Two mayors from two different US cities, Chicago and Boston, have said they won't allow the Chick-Fil-A restaurants within their city limits because they are pro-traditional-marriage. They take this to mean that Chick-Fil-A is horrifically biased and terrible and oppressing teh gayz.
Now leaving aside the fact that this is a First Amendment Issue, and Government Entities are forbidden from playing favorites on companies due to their political views, there is a great deal of hypocrisy not only from the public at large that takes a stand against Chick-Fil-A, but the mayor of Boston, Tom Menino, as well.
You see, in Boston, there is a Mosque. Which is great, except that it is being built on publicly owned land (if this were a Christian Church being built on public land like that, nobody would stand for it--OMG SEPARATION OF CHURCH & STATE!), and the guy that runs it, Imam Qaradawi, thinks homosexuals should be put to death. The only debate in his mind is how, exactly. Burn them, or throw them off high buildings/cliffs? Oh the agony of the decision making process!
So then, where are the protests in front of this mosque? Why aren't lesbians and gay men kissing in front of it holding signs about stopping the hate, and suggestions about where the Imam can go stick his backwards beliefs? Ground Control to Mayor Tom, what the heck, man? Guy goes and calls Homosexuality a CRIME and yet his Mosque gets built, how did you even allow this? After all, isn't sticking it to Imam Qaradawi a bit more urgent than sticking it to Chick-Fil-A? All Chick-Fil-A does is make tasty fatty chicken. Imam Qaradawi will make you not-eat during Ramadan, have you covered head to toe in a stuffy tent if you are a woman, and have you killed if you are gay--when he gets the power to do so. This is less important than Chick-Fil-A HOW, exactly?
Priorities people, priorities. Do we not have any? Or are they just all muddled up?
Mayor Bloomberg may be an idiot about baby formula and soda, but at least he's not completely retarded:
Even Mayor Bloomberg the independent from New York City and a supporter of gay marriage blasted his fellow big city mayors and said that it was inappropriate for a government entity, “to look at somebody's political views and decide whether or not they can live in the city, or operate a business in the city, or work for somebody in the city."
No kidding? You don't say!
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Thursday, August 2, 2012
HonestTechnoAtheist and Logic
So I've been on Youtube. Yeah. Where else can you find more people that don't know what they are talking about?
Case in point: HonestTechnoAtheist. In the video comments "Christians Who Disobey Jesus and the Bible" he made some comments that are particularly ill-informed and indicative of educational malpractice.
He claimed I committed Appeal to Authority Fallacy by stating that a dictionary hold the proper definitions of words (such as sarcasm, for which he invented his own definition).
Protip: Appeal to Authority Fallacy is NOT committed if the Authority you are appealing to is actually an Authority. As demonstrated here:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
Case in point: HonestTechnoAtheist. In the video comments "Christians Who Disobey Jesus and the Bible" he made some comments that are particularly ill-informed and indicative of educational malpractice.
He claimed I committed Appeal to Authority Fallacy by stating that a dictionary hold the proper definitions of words (such as sarcasm, for which he invented his own definition).
Protip: Appeal to Authority Fallacy is NOT committed if the Authority you are appealing to is actually an Authority. As demonstrated here:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of
Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate
Authority, Ad Verecundiam
Description of Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
- Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
- Person A makes claim C about subject S.
- Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not
a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not
qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be
fallacious.
...which is basically what I TOLD him before he whined that there is too an appeal to authority fallacy and he blocked me.
Whoever taught this guy logic should be fired.
And NO, Sarcasm is NOT a lie or something incompatible with the truth.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Now wait...the created beings SAVE the Deity?
Under the banner of such things as Environmentalism, the worship of Gaia/Nature/whatever has grown more and more popular. It's a seductive belief system, given that most people want to take care of the Earth. I mean seriously, is ANYBODY really for dirty water and dirty air? So then the logical conclusion, especially those who've ditched "Western" religions or have found little comfort in the lack thereof, latch onto nature-based "spirituality".
Now, I don't want to come across as "intolerant" here. I do not care what beliefs people have and will respect them regardless. That said, I call things how I see it. That's just how I am.
Worship of Nature has got to be the most illogical, topsy-turvy, bassackwards theology I have ever seen. It has the dubious distinction of making created beings (i.e. Humans) more powerful than the Deity (i.e. The Earth). This makes absolutely no sense. And yet, this is what Gaia/Nature-worshipping Environmentalists believe.
In most other religions where there even is a Deity or Higher Power of Some Kind™, that Higher Power is, well, a Higher Power. Invariably it is more powerful than Humans, even in cases where they are not necessarily omnipotent. And, most other religions, if they even have a concept of salvation, have the Deity saving the People, or at the very least, assisting the Humans in working out their own salvation. Some religions have the humans working out their salvation on their own, but this doesn't mean the Higher Power is any less powerful.
One thing it does share with many religions is a mutated concept of sin and penance for sins. In fact, it's right along the line of the old unbiblical practice of selling Indulgences by the Church, right around the time Martin Luther was nailing 95 theses to the door. Driving an SUV? Here, buy some carbon credits. Johann Tetzel would be proud. Adherents to quasi-religious Environmentalism suffer from varying degrees of guilt over their lifestyle and the perception that this lifestyle is somehow harming "Mother Earth".
But come on, let's think about this for a minute. Let us be logical. What would the world look like, if an actual benevolent spirit inhabited Planet Earth, along with every rock and tree and animal? If the Earth actually was some form of Deity/Higher Power, there would be more cause to be superstitious than there is now. If we cut down a tree? It could magically grow back--if "Gaia" thought it necessary! And "Gaia" could magically sequester all our excess carbon, CFC's, methane, mercury waste, plutonium, depleted uranium, etc, without us having to lift a finger. Animals could actually mobilize against us en masse if the Planet thought we needed to be taught a lesson, in a scene that would make Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds" seem like a tea party. Or it could even take control of us and force us to do "the right thing."
Seriously, anyone that thinks that a human, or a group of humans, could possibly do irreversible injury or destruction to a god are fooling themselves. See, this isn't logical and doesn't make sense...unless you factor in Humanity's undying quest to be the Supreme Being. Nature worship isn't actually nature worship! It is worship of Man, by elevating Man even beyond the status in power and ability than the presumed Deity they claim to worship! But Man still feels guilt, and so thus must make himself believe he's doing good, and after that, others. And Man is still superstitious. With the advent of the theory of Global Warming (redubbed "Climate Change" as a sort of CYA), Man can look at Hurricanes and droughts and floods and say, "The Earth Is Angry with us" or "The Planet is reacting to us like an infectious agent, trying to scour us from the landscape so it can heal itself". It's all ridiculous superstitious nonsense. If the Planet actually WAS angry with us? It wouldn't wait for a presumed correlation between Carbon Dioxide emissions and temperature increase.
And come to think of it, a lot of what goes on over the Earth is affected not by the Earth, but by the Sun. This is why Sun worship was prevalent back in the day. So then, the Earth is not the one that is the true "Deity" or the one that needs fearing/supplicating, if these guys are going to be consistent. It's that big bright ball of yellow in the sky. And one that neither needs nor wants help from anyone in order to continue to exist.
Now, I don't want to come across as "intolerant" here. I do not care what beliefs people have and will respect them regardless. That said, I call things how I see it. That's just how I am.
Worship of Nature has got to be the most illogical, topsy-turvy, bassackwards theology I have ever seen. It has the dubious distinction of making created beings (i.e. Humans) more powerful than the Deity (i.e. The Earth). This makes absolutely no sense. And yet, this is what Gaia/Nature-worshipping Environmentalists believe.
In most other religions where there even is a Deity or Higher Power of Some Kind™, that Higher Power is, well, a Higher Power. Invariably it is more powerful than Humans, even in cases where they are not necessarily omnipotent. And, most other religions, if they even have a concept of salvation, have the Deity saving the People, or at the very least, assisting the Humans in working out their own salvation. Some religions have the humans working out their salvation on their own, but this doesn't mean the Higher Power is any less powerful.
One thing it does share with many religions is a mutated concept of sin and penance for sins. In fact, it's right along the line of the old unbiblical practice of selling Indulgences by the Church, right around the time Martin Luther was nailing 95 theses to the door. Driving an SUV? Here, buy some carbon credits. Johann Tetzel would be proud. Adherents to quasi-religious Environmentalism suffer from varying degrees of guilt over their lifestyle and the perception that this lifestyle is somehow harming "Mother Earth".
But come on, let's think about this for a minute. Let us be logical. What would the world look like, if an actual benevolent spirit inhabited Planet Earth, along with every rock and tree and animal? If the Earth actually was some form of Deity/Higher Power, there would be more cause to be superstitious than there is now. If we cut down a tree? It could magically grow back--if "Gaia" thought it necessary! And "Gaia" could magically sequester all our excess carbon, CFC's, methane, mercury waste, plutonium, depleted uranium, etc, without us having to lift a finger. Animals could actually mobilize against us en masse if the Planet thought we needed to be taught a lesson, in a scene that would make Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds" seem like a tea party. Or it could even take control of us and force us to do "the right thing."
Seriously, anyone that thinks that a human, or a group of humans, could possibly do irreversible injury or destruction to a god are fooling themselves. See, this isn't logical and doesn't make sense...unless you factor in Humanity's undying quest to be the Supreme Being. Nature worship isn't actually nature worship! It is worship of Man, by elevating Man even beyond the status in power and ability than the presumed Deity they claim to worship! But Man still feels guilt, and so thus must make himself believe he's doing good, and after that, others. And Man is still superstitious. With the advent of the theory of Global Warming (redubbed "Climate Change" as a sort of CYA), Man can look at Hurricanes and droughts and floods and say, "The Earth Is Angry with us" or "The Planet is reacting to us like an infectious agent, trying to scour us from the landscape so it can heal itself". It's all ridiculous superstitious nonsense. If the Planet actually WAS angry with us? It wouldn't wait for a presumed correlation between Carbon Dioxide emissions and temperature increase.
And come to think of it, a lot of what goes on over the Earth is affected not by the Earth, but by the Sun. This is why Sun worship was prevalent back in the day. So then, the Earth is not the one that is the true "Deity" or the one that needs fearing/supplicating, if these guys are going to be consistent. It's that big bright ball of yellow in the sky. And one that neither needs nor wants help from anyone in order to continue to exist.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Dinosaurs in Angkor...What?
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6015
Oh wow. Isn't this something? Close-up photos of temple carvings at Angkor (in Cambodia) show, among other things, something that looks suspiciously like a dinosaur of the Stegosaur variety. These carvings are 800 years old. How on earth did the people who made the temple even KNOW what a stegosaur looked like? The amusing part is Stegosaurus as-we-know it was discovered in North America. This isn't to say that there were absolutely no Stegosaurid bones in Asia, but come on. 800 years ago, they're not going to be assembling bones of dinos after working in the coal mines or whatever and put them in the Smithsonian. They had other things to worry about. The carvings depict Hindu and Buddhist mythology, but they also depict ordinary everyday life scenes. And nobody is aware of any Hindu mythology where there is a Stegosaurus.
See, this is the pitfall of Evolutionary thought: they dogmatically assume and insist that because something "vanished" in the fossil record, that then is when it went extinct. This is based on the dubious idea that all the layers of earth represent various geological time periods over millions or billions of years. They were wrong about the Coelacanth. They were wrong about the Wollemi Pine of Australia. Who knows what else they are wrong about?
Oh wow. Isn't this something? Close-up photos of temple carvings at Angkor (in Cambodia) show, among other things, something that looks suspiciously like a dinosaur of the Stegosaur variety. These carvings are 800 years old. How on earth did the people who made the temple even KNOW what a stegosaur looked like? The amusing part is Stegosaurus as-we-know it was discovered in North America. This isn't to say that there were absolutely no Stegosaurid bones in Asia, but come on. 800 years ago, they're not going to be assembling bones of dinos after working in the coal mines or whatever and put them in the Smithsonian. They had other things to worry about. The carvings depict Hindu and Buddhist mythology, but they also depict ordinary everyday life scenes. And nobody is aware of any Hindu mythology where there is a Stegosaurus.
See, this is the pitfall of Evolutionary thought: they dogmatically assume and insist that because something "vanished" in the fossil record, that then is when it went extinct. This is based on the dubious idea that all the layers of earth represent various geological time periods over millions or billions of years. They were wrong about the Coelacanth. They were wrong about the Wollemi Pine of Australia. Who knows what else they are wrong about?
Friday, August 15, 2008
*sniff* "But God is meaaaaaaaan..."
Sometimes I have to wonder at humanity's general capacity to look at the bigger picture. A lot of people who find themselves disliking the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will do so on a basis that is, to say the least, based in immaturity.
Take for example, the reflexive RAGE at God's actions in the Old Testament. Whether it's smiting the Heathens in Egypt and Canaan or somewhere along the way, or causing the deaths of sinful Israelites, or making up rules that seem unfair and meant to deprive people of fun, you will find individuals who take their own ideas of morality and try to pigeonhole them into an era where their comfortable lives would be completely alien, and with predictable results.
Some will even make up or assume that God demanded Human Sacrifice, based on interpretations of passages that hold less water than a holey thimble. Seriously, if God desired actual human sacrifice, He'd have the priests slaughtering human beings on those temple altars, not cattle and other assorted livestock. God demanding that certain people receive the Death Penalty for their sins or atrocities does /not/ qualify as sacrifice.
There are instances where Israelites practiced (child) human sacrifice, but this was based upon pagan customs, not on anything God told them to do. In fact He got very upset with them when they did this. Anywhere this is mentioned, these things are done in relation to Moloch and other associated Canaanite deities.
So, then, why would God use Death to punish people? Why not just throw them in Jail? Well, especially during the Exodus, when the people were on the move, Jail was absolutely not an option. It would have required the construction of a sturdy structure meant to house people and keep them from escaping, which is just not going to happen On the Road. There is evidence that this infrastructure is not possible until Israel starts getting Kings (the first of which was Saul). You will notice that *&^% settles down after the first King is appointed. This is because the authority to deal with *&^% is passed in some way to the King, and it would be more practical for a King with the taxpayers' money at his disposal to start building things like prisons. Out in the wilderness, what options are there? Exile? That's a 90% death sentence right there--especially in a desert with hostile nomads at every corner (*coughcoughAmalekitescoughcough*). In the desert on the road, society was always "one paycheck away" from homelessness and chaos. In order to keep order and make it look like He means it, God would have to institute very harsh punishments. Any person stubborn or stupid enough to run afoul of such rules qualifies for a Darwin Award.
But was the Death Penalty justified? In a time where survival was not only paramount, but practically the only consideration, yes it was. Think of it like this: Imagine a situation akin to the "Nuclear Option." There is someone who wants someone else dead, and the only way to stop them is to kill them. Due to circumstances of legality, putting them in jail is not an option at all. Then, what is a person to do? What sort of actions would be justified to save the life of the person who's been threatened?
In short, all God's actions were to protect His people. He had not only to deal with outsiders that threatened the Israelites (i.e. Egyptians, Amalekites, Moabites, Midianites, Canaanites, etc) in various ways, He also had to deal with internal problems of various individual Israelites going bad on Him.
Unthinkingly reflexive objectors do not see this. They insist that God is capricious and a bloodthirsty war god without taking into account that God was doing what was necessary to make sure that Israel survived as a people and a country.
They also do not see how merciful and patient God actually is. When they rage about the Firstborn in Egypt dropping dead as a result of God sending out the hitman known as the Angel of Death™, they completely ignore the fact that God gave Egypt 400 years to smarten up on their own. But it didn't happen, so He smartened them up for them. He smartened them up so well, that they never used slave labor for building the Pyramids. Ditto the Canaanites--that 400 years that Israel spent in Egypt was also a grace period for Canaan and its own wickedness. But they ended up getting worse too, as evidenced by their practice of child sacrifice and other things that were not nice. And they had word ahead too; the Spies that Israel sent to Jericho found out from Rahab that pretty much EVERYBODY knew what the God of Israel had done to the Egyptians, the Moabites, and everybody else in between. So it's not like this came as a complete surprise.
Israel, of course, didn't actually doooooo everything they were supposed to do. They left some Canaanites around and soon got hooked into their practices, like a kid being introduced to crack for the first time. And like a crack addict, Israel's society started deteriorating to the point of near self-destruction. This is what God wanted to avoid.
You know people are borderline insane (or outright fruitloops flapjacks kooky) when they invest a great deal of mental and physical energy objecting to something which they don't actually believe really happened. After all, how many Star Wars "geeks" get truly viscerally angry at Darth Vader for obliterating the planet Aldebaran with the Death Star in Star Wars IV? I mean really, REALLY angry? So much so that they go on massive polemics about how mean Darth Vader is, despite the fact that Darth Vader does not exist? And if they do, do you question their mental stability? Of course you do! Because that's craaaaazy.
Take for example, the reflexive RAGE at God's actions in the Old Testament. Whether it's smiting the Heathens in Egypt and Canaan or somewhere along the way, or causing the deaths of sinful Israelites, or making up rules that seem unfair and meant to deprive people of fun, you will find individuals who take their own ideas of morality and try to pigeonhole them into an era where their comfortable lives would be completely alien, and with predictable results.
Some will even make up or assume that God demanded Human Sacrifice, based on interpretations of passages that hold less water than a holey thimble. Seriously, if God desired actual human sacrifice, He'd have the priests slaughtering human beings on those temple altars, not cattle and other assorted livestock. God demanding that certain people receive the Death Penalty for their sins or atrocities does /not/ qualify as sacrifice.
There are instances where Israelites practiced (child) human sacrifice, but this was based upon pagan customs, not on anything God told them to do. In fact He got very upset with them when they did this. Anywhere this is mentioned, these things are done in relation to Moloch and other associated Canaanite deities.
So, then, why would God use Death to punish people? Why not just throw them in Jail? Well, especially during the Exodus, when the people were on the move, Jail was absolutely not an option. It would have required the construction of a sturdy structure meant to house people and keep them from escaping, which is just not going to happen On the Road. There is evidence that this infrastructure is not possible until Israel starts getting Kings (the first of which was Saul). You will notice that *&^% settles down after the first King is appointed. This is because the authority to deal with *&^% is passed in some way to the King, and it would be more practical for a King with the taxpayers' money at his disposal to start building things like prisons. Out in the wilderness, what options are there? Exile? That's a 90% death sentence right there--especially in a desert with hostile nomads at every corner (*coughcoughAmalekitescoughcough*). In the desert on the road, society was always "one paycheck away" from homelessness and chaos. In order to keep order and make it look like He means it, God would have to institute very harsh punishments. Any person stubborn or stupid enough to run afoul of such rules qualifies for a Darwin Award.
But was the Death Penalty justified? In a time where survival was not only paramount, but practically the only consideration, yes it was. Think of it like this: Imagine a situation akin to the "Nuclear Option." There is someone who wants someone else dead, and the only way to stop them is to kill them. Due to circumstances of legality, putting them in jail is not an option at all. Then, what is a person to do? What sort of actions would be justified to save the life of the person who's been threatened?
In short, all God's actions were to protect His people. He had not only to deal with outsiders that threatened the Israelites (i.e. Egyptians, Amalekites, Moabites, Midianites, Canaanites, etc) in various ways, He also had to deal with internal problems of various individual Israelites going bad on Him.
Unthinkingly reflexive objectors do not see this. They insist that God is capricious and a bloodthirsty war god without taking into account that God was doing what was necessary to make sure that Israel survived as a people and a country.
They also do not see how merciful and patient God actually is. When they rage about the Firstborn in Egypt dropping dead as a result of God sending out the hitman known as the Angel of Death™, they completely ignore the fact that God gave Egypt 400 years to smarten up on their own. But it didn't happen, so He smartened them up for them. He smartened them up so well, that they never used slave labor for building the Pyramids. Ditto the Canaanites--that 400 years that Israel spent in Egypt was also a grace period for Canaan and its own wickedness. But they ended up getting worse too, as evidenced by their practice of child sacrifice and other things that were not nice. And they had word ahead too; the Spies that Israel sent to Jericho found out from Rahab that pretty much EVERYBODY knew what the God of Israel had done to the Egyptians, the Moabites, and everybody else in between. So it's not like this came as a complete surprise.
Israel, of course, didn't actually doooooo everything they were supposed to do. They left some Canaanites around and soon got hooked into their practices, like a kid being introduced to crack for the first time. And like a crack addict, Israel's society started deteriorating to the point of near self-destruction. This is what God wanted to avoid.
You know people are borderline insane (or outright fruitloops flapjacks kooky) when they invest a great deal of mental and physical energy objecting to something which they don't actually believe really happened. After all, how many Star Wars "geeks" get truly viscerally angry at Darth Vader for obliterating the planet Aldebaran with the Death Star in Star Wars IV? I mean really, REALLY angry? So much so that they go on massive polemics about how mean Darth Vader is, despite the fact that Darth Vader does not exist? And if they do, do you question their mental stability? Of course you do! Because that's craaaaazy.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Exploiting The Ambiguous Case™
AntiXtians LOOOOOOOOOOOVE to exploit The Ambiguous Case™. Take for example the idea that God actually endorsed child sacrifice, despite reams upon reams of passages condemning the practice. Not only that, but God Himself going so far as to say in Jeremiah 7:31 that HE had never commanded such a practice, let alone thought of it (or that it was a good idea!)
Yes, there is evidence that the Israelites sacrificed children. Dude, I'd be surprised if there WASN'T. After all, the Bible is FULL of instances where the Israelites turned away from God and started following Other Gods™--such as Baal/Ashtaroth, etc. However, the skeptics like to seize on the Old Testament requirement to "redeem" the Firstborn, and make it sound like they were to be sacrificed.
In light of all the other passages, such an interpretation makes 0 sense. God laid out DETAILED instructions on what to do how and where, and when it came to sacrifices, only specific clean things were permissible. HUMANS were NOT on that list. The major reason being? Humans are sinful and they're the ones that need redeeming! Sacrificing a human (imperfect, at that) to redeem a human is futility.com. (This is also why Jesus was an exception to the No Human Sacrifice Rule™, because Jesus was perfect and sinless).
Similar exploits of the Ambiguous Case by skeptics:
-Jepthah's Daughter (Judges). Sorry, people don't cry over never being married if they're going to die. They cry over never getting married if they're going to LIVE CELIBATE. see here: http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jepthah.html
-Wolves "evolved" into dogs, therefore microbes evolved into Man. That's a huge leap there, and they make it sound so simple, but in actuality the logistics of a single-celled organism giving rise (eventually) to everything from Arthropods to Vertebrates is quite staggering. Completely new genes had to have somehow poofed into existence. Evolutionists like to take the tack of replicated (doubled) genes, thus freeing up one gene to mutate into something "new." That only goes so far, not to mention all the various combinations that are made of EPIC FAIL (and thus instant death) that would have to be weeded through. You know, there's a reason there's something called Haldane's Dilemma...
-Genesis 1&2 allegedly contradict. Umm, no. Person is listening to noobs or people that think they know Hebrew. In any case, whoever it is never learned what Toledoth is. Genesis 2 is a recap of 1 and it's focusing mainly on Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden--not Earth in general.
Genesis contradictions?
First published:Creation 18(4):44–45September 1996
Browse this issue
by Don Batten
Between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve, the KJV/AV Bible says (Genesis 2:19) ‘out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air’. On the surface, this seems to say that the land beasts and birds were created between Adam and Eve. However, Jewish scholars apparently did not recognize any such conflict with the account in chapter 1, where Adam and Eve were both created after the beasts and birds (Genesis 1:23–25). Why is this? Because in Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context. It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb ‘formed’ in Genesis 2:19 to mean ‘had formed’ or ‘having formed’. If we translate verse 19 as follows (as one widely used translation1 does), ‘Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field …’, the apparent disagreement with Genesis 1 disappears completely.
The question also stems from the wrong assumption that the second chapter of Genesis is just a different account of creation to that in chapter 1. It should be evident that chapter 2 is not just ‘another’ account of creation because chapter 2 says nothing about the creation of the heavens and the earth, the atmosphere, the seas, the land, the sun, the stars, the moon, the sea creatures, etc. Chapter 2 mentions only things directly relevant to the creation of Adam and Eve and their life in the garden God prepared specially for them. Chapter 1 may be understood as creation from God’s perspective; it is ‘the big picture’, an overview of the whole. Chapter 2 views the more important aspects from man’s perspective.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/genesis.asp
-The whole business about "slavery" in the Bible and how God condones it--therefore he condones New World (black) slavery.
Well, "slavery-as-we-know-it" (i.e. that which occurred in the Western World, notably enslavement of African peoples, but not limited to such--the origin of the word "Slav" (Slovakians) means "slave.") is not the "slavery" of Ancient Times. The "slavery" encountered in the Bible specifically fell into two groups: those captured in war/sold by foreigners, and those who sold THEMSELVES (voluntary servitude). This was a survival mechanism, and God Himself forbade the capture of a fellow Israelite for selling into slavery--in fact imposing the death penalty for such (Deut 24:7 If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you.) Apparently this isn't even good enough for SAB (Skeptic's Annotated Bible), as the dude marks this as "injustice". Umm, WTH? No pleasing you is there?
-murder-death-kill
All Demolition Man kidding aside, Skeptics seem to have a problem with context when it comes to whether "Thou Shalt not Kill" means "murder" or is more broad. It certainly can't extend to all killing, logically speaking. For the most part, it's logical that the word (ratsah) means unjustifiable killing. Most Jewish scholars hold that in the context of the commandment, this is pretty much what ratsah means. There are other places that ratsah is used which does not refer to murder. But this is like complaining about the definition of the word "is." It all depends on the context. The true "kill" word (all-encompassing meaning) in Hebrew is harag, however. The elasticity of the term ratsah, however, can apply to someone merely wishing death upon another person. In any case, it is clear that any killing of human beings is to be avoided where possible. Manslaughter is not murder, but the commandment seems to indicate then that actions should be taken to prevent accidental death of another person. After all, God gave instructions on how to make roofs safer to make sure people don't accidentally fall off them and break their neck.
There are more instances of Exploiting the Ambiguous Case™, many many more...
Yes, there is evidence that the Israelites sacrificed children. Dude, I'd be surprised if there WASN'T. After all, the Bible is FULL of instances where the Israelites turned away from God and started following Other Gods™--such as Baal/Ashtaroth, etc. However, the skeptics like to seize on the Old Testament requirement to "redeem" the Firstborn, and make it sound like they were to be sacrificed.
In light of all the other passages, such an interpretation makes 0 sense. God laid out DETAILED instructions on what to do how and where, and when it came to sacrifices, only specific clean things were permissible. HUMANS were NOT on that list. The major reason being? Humans are sinful and they're the ones that need redeeming! Sacrificing a human (imperfect, at that) to redeem a human is futility.com. (This is also why Jesus was an exception to the No Human Sacrifice Rule™, because Jesus was perfect and sinless).
Similar exploits of the Ambiguous Case by skeptics:
-Jepthah's Daughter (Judges). Sorry, people don't cry over never being married if they're going to die. They cry over never getting married if they're going to LIVE CELIBATE. see here: http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jepthah.html
-Wolves "evolved" into dogs, therefore microbes evolved into Man. That's a huge leap there, and they make it sound so simple, but in actuality the logistics of a single-celled organism giving rise (eventually) to everything from Arthropods to Vertebrates is quite staggering. Completely new genes had to have somehow poofed into existence. Evolutionists like to take the tack of replicated (doubled) genes, thus freeing up one gene to mutate into something "new." That only goes so far, not to mention all the various combinations that are made of EPIC FAIL (and thus instant death) that would have to be weeded through. You know, there's a reason there's something called Haldane's Dilemma...
-Genesis 1&2 allegedly contradict. Umm, no. Person is listening to noobs or people that think they know Hebrew. In any case, whoever it is never learned what Toledoth is. Genesis 2 is a recap of 1 and it's focusing mainly on Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden--not Earth in general.
Genesis contradictions?
First published:Creation 18(4):44–45September 1996
Browse this issue
by Don Batten
Between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve, the KJV/AV Bible says (Genesis 2:19) ‘out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air’. On the surface, this seems to say that the land beasts and birds were created between Adam and Eve. However, Jewish scholars apparently did not recognize any such conflict with the account in chapter 1, where Adam and Eve were both created after the beasts and birds (Genesis 1:23–25). Why is this? Because in Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context. It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb ‘formed’ in Genesis 2:19 to mean ‘had formed’ or ‘having formed’. If we translate verse 19 as follows (as one widely used translation1 does), ‘Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field …’, the apparent disagreement with Genesis 1 disappears completely.
The question also stems from the wrong assumption that the second chapter of Genesis is just a different account of creation to that in chapter 1. It should be evident that chapter 2 is not just ‘another’ account of creation because chapter 2 says nothing about the creation of the heavens and the earth, the atmosphere, the seas, the land, the sun, the stars, the moon, the sea creatures, etc. Chapter 2 mentions only things directly relevant to the creation of Adam and Eve and their life in the garden God prepared specially for them. Chapter 1 may be understood as creation from God’s perspective; it is ‘the big picture’, an overview of the whole. Chapter 2 views the more important aspects from man’s perspective.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/genesis.asp
-The whole business about "slavery" in the Bible and how God condones it--therefore he condones New World (black) slavery.
Well, "slavery-as-we-know-it" (i.e. that which occurred in the Western World, notably enslavement of African peoples, but not limited to such--the origin of the word "Slav" (Slovakians) means "slave.") is not the "slavery" of Ancient Times. The "slavery" encountered in the Bible specifically fell into two groups: those captured in war/sold by foreigners, and those who sold THEMSELVES (voluntary servitude). This was a survival mechanism, and God Himself forbade the capture of a fellow Israelite for selling into slavery--in fact imposing the death penalty for such (Deut 24:7 If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you.) Apparently this isn't even good enough for SAB (Skeptic's Annotated Bible), as the dude marks this as "injustice". Umm, WTH? No pleasing you is there?
-murder-death-kill
All Demolition Man kidding aside, Skeptics seem to have a problem with context when it comes to whether "Thou Shalt not Kill" means "murder" or is more broad. It certainly can't extend to all killing, logically speaking. For the most part, it's logical that the word (ratsah) means unjustifiable killing. Most Jewish scholars hold that in the context of the commandment, this is pretty much what ratsah means. There are other places that ratsah is used which does not refer to murder. But this is like complaining about the definition of the word "is." It all depends on the context. The true "kill" word (all-encompassing meaning) in Hebrew is harag, however. The elasticity of the term ratsah, however, can apply to someone merely wishing death upon another person. In any case, it is clear that any killing of human beings is to be avoided where possible. Manslaughter is not murder, but the commandment seems to indicate then that actions should be taken to prevent accidental death of another person. After all, God gave instructions on how to make roofs safer to make sure people don't accidentally fall off them and break their neck.
There are more instances of Exploiting the Ambiguous Case™, many many more...
Monday, May 12, 2008
Refuting a bucket of s*** with legal arguments
I happened upon this little gem recently:
http://saintgasoline.com/2007/12/01/refuting-creationists-with-only-a-bucket-of-feces/#comment-31802 (language warning for those with delicate sensibilities, but nothing worse than the excrement-word).
For those of you who are too lazy to click or are afraid of malware popping up from viewing that, it depicts two people, one of whom is covered in excrement and his standing near a bucket of excrement that is empty but is labelled "s***". Guy sans s*** is all "so you're the one that threw s*** on my house" and the other guy says, "But it was never directly observed!"
You're damn straight it was never directly observed. Of course, this is intended to "illustrate" that something can be proven without being directly observed.
However, legal jurisprudence would take issue with this oversimplification. While clever, it may also not be correct. How, for example, is Person #1 to know that Person #2 did not, in fact, throw s*** on the house, but rather caught the perpetrators, wrestled the bucket away, and in the process got covered in s***? So while it may be "safe" to assume that guy with the bucket did the dirty deed, it is rather simpleminded to exclude all other possibilities--especially perfectly plausible ones. It certainly doesn't lend itself to irrefutable proof.
For instance how would you be able to tell the difference upon first sight, of a guy that threw a bucket of s*** on your house, and a guy who wrestled a bucket of s*** from some punks who were in the process of throwing s*** on your house? Or he found the bucket later after walking under the guy's eaves and a big load of s*** just rolled off the roof and fell on his head? Answer: you wouldn't.
http://saintgasoline.com/2007/12/01/refuting-creationists-with-only-a-bucket-of-feces/#comment-31802 (language warning for those with delicate sensibilities, but nothing worse than the excrement-word).
For those of you who are too lazy to click or are afraid of malware popping up from viewing that, it depicts two people, one of whom is covered in excrement and his standing near a bucket of excrement that is empty but is labelled "s***". Guy sans s*** is all "so you're the one that threw s*** on my house" and the other guy says, "But it was never directly observed!"
You're damn straight it was never directly observed. Of course, this is intended to "illustrate" that something can be proven without being directly observed.
However, legal jurisprudence would take issue with this oversimplification. While clever, it may also not be correct. How, for example, is Person #1 to know that Person #2 did not, in fact, throw s*** on the house, but rather caught the perpetrators, wrestled the bucket away, and in the process got covered in s***? So while it may be "safe" to assume that guy with the bucket did the dirty deed, it is rather simpleminded to exclude all other possibilities--especially perfectly plausible ones. It certainly doesn't lend itself to irrefutable proof.
For instance how would you be able to tell the difference upon first sight, of a guy that threw a bucket of s*** on your house, and a guy who wrestled a bucket of s*** from some punks who were in the process of throwing s*** on your house? Or he found the bucket later after walking under the guy's eaves and a big load of s*** just rolled off the roof and fell on his head? Answer: you wouldn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
