should not cry any crocodile tears when those details are reproduced to refute his later statements. If NN's posted info had been his position on some topic under discussion, your reposting of it would be acceptable. As it was a posting of personal information, which NN later decided he would not rather have circulating in public, we are honor bound to respect that. NN's posted info on the topic under discussion (at least as of this writing) included disparagement of his opponents due to their perceived lack of grammatical skill. As such, my pointing out his own mistake was germane. Again, if it was information of a "personal" nature- which it was not- he should have considered that before posting it on a public website. Your posting of this info isn't that far from Godless and Sun Tzu trying to scandalize us with the fact that Friedrich Brown had dated a Jewish girl. In both cases, along with Todd's drug history, and NN deciding not to share his early history with us,  I have to say: I don't care. ** Wintermute, your effort to promote peace and privacy is very much appreciated- but I fail to see where you have shown any case where any scandalous information has been dragged to the surface. NeoN actually did proudly share a portion of his personal history; I choose not to stand in admiration of his revelation. The "drug history" you mention is not only found within one click off Google, but is actually proudly proclaimed on this very forum. Please delineate how information can be deemed "personal" when the subject has placed that information into a public forum. And tell me how one who disagrees with another and replies in kind is motivated by "malice". Zoroaster 2003-08-13 03:41 | User Profile Wintermute, "Human, all too human" someone whose name escapes me once wrote. We are all, at one time or another suckpoops, though I try my best not to be one. That's why I'm happy being a recluse, not that I hate folks, most of them just piss me off. Thanks for the help with Irenaeus. Your religious knowledge is far superior to mine, and your post saved me a lot of time and effort. I still plan to respond to Tex, in the morning, when my head is clear. The heat is taking its toll. I could beat it running the air-conditioner full blast, but the electric bill would bankrupt me. Best Regards, -Z- NeoNietzsche 2003-08-13 03:46 | User Profile Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 12 2003, 21:15 * > *You give the impression of thinking that the post was deleted. ** Sorry. But that wasn't the only private info post this week which was deleted (or not deleted). It's easy to get confused, especially when you don't know if one is going to be resurrected later. It's hard to keep up sometimes. As a late night poster, I see all kinds of things here. I apologize, and affirm that the post in question is not the one that I saw "come and go". As to that post, I did not copy it, and it will not be reappearing later. For all people who have posted personal things here and later decided against it: continue to do what you think best. I'm not going to call you on it. Wintermute** No apology called for - my thanks for adjusting the account. Thanks to your remarks, I consider Der Fall Weisbrot closed to the extent of my further participation. You will note that he has most recently, clumsily, confused your reference made to my self-revelatory post (which your fatigue led you to mistakenly think deleted) with the one concerning the spelling error (which was deleted as explained). Always a pleasure. Neo Paleoleftist 2003-08-14 01:54 | User Profile *Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 12 2003, 21:10 * ** For those who doubt the existence of the Eighth Sphere, here is a picture of her in action: [img]http://www.cosmopolis.com/art/eighthsphere.gif[/img] Right there at the bottom, you can see her name very clearly printed: OCTAVA SPERA It's a Rennaisance image, so here's a good question for students here: is the painter a Christian or a Pagan? Wintermute ** Who knows? God´s ways are unfathomable, and some things are best kept under the rug. :hyp: But the woman is not Octava Spera. It´s Angelina Jolie, as seen in this movie: [url=http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/tombraidersl2.html]http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/tom...braidersl2.html[/url] And the sphere is of course the item she is holding. Don´t count on Christian gullibility too much! :) :) Patrick 2003-08-14 04:15 | User Profile "However that may be, I do still have myself convinced that Christ was too reasonable to even consider holding the Caesars and Caesar-wannabees responsible for keeping a Law they knew nothing about..." .....It isn't that He would, unrealistically, hold Caesar to a Law that he may, (or may not), have been aware of; it was that He was teaching us to hold them to account... When shall we "hold them to account"? Those that rule over caucasian Israelites do not do so justly, if they so do in an unGodly fashion; we are not bound by their vain decrees... Texas Dissident 2003-08-14 07:47 | User Profile Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 12 2003, 21:52 * The gourd and the cucumber are the inventions of a simple minded Church Father, repeated out of context by simple minded apologists.* Simple minded indeed. While his 'technique' in [u]Against the Heresies[/u] has evidently been subject to criticism, he certainly 'stripped the fox' of gnostic heresy. But when we refute these people [the heretics] out of the Scriptures, they turn and accuse the very Scriptures, on the ground that they are mistaken or not authoritative or not consistent in their narrative, and they say that the truth cannot be learned from them by persons who do not know the tradition, and that that was not transmitted in writing but by word of mouth.... Hmmm.... This is the course followed by the barbarian peoples who believe in Christ and have salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit without paper or ink, but who guard carefully the ancient tradition. For they believe in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth and of all things therein through Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who for his surpassing love towards his creation underwent birth from a virgin, uniting man through himself to God, and who suffered under Pontius Pilate and rose again and was received up in splendor, and who shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved and the Judge of those who are judged, to send into eternal fire those who pervert the truth and despise his Father and his coming. :punk: :th: NeoNietzsche 2003-08-14 12:52 | User Profile Wintermute, Bravo - very nicely done, my friend. But have you a sense of the illimitably self-serving re-interpretation of Scripture which is at the command of the Faithful in ostensibly dispositive refutation of your contribution? I fear that the conclusive last word will now elude you as would a mirage in the hot and dry desert wasteland. Good Luck, my bold brother! Let us thank the Gods for the oases of objective consensus on reality provided by science to which we may afterward resort for cleansing and refreshment. Neo, of the evil figs Avalanche 2003-08-14 13:32 | User Profile **WM:  Luke 8:10  And he(Jesus) said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand. Seems a very similar message. The parables are meant to confuse the common man.** I'm trying to locate and post an essay/sermon my dad wrote on belief and unbelief, lo, these many years ago. Let me just summarize quickly his point about this: (Putatively) Jesus was a man. Jesus was dealing with just the kind of stupid sheep WE all bemoan and snipe about. Is it not reasonable that sometimes, just as any father or loving teacher, he would get JUST FED UP with his stupid sheep?! And lose his temper? And just get all sarcastic and annoyed? We all here have the experience of dealing with (intentionally?) slow-to-understand people for whom we have to keep explaining and re-explaining the same (simple-to-us) concepts or ideas. How many of you, dealing with an intentionally obtuse teenager have finally said, "yes, you're right. You SHOULD follow your friends and jump off the edge of the roof!" Your fellow adults/parents would not thereby say, that you were intending to confuse your teen, they'd say "sheesh! Don't teens just sometimes drive you NUTS?!" To paraphrase: Never attribute to malice what can be explained away by exasperation. Patrick 2003-08-14 14:08 | User Profile .....The parables were to confound the "evil figs"; when one does not "rightly divide", you'll be as addled as some posts appear here... Texas Dissident 2003-08-14 14:21 | User Profile Dearest wm, You certainly have a talent for twisting scripture. That I will not deny. I don't have time for a complete reply right now. Perhaps the Spirit will move later. I will say you spend a inordinate amount of time straining out gnats and swallowing camels. But then again, you wouldn't be wintermute if you did not. :) Always a pleasure as you make me have to research and learn things I probably would never have studied before. Paleoleftist 2003-08-14 17:46 | User Profile Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 14 2003, 02:59 * ** > ** they turn and accuse the very Scriptures, on the ground that they are mistaken or not authoritative or not consistent in their narrative, and they say that the truth cannot be learned from them by persons who do not know the tradition, and that that was not transmitted in writing but by word of mouth....* The truth lies in tradition and not scripture alone . . . where have we heard that one before? Seems like Mr. Iranaeus has a bone to pick with certain Catholics on this board. But, as a Protestant, I can see why you like him. As to traditions, secret and otherwise, we must needs turn to Scripture. First we turn to the words of John, who agrees with Iranaeus, that everything is transmitted via the written word, and nothing by word of mouth: John 18:19-20 The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Whether Jesus ever affirmed the above, I leave to student of Scripture. There are other passages, in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, which tell a different story. Whether this means that the Scriptures "are not consistent in their narrative", I cannot say. ... ** Wintermute, as a follower of Athena, you should certainly have, on your own, found the solution to all those contradictions. Which is that Jesus was a closet Atheist and Nihilist! and in secret have I said nothing. This must of course be read as: And in secret have I said: Nothing! I wonder why neither you nor NeoNietzsche discovered the obvious solution to your problem. :lol: :jest: Paleoleftist 2003-08-14 17:50 | User Profile Originally posted by Patrick@Aug 13 2003, 22:15 * ** "However that may be, I do still have myself convinced that Christ was too reasonable to even consider holding the Caesars and Caesar-wannabees responsible for keeping a Law they knew nothing about..."* .....It isn't that He would, unrealistically, hold Caesar to a Law that he may, (or may not), have been aware of; it was that He was teaching us to hold them to account... When shall we "hold them to account"? Those that rule over caucasian Israelites do not do so justly, if they so do in an unGodly fashion; we are not bound by their vain decrees... ** /back to serious mode There is still at least one big problem with this argument: We believe that Christ died to atone for our sins, and not as a result of unsuccessfully trying to instigate a coup attempt... Paleoleftist 2003-08-14 17:58 | User Profile *Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 14 2003, 06:52 * ** Let us thank the Gods for the oases of objective consensus on reality provided by science to which we may afterward resort for cleansing and refreshment. Neo, of the evil figs ** Readers may wish to note the term "Objective Consensus". I could never have made that up; another reason why we must all bow to NN´s superior -he himself, with his knack for illuminating terminology, may even be tempted to call it: suprarational- philosophical understanding. :hyp: NeoNietzsche 2003-08-14 21:00 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Aug 14 2003, 11:58 --> QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Aug 14 2003, 11:58 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Aug 14 2003, 06:52 * ** Let us thank the Gods for the oases of objective consensus on reality provided by science to which we may afterward resort for cleansing and refreshment. Neo, of the evil figs ** Readers may wish to note the term "Objective Consensus". I could never have made that up; another reason why we must all bow to NN´s superior -he himself, with his knack for illuminating terminology, may even be tempted to call it: suprarational- philosophical understanding. :hyp:** Readers may wish to note the phrase "suprarational-philosophical understanding". It finds currency among those who have followed the path to epistemological idiocy. Illustrative of this disability is the incapacity for following the simplest of exchanges on point. Our own idiot most recently insisted upon a chronological disorder in a self-evidently ordered exchange, which can be referred to among the posts above. Paleoleftist 2003-08-15 00:07 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche+Aug 14 2003, 15:00 --> QUOTE (NeoNietzsche @ Aug 14 2003, 15:00 ) QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Aug 14 2003, 11:58 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Aug 14 2003, 06:52 * ** Let us thank the Gods for the oases of objective consensus on reality provided by science to which we may afterward resort for cleansing and refreshment. Neo, of the evil figs ** Readers may wish to note the term "Objective Consensus". I could never have made that up; another reason why we must all bow to NN´s superior -he himself, with his knack for illuminating terminology, may even be tempted to call it: suprarational- philosophical understanding. :hyp:** Readers may wish to note the phrase "suprarational-philosophical understanding". It finds currency among those who have followed the path to epistemological idiocy. ** :rolleyes: Puhleeease -think a little before you type. And understand my sentence. "...-he himself [that´s you], with his knack for illuminating terminology, may even be tempted to call it: suprarational-..." [and this entire part of the sentence is devoted to what I euphemistically called your superior philosophical understanding, to which we must all bow, as we are seeing again and again.] After successfully mastering grammar, you will be well on your way to understand even logic. Paleoleftist 2003-08-15 00:33 | User Profile *Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 14 2003, 17:09 * ** and finally, in a commandment which I take as binding. [color=blue]"Therefore you should abjure not Christ, but pity the folly of mankind."[/color] I hope that everything I do here can be understood in this light. ** Your goodwill is definitely appreciated. Still, there remain a lot of intriguing questions, e.g.: -Should a well-ordered society not best be as homogeneous, not only as to its ethnicity, but also religion, as possible? -And if so, how are you going to effect the mass conversion of Americans toward the dea- err, interrupted, classical pagan religion? Will you talk with a Nymph in a tree? Or promise them Vesta virgins [ [url=http://goddess.astrology.com/vesta/]http://goddess.astrology.com/vesta/[/url] ], in what may be seen as a novel and interesting fusion of classical and Islamic elements of religious furniture? Or will you simply put to use NeoNietzsche´s powerful slogan: There is no God, and NN is His prophet! NeoNietzsche 2003-08-15 01:26 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Aug 14 2003, 18:07 --> QUOTE (Paleoleftist @ Aug 14 2003, 18:07 ) QUOTE (NeoNietzsche @ Aug 14 2003, 15:00 ) QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Aug 14 2003, 11:58 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Aug 14 2003, 06:52 * ** Let us thank the Gods for the oases of objective consensus on reality provided by science to which we may afterward resort for cleansing and refreshment. Neo, of the evil figs ** Readers may wish to note the term "Objective Consensus". I could never have made that up; another reason why we must all bow to NN´s superior -he himself, with his knack for illuminating terminology, may even be tempted to call it: suprarational- philosophical understanding. :hyp:** Readers may wish to note the phrase "suprarational-philosophical understanding". It finds currency among those who have followed the path to epistemological idiocy. ** :rolleyes: Puhleeease -think a little before you type. And understand my sentence. "...-he himself [that´s you], with his knack for illuminating terminology, may even be tempted to call it: suprarational-..." [and this entire part of the sentence is devoted to what I euphemistically called your superior philosophical understanding, to which we must all bow, as we are seeing again and again.] After successfully mastering grammar, you will be well on your way to understand even logic.** Fear not for my mastery and understanding - you were understood perfectly. You imputed to me imaginative application of a term which was incorrect and which I would not use. Your introduction and imputation of the phrase was, rather, symptomatic of dis-integration of your own intellect. You fairly amaze with the inability to sustain a coherent dialogue. Please arrange to correct this deficiency by whatever means necessary. Good luck. Paleoleftist 2003-08-15 01:44 | User Profile Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 14 2003, 19:18 * ** Was I premature in hoping the whole affair settled?* Not at all. I had hoped it is understood this question was rhetoric. He simply regards most reasoning regarding the Divine as being presumptuous. Then why does he reason against Christianity? Makes no sense to me. I have some preliminary goals, based on a long study of St.Paul.. I advise patience. It took Christianity a long time to get to full speed, so reserving a few centuries for the task will be in order. people who worship psychotic, lying demons Demons are not all-powerful, so a singular, all-powerful God cannot be a Demon, by definition. As to dealing wth an all-powerful being, I advise a more delicate approach than calling Him a psychotic liar. Experience in dealing with psychotics has clearly shown the possibility of this having unfortunate consequences. In short: Either your diagnosis of God´s ailments is wrong, or stating it shows, in this regard, a lack of Wisdom. Paleoleftist 2003-08-15 01:51 | User Profile *Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 14 2003, 19:26 * ** You imputed to me imaginative application of a term which was incorrect and which I would not use. ** Here you are lying, and even twice. First, the term "suprarational-philosophic understanding" was not used by me. You, intentionally or unintentionally, misconstrued the sentence. Second, I didn´t impute to you the use of the term "suprarational". Rather, I said: You may be even tempted to use it, which is a different thing. I know that ADD can be hard to overcome, but don´t give up trying. Paleoleftist 2003-08-15 02:03 | User Profile *Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 14 2003, 19:26 * ** Fear not for my mastery and understanding - ** Discussion with you makes me fear for my sanity. To repeat the original sentence once more: "another reason why we must all bow to NN´s superior // -he himself, with his knack for illuminating terminology, may even be tempted to call it: suprarational- // philosophical understanding." [Added the //s to assist your reading] weisbrot 2003-08-15 02:08 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 8 2003, 12:33 * ** ...as I have made the responsible decision not to subject children to the future that awaits...* In this case, a truly wise and benevolent decision. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-15 02:18 | User Profile Originally posted by Paleoleftist+Aug 14 2003, 19:51 --> QUOTE* (Paleoleftist @ Aug 14 2003, 19:51 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Aug 14 2003, 19:26 * ** You imputed to me imaginative application of a term which was incorrect and which I would not use. ** Here you are lying, and even twice. First, the term "suprarational-philosophic understanding" was not used by me. You, intentionally or unintentionally, misconstrued the sentence. Second, I didn´t impute to you the use of the term "suprarational". Rather, I said: You may be even tempted to use it, which is a different thing. I know that ADD can be hard to overcome, but don´t give up trying.** You still here, PL? NeoNietzsche 2003-08-15 02:20 | User Profile *--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Aug 14 2003, 19:26 * ** Fear not for my mastery and understanding - ** Discussion with you makes me fear for my sanity. To repeat the original sentence once more: "another reason why we must all bow to NN´s superior // -he himself, with his knack for illuminating terminology, may even be tempted to call it: suprarational- // philosophical understanding." [Added the //s to assist your reading] That deficiency is not going to correct itself. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-15 02:34 | User Profile ** ...as I have made the responsible decision not to subject children to the future that awaits...** In this case, a truly wise and benevolent decision. Ah, Weisbrot - you're just the liar I was looking for! How about those prevarications of mine you promised me? I'm eager to get to work on making the corrections! Neo weisbrot 2003-08-15 03:06 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 14 2003, 22:34 * *How about those prevarications of mine you promised me?  I'm eager to get to work on making the  corrections! Neo** Detailed previously [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=9933&st=140&#entry56799]here.[/url] Avalanche 2003-08-15 03:10 | User Profile Avalanche, you say that we should not attribute to malice what can be explained by impatience. You should take another look at the Isaiah prophecy, which is namechecked in the NT. Typhon instructs that prophet to decieve people 'til his traditional ends are achieved: total destruction. Typhon and Isiah may 'be' speaking in malice; must we thereby conclude that so was Jesus? (I was TRYING to give an 'out' to our Christian brothers -- in that people often DON'T consider that exasperation could be a pretty adequate explanation for just that kind of statement... They give long, convoluted and precariously reasoned explanations for WHY someone would say something that, on the face of it, is irrational -- but when linked to exasperation, becomes easily explained away...) NeoNietzsche 2003-08-15 03:28 | User Profile How about those prevarications of mine you promised me? I'm eager to get to work on making the corrections! Neo** Detailed previously [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=9933&st=140&#entry56799]here.[/url] I see. So you are going to insist that your lies are mine. Well, at least we have now dispelled the mystery of what was referenced in your imaginatively writing of "self-serving prevarications". So, let me reciprocate your diseased and conveniently non-falsifiable allegations, Weisbrot, by referring to the posts of yours which only briefly appeared, tearfully confessing that you are a necrophilic pederast. And do see about having that mendacious inflation syndrome looked after. weisbrot 2003-08-15 04:09 | User Profile This fixation on child abuse is worrisome. Perhaps you can find relief by once again thrashing that ineffectual father you so lovingly described. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-15 12:11 | User Profile Originally posted by weisbrot@Aug 14 2003, 22:09 * *This fixation on child abuse is worrisome. Perhaps you can find relief by once again thrashing that ineffectual father you so lovingly described.** Yes, more mendacious commentary from Weenie World in need of deflation. Happy to oblige: NeoNietzsche's father was not ineffectual, as alleged - he was merely without training and experience in hand-to-hand. In fact, he was an expert with rifle and shotgun, having trained and demonstrated his remarkable prowess with an M-1 as a Sargeant during the Crusade to Save the Soviet. He was in command of an 81mm mortar squad on the Rhine when he was taken out by an 88mm airburst. My advantage over him in the area of unarmed was, in part, the product of a socio-economic circumstance which he had imposed upon the family. We lived alternately in lower- and upper-class neighborhoods, depending upon his varying fortunes in attempting to sustain the small enterprises he continually started. I learned about the real world in the lower-class neighborhoods which he had not been exposed to as a child. I had daily practice where he had had none. [And he was not "thrashed" by me - he was flipped in one easy move, and he took it like a man, no hard feelings. I was sad and alarmed that he was going to have to spend currently-scarce money to replace his ruined and obviously expensive trousers. If he hadn't been so heavy relative to me I could have laid him down easy.] I also had repeated instruction in the class differences between these two worlds - the Morons on the one hand, and the Weenies, such as yourself, on the other. The fact that the effeminate Weenies run the world supervised by Jewry means that we are headed for catastrophe. This reminds me that I had earlier asked for your profession of Faith, that I might not do it an injustice by judging it it terms of your lying. I had the impression that you were a Moron, and now suspect that you are a bizarre hybrid. Please advise. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-15 12:39 | User Profile I see. So you are going to insist that your lies are mine. Well, at least we have now dispelled the mystery of what was referenced in your imaginatively writing of "self-serving prevarications". So, let me reciprocate your diseased and conveniently non-falsifiable allegations, Weisbrot, by referring to the posts of yours which only briefly appeared, tearfully confessing that you are a necrophilic pederast. And do see about having that mendacious inflation syndrome looked after. In concluding this latest and most sordid episode of Weisbrot's pursuit of NN, we can remark upon having managed to extract two implicit concessions: 1) The alleged "self-serving prevarications" exist nowhere on the Forum in form other than that of Weisbrot's own lies. 2) Weisbrot's mendacious, one might say hysterical, inflation of a trivial episode has no more substance than NeoNietzsche's illustrative reciprocal allegation. We now return you to the substance of the thread, Ladies and Gentlemen. Thanks for listening. Avalanche 2003-08-15 14:26 | User Profile IAH:  It is the NKJV that is profoundly tainted by "jewish" hands. I'll be more than glad to post plentiful examples and research as to how this came to be, what was omitted, and what was changed, if you are interested. However in the KJV, every word can be traced back to the original language in their root words that it was written in. Not so in any other version. Pastor Knight studies from the original languages. I do as well. One cannot learn from the original languages when using the seriously corrupted NKJV's, because “jewish” hands have taken some original words (the key ones) out and replaced with Newspeak. But you WON'T discuss my questions about Orebim and Orabim, eh IAH? (Want me to repost it again on this thread? So you can refuse once again to address it? How can I resist?) You WON'T address my questions about how you determine the veracity and applicability of what was KEPT and what was DISCARDED throughout hundreds of years and voting to accept and reject books and apocrypha and rewriting and retranslating to achieve a then-current purpose? You seem quite willing to discuss who is suggesting what convolution applies to the CURRENTLY ACCEPTED words and ideas in order to make them MEAN what y'all want them to mean -- but NOT discuss whether or not those words have been changed, rearranged and added to or subtracted from. The "every word can be traced back to the original language in their root words that it was written in" makes the problem of Orebim and Orabim EVER MORE important for you to address! If every word is traceable and thereby can be ascertained as truth or lie, then do you NOT have to account for the "inserters of vowels" -- the TRANSLATORS who chose to insert a vowel to match THEIR OWN view of what the root words in their original language SHOULD HAVE BEEN?! Here: just to make it easier for you -- is the Orebim thing again (and again and again...) You gonna duck it here too? **(http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=9933&st=180&hl=) Let’s go back yet again to Orebim/Orabim – do you think it was ravens feeding Elijah or the inhabitants of the local-to-Elijah’s-wanderings town of Oreb? How do you make that determination? Where was the hand of god – in the writing? In the picking of the vowels to insert? (The inserter of vowels (the translator!) picked the vowels that made birds bring him food. Is that reasonable? Is that likely to have been a mistake or an attempt to impress the gullible? How do you determine whether the picked vowels in just this ONE example are 'twisting' or not? How many other times have such choices been made and how do you determine whether the right or wrong choice was made? {shrug} Same with the Nicene Council -- they voted to keep some books and dump others. How much do you trust their judgement? How can you determine which of the books relegated to the apocrypha SHOULD have been kept, as they accurately represented Jesus' words; and how many that did NOT accurately reflect his words were voted INTO the Bible you revere and use as your source? And how can you tell? (That is, on what logical basis, beyond "well this sounds like something I prefer to believe Jesus would have said, and therefore I accept it as his words.")** and http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=9810&hl=orebim&st=20 (Where was the hand of god - in the WRITING of the various books (in either the bible or the apocrypha); in the "voting" to accept or not accept certain books into the "approved" Bible (Nicene Council, was it)? Which Bible is really "the inerrant word of god" -- the Catholic one? The King James? The weird "modern-language" versions coming out for piss-poor readers in America today? The older ones found in Nag Hammadi and near the Dead Sea? Was the hand of god with the translator who "translated" (added vowels to) the written Aramaic or Hebrew (oh, Hebrew, wouldn't that imply JEWISH also?!) "rbm" as "Orabim" -- that is "ravens"-- who fed (was it?) Elijah as he was wandering in the wilderness rather than "Orebim": the inhabitants of the town of Oreb right near the wilderness where he was wandering? See, these are quandries that I find interesting: how and why do people chose to believe what they do?) Zoroaster 2003-08-15 17:25 | User Profile Aristotle’s Prime Mover evokes motion, not gourds or cucumbers. The commonly accepted model of the beginning of our universe, often referred to as the “Big Bang,” suggests that it began between 15 and 18 billion years ago in an infinitely compact and singular state, enclosing a space even smaller than an atomic particle. If Aristotle were alive today, he would say the Prime Mover caused the Big Bang, not gourds, cucumbers, or the some tribal war god. According to Aristotle the Prime Mover is the Prefect First Cause responsible for moving objects, which, in turn, move other objects: The Prime Mover is always at absolute rest, beyond time and space, motionless and changeless in perfection, omniscient and eternal, everywhere and nowhere. Aristotle perceived God through motion. To my knowledge, he never claimed he understood or spoke to God. He was no different than the rest of humanity, pathetic creatures trapped in time and space, really, having only intuitive awareness of the Unknowable. The conquests of Alexander, Aristotle’s pupil, brought Jews on the world stage. They brought with them, in contrast to the Prime Mover, Yahweh, the fiendish god of Jews, a kind of divine superiority soothing to their macerated egos because he chose them as his very own and set them above their betters, and they also brought with them their cunning in peddling their superstitions to cheat the unwary. In the centuries between Aristotle and Constantine, the horrible Jewish god was to "make folly of the wisdom of this world," thus negating all learning, all culture, and repudiating reason itself. Yahweh and the radicals of an initially obscure Jewish sect promised to envy and malice that the rich and powerful would be tortured in Hell forever and forever, if they did not empty their pockets to the profit of ranting priests. To the dregs of the Empire that was Roman only in name, Christianity was what liquor is to alcoholics. With Irenaeus the persecution of Gnostics and fierce, ecclesiastical intolerance to any other personal religious beliefs became the driving force of Christianity. Though Marcion (140 ce) sought to dump the Old Testament from Christianity because he felt Yahweh was incompatible with the Loving Father proclaimed by Jesus, he still attributed to Yahweh the status of a lesser, creative god, so there was some credence to Irenaeus’s charge of dualism. If Marcion were alive today, I suspect he’d call Yahweh a gruesome Jewish fairytale and be done with it, thus avoiding Irenaeus’s complaints. Valentinus, on the other hand speaks of a God who is: “(Root) of the All, the (Ineffable One who) dwells in the Monad (He dwells alone) in silence . . .since, after all (he was) a Monad, and no one was before him. . .” A Valentinian Exposition ww.19-23, in NHL 436 Elaine Pagels writes in The Gnostic Gospels that according to a third Valentinian text, the Interpretation of Knowledge, Christ taught that “Your Father, who is in heaven, is one. No dualism in Valentinus. His concept of God was much like Aristotle’s Prime Mover, i.e., a Prefect God who does not play favorites. If Constantine had not had his vision at Malvian Bridge (312 ce), Mithraism, not Christianity, might well have become the official religion of the Roman Empire. Based on the Iranian god of the sun, justice, contract and war, Mithraism was more popular than Christianity at the time. But Christianity prevailed, and it’s no coincidence that the brand of Christianity that the Fathers put over was one which lugged with it the "Old Testament" and identified Yahweh, the big Jew up in the sky, as the Christian god, or that the first concern of the fathers, as soon as they got their hands on governmental power, was to exterminate the Marconists, the Manichaeans, and all the other Christian sects that refused to accept as their god the fiend of the "Old Testament.” The slaughter went on well into the Middle Ages. In 1209 Pope Innocence III sicced an army of some thirty thousand knights and foot soldiers on the Languedoc—the mountainous northeastern foothills of the Pyrenees in what is now southern France. These Christian soldiers put a whole population to the sword in what became known as Albigensian Crusade. The extermination was so vast and terrible that it may well constitute the first case of “genocide” in modern Europeans history. What awful crime had these peaceful Cathars committed? The heresy of dualism: they believed in a good god of love, and an evil one of the material world. By the time of the Reformation, Gnostics were either exterminated or driven into hiding. The Protestant Churches, however, proved to be just as intolerant as the Catholic when it came to blind faith as opposed to inner revelation. An increasing number of "Fundamental Christians" have recently felt the need to defend Christianity by trashing anyone who speaks out in any way against the Bible. What it all boils down to, folks, is not exclusively religious or political augments but who’s in charge, and it’s the same old crowd. You can see them every Sunday morning on one-eyed Jew, screaming “God of Israel!” again and again, till they’re blue in the face. -Z- Paleoleftist 2003-08-15 19:01 | User Profile *Originally posted by paleoleftist@thenwintermute,Aug 14 2003, 23:53 * ** I advise patience. It took Christianity a long time to get to full speed, so reserving a few centuries for the task will be in order. ** ** I do expect the process to take two centuries, actually. Although we might not have that much time. However, the Piscean age will be ending during that period, and the identity of the two fishes which comprise that constellation will be revealed during that time (with your interest in astrology, a quick web search will reveal to you who has gone into hiding during this period, and more importantly, who they are hiding from). ** [ARRRGh! In shortening this post, I edited out my own answer. The heat is taking its toll! :lol: ] To clear this up fast: The site I was linking to is parodistic, if unconsciously so. We Catholics are a bit more given to cracking harmless jokes about even serious topics than our Protestant brothers. :) Paleoleftist 2003-08-15 19:14 | User Profile Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 14 2003, 23:53 * ** > I advise patience. It took Christianity a long time to get to full speed, so reserving a few centuries for the task will be in order.* I do expect the process to take two centuries, actually. Although we might not have that much time. However, the Piscean age will be ending during that period, and the identity of the two fishes which comprise that constellation will be revealed during that time (with your interest in astrology, a quick web search will reveal to you who has gone into hiding during this period, and more importantly, who they are hiding from). Demons are not all-powerful, so a singular, all-powerful God cannot be a Demon, by definition. Whoever said you worshipped a singular, all-powerful God? This is what I mean when I say that "you're soaking in it", 'it' in this regard being Greek philosophy. There is much that is good in Christiantiy, but sadly it comes second hand from Greek sources, which are then mendaciously pushed to the sidelines so that the "truth" of the Old Testament can be proclaimed. ** Hello Wintermute, always a pleasure, and I mean it. Who says we worship a single, all-powerful God? WE say so, and Catholic ex-cathedra teachings are infallible; therefore the OT says what we say it says; the opinion of orthodox Jews, ancient or modern, is irrelevant. Next question. :) Paleoleftist 2003-08-15 19:18 | User Profile Added to the above: The truth of the OT is defined as Catholic understanding of the OT. Obviously we proclaim the truth of or own understanding, or we would be very weird. So we definitely proclaim the truth of the OT, insofar as the OT is not rendered insubstantial by the teaching of Christ and Catholic tradition. Patrick 2003-08-15 20:48 | User Profile ”There is still at least one big problem with this argument: We believe that Christ died to atone for our sins, and not as a result of unsuccessfully trying to instigate a coup attempt...” Paleoleftist... .....This may be difficult to explain in brief, so if you don’t understand what I am attempting to communicate, please ask for clarification; I will be happy to elaborate... .....You forget that The Lamb was “slain from the foundation of the world”; this “foundation”, is not the building-block “foundation” that modern day ba’al priests would have us believe... it is the kata-bole’, in the Hebrew, that “casting down”, or “overthrow”, which is in reference to the tohu va bohu, (again, in the Hebrew), of Genesis, 1:2, wherein that which was “created” in Genesis, 1:1, was “destroyed”, which, Peter tells us in 2Peter, 3:6 the people remain “willingly ignorant” of; this speaks to the “age that was”, wherein satan, (the sissy), rebelled, drawing away that “third of the stars of Heaven” with him, of which, the Psalmist relates... therefore, He was slain well before the garden, just after the adversary’s rebellion; we are presently in the very dusk of this second “earth age”... .....When Our Christ walked the planet, it is not that He was trying to instigate a coup attempt, as you say, but that He was planting the seed of true Christianity, which these pharisaical “judaizers” could not allow; their entire assault on the bloodline began in the garden in an effort to interrupt that scarlet thread through which came Christ... it has taken two thousand years since Our Christ’s day for that seed to take enough root, by which we would have understanding to see these final fulfillments of prophecy, and recognize them for what they are, as opposed to the bastardized concepts those selfsame “judaizers” have falsely replaced them with, in their corrupt, abominable teaching; Christ taught The Law, and to seek redress therein, which, in that day was, indeed, revolutionary, as the pharisaical vermin were oppressing the caucasian Israelites; the adversary teaches the opposite, that said oppression can be furthered... Paleoleftist 2003-08-15 22:34 | User Profile *Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 14 2003, 23:53 * ** Instead, there is a psychotic, lying demon, a national god who is part of a larger pantheon. ** I don´t think even the Jews deny the principle of Unity. I doubt the thing about the larger Pantheon. Monotheism is necessary for anybody who thinks straight. An all-powerful being must, by definition, be one. Paleoleftist 2003-08-15 22:36 | User Profile *Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 14 2003, 23:53 * ** Either they will end up as Ben Noachs, ranting about theocracy, slavery, and animal sacrifices, or they will follow the Hellenizing path. ** They might also convert to Catholicism. :) Paleoleftist 2003-08-15 22:49 | User Profile *Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 14 2003, 23:53 * ** However, that this is the Absolute, which is taught by the Catholic Chrurch, is obvious as early as Augustine. ** Nope. :) Paleoleftist 2003-08-15 22:53 | User Profile *Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 14 2003, 23:53 * ** In [the Pagan; PL] God, there is neither jealously or deceit. ** True, but only because he doesn´t exist. :) That which cannot be specified must rightly be called Nothingness. In this I agree with the Buddhists. The most sophisticated Pagans, so to speak. Paleoleftist 2003-08-15 23:01 | User Profile *Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 14 2003, 23:53 * ** Now, what was I saying about Nymphs? Wintermute ** I have no ill feelings for Nymphs, Pixies, and Kobolds. That´s why I suggest they shouldn´t even think of going to war against the Angels. They would only end up hurt. One Angel is enough to dispose of the entire Pixie Army, plus all available reservists. So I say they better stay put under their mushrooms, drink nectar and collect whatever they collect. :) Paleoleftist 2003-08-15 23:13 | User Profile *Originally posted by IAH@Aug 15 2003, 03:28 * ** Nevertheless, even Jefferson knew that Plato had a few loose screws here and there. ** Take that for granted. As Wintermute is Plato´s lawyer, so to speak, it would be unfair to demand he explains the moral teachings of Plato, such as friends should share their wives :lol: , and doctors murder their patients, if they consider them bad people. :lol: Good grief, as Charlie Brown would say. No wonder the Catholic Church preferred Aristotle. :hyp: Paleoleftist 2003-08-15 23:32 | User Profile *Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 15 2003, 06:11 * ** The fact that the effeminate Weenies run the world supervised by Jewry means that we are headed for catastrophe. ** The world is run by people -Jews and non-Jews- who are more or less aware of what they are doing. Weenies wouldn´t start genocidal wars, obviously. We are headed for catastrophe under one of two possible conditions: 1) Because those who run the world want to bring about a catastrophe. Or: 2) Because a future showdown between opposing forces incidentally results in a catastrophe. There is undeniably a possibility that 1) is true, and it is also not unlikely that 2) might happen. Therefore a cataclysm cannot be excluded. But not for the reason you mention. Paleoleftist 2003-08-16 00:02 | User Profile *Originally posted by Zoroaster@Aug 15 2003, 11:25 * ** By the time of the Reformation, Gnostics were either exterminated or driven into hiding. ** It is true, they were not well-beloved. You fail to mention, however, the content of the Gnostic teachings. Is it true or not that at least some of them taught that, as it was the Bad Guy who created the world, mankind should die out, and thereby foil his plans? Now this is what I call a strategy! :rolleyes: Paleoleftist 2003-08-16 00:34 | User Profile *Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 15 2003, 18:24 * ** May I ask that, in the future, you try to get all your responses into a single letter field? It will make my reply somewhat easier. ** Would like to accomodate you, but that really doesn´t fit with my "one thing at a time" thinking/writing style. There´s also another thing: I currently have to cope with a weird browser malfunction that doesn´t allow cut&paste. :taz: I hope you will excuse my complicating your reply somewhat for the above 2 reasons. Paleoleftist 2003-08-16 00:43 | User Profile Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 15 2003, 18:24 * ** > *explains the moral teachings of Plato, such as friends should share their wives  , and doctors murder their patients, if they consider them bad people. ** I will of course, require citations for these charges, so that we may be assured that they issue from some source other than your own feverish mind. ** Uh oh, that wasn´t nice. Besides, what is the world coming to when Platonists don´t read the Politeia? :( Should I quote my German translation, or try&search for the respective quotes in English on the net? (Cannot guarantee the success of the latter, but to accommodate you this time, I would give it a try.) :) Paleoleftist 2003-08-16 00:50 | User Profile Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 15 2003, 18:24 * ** All Church Fathers explicitly acknowledge Plato's description of God as the true one*. ** On this, I must require proof. But even if there is, you are, perhaps, not aware that Catholic doctrine does not state that the Fathers were right about every philosophical question. Catholic doctrine relies more on Aquinas, and even Kant, than on the Fathers, you will be sad to hear. It doesn´t dismiss the Fathers, of course, but if in doubt, I´d say Aquinas is given priority. Though if you can produce a panel of expert Catholic Theologists who say that ain´t so, I will admit my error. Paleoleftist 2003-08-16 01:04 | User Profile Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 15 2003, 18:24 * ** Boehme affirmed it as the ungrund, the Ground of Being. This is real, 'every tongue shall confess', time. If Plato and Plotinus and the entire ancient world are wrong, then why does your 'New Song' affirm our truth? Why do the most dedicated, most fervent, most devout Christians always return to the Pagan vision*? ** I like your earnest conviction, and this is perhaps the time to repeat again that I certainly prefer your views to crude, empty, soulless materialism. A few things, though: -Boehme was a heretic. -Plato was not wrong on everything; neither was he right on everything. He was a philosopher, first and foremost, and using his teachings as Holy Writ is, in fact, an abuse. Plato himself would disagree. He considered himself what we would call a scientist rather than a prophet. Different job description, really. -And: Plato was not even known throughout a large part of the Middle Ages. His works were lost, rediscovered by the Muslims, and came back to us only after the Crusades. Aristotle is the classic philosopher the Church relied upon. Paleoleftist 2003-08-16 01:09 | User Profile Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 15 2003, 18:24 * ** > I don´t think even the Jews deny the principle of Unity. I doubt the thing about the larger Pantheon.* Well, your doubt can easily be put to rest. ** Don´t think so. The Jewish authority on Bible interpretation is Maimonides. If I am not very much mistaken, he states with the greatest possible emphasis that "even if the Torah explicitly says so only once, the prime principle of the Jewish faith is God´s unity". Paleoleftist 2003-08-16 01:14 | User Profile *Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 15 2003, 18:24 * ** You're not a montheist. You're a henotheist. There's a difference. Look it up. Wintermute ** Nonsense. A Henotheist believes that many Gods exist; I explicitly said I don´t. You must have run out of plausible arguments. ;) NeoNietzsche 2003-08-16 01:20 | User Profile ** The fact that the effeminate Weenies run the world supervised by Jewry means that we are headed for catastrophe. ** The world is run by people -Jews and non-Jews- who are more or less aware of what they are doing. Weenies wouldn´t start genocidal wars, obviously. We are headed for catastrophe under one of two possible conditions: 1) Because those who run the world want to bring about a catastrophe. Or: 2) Because a future showdown between opposing forces incidentally results in a catastrophe. There is undeniably a possibility that 1) is true, and it is also not unlikely that 2) might happen. Therefore a cataclysm cannot be excluded. But not for the reason you mention. 1) The Jewish Revolts of the First Century were insane. 2) Only fools would allow themselves to be governed by Jews. 3) The foolish supervised by the insane spells disaster. Paleoleftist 2003-08-16 01:33 | User Profile The world is run by people -Jews and non-Jews- who are more or less aware of what they are doing. Weenies wouldn´t start genocidal wars, obviously. We are headed for catastrophe under one of two possible conditions: 1) Because those who run the world want to bring about a catastrophe. Or: 2) Because a future showdown between opposing forces incidentally results in a catastrophe. There is undeniably a possibility that 1) is true, and it is also not unlikely that 2) might happen. Therefore a cataclysm cannot be excluded. But not for the reason you mention. 1) The Jewish Revolts of the First Century were insane. 2) Only fools would allow themselves to be governed by Jews. 3) The foolish supervised by the insane spells disaster. ** 1) We were talking about Weenies, not the Insane. 2) Not all Insane are Weenies, not all Weenies are Insane. 3) The First Century Revolts were fanatic, but so are you. 4) First Century Jews being insane does not, in itself, prove that present day Zionists are insane. They may well be, but the actions of First Century people do not prove whatever point you were trying to make. NeoNietzsche 2003-08-16 01:46 | User Profile ** The world is run by people -Jews and non-Jews- who are more or less aware of what they are doing. Weenies wouldn´t start genocidal wars, obviously. We are headed for catastrophe under one of two possible conditions: 1) Because those who run the world want to bring about a catastrophe. Or: 2) Because a future showdown between opposing forces incidentally results in a catastrophe. There is undeniably a possibility that 1) is true, and it is also not unlikely that 2) might happen. Therefore a cataclysm cannot be excluded. But not for the reason you mention.** 1) The Jewish Revolts of the First Century were insane. 2) Only fools would allow themselves to be governed by Jews. 3) The foolish supervised by the insane spells disaster. 1) We were talking about Weenies, not the Insane. 2) Not all Insane are Weenies, not all Weenies are Insane. 3) The First Century Revolts were fanatic, but so are you. 4) First Century Jews being insane does not, in itself, prove that present day Zionists are insane. They may well be, but the actions of First Century people do not prove whatever point you were trying to make. The Weenies are the fools. The Jews are the insane. As in "the foolish supervised by the insane" as in "the...Weenies...supervised by Jewry" Read Josephus for a good laugh at the fact that the Jews haven't changed a bit. Paleoleftist 2003-08-16 01:54 | User Profile *Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 15 2003, 19:46 * ** The Weenies are the fools. The Jews are the insane. As in "the foolish supervised by the insane" as in "the...Weenies...supervised by Jewry" ** Granted; however, all fools aren´t effeminate weenies, either. Precisely the most dangerous fools are not. Also, folishness and insanity overlap. Given the general state of rottenness, I prefer the description: A Ruling Class so foolish that it borders insanity is governing a people so foolish that it borders insanity. Avalanche 2003-08-17 02:13 | User Profile **1Ki 17:4 And it shall be, [that] thou shalt drink of the brook; and I have commanded the ravens to feed thee there. ** This is the ONLY sentence that we need concern ourselves with (at least to participate in MY discussion). You give a long involved message providing all sorts of ancilliary and uninvolved material (I am aware of the time you obviously put in writing out your great long message but {shrug} I can't really say I'm appreciative of it, because it doesn't answer my question/comment.). I am apparently NOT able to get across the issue I wish to address. You take, at face value seemingly, that big black birds flew around with food for Elijah. You do not, seemingly, consider that the inserter of vowels -- the person who chose to put in the specific vowels that MAKE this passage be about birdies bringing sandwiches -- CHOSE the specific vowel(s) that made the text be about birdies, and not the specific vowels that made the text be about people living on Mt Horeb (Horebim?) -- which, to my bird-watcher's eye makes a HUGELY more logical picture than birds bringing dishes! This leads up to God sending Elijah to the brook to be fed by ravens. Elijah and ONLY Elijah was fed BY the ravens as commanded by God to do so. The ravens gave him bread and meat at Mount Horeb. You accept, seemingly without question or consideration, that it was birdies, and go to discuss at length what Elijah was doing, why he was there, what some widow-lady fed him (what does that have to do with ravens?), where he slept and how many miles it was to somewhere else. You have lots and lots of discussion about stuff that does NOT address the point -- MY POINT is: why do you choose to believe that the inserter of vowels picked the RIGHT vowels when he made it birdies? I must not be able to make it clear enough that my ONLY interest in this, as an example of the difficulty I have with treating the Bible as the word of God or even as a trustworthy document, is: On what basis do you decide that the translators, the inserters of vowels, the Council that voted 'keep or delete' on various books and apocrypha, WERE CORRECT?! Is it merely that they (must have) picked the "right" pieces and translations, and books and part of books and apocrypha that they actually picked because those pieces and translations, and books and part of books and apocrypha are NOW in the current "official" Bible? (Totally circular reasoning, in other words!?) **1Ki 17:6 And the ravens brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening; ** How many ravens do you suppose it took to bring him meat -- did each bird bring a tiny bit? Did they fly together to bring a whole lamb leg? Who made the bread, and what made the baker give it to the ravens? All these questions, I expect, you will answer by saying "why, it's CLEAR that GOD made the baker give bread to the birdies, AND God made the ravens able to fly with roast leg of lamb." WHY is that more "likely" than that the HUMAN residents of Oreb/Horeb FED Elijah? WHY does it have to be miraculous? What purpose is served by making it seem "magical"instead of logical? WHY do YOU trust the inserter of vowels, apparently without question?? And you also go into the translator's notes from 1611 -- SIXTEEN HUNDRED YEARS after this-all happened. > Unfortunately, the 1611 contain misspellings Do you assume that the "base text" that the guys IN 1611 were working from was the (correct, untampered-with) word of God? Do you think that they had material to work from that had NOT been tampered with in SIXTEEN HUNDRED YEARS? Do you think they had accurate source material, and thus their translation mistakes can be "undone" to identify the "real true Word?" And yes, I'd love you to repost your "one simple question" -- because you've hidden it so well in long, convoluted, and not entirely germaine lectures, that I have no idea what your one simple question IS! Avalanche 2003-08-18 14:14 | User Profile ** Ava, > ** This is the ONLY sentence that we need concern ourselves with (at least to participate in MY discussion) You give a long involved message providing all sorts of ancilliary and uninvolved material Then why did you ask so many other questions? My post was long because of the questions you asked and was trying to lay some ground work. Talk about convoluted. The "so-many other questions" are, in fact, the SAME couple of questions repeated and reworded because you seem to be unable to follow what I am asking. Here: I’ll pull out and break up my previous couple of messages into categories – then YOU see if you have actually addressed the meat of the questioning in your long message(s) -- or merely sent a sermon about Elijah and his meals. Invitation to retry: > ** But you WON'T discuss my questions about Orebim and Orabim, eh IAH? (Want me to repost it again on this thread? So you can refuse once again to address it? How can I resist?)** inserter of vowels: > **  1.  If every word is traceable and thereby can be ascertained as truth or lie, then do you NOT have to account for the "inserters of vowels" -- the TRANSLATORS who chose to insert a vowel to match THEIR OWN view of what the root words in their original language SHOULD HAVE BEEN?! 2.  Where was the hand of god – in the writing? In the picking of the vowels to insert? (The inserter of vowels (the translator!) picked the vowels that made birds bring him food. Is that reasonable? Is that likely to have been a mistake or an attempt to impress the gullible? How do you determine whether the picked vowels in just this ONE example are 'twisting' or not? How many other times have such choices been made and how do you determine whether the right or wrong choice was made? 3.  Was the hand of god with the translator who "translated" (added vowels to) the written Aramaic or Hebrew "rbm" as "Orabim" -- that is "ravens"-- who fed Elijah as he was wandering in the wilderness rather than "Orebim": the inhabitants of the town of Oreb right near the wilderness where he was wandering? ** **Personal question on your beliefs in this matter: ** > ** Do you think it was ravens feeding Elijah or the inhabitants of the local-to-Elijah’s-wanderings town of Oreb? How do you make that determination? ** Voting (i.e., ARE the books you currently claim as yours actually coherent and appropriately gathered together?) > **  1.  Same with the Nicene Council -- they voted to keep some books and dump others. How much do you trust their judgement? How can you determine which of the books relegated to the apocrypha SHOULD have been kept, as they accurately represented Jesus' words; and how many that did NOT accurately reflect his words were voted INTO the Bible you revere and use as your source? And how can you tell? 2.  (Where was the hand of god - in the WRITING of the various books (in either the bible or the apocrypha); in the "voting" to accept or not accept certain books into the "approved" Bible (Nicene Council, was it)? Which Bible is really "the inerrant word of god" -- the Catholic one? The King James? The weird "modern-language" versions  coming out for piss-poor readers in America today? The older ones found in Nag Hammadi and near the Dead Sea? ** So, my ongoing queries are about not the MEAT of the matter (the content and your explanations of why it says what it says), but on where the 'meat' CAME from... what butcher (or rather which many butchers, and cooks, and assorted other people), what cuts, was was it adulterated with, by whom and to what purpose. I don't really CARE about the content (that specific content) -- it is merely an example I have at hand to show my disbelief that the Bible y'all so staunchly defend is trustworthy and not tampered with. (Well, I guess there's really no way for you to show it's not tampered with -- because obviously it has been tampered with over and over through history.) I find I actually have a bit of respect for Walter's "it means what the Church SAYS it means -- regardless of apparent contradictions in the actual text." At least he and his don't worry about a rational comprehension of the actual words written and tampered with over these many many years. All-y'all other Christians have to go through some pretty odd contortions to "show" what an acceptable and reasonable meaning could possibly be to things that are prime facie unreasonable and unexplainable. (Tex et al., I DON'T intend this-all to be a means to detach Christians from their belief structures -- such is not really my goal... I merely want to break them/y'all free from an unreasoning (and unreasonable) attachment to "god's word as written' -- cause y'all DON'T HAVE IT "as written." Ya'll have it as modified, adulterated, deleted, voted on, translated and mis-translated and re-translated, added to, twisted, and generally 'done to' by a huge number of folks for a huge number of (their OWN) purposes. I don't object to all-y'all having the belief structure that suits, and I don't have any particular objection to y'all CHOOSING to hold the Bible as your guide. I DO have an objection to all-y'all insisting that ALL PEOPLE should be bound and ruled by it because it is the word of god, cause I'm just not sure that's so!) Paleoleftist 2003-08-18 16:30 | User Profile *Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 18 2003, 00:09 * ** Paleoleftist - Not ignoring our discussion, but thinking about giving it its own thread. It is getting a bit crowded in here. Is that agreeable to you? ** Absolutely. If you like, simply start a new thread [[color=purple]Christians and Pagans slug it out![/color], or something :lol: ], and begin with answering those previous posts of mine you thing you have a good rebuttal :) , and I will then edit my posts to link them to the new thread to make sure no confusion is avoided. :) **Also, is your browser fixed? Wintermute** Thanks, yes. I was inflicted with the Windows32 Blasterworm. It closed a necessary system program => irregularities. Read about it in a paper, then got a solution online. My spaceship is back on course now. Texas Dissident 2003-08-18 22:59 | User Profile Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 18 2003, 17:48 * And finally, as if to confirm everything that I have said on this thread and elsewhere about Protestantism being a long, spiralling water slide towards the most depraved kinds of pseudo-Judaism,* Hmmm...the pagan throwing stones concerning depravity. Standing on the shoulders of giants, all the while trying to make them trip. Ironic. :) Paleoleftist 2003-08-19 00:05 | User Profile *Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 18 2003, 17:50 * ** After all, either you are violating the Fourth Commandment by worshipping on Sundays, or you are holding Sabbath on Saturday, and are a Judaizer. There isn't a third option. ** Nope; because it´s the 3rd Commandment, not 4th; and Catholic interpretation says "one day out of 7", not specifying which and thereby avoiding the problem entirely. [url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04153a.htm]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04153a.htm[/url] Paleoleftist 2003-08-19 00:40 | User Profile I have also kicked the Christian/Pagan debate off, with a new thread here: [SIZE=3]Paganism and Politically Correct Blood Sacrifice[/SIZE] [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=14&t=10393]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...ST&f=14&t=10393[/url] Pagan input on this topic is urgently needed, for those who consider conversion! :lol: Paleoleftist 2003-08-19 01:14 | User Profile Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 18 2003, 18:54 * ** > Nope; because it´s the 3rd Commandment, not 4th; and Catholic interpretation says "one day out of 7", not specifying which and thereby avoiding the problem entirely.* Paleo - You're both right and wrong, since you are quoting fromt the Catechism and not the Bible, though I definitely approve of ignoring the Bible. It depends on whose commandment list you're looking at: [color=blue]Protestant[/color] [color=red]Catholic[/color] [color=blue]3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.[/color] [color=red]3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.[/color] [color=blue]4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.[/color] [color=red]4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.[/color] The Exodus 20 list is followed by Protestants and Orthodox, while the RCRO follows their restatement in Deuteronomy. There's also a discrepancy between the Exodus 20 list and the version in Deuteronomy regarding the commandment in question: Exodus 20 requires keeping the Sabbath because "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day." But in Deuteronomy, Jews must "remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day." Nothing is said about God resting after the six days it took to create the universe. Since you are Catholic, Paleo, you are not directly exposed to most of the barbarities of the Jews' text. Therefore you may not want to examine this next part, from Exodus 34, where YHVH gives the second set of ten commandments, the binding set, the first having been destroyed by Moses in Ex 32:19: ** "Here, then," said the LORD, "is the covenant I will make. Before the eyes of all your people I will work such marvels as have never been wrought in any nation anywhere on earth, so that this people among whom you live may see how awe-inspiring are the deeds which I, the LORD, will do at your side. 11 But you, on your part, must keep the commandments I am giving you today. "I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 12 Take care, therefore, not to make a covenant with these inhabitants of the land that you are to enter; else they will become a snare among you. 13 1 Tear down their altars; smash their sacred pillars, and cut down their sacred poles. ** 14 2 You shall not worship any other god, for the LORD is 'the Jealous One'; a jealous God is he. 15 Do not make a covenant with the inhabitants of that land; else, when they render their wanton worship to their gods and sacrifice to them, one of them may invite you and you may partake of his sacrifice. 16 Neither shall you take their daughters as wives for your sons; otherwise, when their daughters render their wanton worship to their gods, they will make your sons do the same. 17 "You shall not make for yourselves molten gods. 18 "You shall keep the feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days at the prescribed time in the month of Abib you are to eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you; for in the month of Abib you came out of Egypt. 19 "To me belongs every first-born male that opens the womb among all your livestock, whether in the herd or in the flock. 20 The firstling of an ass you shall redeem with one of the flock; if you do not redeem it, you must break its neck. The first-born among your sons you shall redeem. "No one shall appear before me empty-handed. 21 "For six days you may work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; on that day you must rest even during the seasons of plowing and harvesting. 22 3 "You shall keep the feast of Weeks with the first of the wheat harvest; likewise, the feast at the fruit harvest at the close of the year. 23 Three times a year all your men shall appear before the Lord, the LORD God of Israel. ** 24 Since I will drive out the nations before you to give you a large territory, there will be no one to covet your land when you go up three times a year to appear before the LORD, your God. 25 "You shall not offer me the blood of sacrifice with leavened bread, nor shall the sacrifice of the Passover feast be kept overnight for the next day. 26 "The choicest first fruits of your soil you shall bring to the house of the LORD, your God. "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk." 27 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with them I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." 28 So Moses stayed there with the LORD for forty days and forty nights, without eating any food or drinking any water, and he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. ** Very different, aren't they? Also, you will note the "real estate deal" aspects of the Ten Commandments which replaced the originals. The obediece of the new commandments is explicitly linked to the expulsion, on Gods part, of I the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. The much quoted (and more acceptable) version of the commandments are defunct, the actual tablets carried by Moses from Sinai and placed in the Ark are the ones I have listed above. I do wish that Christians would read the Bible more often, as there would not be so many of them in that case. However, even in the legally binding version of the commandments, it is plain that the seventh day is the day of rest. For scoffers and blasphemers who hold to the destroyed commandments or the Deuteronic reprint of them, I challenge you directly: Exodus 24 is the only place in the Bible where the text is confirmed as being, in fact, the Ten Commandments (Ex 24:28). No amount of red faced huff-puffery will ever change that. Has it been a while since you have observed the Festival of Weeks? If you honestly wish to advocate for the continuing importance of the Ten Commandments, I would suggest you start. Wintermute ** Nice try. :D "Cut two stone tablets like the former, that I may write on them the commandments which were on the former tablets that you broke." [url=http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/exodus/exodus34.htm]http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/exodus/exodus34.htm[/url] Same commandments as in 20; the rest are simply some additional orders to Moses. Avalanche 2003-08-19 01:41 | User Profile Wintermute quoting IAH?:  And as for your baseless accusation that Avalanche has a cold and hard heart, given to her by the military, all I can say is . . . it's not Avalanche who's trying to steal Christmas! Huh? What? :o When? Where? Did I miss a message that was deleted? (I searched -- no luck!) And it SOUNDS like it was a really interesting message!!! Texas Dissident 2003-08-19 02:37 | User Profile Fundamentalism specializes in anger, pride, and falsehood...Also, fundamentalists are hardly giants, moral or otherwise. Hmmm...Perhaps we suffer from a misunderstanding of fundamentalism. No giants? William Jennings Bryan? Gerald LK Smith? I would think any self-described white nationalist worth his salt would be a great admirer of the latter, at the very least. Avalanche 2003-08-19 13:46 | User Profile ** I had stated that the military must have hardened your heart (scripturally speaking, the military is great for that, especially in today's times seeking to turn women into killing machines)** Actually, my heart isn't hardened :heart: :D -- I am aghast at the waste of fine young American men that the military is careless with. (And I am 100% certain that women should NOT be in the military except, maybe, as nurses and doctors!) My intellect overrules my heart, and recognizes the inherent 'flaws' in women that should disallow their participation in the military, in the govt (including voting!), maybe even in business... Certainly, women with their innate desires for egalitarianism and protecting 'lesser beings' (which is INTENDED to protect their own young and NOT NOT NOT lesser races and foreigners!) are (generally) incapable of making the hard choices about harsh measures necessary to protect and ensure longevity for their own tribe/race/nation. I recognize the need for these measures, and yet would feel SO BAD about them! Yes, sending those unwanted somalis BACK to their home country will surely result in a lot of them starving to death or being hacked to death. {shrug} Needs to be done! Some must die that others must live -- I want MINE to live; and too bad for the others! Is that hard-hearted? Doesn't seem so in the Bible! But then, the MEN ran things, and they did what was needful! Nowadays, it's feminized men (that is, men unable or unwilling to make the necessary choices, and carry out the necessary actions) and masculinized women (that is, women with the still-innate desires for egalitarianism and protection of lessers, but with the inculcated ambition to run things!) NeoNietzsche, by way of introducing some of his views to my family asked them: "Would you rather suffer an atrocity or commit one?" They recoiled in horror {sigh} and said they would never ever commit one! The logical result? They will suffer one! There is no 'middle way' -- either you protect your own (i.e., you do WHATEVER Is necessary), or your own is destroyed! Paleoleftist 2003-08-19 18:19 | User Profile Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 18 2003, 19:38 * ** Ten commandments are followed by the instruction "write down these words for in accordance with them I have made a covenant with you and with Israel". I suppose* this could be plainer, but I don't see how. Next verse: 28 So Moses stayed there with the LORD for forty days and forty nights, without eating any food or drinking any water, and he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. Ten commandments, followed by the instruction "write these down, they're a covenant", which is immediately followed by the statement 'he wrote on the tablets the word of the covenant'. If there's any doubt, the words following immediately from that form a modifying phrase: "the ten commandments" This is all pretty straightforward, which your arguments are not. You ignore the information I provide about the order of the commandments for Protestants and Catholics, and you ignore the constant description of the 'sabbath' commandment, in three out of the four versions, as being the seventh day, an explicit restatement of the Creation story. Therefore the larger argument which you seek to avoid by constantly changing the subject is this: either you observe Sabbath on Sunday, in which case you violate the Law, or you observe Saturday, in which case you are a Judaizer. IMO, you were on much more coherent ground when you hid behind "The Chuch says so" excuse. Obviously, I would like you to stick to the points I present, but given that your material is so weak, your 'pick and choose' methodology seems necessary. Not to mention your "there's a great distraction . . . elsewhere" ploy. Another thought for you, from Meister Eckhart: [color=blue]What is truth? Truth is something so noble that if God could turn aside from it, I could keep to the truth and let God go. [/color] Wintermute ** *WM, your nitpicking about this is annoying. My religion does not require me to interpret the Bible, let alone to Unbelievers. The first is the job of Theologists, the second of Missionaries; I am neither. :rolleyes: *** But just to go out of my way to accomodate you: Moses was to write down everything told by God; your making a case of the order in which he tells the story is Talmudic, to say the least. The chapter starts with explicitly telling what is set in stone; I gave you the link. The "7th day" thing is irrelevant. In Catholic countries, Sunday is considered the 7th day. Saturday is the 6th day. I don´t see any relevance here at all. Paleoleftist 2003-08-19 18:28 | User Profile Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 18 2003, 20:06 * ** > I have also kicked the Christian/Pagan debate off, with a new thread here:* You conveniently ignore all the posts and arguments presented on this thread which is extremely aggravating, and somewhat dishonest. It's also rather characteristic of you, and many other posters here. ** WM, this is an adhom uncalled for. :angry: You have never answered those of my arguments from Friday or Saturday that fill an entire page here (before my latest short exchange with NN). I invited you to do so in a new thread, but you didn´t. So I did as I see fit, there´s no dishonesty in this at all. Why do you think only Christians are entitled to be critizised? State your own believes clearly, will you? There is much more to be critical about them, I am sure, than in the entire Catholic Encyclopedia combined. Let´s talk about Paganism for a change. Christianity has stood the test of the Millenia, Paganism hasn´t, so the burden of proof is on you! Why do I even have to state something so obvious? :taz: Paleoleftist 2003-08-19 18:46 | User Profile *Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 18 2003, 20:06 * ** Starting a new thread about blood sacrifice in the Unitarian Church (Christian, the last time I looked) is not a good faith exercise, Paleo. ** Check your premises, before you accuse me of bad faith. The "Unitarian" is a Pagan and what he considers to be a true follower of the authentic Ancient Roman Religion. [url=http://www.notelrac.com/whuups.dir/pagan.dir/secespita.html]http://www.notelrac.com/whuups.dir/pagan.d.../secespita.html[/url] In fact, his representation of the topic is a learned one, and appears to me as pretty good. Paleoleftist 2003-08-19 18:51 | User Profile Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 18 2003, 20:06 * ** Now you start a thread on some misguided girl, fully aware of the ethical difficulties* of blood sacrifice, who is speculating without guidance on how to sanctify a donation to a blood bank. ** I knew that she was aware of the ethical difficulties, and I said so. This awareness is what made her post funny rather than evil. :) Paleoleftist 2003-08-19 19:29 | User Profile *Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 18 2003, 20:06 * ** Though this was mentioned by me several days ago, you made no reference to it, not even to indicate that you were aware of it. ** And I weren´t. Are you sure that post was directed at me? Or am I now required to answer any and all posts of your´s to anybody? :rolleyes: First of all, we (Catholics) are not required to believe there are no text errors in the OT. Second, in the text you state it is not mentioned that God gave an answer to Jephtah. The Catholic editor comments: **The text clearly implies that Jephthah vowed a human sacrifice, according to the custom of his pagan neighbors; cf 2 Kings 3:27. The inspired author merely records the fact; he does not approve of the action. ** [url=http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/judges/judges11.htm]http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/judges/judges11.htm[/url] Paleoleftist 2003-08-20 01:59 | User Profile Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 19 2003, 17:35 * ** > You have never answered those of my arguments from Friday or Saturday that fill an entire page here (before my latest short exchange with NN). I invited you to do so in a new thread, but you didn´t. So I did as I see fit, there´s no dishonesty in this at all.* Au contraire. Here is one of your quotes: > All Church Fathers explicitly acknowledge Plato's description of God as the true one.** On this, I must require proof.** Did you think that I did not intend to provide this proof? ** Of course I did; silly me [slapping myself]. :jest: Unlike you, I can prove everything that I say. I do not need to go starting brush fires all over the forum and then hyperventilate about my opponents ability to keep up. ** I am participating in a small handful of threads; hardly brushfiring. Must have a few dopplegangers if they are "all over the forum". Starting a new Christian/Pagan thread was your idea; remember? **There are a number of Church Fathers, as you know. There are many references to Plato in their works, which, as you also know, are thousands of pages long. Your request will probably take at least an additional week. That data is being collated for you now, and will be presented when it is done. If you are so impatient that you need an immediate response to every question, you should not interfere with discussions occuring with other persons here. ** You could have just said that this is pending. Instead of blaming me for suspecting you had simply forgotten about it. Btw, you haven´t answered my question if you seriously doubt Plato suggesting that friends (and indeed the entire Guardian class!) share wives, and doctors take the law into their hands and help get rid of those they consider bad or useless, and if you still want me to go search for the quotes? And what about the part where I said that Catholic philosophy relies on the Medieval Scholars, such as Aquinas, in the first place, and that they preferred Aristotle? And your counting the Heretic Boehme among the Saints? And the fact that, in the early Medieval Era, the works of Plato were not even available? That Maimonides affirmed God´s unity? That the Henotheism nonsense has absolutely no ground to stand on? Animal sacrifice is another large topic. My immediate response to you, so that I can return to my work, is that many major pagan sects and thinkers were opposed to this. You then go on about "Holy Scripture" of the pagans, though you cannot understand Hellenic superiority to Semitic religion on this point. I suppose you are going to make it into a virtue that they agreed on nothing? Does it occur to you that no religious consensus = no moral consensus, and no moral consensus = chaos (which was the fate of the Greeks as long as they were independent)? Does it occur to you that you are mixing up religion with philosophy, again? Socrates was killed, because he didn´t think highly of the Gods of Athens; when I talk about the religion of the Greeks, I am talking about their popular religion, the believes that governed their conduct, not the individual believes of Socrates or Plato, who were dissidents, anyway. The 'Roman' guy you quote seems confused on this issue, as do you. Passing off two webpages as "Holy Scripture" is absolutely dishonest. I am passing them off as examples. Who says that your views are representative, and theirs are not? If so, then consider my views representative for Catholicism, and I say: Who cares if Saturday is day 6 or 7? This question will not split us into "Judaizers" and "Hellenizers", because no one cares. And your Exodus interpretation is just plain wrong. On the issue of sad Jepthah, you do feel moved to respond - after I reminded you that the issue had been raised by me and then ignored. I still doubt you raised the issue when debating me, so what gives you the idea I was required to respond? And you also forget that sola scriptura doesn´t apply to me: I am perfectly happy with conceding that the OT is a compilation, and important parts could have been handed down in a misunderstood fashion, or lost. That we don´t temper with the text as we got it doesn´t mean we necessarily believe it doesn´t contain any errors. For the last word on this, I do advise you to ask an expert; I am not, nor do I pretend I am. A general thought, however, as you make so much of the (supposed) callousness of Moses and the Prophets? Did not the idea occur to you that the practices before them may have actually been much more atrocious, and the softening up of their ideas in the OT is the best that even God could achieve under the circumstances? That is, a compromise between what God wants, and the Jewish previous customs? :) I am only a layman, so this may not be the last word on Catholic teaching, but this is how I would explain your quotes. Finally, you should take more care with your sources. When you haughtily inform us that the Sabbath is the 3rd and not the 4th commandment, you don't acknowledge that, for millions of people, it isn't. Now you want me to defend the opinions of everybody else. I will, however, confine myself to defending Catholicism, within the limits of my abilities, time &c. The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath,** or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord's Day. ** Yes, and I still say the intent of the command, as understood by the Church with the help of the Holy Ghost, is to keep one day of rest, out of 7; doesn´t much matter, which. Paleoleftist 2003-08-20 04:18 | User Profile Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 19 2003, 17:35 * ** Is this plain enough? Or do you require more? Levite ordination is substituted for firstborns*, with the leftovers taxed, as YHVH is a very sharp trader. You won't get one over on him, no sir! To the answer, who can put a price on human life, YHVH responds: I'm god! 5 shekels, please! ** Very funny! :rolleyes: I looked this up, though, and who says the firstborn were killed? The firstborns were required to perform the priestly functions, later they were replaced by the Levites. Your interpretation of the consecration of the firstborn as human sacrifice is not clear at all. Paleoleftist 2003-08-20 23:32 | User Profile Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 20 2003, 17:23 * ** > ** Starting a new Christian/Pagan thread was your idea; remember?* Yes. My exact words are "Not ignoring our discussion, but thinking about giving it its own thread" You have ignored this,... ** :taz: :taz: :taz: No, I didn´t. You overlooked the post where I said: **If you like, simply start a new thread [Christians and Pagans slug it out!, or something], and begin with answering those previous posts of mine you think you have a good rebuttal, and I will then edit my posts to link them to the new thread to make sure no confusion is avoided. ** Can´t you at least check, before making wrong accusations? :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :rolleyes: Paleoleftist 2003-08-21 00:35 | User Profile Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 20 2003, 17:23 * ** > ** Btw, you haven´t answered my question if you seriously doubt Plato suggesting that friends (and indeed the entire Guardian class!) share wives, and doctors take the law into their hands and help get rid of those they consider bad or useless, and if you still want me to go search for the quotes?* No. My difficulty in finding them as a function of how you framed the question. You explicity claim them as moral teachings, which they are not. They are part of a speculative literary dialogue, since Plato is not pretending to be God, unlike some people I could name. His more mature views on the family and euthenasia are present in the Laws, which you obviously have not read. At any rate, with the exception of a few Stoics who allowed suidice in some circumstances, euthenasia is frowned upon, and in the Hippocratic oath, is forbidden for doctors. What would I allow as Plato's "moral teachings"? Those recommendations which are constant throughout the body of his work, and not those which occur in one work only (or are reversed in later works). These are the Golden Rule, temperance, fortitude, the cultivation of wisdom, to each his due, the avoidane of anger and injustice, and a balance of each of the parts of the soul in everyday life. These are present, without dissension, throughout the whole tradition and are accepted as authoritative. No one else even raises the question of 'wives in common', and Plato condemns it his Laws. ** :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I understand your embarassment not being able to deny that the quotes are there. You ascribed them to my "feverish phantasy", remember? :th: Now you try an ordered retreat betting on that I don´t have philosophical training, and therefore don´t quite understand what Plato says, what he implies, what is meant for "the masses" and what is meant for his disciples etc. :jest: We are now going to cut that retreat short: :) It is not simply "a character" who "speculates". It is Plato´s hero, Socrates, who represents the view of Plato himself, if anybody does. Plato overworked the Politeia 7 (seven, that is) times. And we are talking about Plato (your hero, that is), one of the most outstanding thinkers, ever. And you are now claiming your hero (Plato, that is) overlooked contradictions in his work, or between his works, that would embarass a schoolboy? :clown: Therefore we must now look at this question in that serious way that befits a historian of philosophy. Who will, of course, ask: If Plato was as aware of these contradictions as we are, or more so, what´s up? :) What is up, of course, is the fact that Plato´s teacher and hero, Socrates (the same Socrates, that is) was condemned to death by a sizeable majority of the judges. Socrates´mistake was to put the famous notion of Pagan religious tolerance to the test by advocating unconventional ideas. He did not quite survive that test. Plato learned from his teacher, as good students should, and devised a method to stay on the good side of the tribunal. In short, he is the inventor of the smokescreen. :) Need I really go on? :D It is left for us to decide what is the serious part of his teaching, and what is the smokescreen. Take heart, we will not be faced with unsurmountable difficulties. :) Wherever a contradiction arises, the part where he affirms the view of the judges of Athens, or the conventional view, is the smokescreen. The other opinion, the one mentioned much more rarely and in passing, is his own. What "you would allow as Plato´s moral teachings" would not allow us to understand Plato, and can therefore not be allowed. :) Paleoleftist 2003-08-21 01:38 | User Profile *Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 20 2003, 17:23 * ** Maimonides is a creature of YHVH entirely, with no Hellenic admixture. His character is plain for any willing to see it. My question to you is: why would his opinion - about anything - matter to you? ** More empty rhetorics. :rolleyes: Maimonides´opinion matters, because -as you do not deny- he is the Jewish authority. In other words, what he says is Judaism. We are in agreement on this. A certain opinion about Judaism, which you denied, is affirmed by Maimonides. Which settles that particular issue. Look it up. I didn´t use him as witness on anything I think. I used him as witness on what orthodox Jews think. On this, he is the authority; if we like him, is irrelevant. Learn from Plato, and improve your smokescreens. They are way too transparent! :) Paleoleftist 2003-08-21 02:04 | User Profile *Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 20 2003, 19:20 * ** Since Plato is a real person, he does not need to 'smokescreen' anything when he has changed his mind. ** He didn´t change his mind. And he didn´t need the smokescreen to protect his vanity. He needed it to protect his life and the lives of his pupils from the Athenians, who were not the tolerant, open-minded pagans whose praise you are trying to sing. Paleoleftist 2003-08-21 16:27 | User Profile *Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 20 2003, 20:25 * ** Try as I might, I cannot make sense of your strange theory. ** Too bad. I suggest to go back one page, and read my little essay again. ;) Walter Yannis 2003-08-29 15:40 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 2 2003, 14:20 * ** The anthropic principle is a marvelous piece of stupidity which illustrates only the measure of the pathetic will to believe. For if a card deck of a zillion distinctive cards is presented and someone imagines and then picks a specific card (i.e., a point in the "phase space" of the universe of possible combinations of fundamental constants), the picking of that specific card evidences the intent of the picker - evidences his "design" (of constants for the universe). If a specific card is not selected for picking, the mere taking of any card - though it be one in a zillion - is completely unremarkable. Our universe has not been shown to be other than a non-specified card, by analogy. This is the essential point that the CS'ers and ID'ers cannot grasp - they who note the picking of our particular card after the fact and "prove" their point by conveniently making the unsupported claim of some deity's intention to pick that* card before the fact. It's called assuming that which is to be proven. ** Neo: Sorry for jumping into this so late, but I've been on the road. Okay, the problem that I see with your analogy to the infinite deck of cards is that it doesn't fit the context of the discussion. The fallacy here is that you conflate "possible"answers (which are indeed infinite for all practical purposes) with "right"or perhaps "workable"answers. Remember that we're talking about possible evolutionary changes here in something that came before. This is most emphatically not a case where any card will do, legitimizing itself as the "right"card after the fact. No way. In evolution, the right card must be called exactly right many, many times in a rwo before even the smallest development occurs. An example illustrates the point. Darwin didn't see any problem with a light sensitive spot on the skin becoming an eye through the formula RANDOM MUTATIONS + TIME = EVOLUTION. That no doubt made sense to him as he viewed the matter from the standpoint of 19th century biology and chemistry. But modern biochemistry reveals that a causal Grand Canyon separates a light sensitive spot on an animal's skin from a fully functional eye. It isn't the case, as Darwin assumed, of just a single biochemical step, or even a handful of steps. Rather, we're dealing with a nearly unimaginably long set of biochemical steps of mind numbing intricacy. Were any of those steps excluded or even more to the point not executed perfectly, the whole system would crash. The number of cards may be infinite, but the number of right answers is limited beyond our imagining. Just the right cascade of chemicals at the right time, and all controlled by a genetic code that makes the programming of our most powerful computers pale by comparison. Your universe of an infinite number of cards called right after the fact doesn't fit the scientific evidence. The key concept is "irreducible complexity." Your universe allows any randomness to be defined as order. But evolution doesn't deal in whims. Evolution has very specific problems to solve, while working in the very LIMITED framework of animal survival. The potential choices aren't limited at all. The development of a wing the WORKS in assisting animals to survive is order itself. It is order coming out of pre-existing order. It is exquisitely complex, and even the smallest mistake would render the whole thing wrone. No, brother Neo. We are dealing with a Mind here. DNA was invented, designed, manufactured. Maybe even branded, who knows? As I remain your humble servant, Walter Walter Yannis 2003-08-29 15:50 | User Profile *Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Aug 3 2003, 17:36 * ** As I understand it, the "intelligent design" line of argument concerning the origin of cells in the broad sense (i.e. self-maintaining and self-replicating biological entities) is that "we currently have no explanation for how it could have came about. So let's give our ignorance a fancy name like 'irreducible complexity' and then claim that it had to have been the work of an intelligent creator." Now, let us assume that this "reasoning" had been applied centuries ago before people understood condensation or static electricity. The counterparts to the "intelligent design" crowd back then would say, "we can't explain it, neither can you. That proves the existence of rain, thunder, and lightning deities." ** Again, sorry for getting into this so late, but man I've been busy. (Missed the bullfight in Madrid, by the way. Turns out they only have bullfights on Sundays in the off season, and I had to leave on a Saturday). I respectfully disagree. The whole reason that Intelligent Design became an issue is that the discoveries of modern biochemistry showed that Darwin had no conception of the astonishing complexity of the biochemical reality underlying evolution. The concept is "irreducible complexity" - the discovery that even the smallest changes involve mind boggling complexity on the molecular level, and that this complexity is irreducible in the sense that the thing wouldn't function absent even the smallest part. This new appreciation for the exquisite lapidary effects on the molecular level naturally gave rise to the suspicion that a Mind stands behind the continuing development of this thing we call Life on Earth. That's the argument. And it's a very powerful one. Regards, Walter Texas Dissident 2003-08-29 16:01 | User Profile Great to see you back, Walter. Walter Yannis 2003-08-29 16:08 | User Profile Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Aug 8 2003, 16:33 * ** I agree as to the issue of criteria and the implication for further discussion. The subject, however, will not be revisited, as I have made the responsible decision not* to subject children to the future that awaits those now having been thoughtlessly brought to life. I could say much more of an insulting character in this regard, but I will respectfully leave the matter with this denial of your presumption of some superior perspective in regard to manhood by virtue of having merely reproduced. ** "Merely"reproduced, Neo? And this from a man who supposedly cares deeply about the survival of our people. There is nothing "mere" about being a father. Believe me, I know. The task occupies my time and consumes my resources, emotional, financial, and otherwise. Fatherhood is the ultimate individual sacrifice. One doesn't have multiple children for one's own indulgence. Not a bit of it, my friend. Indeed, having children and raising them to responsible adulthood is the sine qua non of committment to our cause. A man who doesn't care enough about our collective survival not to have children presumably is more of a tourist than a soldier. Presumptions can be overcome, of course, but only on a solid showing of the evidence to the contrary. Lots of people talk a good WN game. They talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. Being a responsible husband, provider, and father is walking the walk, and (perhaps with a few exceptions) little else really compares. I hope that you'll show a bit more deference in future to fathers like my brother in Christ, Tex. And while you're at it, have some kids. Sit up all night with them when they're little, take them to swimming practice when they're kids, deal with their shite when they're teenages, and sweat your ass off feeding, housing and educating them for 22 years. Then tell Tex and me all about your committment to the WN cause. Warmest regards, Walter Walter Yannis 2003-08-29 16:16 | User Profile *Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Aug 29 2003, 16:01 * ** Great to see you back, Walter. ** Thanks, Tex. It's good to be back. I'm pleased to see that you've fought the good fight in my absence. Of course, with Perun around, there's not much for me to add to the conversation! My most recent travels took me to various European countries, and I'm pleased to report that many people - some even officers in large corporations - are hip to the role the Jewish Neocons played in our continuing, unlawful intervention in Iraq. In fact, I've heard things from some rather powerful people that would make a Freepers hair stand on end. Overall, encouraging news. I also got a tan. Man, it was hot in Spain. I guess it's nothing special for a Texan, but it damned near did me in. Warmest regards, Walter Walter Yannis 2003-08-29 16:23 | User Profile ** The enemy is within the walls. ** Are we behind their lines, or they behind ours? Sure, this question has to be decided, but it is not yet decided, and I agree with Tex that your input in this regard is not helpful. ** With respect, you're all confusing the metaphor. The "Gates of Hell shall not prevail against" the Church. Hell is the fortress under attack, not the Church. The Church is the beseiging army. Hell will fall and be laid to waster. The Church will triumph. We're the agressors, man. We're on the offensive. And our victory is a certainty. As an aside, I did a tour of the main Spanish cathedral in Toledo recently (an hour or so from Madrid) Wow, what a sight to behold. This was the Church that drove out the Muslim Moors and exiled the Pharisees, the implacable enemies of the Gospel of Christ. Nearby were mosques and syngogues that had been turned into churches. Every knee shall bend. Walter Paleoleftist 2003-08-29 16:49 | User Profile *Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Aug 29 2003, 10:23 * ** With respect, you're all confusing the metaphor. The "Gates of Hell shall not prevail against" the Church. Hell is the fortress under attack, not the Church. The Church is the beseiging army. Hell will fall and be laid to waster. The Church will triumph. We're the agressors, man. We're on the offensive. And our victory is a certainty. ** This is the moral booster I just needed. :) Good to have you back, and glad you enjoyed your holiday. :punk: Walter Yannis 2003-08-30 05:49 | User Profile Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 29 2003, 22:05 * ** > As an aside, I did a tour of the main Spanish cathedral in Toledo recently (an hour or so from Madrid) Wow, what a sight to behold. This was the Church that drove out the Muslim Moors and exiled the Pharisees, the implacable enemies of the Gospel of Christ. Nearby were mosques and syngogues that had been turned into churches.* First of all, welcome back. You have been missed. A little coincidence: a friend of mine recently completed a pilgrammage through Spain, to Santiago. Evidently the bones of James the Just led them to a victory against the Moors, and this is the source of the term Matamoros - "Moorslayer". You learn something new every day. He seemed reinvigorated by his trek, as I hope you are too. Wintermute ** Thank you for you kind words, WM. My trip was more business than pleasure, but I did manage to see some sights. I took Mrs. Yannis with me on that leg of the journey, and we had a very nice time indeed. First time without the kiddies in 16 years. I'd nearly forgotten what that was like. Mrs. Yannis majored in Art History (all but dissertated, as they say), and she dragged me to the Salvador Dali museum a couple hours north of Barcelona, as well as the Picasso museum in Barcelona itself. Frankly, I'm unimpressed by all that stuff. They both were undoubtedly great talents, but to my mind they mostly squandered their natural endowments pursuing some sort of nihilistic 20th century vision that we'd all be better off without. Dali really celebrated the ugly, even more so than Picasso, who did some very beautiful things in a sporadic sort of way. The Missus is something of a nut for all that stuff, so for the sake of my marriage I tolerated it and refrained from going off on her about how denial of the Natural Law can only lead us to the Abyss. The architectural works of Antonio Gaudi, while much more interesting and certainly not intentionally ugly like many of the works of Dali, also left me cold. His [url=http://www.op.net/~jmeltzer/Gaudi/eltemple.html]La Sagrada Familia[/url] cathedral is credited with restoring many Christians to their faith, but it didn't do much for me. It was also much less complete than I'd imagined. I mean, most of the roof isn't even on. None of these modern offerings holds a candle to the UNBELIEVABLE collection of the Prado Museum in Madrid. They have Titian's works pasted to the walls like postage stamps. Whoa. I was truly undone by that exhibit. Toldedo was wonderful, especially the Cathedral. La Mancha is a semi-arid place. I'd imagined it differently. Anyway, it's great to resume our holy deliberations. Walter