We are Doomed! DOOOOOMMED I say!

[Diogenes]

Well, "Noah's Folded Space Canoe" doesn't make as good of a title.

Sure. That's why the Aztecs were so advanced, and why the Egyptians were so advanced, and why the Persians and the Indians et al were all so much more advanced than the Christians.

Didn't Persian math and science outdo the west for awhile there? Invented the 0, something like that? Or maybe I'm thinking of algebra.

At that time the Persians were relatively advanced, Europe was mostly primitive settlements of barbarian tribes. Perhaps without Christianity, they may have remained so.

I'm sure everybody realizes that the (present) success of the West is a complex phenomenon. It's hard to make a good case that the evolving religious forms of the West are greatly responsible for this success. I'm sure you can make up some logic to fit some points, but that just leaves you in the same boat as Freud. Not science. No hard facts. Nothing provable. Just a nice story.

Sort of a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. Even so, if "it's hard to make a good case that the evolving religious forms of the west are greatly responsible for this success", what is it easy to make a case for?

Is there a simpler explanation? Occam wants to know!

[MSimon]

You are interpreting the bible with extreme literalism and then declaring it wrong because it doesn't fit your test for accuracy.

There is an extreme literalism school of bible interpretation which is rather large. So your criticism seems unfair.

But you come to a problem. If literalism is unfair how do you decide which points deserve other than literal treatment?

The Jews fixed this a long time ago with their common law. i.e. adultery may merit the death sentence. BUT you need 25 witnesses of the act to get it carried out. Or some such. i.e. the sentence is practically impossible to carry out even if it is on the books.

The funny thing is that folks arguing the literalism point of view are rarely cognizant of the oral law (since codified in the Talmud and other writings).

[Diogenes]

You are interpreting the bible with extreme literalism and then declaring it wrong because it doesn't fit your test for accuracy.

There is an extreme literalism school of bible interpretation which is rather large. So your criticism seems unfair.

It is axiomatic that some things in the bible are supposed to be literal. (Historical accounts) Even among those things which are literal, one must look at them from the perspective that they were written by men with men's talent for error and embellishment. It is this lack of objectivity in applying a literal standard that I am objecting to. The bible was unquestionably written by men. It should come as no surprise to anyone that men don't always get things perfect when they write stuff down. Never the less, for what it is intended to accomplish, it appears to work fairly well.


Skipjack is demanding that the bible have an accuracy beyond the capability of it's writers. I consider that unreasonable. As for other people taking everything as absolutely literal, I cannot argue for them. From what I can see, they are in an absolutely untenable position.

But you come to a problem. If literalism is unfair how do you decide which points deserve other than literal treatment?

You have to apply common sense. When the writer of Genesis claims the world was flooded, you have to understand he very likely thought the world was flat, and that if his part was flooded, ALL of it must be flooded as well, for if you have a flat bottomed pan, you cannot flood one side without flooding the other as well.

It goes back to that zeitgeist concept. You have to be able to see things from the perspective of the person doing the writing. This is the same concept I advocate for understanding the writings of the founders. They have to be examined in context of the times.

People describe things in the context of their own lives and experience. How would the prophet Ezekiel describe a helicopter? Possibly as wheels within wheels. Or Elijah might describe it as: "a chariot of fire" which lifted him "up to heaven in a whirlwind."

The Jews fixed this a long time ago with their common law. i.e. adultery may merit the death sentence. BUT you need 25 witnesses of the act to get it carried out. Or some such. i.e. the sentence is practically impossible to carry out even if it is on the books.

No doubt they have had the same problem with liberal judges that everyone else has. Always trying to get around the true meaning of the law, rather than simply changing the law.

The funny thing is that folks arguing the literalism point of view are rarely cognizant of the oral law (since codified in the Talmud and other writings).

Well, i'm not cognizant of the oral law, so I cannot sensibly comment on it. But I can learn if I need to.

[Diogenes]

I thought I would point out that it was a bunch of homosexually inclined individuals raping little boys.

Which points out the problems with heterosexuality. You get hetero inclined men raping little girls.

I literally don't know what to say to you regarding this comment.

But this is a start:

http://thecoldequations.blogspot.com/20 ... ty-or.html


I already knew this and more. It seems apparent that most people don't.

[MSimon]

This is a sort of tu qouque argument. (that because the bible condemned one thing that turned out to be no big deal, everything else the bible condemns must also be no big deal.) It is a logical fallacy.

Apart from that, it doesn't even address my point. The question I asked was WHY did the bible condemn it?

Because mixing milk and meat was a bad idea. Back then.

BTW I do not invalidate the argument because others made from the same source are wrong. I just think that they should be subject to strict scrutiny.

Note: the persistence of homosexuality for at least thousands of years indicates it has some genetic value. The latest theory is that it increases the fertility of females who carry one of the genes involved.

IMO the Roman Empire declined not due to gays in the military. It declined because not enough citizens were willing to defend Roman Civilization. That will be our end too.

[MSimon]

Which points out the problems with heterosexuality. You get hetero inclined men raping little girls.

I literally don't know what to say to you regarding this comment.

But this is a start:

http://thecoldequations.blogspot.com/20 ... ty-or.html

From the link:

The price of tolerating homosexuality has not been cheap.

OK so we don't tolerate it. Can we have Gay Hunt Sundays? We keep them from getting jobs? Put Pink Triangles on their passports? Burn every Truman Capote book? Destroy all Leonard Bernstein records? Get "Leaves of Grass" out of American text books? Ban Oscar Wilde plays and quotations? Ban Cole Porter musicals? Burn the works of Michelangelo?

How exactly do you intend to evidence your disapproval?

And the point of my comment: if homosexuality is the cause of the rape of young boys than surely heterosexuality is the cause of the rape of young girls. It is very rare for a homosexual to rape a young girl.

[IntLibber]

I thought I would point out that it was a bunch of homosexually inclined individuals raping little boys.

Which points out the problems with heterosexuality. You get hetero inclined men raping little girls.

Thats called arranged marriage. A time honored tradition in a world where the risk of death from childbirth was quite high, so while most women married only once many men had more than one wife over their lives. In a world where manhood is acheived at age 13, marrying one's daughter off at the same age ain't no thing.

[Diogenes]

This is a sort of tu qouque argument. (that because the bible condemned one thing that turned out to be no big deal, everything else the bible condemns must also be no big deal.) It is a logical fallacy.

Apart from that, it doesn't even address my point. The question I asked was WHY did the bible condemn it?

Because mixing milk and meat was a bad idea. Back then.

BTW I do not invalidate the argument because others made from the same source are wrong. I just think that they should be subject to strict scrutiny.

Note: the persistence of homosexuality for at least thousands of years indicates it has some genetic value. The latest theory is that it increases the fertility of females who carry one of the genes involved.

I've read that theory. It does seem to be a sort of answer to a baffling question. Evolutionary theory would seemingly require an attenuation of the responsible genes over time. Since that obviously doesn't happen, there must be some sort of evolutionary advantage for the characteristic. The "more fertile female theory" is in the right direction, but it just doesn't feel complete to me. More likely, some of the genes responsible are dual use or multi-use genes that are too important to lose, but occasionally manifest in that manner. Environmental conditions also seem to play a part in this. According to research i've read, the incidence of molestation is far higher in homosexuals than the heterosexual population. Incidence of strong dominant mothers seems to be a factor. etc.

IMO the Roman Empire declined not due to gays in the military. It declined because not enough citizens were willing to defend Roman Civilization. That will be our end too.

General debauchery was a symptom. Not a cause. I personally think the cause was prosperity. Here's an argument that tends to support my theory.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/27/were ... is-stupid/

[Diogenes]

I literally don't know what to say to you regarding this comment.

But this is a start:

http://thecoldequations.blogspot.com/20 ... ty-or.html

From the link:

The price of tolerating homosexuality has not been cheap.

OK so we don't tolerate it. Can we have Gay Hunt Sundays? We keep them from getting jobs? Put Pink Triangles on their passports? Burn every Truman Capote book? Destroy all Leonard Bernstein records? Get "Leaves of Grass" out of American text books? Ban Oscar Wilde plays and quotations? Ban Cole Porter musicals? Burn the works of Michelangelo?

How exactly do you intend to evidence your disapproval?

Are we now going straight from data to conclusions? What happened to that analytical mind? For whatever reason, this subject seems too emotional for you to discuss it without invoking nazi analogies or something.

How should we deal with the muslims? How should we deal with the Democrats! I haven't begun to consider what if anything must be done other than to make people aware of the nature of the people they are dealing with. As the article mentions, when they couldn't be tolerated, they weren't. Now that they can be tolerated, they are, but at a cost.

How about THIS idea? "An it hurt none, do as thou wilst."? Is cavalierly spreading disease hurting anyone? How does the libertarian address this issue?


As for people's works? They stand or fall on their own merits.

And the point of my comment: if homosexuality is the cause of the rape of young boys than surely heterosexuality is the cause of the rape of young girls. It is very rare for a homosexual to rape a young girl.

The Rape of young girls is caused by an abnormal case of heterosexuality (except in the case of statutory rape) by social outcasts. It is not the norm. Molesting young boys, on the other hand, is simply just another socially declared barrier from the perspective of a person who has already breached one socially declared barrier.

It is axiomatic that the sadist can only hypocritically call the masochist a pervert. How can the necrophile admonish the beastophile?

It is a characteristic that many will deny, but there is evidence that many homosexuals would love to be pederasts, but are too afraid of the consequences to attempt it. Some however are not. NAMBLA is still out there, but it seldom surfaces in public except in very gay friendly parts of the country.

I perceive that you really do not want to dig too deeply into this subject. You won't like what you find, but I urge you to do it anyway.

[Skipjack]

Diogenes, you were the one asking the question:

Do you have an example of something in the bible that is wrong?

I was delivering answers to that question.
I also have to repeat the question asked by Msimon:
If not everything in the bible is meant to be taken literally, where does the freedom for interpretation stop?
Maybe Jesus did not rise from the dead? Maybe that was just meant to be taken metaphorically?
Maybe he was not even crucified. We even today use this metaphorically, so maybe it was meant the same way in the bible?
Where shall we stop?`
Oh, I guess you just mean that YOU are allowed to interpret things to your liking so that YOU always end up being right, isnt that so?

[MSimon]

Your fundamental mistake is right here:

make people aware of the nature of the people they are dealing with

You are mistaking population for individual. i.e. given current politics you are in danger of creating another protected class.

[Diogenes]

Your fundamental mistake is right here:

make people aware of the nature of the people they are dealing with

You are mistaking population for individual. i.e. given current politics you are in danger of creating another protected class.

I am not comprehending what you are saying. I was under the impression that homosexuals are already considered to be a protected class. God only knows that everyone in media are pushing their agenda, the IRS just gave their "partners" official status, many states already force people to treat them as a protected minority... I cannot see the danger of creating something which already exists.

As for the difference between a population and an individual, we all know that even though individual members of groups often don't fit specific characteristics, many to most of them do. It's entirely a question of probability.

In quantum mechanics, the solutions are often probability functions. No one is concerned with the exact details of a specific particle at a specific time.

[Diogenes]

Getting back to the "We are Doomed, DOOOOMMEED I say ! " Theme... there is this:



http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... d_the.html



and from the guy who gave us the Laffer curve, this:


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... inion_main



And while we're at it, read anything written by Peter Schiff lately.

[MSimon]

What I'm saying is judge people as individuals not as classes.

And if gay is a protected class you would think the marriage thing would be fixed to (some of) their satisfaction.

[MSimon]

As for the difference between a population and an individual, we all know that even though individual members of groups often don't fit specific characteristics, many to most of them do. It's entirely a question of probability.

Well OK. You want to treat people as groups. I was under the impression that you did not care much for that idea in other situations. But perhaps I have you confused with some one else.