Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Just taking a page from the Bible...
I'm sure the good pastor was just trying to live as the Bible instructs:
Pastor had sex with daughters
August 30, 2007 - 5:37PMA fundamentalist church pastor had sex with two of his teenage daughters to educate them on how to be good wives, a South Australian court has heard.
The 54-year-old man, who cannot be named, was today sentenced in the SA District Court to eight and a half years jail after pleading guilty to seven counts each of incest and unlawful sexual intercourse.
Gensis 19:30, doncha know.
Jim Downey
(Via Dan Savage.)
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Holy Incest Batman
I have observed when ever shepherds of the neoconservative evangelical religious right be they nobody small town pastors or the high and mighty like Ted Haggard find themselves exposed as it were, The deluded flock never seems to grasp that perhaps the problem is not the devil but adherence to cracker ass theology.
The man is a child fucker who destroys innocence for the same reason rank and file members of the national socialist party shoved Jews into ovens, They embraced pernicious ideals espoused by lunatic leaders.
P.S Burton
Actually, yes, as a matter of fact, I certainly do.
Hermeneutics is a science, not fiction. Besides the very integrated themes woven in tapestry form across the Torah and beyond, there are the names of the sons born, which meant derisive things to the Hebrew. I don't claim to know everything he intended, but I would have to be an idiot not to know here, just as clearly as I would have to be an idiot not to understand that Jim and others here at UTI think derisively about incest. Some things in communication one may not understand, but other things cannot be misunderstood.
-Col.
Actually, no you really certainly don't
Unless, as I said, you are making claim to be a mind reader, and the reader of a long dead ancient mind to boot. In that story a woman is instantly punished with death for the 'sin' of looking backwards while a man who has drunken sex with his daughters is not instantly punished. This is a pretty clear indication that on the scale of 'bad things to do', disobeying instructions is much, much worse than inebriated incest. It is somewhat convenient for you to put intent in the long dead authors mouth when he is no longer about to issue any clarifications.
So hermeneutics is a science is it? Personally I would be loath to append that descriptor to anything much beyond physics, chemistry, and biology, but I understand your own standards may be somewhat different. So, is hermeneutics a mathematically and teleologically proven science? That was your standard of truth as I recall. If it is not then it is what I previously averred it to be: A guess, an opinion, but certainly not knowledge.
Herman who ticks?
I'm not an expert in the field of Hermeneutics, though it was part of my graduate studies in literary theory. It's basically the process by which we can understand a text, using a number of signifiers including internal logic, appropriate language context, et cetera. The Wiki article is a good introduction (from what I remember lo these past years), and there is indeed a long scholarly tradition of it dating back at least to the Talmudic scholars. As you might guess from that, it was long part of religious studies, and there is still some distinction between biblical hermeneutics and a more general literary version.
However, you do have to be careful in what you accept as the 'ground rules', and I think that this is where the Col. and Thameron are at odds. If I understand Thameron's position (how's that for a nice little hermeneutic recursion?), he does not accept that the source of the biblical text is supernatural. The Col. obviously does. Working from there, one would arrive at two decidedly different positions.
Oh, and yes, I do consider incest to be reprehensible. Much more so than simple curiosity, which was the downfall of Lot's Wife. And perhaps therein lies the real heart of the disagreement.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Grammatico-historical
Agreed almost wholly, Jim, except I would say there is not any difference in meaning whether one accepts the supernatural or not. In other words, the grammar, culture, idioms, etc. remain the same, and the author only intended a single meaning. This is, of course, what hermeneutics is after, and the same rules would apply to a Biblical text as to any other—say, the Constitution. What I am getting at is that I am not coming to the Genesis text from some sort of Kabbalist or esoteric angle. Let the text in context--near and far--speak for itself. Context is rule number one, as you know. So when there are other passages by the same author that are clear and even vehement, grammatico-historical exegesis is quite simple.
I do understand (and appreciate) your point about the approach to Lot's wife being a hermeneutical distraction, at least initially. There are other factors (plural!) that come into play to satisfy this apparent affront, however they are secondary to the heart of the original question. Another rule of hermeneutics is to let clear passages have interpretive priority over enigmatic ones, not the other way around. Since Genesis as well as the rest of the Torah (and canon) is unmistakable on this, such a rule comes into effect. I understand this only addresses the interpretive issue; one must go on to the moral question with other studies.
-Col.
Beg to differ.
Well, I would really beg to differ. That basic assumption leads to some very different readings and results. If you assume that the source is God, as mediated through some human writer, then you are lead to trying to do what the Talmudic (and later medieval) scholars did: "divine the divine meaning". You know full well the intellectual gymnastics to which this can lead (how many angels *can* dance on the head of a pin?) [Still, the alternative, a naive and literalist reading of the text, leads to the absurdities of fundamentalism.]
Whereas a secular reading of the text just provides some insight into the culture and mores of the ancient peoples, and an understanding of the roots of our own legal structure (among other things). Here, information is gleaned from the text, rather than instruction (which is why I used the term in the initial post that I did).
Big difference.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Glasses of Rome
Jim, I think your Catholic background may be contributing to a misunderstanding. Protestant evangelical exegesis is exactly what you descibe in the opening of your 2nd paragraph in terms of verb tense, idiom usage, syntax, morphology, archaeology, etc., etc. The textual meaning of the human author is the fundamental goal. Check out any work on the subject such as Grasping God's Word, Scripture Twisting, Living By the Book, or any other evangelical text.
To attempt to say that the Bible, or even just the Genesis writer, instructs people to commit incest is an example of eisegesis of the most egregious kind. This kind of thing is somewhat like saying that atheists promote serial killing--it simply doesn't square with all the facts.
-Col.
I appreciate the suggestion...
Col., I appreciate the suggestion, but right now I barely have the mental energy to stay on top of just reading the news, let alone diving into tackling debates over whether or not Jesus owned his own clothes.
I was a Catholic. When I was like 10. Nominally later, since I did do the First Communion thing. I do not, did not, subscribe to Catholic theology, or any other flavor of Christianity. I am not a believer, and I do not accept the basic premise that the Bible, in any way, shape, or form, is the Word of God. That very fundamental difference shapes how we see the world, and how we approach the text of Genesis and all the other books of the Bible. In short, I see it as a collection of folk beliefs which reflect the wisdom of the time in which it was created, interesting as an historical insight into another culture, and nothing more.
Sorry if that comes across as curt - but really, I have as little interest in Christian theological scholarship as I do in the arcane discussions of retrograde planetary movements in Indian astrology. It is a curiosity that millions of otherwise intelligent and well-educated people can concern themselves with such nonsense when there is real work to be done to improve our lot, nothing more. (Other than the fact that my culture is more disposed to this variety of magical-thinking than others.)
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
I think you missed the intent
Jim, I wasn't trying to get you into reading theology, etc. I was simply establishing that evangelical hermeneutics is methodologically the same as secular hermeneutics is for secular works. Grammar, history, and attendant disciplines.
-Col.
If one accepts the premise
That our race began with two humans Adam and Eve (and I don't actually know if you do Col. since you are not a young earther and have said you believe that species change over time) then you also need to accept that those early beginnings of the race were ALL incestuous. If Adam and Eve had sons then it is quite possible that they in turn had sex with their mother. If they had daughters then it is entirely possible that Adam had sex with them. And if you find mother-son, or father-daughter sex unpalatable then at the very least you will need to swallow brother-sister sex otherwise the population would not grow. It is entirely possible of course that any and all of these could occur.
And that was only the first biblical genetic bottleneck
After the flood there were precisely eight people left on the earth. Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives. So we can at least get away from brother-sister incest and be limited to cousins, but I am not sure of what the comfort level there is. In these days I think if the cousins are far enough removed there is no stigma associated with mating with them. I am not sure of what the laws or customs are in regards to that.
This is the very reason Positivism is dead.
It drives one to irrational positions. You have to toss out all communication, Thameron, to remain consistent. Particularly any historic document, but even any current communication must go since you can never know the mind of another empirically. 'Course, this is why Positivism had such a short and tortured half-life, and has been dead for decades. Only artifacts are left over, and no one takes their position seriously since it cannot even prove itself on its own empirical grounds.
You may have a guess or an opinion as to what someone says is true or not true. I, on the other hand, tend to believe Jim (with whom I was communicating in the first place) holds incest to be repugnant. I both believe he is a rational (real) mind though none of my senses have ever come in contact with him, and I hold he is being honest in this regard. You may believe otherwise, but I would hold that, too, to be irrational.
And, yep, along these same lines, I do know what the author intended.
-Col.
Irrational positions?
I suppose that you might enjoy some familiarity with those since you believe that the primary chosen method of communication of an extra-cosmic, inconceivably powerful intelligence, is through raping Hebrew shepardesses and having the progeny of that union publicly killed after only a few decades of life and a mere three years of wandering and giving speeches. No, I am sure that all of that is perfectly logical in your mind and not irrational in the least bit.
If you are intent on speaking only to Jim then you really shouldn't answer my postings, it just encourages me you know. I understand that since you understand the vast nature and desires of the extra-cosmic creator being and I, alas, do not, that you might well view conversation with me as beneath you. Doubtless Jim as a member of this society and having received this societies moral training probably views incest unfavorably. That could be said of most people in this society I would imagine since they have received similar training. Had he been born in ancient Athens or Sparta then his attitudes might have been somewhat adjusted. Jim's opinion on this issue isn't really relevant, nor is yours or mine. The real question is whether one might conceivably make a case that god (as depicted in the bible), through the given accounts of men favored by god (like Lot), finds no problem with incest and I think that case can certainly be made.
You can call guessing knowing if you like col. War is peace, ignorance is strength, and freedom, as we all know, is slavery.
Thameron/Colonel- I would
Thameron/Colonel-
I would say that you are both right and wrong.
I am certainly not a biblical scholar, but I can imagine with some certainty, that ancient people all over the world understood incest is wrong to varying degrees. When incest occurs, there is very good chance of congenital birth defects such as downs syndrome and mental retardation. I think it would be fair for Colonel to assume that gawd and the ancient Hebrews would view incest as wrong. Thameron has a good point that gawd was angry enough to kill Lot's wife for gazing back on their old home but ignores the incest.
I think it is important to consider the times. In those days women were little more than property. So, Lot committing incest may have been societally frowned upon, it probably was not considered a crime of any great consequence. The 10 C's conspicuously do not mention rape, child abuse, slavery or incest. Did gawd forget something Colonel?
As far as "hermeneutics" as a science, well....I think religious people consider this vital to interpreting ancient people's words and applying them to their lives today. I agree with Col to a certain point. In conversation or by thorough study I can deduce many things about other people (even dead authors I have never met). Call it intuition if you want. We all do it. However, claiming you know the mind of gawd is crazy. All religion is crazy when you really think about it. Contradictions, inconsistencies and ridiculous claims lead to absurd conclusions and is not scientific. In this way religious people are like politicians trying to spin logic in a way that makes their kooky rationalizations seem to make sense.
Anyway, just thought I would rudely butt in to your fairly entertaining conversation with my two cents.
Dirk
It's quite easy, really.
Understanding communication is actually so straight-ahead that we do it almost without thinking about it most of the time. There is the occasional glitch, such as what we have had from time to time here where one party had to explain himself further, etc., but that is comparatively seldom. However, no one likes having their words or ideas twisted. Were I to take out of context something you clearly intended another way, something you in fact have stated didactically and emphatically otherwise, you would rightly be indignant. Further, you would recognize the immoral nature of such a twist on your clear intent. If I was to say that Dirk did not accept any scientific evidence for anything, it simply wouldn't be honest, would it? You would rightly be miffed, wouldn't you? So when you have the unimpeachable and in-depth statements of Lev 18 as well as 20 (such offences were capital under the Mosaic legislation), it begs for intellectual honesty as well as just a bit of gentlemanly integrity. Though I think you have a truncated view of science and philosophy, Dirk, I would not be honest to say you accept no scientific evidence. Such a statement would be ludicrous, since you are clear that you indeed do.
Twisting someone's clear intent is no less immoral just because they are dead than it is if they are alive. We clearly understand this in America, as the science of hermeneutics is applied to the Constitution (or at least it is supposed to be) every day.
But, then, we don't know that there ever really were framers of the Constitution!!! It may be a conspiracy!!! I mean, we can't touch, taste, smell, hear, or see our way into the past, so we really don't know! Right?!?
Aye-aye-aye-aye-aye....
-Col.
My narrow definition of science
Col-
You said:
Goes without saying. So far I'm with ya.
No. Yes.
Since you rudely leave the burden of research on me as usual, I will just ignore this. Maybe one day you will provide a link? Or is that too much to ask?
A "truncated view of science and philosophy"? Ha. Said the guy who believes his favorite version of the great sky daddy created the universe and everything in it. I guess compared to your supernatural all encompassing views of science, mine are indeed "truncated". Anyway, not sure what the point is because the conversation is pretty much over at this point, unless you want a "do over" an provide a link or two so I can see what the hell your are talking about. Am I supposed to just take your word for it? I think not after the fast one you tried to conceal regarding the Discovery Institute.
Twisting intent is something I get suspicious about when certain people refuse to provide links to support their obscure arguments.
This is a very bad example if you are trying to argue the validity of hermeneutics as a science. We have discussed this before. You believe that the Constitution was written by Xian's and that our founding fathers were Xian's. I strongly disagree. In my opinion, Jefferson, Madison, Adams and Paine were clearly not Xian, but Deists. This just goes to show that two people can read the same material and have two completely different interpretations. The Xian religion itself would be another argument against trusting hermeneutics. Look how many different sects Xianity has split into? Lutherans differ in their interpretations from Baptists and so on.
Is this supposed to be humor?
This response is pretty much a waste. It would help tremendously if you could take two minutes to make a link so I might be able to follow along with what is going on inside your head. Otherwise, I am left to guess or just ignore. Pretty lousy way of communicating if you ask me.
Dirk
More false analogies
The difference here is that framers of the Constitution were not making claims about physics violating miracles or divine inspiration, only about the best system of government that might be had under their conditions. Even with them being only mortal men we still did not know them fully any more than any one human may know any other. Each of us has thoughts and experiences we never tell anyone else. What we get is an image, a perception, a 'best guess' and that is all that might be had given the conditions. I believe recent political news accounts should amply demonstrate that public images of people are often not the whole picture of who they are.
If you are sometimes wrong then what you are doing is giving it your 'best guess'. It is also interesting where and when you choose to defend the solidity of 'science' and where you choose to deprecate it.
You're an enigmatic person, Thameron
You've never heard me deprecate science. There are just things you can't know thereby. It is why it is idiotic to be a thoroughgoing empiricist. Self-contradictory as well.
Thameron, your arguments and approaches toward a subject sometimes detract from your obvious intelligence. We might as well toss all history since we can't know every thought historical persons wanted to convey!!! We might as well toss all communication, period--even yours, since we can only think we are guessing you right!!!
I enjoy the real world so much more. Less cynisism, too.
-Col.
I'll take that as a complement
even if, as I suspect, is was not meant to be so. Let us turn for a moment to this real world that you speak of Col. Some time ago I asked you a straightforward question (a 'yes' or 'no' question in fact) and you have never ever answered me. Are there demons in your real world col? The protagonist of your book speaks of them on many occasions. He exorcises them from people and occasionally translocates them into swine for reasons which remain somewhat obscure. Either way they seem very much a part of the world of Jesus. So, are they in your real world as well?
Here we run into that language problem which I have been attempting to illuminate. You see when I hear people say things like -
And
I hear that as a depreciation of science's ability to describe the physical world. Perhaps you did not mean it to be so. Since I am but a mere human being I cannot know your motivation with any certainty. It seems to me that in one moment you are ready to call hermaneutics a science, a rock steady foundation of Truth and in the next you imply that the scientific method is in some way woefully inadequate, and if it is inadequate in Physics, Chemistry and Biology then I would say that that same inadequacy would apply equally well to whatever vestige of the scientific method that hermaneutics enjoys.
As to my worldview - well each and every one of us operates on a 'best guess' model. Especially with regard to human interaction. We can assume provisionally what other people will do based on our past experiences and observations, but we never operate in a realm of 100% certainty. The shelves of bookstores are filled (well occupied at least) with myriad books about the 'nice man next door' who had dismembered bodies buried in his basement. The most recent example would be the BTK killer. An upstanding citizen, scout leader and just incidentally a psychopathic serial killer.
Toss? No. Take with a grain of salt? Yes. I don't know if the Battle of Waterloo ever happened, but I give it a high probablity. There are no violations of the laws of physics involved. I have seen guns and have known those who have been in wars. It is not a big stretch. Will it ever be known exactly how it happened? I doubt it. Each person who witnessed it and reported on it brought their own flawed perspective to it. This is where the grain of salt rule applies (not from Lot's wife). The more grandiose a claim the more doubt that should be applied to it and the more evidence required to validate it. If someone claimed that the leading generals flew over the battlefield without benefit of mechanical aid shouting orders to their troops I would in the colloquial phrase 'call bullshit' on that. For more mundane claims I give the benefit of the doubt because it really doesn't matter either way. I assume George Washington exists because it would seem to be a purposeless and labor intensive excercise for everyone to make up a pervasive story like that and he never claimed or is said to have demonstrated supernatural powers. If that view of reality seems cynical to you, well then so be it. Just don't be surprised when people surprise you by not acting in sync with your mental image of them, because I did warn you.
You are a self proclaimed skeptic Col. I would think you would share this attitude with me. Were I uncharitable I would infer that you reserve your skepticism only for things which might disagree with your chosen religion. Were I charitable I'd say we have at the least a different definition of 'skeptic'.
Empirical Data
Yep, believe in miracles. Seen them personally and with multiple empirical inputs. I’m not talking here about, “I prayed for a week and now my cold is gone.” I’m talking about hard data miracles. They have happened to me in as absolutely a veridical way as a human being can experience. This is why I know that it isn’t a wild claim for the past. I can verify, as I’ve said here before, well over 200 hard miracles in our own times. I recorded one, and no one at UTI even commented. Do you know why? Because you are so fundamentally committed to a worldview that no evidence will ever be adequate. No evidence will be admitted. This isn’t skepticism, this is simply fundamentalist behavior.
As for demons, yep. Have not seen one in action myself, as far as I know, but I do know very personally more than one individual of such transparent integrity that I simply cannot find a way out of their detailed testimonies. They have told me (in situations where it was available to cross-examination with dozens of people present) of demon-possessed persons—their strength, and grotesque, inhumane voices and blasphemy, etc. These have also been documented by secular writers that have no evangelical axe to grind.
Here is where worldview can skew everything. The evidence against such things cannot be reasonably overcome—it has to simply be denied in Dawkinsinian fashion. It just didn’t happen, something was misunderstood, it was faked, it was emotional hype, etc., etc. But when you’ve seen it firsthand and it has happened to you, you know these kinds of responses are just pap.
As for science, you are, of course, free to take things anyway you choose to. My points were simply that you cannot know everything by the scientific method. For example, you can’t prove Positivism empirically. Neither can you know if there are other minds. This brings us back to probability—the only way things can be “known” in the real world—the world beyond mathematics or pure logic. Incidentally, in a previous log here with another individual, I was making the same point (which is what I think you are saying in your post in different words) and they just couldn’t grasp it. It reveals the kind of uphill endeavor I face in dialoguing with multiple people with varying degrees of understanding and education. I can’t prove my wife loves me scientifically, but I am quite sure of it—with high probability. Since I’ve seen multiple miracles and have experienced at the very least two of them myself, I know with high probability that miracles occur. They do not abrogate the laws of physics any more than Newtonian physics prove that quantum physics are impossible—one is simply higher (or deeper), but they are not antinomous. As for hermeneutics, the rules and methodology are far more clear-cut, concrete, and established than is the case in many disciplines that most academics embracingly refer to as “sciences”.
Finally, let me relate another example of an outright miracle along the lines of Phil Rasmussen’s quarterback friend. Cheryl Prewitt was a young collegiate in Missouri that walked with a horrible limp due to her leg being crushed in an accident when she was younger. She became convinced that God was going to heal her on a specific date. She gathered her dorm floor together, sat on the floor with her hips against the wall to square her pelvis, and had the others measure her legs. The crushed one was one and one-half inches shorter due to the injury. That same evening at a church service, she was instantly healed. Walked perfectly for the first time in years. She then went on to walk down the red carpet, and won the Miss America pageant, being crowned Miss America for 1980. She still walks perfectly, and is known to many people that are part of an organization of which I am also a part.
Once one comes to realize that it takes more faith to try to explain away hundreds of such events, two of which have happened to the researcher himself, it clarifies worldview in a way that few things can.
-Col.
200 Miracles
Col-
You said:
200 miracles? Why have I never heard of these things? Why isn't CNN or the History Channel doing documentaries on these miracles? And you claimed to have recorded a miracle here on UTI? Here is the definition of recorded. You didn't record anything. You told a story. Wouldn't recording something involve a video tape or something? I read your story about the quarterback, laughed to myself and politely kept quiet. I didn't want to insult you or hurt your feelings by not believing, so I said nothing. I am sure you believe it was a miracle, but then again you are pretty gullible.
Why is it that demons, miracles, possessions and such only happen to religious people? Why is it that nothing cool ever happens to me or in front of me or to anyone I know or trust? Why can't these miracles ever be proven or tested? If a demon is real, what difference does my worldview make? This makes no sense. Why can't you catch the demon and put him in the zoo for everyone to see?
As for miracles, Jim asked a good question. Why won't gawd heal amputee's? There are plenty of Iraq vets missing arms or legs or eyes. Let's do an experiment. Pick one and have your whole congregation pray for his whatever to grow back. Let's see some hard evidence, not some word of mouth outrageous claims like usual.
Possession is the same thing. Only brainwashed religious kooks get possessed. Have you ever heard of a self fulfilling prophecy? Why don't non-believers get possessed? Does my skepticism give me immunity somehow?
Don't you find it just a little too convenient that supernatural things only happen to those naive enough to believe in supernatural things? Aren't you the least bit suspicious of fraud?
If these miracles are so common, how come you can't show us one? And what exactly do you mean miracles don't nullify the laws of physics? Of course they do. We know limbs can't grow back. We know people can't come back from the dead. We know demons don't exist. That is, unless it can be proven otherwise.
Wow, that's a whopper! Again, another nice story. Do I believe it? No. Given your track record of incredible claims and propensity to believe the unbelievable, I can't just take your word for it. Why did Cheryl gather her dorm floor? Why not doctors and scientists? Why are these so-called miracles only in front of other believers? Why do you tell these stories? You know we are going to laugh and roll our eyes. Do you actually think any of us here at UTI will become convinced by your words? Sorry, but I think this is the wrong place for tall tales.
You must be kidding. Now you call yourself a researcher? Ha. All I hear are outlandish stories being told by a crackpot. You've really outdone yourself this time. I must say, religious people have very creative imaginations. You should write a book or make a movie about all of the 200 "miracles" you know about.
Dirk
Well
We know limbs don't grow back on humans (there are species which regenerate limbs, but that's no miracle, that's biology). People coming back from the dead is trickier in terms of biblical shenanigans since what constitutes "dead" has changed somewhat over the centuries, again this isn't a miracle, it's medical science doing its thing (and if science continues to advance today's dead body could be tomorrow's salvageable patient). Demons and mythical beasts half the time were exaggerations of real life animals, a good example is the manticore which was a bad description of a tiger (with the scorpion tail being an exaggeration). Demons on the other hand were sometimes used as an explanation for diseases, so I suppose you could say demons do exist, they're just really really tiny, however they're always heartless and can't be killed by weapons from that period.
"If there is evil in this world, it lurks within the hearts of men" ~Edward D. Morrison, Tales of Phantasia
Actually...
...some of them have been covered by Good Morning America, That's Incredible, and Phil Donahue. And, actually, there are books like the one you say I should write, and they include all the documentation for your "record". Further, I've never known a believer to be demon-possessed; none of them have been Christians, and even further, Gene Mullenax (the guy with the restored lung, etc.) was not a Christian--until that happened. Again--what would it take to convince you? If 500 people said they saw someone raised from the dead, and these 500 were willing to pay for that testimony with their welfare and even lives, would you believe them?
Dirk, name-calling and question-begging a reasoned defense does not make. This is precisely why Dawkins has been so witheringly criticized--and that largely (if not primarily) by atheists! One Oxford atheist told McGrath, who is also an Oxford PhD in molecular biology, "Don't judge the rest of us by this pseudointellectual drivel." You exhibit the same kind of approach: make up your mind, refuse any evidence no matter what, and call names. I must say that if you and I were to debate one another in a formally judged interchange, you would be razed by the judges--not for your position, but for your technique.
Until you can give me a rational grounding of how and why none of these miracles occurred, including the ones that occurred to me, I will follow the evidence, not my preconceptions.
-Col.
My thanks
First of all I would like to thank you for answering my question about your belief in demons. Secondly I will now reassure you that you will no longer be troubled by any attempted dialogue on my part. Someone who believes in demons does not live in the same world that I do which makes conversation not only problematic, but ultimately pointless. In my world there are stones and streams, animals and plants, buildings and people but there are no demons. You call my world cold and cynical, but at least there is no extra cosmic master in it who either created these creatures or who allows them to exist. I find such an idea quite disturbing and I truly wonder that you do not. If my world is the right one Col. then you will never know your error when your brain function ceases because all that is 'you' will cease with it. If your world is the true one then I may very well be getting a first hand look at these demons. You will forgive me I trust in preferring the notion that I am right.
Oh, and finally with full knowledge that you have little to no respect for my opinion I actually do think that you and those who share your beliefs are quite insane. Some are violently insane and kill others for their beliefs (I don't suspect you fall into this category) and others are just eccentrically insane - they do and say peculiar things at certain times, but are generally harmless (likely you fit better here). Carpe diem Col. and watch out for demons.
Just one question...
...since you're convinced that God intervenes to heal people suffering from these various and sundry maladies: Why does God hate amputees?
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Immaterial
First of all, that isn't the case (one rather odd web site to the side). In fact, in one example the FBI was checking into the testimony of a dramatically healed individual in a criminal case involving a third party, and x-rays of his medical history were copied and in their possession. This individual had had a lung removed and a tube placed to drain a cyst, but was fully restored instantly. I'm not in my office, but upon my return I can you give his name, dates, and his sheet-metal company's information.
But all this about amputees is philosophically immaterial; the point is that miracles have been veridically verified. Whether or not missing body parts have been restored would then go to a sovereignty question (why in this case and not in this case?), not a basic reality question.
-Col.
"Veridically verified"
Col.,
My MIL has a series of books about 'modern miracles of God' from Guideposts. She reads them one after another, time and again, and sometimes confuses what she's reading with what is in the real world. In other words, she 'believes'.
Your citation of the "FBI case" is nice, but has about as much dependable documentation as my MIL's beliefs. In other words, I would indeed require something approaching legitimate, independently-verified evidence of your claims. Just saying "my sister's cousin knew a guy who..." does not cut it. Not for me, nor I suspect for most people here who do not share your predisposition to believe.
And just because we cannot explain something now does not mean that "God did it." No more than saying that UFOs are proof that aliens are visiting Earth. 200 years ago, someone caught a virus and died, it was considered either witchcraft, bad luck, or the Hand of God - now we know better. People with Tourette's Syndrome were likely considered possessed by demons during the middle ages - now they're just understood to be suffering from a neurological disorder.
The reason that I cited that website is that it does indeed pose a real, fundamental problem: Prayer does not work. Jesus promises again and again (Mostly in Mathew, some in Mark and elsewhere) that the prayers of the faithful will be answered. Does this mean that all believers who are amputees who ask for their limbs to be restored are no longer faithful? Why is that the easy to verify, obvious to all who see it, clearly in violation of medical science miracles just never seem to happen, regardless of all the prayers and supplications offered up?
I'll say why, and I will be blunt about it: because it is a fantasy. Nothing more. Prayer to Jesus does not work, any more than human sacrifice by the Aztecs brought the renewal of crops. Just because you or someone else perceives some spiritual linkage means nothing. If you don't believe me, but you believe in your God, go and cut off just a finger tip and ask for it to be spontaneously restored. That too much of a challenge to having faith? Then eschew medical science next time you are diagnosed with some serious illness (being about my age, you should be considering prostate cancer, heart disease, skin cancer, colon polyps as all things to watch for) and ask God to heal you. I mean, it's not like you've done something to 'test' Him, eh?
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Interesting
Jim, thank you for your response. It's interesting to me how you choose to handle data. What kind of data would it take to convince you? Anything? Anything at all? Simply stating (as Thameron did) that such things don't exist in the world in which he lives begs the very question. It is fundamentalism at its very worst. We could have said the same things about quarks.
If a person had a lung removed and then it was instantly restored, this isn't the stuff of Guideposts. If a man is deaf for years from a hunting accident and then is instantly healed, this isn't the stuff of Guideposts. Such anecdotal responses are something akin to strawman defenses. The people involved can produce the names, times, people present for cross-examination, and medical data.
As for miracles promised by Jesus, the entire canon must be taken into consideration, including those passages teaching that miracles don't always happen and are, indeed, very rare.
How is it that you know all prayer is fantasy? How do you know this? I know you don't claim omniscience. So if an amputee had his missing part restored right before your eyes just at the very moment of praying to Christ would you then believe? Or would nothing be enough? Would it be an alien jumping in at just the right time?
Jim, I'm sorry, but I cannot muster that kind of faith. This kind of response indicates to me that you exercise far, far more faith than I do. At some point, genuine skepticism has to take a look at its a priori assumptions. In other words, to stay with a particular worldview with a such a dogma-ridden approach is no longer skepticism. True skepticism is open to the possibilities and when evidence is available, begins to doubt the original doubts, not the just the evidence.
What evidence would convince you?
-Col.
Col., you're right.
"Uncle."
You're right, I give. I'm just a gullible twit who chooses to ignore the Truth of prayer and all the double-blind studies which have been conducted establishing to the satisfaction of medical authorities of all faiths that appeals to Jesus actually work. My apologies for doubting so long, and I'm sorry that my heart is hardened against the Good News.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Neither
Jim, I don't hold you to be a gullible twit nor insane (as I've been now pronounced). I think you are, in fact, very thoughtful. I also believe you are right in expecting evidence--it is the same approach I've followed through my skepticism.
-Col.
P.S. I wonder about an interesting theoretical question: "If I were able to view all of your life's inputs (sights, sounds, books, experiences, etc.), and you were able to view mine in the same way, would we both keep our views, both change our views, or both accept a single view?"
I always wondered about moments like that in court
...where the offender says something like "I was trying to instruct them in being good wives." How the hell do they deliver that line - to a freakin' JUDGE no less - with a straight face?!!!
Oh, and by the way that bible story never rang true to me. What are the odds of getting pregnant from a single instance of unprotected sex? It was probably an ongoing thing and the story was told by the men, not the women. "They got me drunk! It only happened once! Those darn wicked daughters!"
Addendum: MrsDoF just sent
Addendum: MrsDoF just sent me a link about an Amish guy sentenced to prison for raping "a young female". The Times-Leader pulls articles after a couple weeks so I've clipped most of the article:
(After an orientation hearing he's been classified as a sexual predator and will have to register after he gets out.)
- damn - where to start...
Dang!
Don't know about you, DOF, but back in the dark ages (1970's) they told us in high school it'd *certainly* happen the first time...
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Well it's best to assume that it will happen the first time...
As my dad told me (regarding gun safety) "It's best to assume there is no such thing as an unloaded gun". Sorta fits - humorously - in this context as well.
But the odds of a pregnancy resulting from a single instance of unprotected sex are somewhere between five and 15 percent. (or 80 percent if you use a fundamentalist condom) I think the guy in the bible was simply doing his daughters and made up a story when he got them both knocked up.
When I did my pastoral internship in Western North Carolina, there were a couple families in the church in which I suspected something like that was going on. But no one would talk and there was no evidence. (shudder)
Huh?
"Cannot be named"? What's up with that? Seems to me if he's been convicted and sentenced, the full details of the case should now be public, even in jurisdictions modeled after the British court system.
Because the girls were minors,
presumably. The story says they were 13 and 15 when the statutory rapes started. I know some countries continue to protect the identity of victims of sex crimes, and if they ID'd the father...
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Really, now?
The Bible "instructs" such behavior? Jim, I've not known you to often make such demonstrable over-reaches.
-Col.
Please, clarify.
Hey Col.,
Please, then, explain to us heathens how to properly interpret the story of Lot's daughters - I'm sure there must be a church-sanctioned understanding of the passage. Or did you not go to the source and see that he claimed "the sex was not about fulfilling his desires but about teaching his daughters how to behave for their husbands when they eventually married, as dictated in scripture" ? Perhaps there is another more appropriate passage that should be cited?
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Third Person Indicative, Not Second Person Imperative
Jim,
Like you, I'm quite sure, I could care less what kind of rationalization this sicko came up with. It would be only that, whether he blamed it on the Bible or, say, Origin of Species. Neither "instruct" relations with daughters. In the Bible, the Genesis passage is clearly related with disdain. The rest of the Torah specifically and emphatically forbids and repudiates this and other forms of incest.
Sure, Genesis relates the account. It's is a known departure from the conventions of the rest of the ancient Levant, Egypt, and the Mesopotamian crescent. Those cultures purged their accounts of everything but what made their forebears look good. The Hebrews recounted it all, including the sordid stuff that was an embarrassment to them. But to state, then, that they somehow instructed such is as far from the case as saying that UTI instructs people to junk our republican form of democracy and make Bush president for all time. This was clearly not your intent on relating that story some days ago, and it was clearly not the intent of the Genesis author to instruct others to indulge in incest.
-Col.
Hard sayin not knowin'
Since you didn't know the author personally I'd have to say that you are pretty much guessing that that was not his/her intent col. Unless of course you have some mathematical, teleological proof that of the author's intent? I didn't think so. From the account god took Lot's fate personally in hand what with guiding angels and all. Seems to me he was special. His wife now was turned into a pillar of salt for merely looking at the destruction of the bad cities. Meanwhile Lot was not punished (by salting or otherwise) when he had drunken conjugal relations with his daughters. What was god on the john or called away when that was going on? The moral: Looking at cites being destroyed by god's wrath = bad (deserving of instant death). Having drunken sex with your daughters = not bad. Of course this is from the same people who like dashing children against stones (psalm 137:9). Paragons of morality.
Hermeneutics
Actually, I do know the author's intent.
-Col.
Actually you don't
I sincerely doubt you are old enough to have known the author personally and even if I am wrong about that then in any case you would not have known the author's true intent unless you are in fact a mind reader, a claim about which I would also have my doubts. What you do in fact have is a guess. It may be a good guess. It may be a bad guess, but it is a guess nonetheless. Unless you have some mathematical, teleological proof of your assertion that you know the innermost mind of the author that you have not divulged heretofore?