Comments on Ambassador Watch: Trumpeting Out of Tune

BB wrote: "...every one seems to want their ...

2009-10-01T11:25:58.491+13:00

BB wrote:

"...every one seems to want their own personal standards to be the universal ones by which all things are evaluated and judged, or else the other guy is insane or irrelevant..."

Yes! That's it! Too many judge by subjective analysis.

One modern thinker wrote:

"The subjective means the arbitrary, the irrational, the blindly emotional."

Bob wants that the standards should "come from somone higher than ourselves."

Gee, I wonder who that could be?

Why, I'll bet it was that "strong hand from somewhere" that Herbert spoke about when he was about to apply his own power on the poor sheep he lorded it over.

"It is also reminiscent of HWA," Sigh. ...

2009-10-01T11:07:27.374+13:00

"It is also reminiscent of HWA,"

Sigh. Not that old chestnut again.

"Just like once upon a time long ago most of ...

2009-10-01T11:04:25.212+13:00

"Just like once upon a time long ago most of us earnestly believed in a literal Santa Claus when we were young and naïve"

Speak only for yourself, Leo, old boy. As one who was raised to be (but fortunately it didn't turn out that way) a cradle-to-Kingdom Armstrongite, I never believed in a literal Santa Claus.

The literal Eternal Lord of Hosts I DID believe in was bad enough !!!

"Please prove to me that God does not exist. ...

2009-10-01T10:55:27.133+13:00

"Please prove to me that God does not exist. But, remember, in so doing, that the only acceptable proofs which you may present must come directly from the Bible!"

such circular reasoning it's an infinitely closed loop

"But after spending an entire day with a carb...

2009-10-01T10:35:52.007+13:00

"But after spending an entire day with a carbon 14 scientist at the University of Arizona who carefully explained to him the precise step-by-step methodology behind carbon 14 dating (in the early 1980’s, I believe it was) he came away convinced that his previous assumption has been completely in error. He told me about this personally."

Pity he never told the rest of the church. They were still preaching the "Carbon-14 dating is an instrument of Satan's deception" claptrap in the early '90s, in my area.

"Blogger does things differently to WordPress...

2009-10-01T10:33:28.919+13:00

"Blogger does things differently to WordPress. I realize that with WP editing comments IS possible, but that's NOT the case with Blogger. The two options are "publish" and "reject."

Eeeeew that sucks. My condolences, Gavin. I'm glad I never went with Blogger.

"What the worshippers of Dr Hoeh's Compen...

2009-10-01T10:30:01.405+13:00

"What the worshippers of Dr Hoeh's Compendium of History fail to state is that Dr Hoeh disavowed his own book."

Does anyone actually have this in writing, or can someone link me to a site that isn't posted/owned/manipulated by Gracie? I've read this sentence repeated so many times, it's starting to sound like an urban legend...and having sat through some truly God-awful sermons during the church's Hoeh-day (sorry), I still find it almost impossible to believe he could have done a 180 like that. Or, a sincere 180, I should say, given how many of the current crop of Jebus-preachers in Gracie are only hanging on for their pensions. (Which the Canucklehead ministers of misery stand to lose out on, after it all finally ends.)

OK, BB, let's see if I understand right. Leo ...

2009-10-01T10:12:09.038+13:00

OK, BB, let's see if I understand right.

Leo has no belief in any of the 2500 gods men have created. One of those gods, it is alleged, caused some holy writings known as the Bible to be produced. It is filled with absurdities, unfulfilled prophecies, myths, hate speech of a high order and the uninspired statements of uninspiring men.

Now you come forward and invite Leo to jump backwards through a hula hoop and produce from that uninspired holy book proof that the god in which he has no belief does not exist. Huh?

I was asked one time to produce proof any of the gods do not exist. I calmly required my challenger to tell me what he would accept as proof. He hasn't replied to this date.

So just what would you accept as proof from the mish-mash Bible that any of the gods do not exist? I mean in a basic sense. Please give us an example. Just what is it you want?

(Excuse me for butting in, Leo. I knew BB before he got religion and it's amazing how his thinking has become so terribly irrational).

Bear_track wrote: "I do not believe that Leon...

2009-10-01T09:57:32.302+13:00

Bear_track wrote:
"I do not believe that Leonardo or anyone else should be able to do the blogger equivalent of shouting someone down at a town meeting. It's just crude."

But, Bear, HOW am I being crude, and when have I EVER "shouted down" others? I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here.

Yes, perhaps my rationale and logic can vanquish certain hastily-made and expressed assertions that have no evidence behind them. Perhaps this is what you’re referring to here – but other than that, when have I personally ever been crude or disrespectful to others when they seek to present serious arguments here.

Could an alternative explanation be that you simply find that RATIONAL discussion which requires evidence, proof and logic to be too much of a strain on you, especially if you're part of a fundamentalist group where, let's face it, your mental capacities are hardly ever challenged and stretched.

Byker Bob wrote: "...has it occurred to anyon...

2009-10-01T09:35:38.260+13:00

Byker Bob wrote:
"...has it occurred to anyone else here that everyone seems to want their own personal standards to be the universal ones by which all things are evaluated and judged, or else the other guy is insane or irrelevant? In reality, is not that what has caused all of the wars and strife throughout recorded history? I'm sorry, but I see a great deal of arrogance in all of that…”

Oh, and you DON’T do this, Bob, by your constant appeal to the arrogance of FAITH, which is an absolute prerequisite in order to accept the many patently absurd supernatural tenets you so ardently push here on the AW site?

And what intellectual standards WOULD you recommend that we put in the place of reason, rationality, empirical evidence and the close observation of human experience, Bob?

Based purely upon your past comments here, I should think you would propose some combination of Stone Age ideology and pre-scientific method - which in past historical eras allowed scores of innocent people to have been stoned, strangled, beheaded, burned at the stake, cruelly tortured or otherwise ostracized from the society of their day simply because they proposed an alternative explanation for the workings of the world and universe around them that countered the official “God revealed” religious explanation of the day, which in virtually EVERY case proved in time to be false?

(Does the term “heliocentrism” ring a bell here, Bob? And remember, it wasn’t just the evil “Mother of Harlots” Catholic Church that fought this observation, Martin Luther ridiculed the concept that the earth actually circled around the sun as well as the Catholic heirarchy.)

Come on, Bobster – “blow the dust off your history books,” my friend, and learn that the root causes of most wars down through recorded history have been the IRRATIONAL worldviews of those having accumulated enough military power to allow them to attempt to FORCE their views upon other nearby cultures and nations.

Nazi and Communist ideology in fairly modern times providing some of the more obvious SECULAR examples of such irrationality – the Christian religion and militant Islamic ideology using either physical violence or legal pressure to enforce their own brand of irrational beliefs upon others providing just two of the many RELIGIOUS examples from the more distant historical record.

Bob, you really DO need to do some more serious and wide-ranging reading outside of the fundamentalists publications you seem to get most of your information from.

Search the record of history – and I think you will find it extremely difficult to cite instances where incoherence, circular reasoning, wishful thinking, religious dogmatism or any other ingredient so frequently found in the chaotic mixing bowl of irrational ideologies (secular or religious) have ever contributed to scientific progress—or to life-enhancing progress of any kind.

The overall series of Aristotelian or rational methods comprising what we nowadays refer to as “the scientific method” is not perfect. I’ll be the first to acknowledged that fact.

But right now it’s the closest method we have to an enterprise or culture built upon genuine intellectual honesty, in spite of it’s many shortcomings. In it’s relatively short history in modern times (say, 400 years at most) it has provided mankind with benefits of incalculable worth.

Sure, it can be misused, but I’m saying that, in aggregate and on the whole, the many advantages of science far outweighed it’s few perceived disadvantages.

Bob, please, I urge you to come out from your dark, dank fundamentalist cave of ignorance – there’s an entire world out there, and it’s not nearly the horrible place you envision it to be, in spite of it’s faults. It sure beats the intellectual darkness of the world of “revealed knowledge” from an invisible deity.

"Evidence is not a (sic) individual personal ...

2009-10-01T09:24:55.905+13:00

"Evidence is not a (sic) individual personal standard."

I'm sorry Paul, I really didn't mean to single you out. Considering some of the remarks being made about the relative literacy of believers, I had to point out that all of us from time to time make errors.

BB

"But, has it occurred to anyone else here tha...

2009-10-01T09:03:07.329+13:00

"But, has it occurred to anyone else here that everyone seems to want their own personal standards to be the universal ones..."

Evidence is not a individual personal standard. It is a universal standard. Once again, (for the umpteenth time), you use this standard in every aspect of your life- except for one, and that is your religious beliefs. When it comes to your religious beliefs, you don't have any standards to evaluate or judge reality. Evidence is tossed out the window.

I think you should be consistent and apply your "standard" by which you "prove" the existence of God to all other aspects of your life. You'll make all sorts of discoveries, like the existence of leprechauns, Bigfoot, and a hollow earth. You won't have to worry about "fact" and "science" anymore since they will be unnecessary.

The Apostate Paul

"Jesus bids us shine in the pure sure light L...

2009-10-01T08:54:53.032+13:00

"Jesus bids us shine in the pure sure light
Like a little candle burning in the night
In this world of darkness weeee must shine

You in your small corner and I in mine."

Hey I remembered it from Sunday school! I think last line gives us all the leeway to fulfill our own special part of the picuture based on our own special experience with it.

Well, good. But, has it occurred to anyone else h...

2009-10-01T08:05:01.025+13:00

Well, good. But, has it occurred to anyone else here that everyone seems to want their own personal standards to be the universal ones by which all things are evaluated and judged, or else the other guy is insane or irrelevant? In reality, is not that what has caused all of the wars and strife throughout recorded history? I'm sorry, but I see a great deal of arrogance in all of that, unless the standards come from someone higher than ourselves, as opposed to the latest aspiring alpha male!

It is also reminiscent of HWA, who applied the standards normally reserved for evaluating classical music to rock n roll.

BB

Kiwi also wrote: “I would much rather they sought ...

2009-10-01T07:30:12.744+13:00

Kiwi also wrote:
“I would much rather they sought to convince me with argument - not insult - as to why the fundamental instruction within the Bible is incorrect.”

I think I’ve tried to make my points by appealing to reason using raw intellectual arguments rather than resorting to personal insult or emotionalism. In fact, many of the True Believers have ridiculed me for this very “overly intellectual” approach!

Byker Bob, for instance, continually seems to be getting his “knickers in a knot” because I calmly pose honest questions and issues to him that he simply cannot intelligently reply to, and so he then resorts to accusation and the imputing of motives I know I don’t have.

Kiwi concludes by writing:
“Of course the same applies equally to "fundamentalists". Neither should they resort to insult but should be able to give a sound reason for why they believe.”

Exactly, which is why I keep reminding them that part and parcel of their duties as Christians is to fulfill the exhortation of I Peter 3:15 to “…always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you…”

But I honestly ask you, when have you EVER seen the True Believers on this blogsite rise to this most basic of challenges, even though it’s written plainly for them right there in the pages of their holy book?

Kiwi wrote: "...this blog wouldn't even e...

2009-10-01T07:28:28.463+13:00

Kiwi wrote:
"...this blog wouldn't even exist if we had not all been at one time or another "supernaturalists" as you put it."

Yes, I very much agree with you, Kiwi. I openly and unashamedly admit to having been a fervent supernaturalist for about 30 years of my adult life.

Just like once upon a time long ago most of us earnestly believed in a literal Santa Claus when we were young and naïve - but most of us have, since that time, grown in knowledge and understanding, and moved on to adopt new and more reasonable explanations for why pretty gifts appear underneath Christmas trees every December 25th.

Kiwi further wrote:
“…if there is an appropriate opportunity then a convincing account of personal experience is often the best. Insults rarely work.”

Kiwi, again I wholeheartedly agree. I frequently use real-life personal events and experiences from my own life here in this blog to make relevant points pertinent to the topic at hand, at least I perceive them as being on-topic.

As far as insults go, I agree with you here as well. But then tell the fundamentalists to stop accusing me (or the many others who disagree with their dogmatic religious beliefs) of motives that I don’t, in fact, have. I challenge you to go back over and re-read the various blogs made here the past several months or so, and see who is in truth hurling PERSONAL insults as opposed to intelligently pointing out the faulty reasoning and specious arguments of the True Believers. The actual proof is in the many exchanges recorded here on this site. It’s plain for all who are willing to see.

And also, please request the fundamentalists to articulate their personal experiences with enough reasonable amount of detail so that readers can actually make some sense of it. Otherwise, it just falls into the category of “useless assertion” or “religious sloganeering.”

Kiwi continues:
“…I conclude that I must be a "fundamentalist" because I seek to live by the fundamental instruction that is within the Bible. It's too bad if others use the term as an insult.”

OK, Kiwi, you’ve made a fair point, and one that deserves an intelligible answer.

When I (and many others in the field) use the term “fundamentalist” or “fundamentalism” in the context of the topics usually discussed on this blogsite, we use it in the following way:

Simply stated, there are two primary aspects to religious fundamentalism.

First, fundamentalists commit themselves to a set of unprovable, indemonstrable, supernatural religious beliefs that must be accepted on faith alone – and then mindlessly cling to that set of beliefs unconditionally, without reservation or exception, no matter what.

And the second, and considerably more dangerous facet that is a natural outgrowth of the first: such fundamentalists then sincerely believe those who refuse to accept or embrace their beliefs to be worthy of condemnation.

That’s what I mean by the term. You use the term in your comment above in it’s literal dictionary meaning - which is fine, as long as we don’t conflate the two.

Byker Bob further writes: “I'm thinking of inv...

2009-10-01T05:05:42.878+13:00

Byker Bob further writes:
“I'm thinking of inviting Leo to a Bible folder that I happen to moderate, and to challenge him by presenting him with a mirror image of his challenge to me. My challenge would be worded something like, "Leo, I want you to be articulate, and very literal about this: Please prove to me that God does not exist.”

Ummm, I wonder: why do I have a very strong gut-feeling that the quality of discussion on this “Bible folder” will not be all that high, meaningful or in-line with commonly-accepted standards of debate and dialog?!

Virtually all such sites I’ve ever blogged on in the past have been little more than fundamenalists blathering on incessantly with their non-arguments, groundless assertions and obsolete “proofs against evolution” that have been totally refuted decades ago by real scientists. What reason do I have to believe that your “Bible folder” would be any different, especially in light of the low quality of comments you typically tend to post here on AW?

Bob, as I’ve mentioned to you frequently in past blogs, nobody can “prove” a negative. This is just plain common sense, and an accepted elementary principle of debate and analytical thinking. The onus of proof is always on the person who first makes the affirmative claim, and then for him to demonstrate the reasons his proposition should be accepted by the rest of us as true. Your “challenge” to me would be the equivalent of me ardently asserting that invisible rainbow-colored unicorns exists, and then cowardly running off the field of debate by then magically shifting the burden of proof onto YOU to demonstrate that they DON’T.

But, in the words of the deep south (where I was born, by the way) “That old hound just don’t hunt!”

The vast majority of honest and clear-thinking people see right through this spineless ploy, so typical of the kind commonly used by folks like you pushing their pre-scientific, Stone Age belief systems.

This is just one of many of the deceptive tools fundamentalists attempt to use in debating those of opposing views. But it’s nothing but a cop-out, and deep down I think you realize this, Bob – though you also probably realize it’s a way of scoring a cheap and hollow “victory” with the uneducated and gullible folks who buy into and push the same mysticism that you do.

But let me say that I think Gavin has been more than fair as moderator of this site.

Gavin occasionally does not publish all of the posts I send into AW – either that, or they somehow disappear out into the alphabet heaven of the Internet network. All I know is I send them in, and some don’t appear on AW. But since Gavin is the originator and webmaster of this site, I humbly submit to his power of censorship, seeing it as his perfect right and responsibility.

However, I am concerned sometimes how people tend to want to provide shelter to the deeply religious, powerfully irrational, and shockingly Stone Age in worldview and conviction. Obviously, I don’t condemn all religious sentiment, as I think it only fair and wise to distinguish between the various gradations of bad ideas. Some, for example, plainly have little or no consequences at all. But some pose dire threat, putting civilization itself in great peril. And when it comes to religious dogmatism, we often have a hard time predicting how terrible its costs could eventually become.

Kiwi and Byker Bob, Well, this subject seems a bi...

2009-10-01T05:00:13.887+13:00

Kiwi and Byker Bob,

Well, this subject seems a bit off-topic to me, which I find especially odd coming from Kiwi, who just recently complained to Gavin about MY comments being off-topic, but here’s a few of my thoughts and sentiments, for what they’re worth.

Look, I must tell you both that my actual motives are definitely NOT what you tend to accuse them of being. Honestly, I am neither trying to “bait” you (as Larry recently accused me of) nor ridicule you guys personally. In fact, it frustrates me greatly when the True Believers are constantly drifting off-topic and onto religious sloganeering, which is essentially the bedrock of Christian apologetics these days, and the only way they have to “answer” the many questions and challenges I bring up. If this hasn’t been made crystal clear for all other bloggers to see the past several months, then I don’t know what has.

But my goal in posting here on AW is the very same one I have in my reading and studies, which is, first and foremost, to increase, expand and deepen my understanding of objective reality, and to accept relevant correction when required, to the end that my perspectives may be ever more accurate and in line with the way things ACTUALLY are, rather than how I may WISH them to be.

And if you fellows can’t believe me when I say this, then I really don’t know what more can be said. In spite of all my many personal faults and shortcomings, I am a genuine person who believes in being up-front and transparent in discussion. I know, that's very politically INcorrect these days, but that’s the way I am and most likely always will be.

Byker Bob wrote:
“We did have a number of regular posters here who have simply stopped participating, and it has left this blog a little lopsided.”

Bob, I have many others things I can do with my time other than to blog here, so if Gavin and others would prefer me to bow out, I will do so - and with no hard feelings at all. From my perspective it’s been intellectually stimulating – in spite of the fact that I’ve found the supernaturalists willing to resort to virtually anything they can in order to AVOID having to engage in meaningful dialog with those of opposing viewpoints.

But I think one of my primary points in blogging on AW has been made in spades, thanks mainly to you and Larry and Mr. Anonymous, and that is that True Believers can shout out at the top of their lungs all the hazy assertions they want to with respect to their supernatural religious beliefs, but in no way can they logically demonstrate them, explain them in detail or with any degree of clarity or intelligibility, nor provide open-minded readers solid reasons as to why they should accept such claims as being true in objective reality.

I mean, Byker Bob, most of your posts are text-book examples of Stone Age circular reasoning, question begging, etc., and yet I truly don’t think you even recognize it. And again, let me emphasize that my comments are not intended as “petty shots” against you on a personal level, but rather to point out the typical non-reasoning of supernatural fundamentalists. You and I, because of our shared background with the WCG, could probably enjoy a good beer together if we ever were to meet up with each other in person someday. And I truly believe that.

"There really are so many forums where one ca...

2009-10-01T03:22:49.667+13:00

"There really are so many forums where one can participate in a good encouraging Bible Study without heckling..."

Heckling? Is that how you view the calling into question your claim of a omnipotent supernatural being?

Well, mulling it over now I find this worldview attractive. If someone criticizes my research data at a seminar, or in a scientific journal, I can simply blow off any responsibility of defending my claim by labeling any questions as heckling.

Thanks!

The Apostate Paul

BB, why not just give Leonardo the link to the Bib...

2009-09-30T21:32:40.097+13:00

BB, why not just give Leonardo the link to the Bible discussion and let him decide if he's interested?
Personally, I find it an all-so-predictable back and forth(that ranges from armstrongist "Christian" and more mainstream "Christian" perspectives), and rather dull.
But, who knows? It just struck me as rather elitist for you to say, "I'm thinking of inviting you"- that kind of verbiage makes me cringe.
Heck, it's open for anybody to read.

If "Dr" Hooey recanted almost everything...

2009-09-30T19:07:14.144+13:00

If "Dr" Hooey recanted almost everything he taught, he must have felt like a real jackass in the great 1990's Herbie meltdown.

How about this for a booklet:
"The Crucifixion was not on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday!"

Byker Bob said... "Please prove to me that Go...

2009-09-30T17:26:27.432+13:00

Byker Bob said...
"Please prove to me that God does not exist. But, remember, in so doing, that the only acceptable proofs which you may present must come directly from the Bible!".

Please, Bob, you know that the one who makes a positive claim has the burden of proof. You are the one making the positive claim that a God exists, it is up you to prove it.

Since you know this, why are you making the above challenge? Not a rhetorical question, I want an answer this time.

My view: I do not believe that Leonardo or anyone...

2009-09-30T15:23:33.190+13:00

My view: I do not believe that Leonardo or anyone else should be able to do the blogger equivalent of shouting someone down at a town meeting. It's just crude. I admire passion as long as it is delivered with courtesy. On the other hand, a blog is like a marketplace. If you don't want to read someone's posts, you don't have to.

An Addendum: Homer wrote about the Trojan War extensively in the Illiad. He refers to the Trojans as Dardanians repeatedly. He knew something of their history and ethnic origin. Yet he never once mentions that they were descended from the Tribes of Israel. Considering how unusual it would be for an Israelite enclave to exist among the Gentile descendants of Javan, wouldn't Homer have made at least one reference to this highly atypical situation?

The Bear

The kind of sleight of hand used to develop a &quo...

2009-09-30T11:41:51.120+13:00

The kind of sleight of hand used to develop a "historical" foundation for believing that Germany is Assyria is found throughout Armstrongist writing.

A good example is the identification of Darda in the genealogy of Judah in the Old Testament with the Dardanos from whom the Trojans are purpoted to descend.

Herman Hoeh wrote of this person in the Compendium:

"Dardanus, whom Josephus declares to be Darda or Dara (See II Chronicles 2:6"

Josephus did not "declare" an identification between the Trojan Dardanos and the Jewish Dara. All Josephus did was use a Greek name for Dara. There is no implicit declaration of identity implied.

Raymond McNair wrote, citing a Bible dictionary:

"Flavius Josephus equates Darda with the Greek Dardanos:"

Much more can be read into the term "equate" that the dictionary intended. It only intended to equate the names and not the personages. But the word "equate" fits nicely into the whole theory.

There is a large amount of evidence from classical history that defines the Trojan Dardanos as a descendent of Dodanim the son of Javan. This evidence is not dealt with by either Hoeh or McNair. The Irish and British genealogies show Dardanos as a descendent of Javan.

It make sense that Trojans, living in a mediterranean city located near Greece, would have a common ancestry with the Greeks, through Javan.

A Rabbi I have corresponded with notes that some of the descendants of Javan joined with the Celts of Britain after the fall of Troy.

So neither Josephus nor the Bible dictionary involved "declared" the Trojan Dardanos to be the same person as the Jewish Dara. Equating the persons involved is just a spin placed on the text by Hoeh and McNair.

The other history about the Trojans and their lineage being spread throughout the royal houses of Europe may well be true. But it is a Gentile lineage.

But people who are carried away with conspiracy theories do no yield to historical research. I remember long ago the John Birchers ranting ad infinitum on the radio about how floridation of water was a grand conspiracy to destroy the United States. My guess is that none of them ever recanted - they just went on to other conspiracies.

The Bear

Since this came up here... DNA proves Hitler's...

2009-09-30T11:21:04.993+13:00

Since this came up here...
DNA proves Hitler's Skull is from a woman!

Does this make HWA's teachings correct? Nope.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.