Comments on Ambassador Watch: A better Armstrong

2007-10-22T06:21:00.000+13:00

This comment has been removed by the author.

Stingerski said..."That's just the way it is." And...

2007-10-21T14:30:00.000+13:00

Stingerski said...

"That's just the way it is." And I've always found when I accept reality, e.g. the way things really are, and not substitute some religious fantasy in its place, I get along much better in this world.

That is my experience as well !

As long as I stay away from the myths in Judaism and in Christianity and stay away from their corrupt all male priesthood, I am at peace.

Life does work much better.

There does seem to be a dark spiritual force that entangles one when one allows oneself to become part of that system.

My beliefs are similar; I do believe God is very great and kind and not very much like He is described in the OT or NT.

The Old and New Testaments are mostly the creations of men who have made themselves priests.

I guess I should add that I do believe Jesus existed and was a very great man and a very great prophet. I also believe there is an afterlife and that Jesus, and so many others, are there and they can reach down and help.

That is one of the reasons one can discern a spiritual element to this world; there is a spirit presence here.

Anon. said :So, Stringerski, what do you as a deis...

2007-10-21T06:46:00.000+13:00

Anon. said :

So, Stringerski, what do you as a deist believe? You obviously keep score well and you are certainly quick to pass judgment.

But do you have any substantive beliefs? And what proof do you have?

Quick to pass judgment? That's only a liability if you are a Christian, as they usually get it wrong. :-)

I'm not sure what proof you are referring to. About backing up my beliefs? If so, all I can do is quote ye old scripture here (slightly paraphrased): Everybody does that which is right in his own eyes -- and ALL the time. And if anybody declares otherwise then they are either a true believer, insane, or perhaps both (as is often the case with true believers).

My beliefs, religious or otherwise, but esp. religious, are just that -- my beliefs. I go with what I think is the best evidence. And right now that evidence points to deism for me.

I believe in "God." But the God I believe in is far more majestic, far more logical and far more divine than the God most Christians say they believe in. And the evidence for this God is the universe itself, and not some ancient set of books, written in a dead language, and spread over many long dead cultures. Such a set of books is not the way my God would ever limit themselves to for communicating to their creation.

At this point in time, however, it seems that God has left the building. We are here for now to figure out this universe on our own. Why? I dunno. Like that Bruce Hornsby song says, "That's just the way it is." And I've always found when I accept reality, e.g. the way things really are, and not substitute some religious fantasy in its place, I get along much better in this world.

And you? Why are you a deist? And who might I have the pleasure of speaking to here, even if just your stage name?

What amazes me is the philosophical variety of the...

2007-10-21T06:39:00.000+13:00

What amazes me is the philosophical variety of the posters. It seems we have an Armstrongist, several New Covenant Christians, some adherents to the basic Adventist package of beliefs, two atheists, and a couple of deists commenting.

BB

It should be useful for those here to review the a...

2007-10-21T06:29:00.000+13:00

It should be useful for those here to review the attributes of
the bully guru,
applicable to multiple people relating to this discussion.

This whole topic is about as mystical as The Secre...

2007-10-21T06:13:00.000+13:00

This whole topic is about as mystical as
The Secret.

At now 134 posts on this thread , ( I believe this...

2007-10-21T05:22:00.000+13:00

At now 134 posts on this thread , ( I believe this is now the official Guinness Book of Worlds Records amount for the Ambassador Watch),.. we now have more vebage on the Karen Armstrong book "The Bible- A Biography" than are actually contained in her book!

Lussenheide

Books like this are a terrible waste of time for a...

2007-10-20T21:58:00.000+13:00

Books like this are a terrible waste of time for anyone who already knows everything.

Stingerski said...'That's my deistic opine anyway....

2007-10-20T17:30:00.000+13:00

Stingerski said...

'That's my deistic opine anyway."

I too am a deist. There of course no common doctrines nor any common Holy books for deists.

So, Stringerski, what do you as a deist believe? You obviously keep score well and you are certainly quick to pass judgment.

But do you have any substantive beliefs? And what proof do you have?

Corky,Actually that isn't entirely accurate. They ...

2007-10-20T04:15:00.000+13:00

Corky,

Actually that isn't entirely accurate. They are creationists to be sure, but their research and essays are very compelling...and they aren't trying to sell anything else other than that the scientific evidence is against the theories. Browse through the topical index you might find something out that you haven't previously considered.

The only feature they have that I don't like is their monthly "Web Site of the Month" I have stopped even checking out the links. Too may of them go to six day creation websites with the same old tired and weak theories of their own.

Like Sgt Joe Friday - Just give me the facts.

Have a nice weekend everyone! I am off to have some fun for a couple of days.

Charlie said, I invite you to take a look here: ww...

2007-10-20T03:59:00.000+13:00

Charlie said, I invite you to take a look here: www.scienceagainstevolution.org

I looked and they left off a word. It should read:

"creation science against evolution"

Corky,Sorry, but that argument doesn't hold water....

2007-10-20T01:29:00.000+13:00

Corky,

Sorry, but that argument doesn't hold water. I believe what you are referring to is yet another theory on evolution called punctuated equilibrium. (No changes for millennia, then massive changes all at once) No proof of that one either.

I have confidence that science will figure it all out someday.

Charlie said,If evolution is true, we should see e...

2007-10-19T16:29:00.000+13:00

Charlie said,
If evolution is true, we should see evidences of it in contemporary times. After several billions of years and hundreds of millions of years of the existence of life, we should be seeing species evolve from one to a new one with regularity...but we don't see it at---all.

No, you should not see it. If you did, it wouldn't be evolution but miracles. The change is in the allele and invisible for a long time. It is an hereditary variation that either survives or does not.

If the variation survives then it will become part of the genetic code that controls what comes after - until there is another variation.

What makes it survive is the fact that the variation is beneficial and therefore gets to live long enough to breed more of the same.

2007-10-19T15:46:00.000+13:00

This comment has been removed by the author.

Corky, You are mistaking me for some people on thi...

2007-10-19T15:35:00.000+13:00

Corky, You are mistaking me for some people on this thread that claim to have all the answers. I do not claim to have them.

I do not think a leatherbound book is proof of God (I've mentioned why I believe in God in an earlier post) any more than I believe two teeth and part of a leg bone found in Boxgrove, England, a lower jaw found near Heidelberg, Germany and a skull from Bodo, Ethiopia are proof of evolution (Heidelberg Man)

I took a quick look at the link you posted and will definitely read through it. Although I am far from a scholar, trying to find out as much as I can on the subject of our origins and history of earth has become a hobby.

From what I have looked at so far the 29+ evidences are a collection of fossils and as they freely admit on the site, hypotheses. If evolution is true, we should see evidences of it in contemporary times. After several billions of years and hundreds of millions of years of the existence of life, we should be seeing species evolve from one to a new one with regularity...but we don't see it at---all.

Demand proof - Abiogenesis and species evolving from one to another are theories, nothing more. Each attempt, and I am glad they try (It is more than most creationists do), has come up, well, dead.

Why can't we agree to limit what we teach that to what we know and what we have to work with and go forward from there instead of jamming the absurdity of a six day creation and spontaneous generation of life from non-life and evolution down our throats. Neither theory holds water.

I invite you to take a look here: www.scienceagainstevolution.org

They look at it from a scientific perspective, not biblical, and invite the reader to follow the evidence. It is worth a look.

They also answer mail.

Talk origins as you mention also has much interesting material and I will spend a good deal of time there as well.

Atheists : 4Christians : 1=== From the Deist Peanu...

2007-10-19T14:43:00.000+13:00

Atheists : 4
Christians : 1

=== From the Deist Peanut Gallery:

Paul, you struck out there with Noah. Apparently he was some "god" of a sort.

I will leave Zecharia Sitchin and his 12th Planet to take you to task here.

We all know the "gods" came here from somewhere out there, and deposited life here. There's just no other way that we could come to be here.

That's my deistic opine anyway.

As for the rest of you Christians, your Bible is just a mere collection of stories about what the gods did here -- and the Jews have been trying to rewrite its history ever since.

"Yeah I know, but I wonder how the Chinese got alo...

2007-10-19T14:08:00.000+13:00

"Yeah I know, but I wonder how the Chinese got along without all those absolute shades of gray for all these thousands of years."

The answer I always received was along these lines:

God gave Adam the Law, in some shape or form, and it got passed down to all men, mainly through Noah. A neat and tidy answer, though so fantastical to put JRR Tolkien to shame. Such imagination!

Paul

Corky bats, and hits the Jewish- Chinese Law pitch...

2007-10-19T13:01:00.000+13:00

Corky bats, and hits the Jewish- Chinese Law pitch into deep right field!

Runner (anon) on 3rd scores!

Atheists : 4
Christians : 0

From the Deist Peanut Gallery:

If you Christians really want to get into this game you need to define your moral code. And that means, you simply cannot quote the Bible. Because 1.5 billion Christians on this planet quote the Bible -- and they ALL have a different morality.

You say po-TAY-to
And I say po-TA-to.
Eating Shrimp is evil
Eating Shrimp is heaven . . .

But Corky, the Sabbath example concerns Godly shad...

2007-10-19T11:31:00.000+13:00

But Corky, the Sabbath example concerns Godly shades of gray, which is also known as absolute shades of gray. The shades of gray of which you speak are worldly shades of gray, which further evidence the lack of morality without Zeus. Er, I mean God.

Yeah I know, but I wonder how the Chinese got along without all those absolute shades of gray for all these thousands of years. I guess they must have had Yahweh's law written on their hearts instead of in a book.

Latest score :Atheists - 3Christians - 0The Christ...

2007-10-19T11:26:00.000+13:00

Latest score :

Atheists - 3
Christians - 0

The Christian Crusaders still have not produced anything in the way of runs batted in (evidence), while the All-star Atheists have hit a few doubles and triples.

From the Deist Peanut Gallery:

If I were pitching for the All-stars, I would keep firing fast balls at the Crusaders, asking them to define their basis of moral behavior. And the Bible certainly cannot be that basis. Because when you lay all Christians end to end on this topic, they all point in different directions!

I say po-tay-to
And you say po-TA-to

You say pork evil
And I say pork yummy.

But Corky, the Sabbath example concerns Godly shad...

2007-10-19T10:50:00.000+13:00

Neo says, This self-determined right and wrong is ...

2007-10-19T10:40:00.000+13:00

Neo says, This self-determined right and wrong is a world different from belief in absolute right and absolute wrong.

All "right and wrong" that exists in the world is self-detemined or determined by the society in which a person lives. There is no such thing as "absolute right and wrong". All is shades of gray and not black and white.

Even in the bible, whereas it was a death sentence to break the sabbath, it was allowed under certain circumstances. For example, it is not wrong to save a life on the sabbath.

For this reason, and many others, the Jews have the Talmud.

"Although my fundamental observation is why would ...

2007-10-19T10:30:00.000+13:00

"Although my fundamental observation is why would they even do this since they are, mind and body, just a bunch of chemical reactions anyway."

As opposed to??

Paul

Paul said: "No, you stated that afterwards after I...

2007-10-19T10:23:00.000+13:00

Paul said: "No, you stated that afterwards after I called you on your original statement, which was that atheists do not "believe in right or wrong. You are dishonest."

This is a difference in customary usage. I am a Christian so I think of right and wrong as absolute right and absolute wrong. As an atheist you think of right and wrong as whatever you want it to be. (Which is really, really close to not believing in right and wrong - the non-absolute variety.)

So to be precise, I believe that atheists may believe in a self-determined right and a self-determined wrong. (Although my fundamental observation is why would they even do this since they are, mind and body, just a bunch of chemical reactions anyway.) In fact, one might inquire into why it is atheists would ever be motivated to define right and wrong, no matter how idiosyncratic.

This self-determined right and wrong is a world different from belief in absolute right and absolute wrong.

With this adjustment in semantics, all the arguments that I have made still I still stand by.

Right. I have exited the stage a number of times only to come back.

So I will exit again and probably will come back again, unless Gavin finally thinks of something else more productive.

-- Neo

Corky:"Except for the fact that "irreducible compl...

2007-10-19T10:09:00.000+13:00

Corky:

"Except for the fact that "irreducible complexity" has been falsified. (proven to be wrong, for those without dictionaries"

My mistake. You are correct in the use of this term. It has a difference usage in science and philosophy than in law.

-- Neo