Genesis 2:21-25: Woman From Rib and Mother Goddesses of Near Eastern Myths


This Article shows that in the second creation story in genesis the concept of woman made from bone, earth and antler pre-existed the writing of Genesis, spanned cultures and geographical boundaries and that Eve shares aspects of Goddesses in Ancient Near Eastern Mythology.

* This article and its predecessors in the series listed below are a collection of notes put together from sources that are represented by quick reference links to similar web pages to make it easy to get more information as quickly as possible. The original sources are listed at the end.

A LIST OF PREMISES AS ARTICLES REFUTING GENESIS 1-11 AND ROMANS 5 SO FAR
P1. The Interconnectedness of The Ancients - Demonstrates the robust ancient civilizations at the time and that Canaan, Israel and Judah were central to them. Discusses trade routes, seafaring, the link between whales and the Leviathans of Mythology and how long it would take to get from one civilization to another by sea.
P2. Genesis 1:1-25 Is An Amalgam of Near Eastern Creation Myths. Demonstrates the prior existence of key elements of the story of the creation of the Universe that appears in Genesis.
P3. Genesis 1:26-1:27, Creation of Humans in Near Eastern Myths And The Paleolithic Era. Demonstrates that the physical evidence contradicts the story of the making of the first humans in Genesis.
P4. GENESIS 1:28-2:4a, Be Fruitful And Multiply, Founder Effect and Genetic Diversity. This Article shows that even if the physical evidence didn't refute the special creation of the first humans, Adam and Eve, in Genesis 1:27, the problem of Genetic Diversity known as the "Founder Effect" would eventually lead to crippling genetic mutations or extinction.
P5.Genesis 2:4b-20 Man Made From Earth Is Folklore, Conflated River Elements and the Myth of Adapa. This Article shows that the concept of man made from earth spans cultures and geographical boundaries, the rivers are confused between geographical areas and has many elements from pre-existing Near Eastern Myths such as "The Myth of Adapa.
P6.Genesis 2:21-25: Woman From Rib and Mother Goddesses of Near Eastern Myths. This Article shows that in the second creation story in genesis the concept of woman made from bone, earth and antler pre-existed the writing of Genesis, spanned cultures and geographical boundaries and that Eve shares aspects of Goddesses in Ancient Near Eastern Mythology.

The criteria for Folklore as described in Alan Dundees book "Holy Writ as Oral Lit" are "multiple existence and variation" of a story.

In Genesis, there are two versions of the creation of Man and Woman. In the first story, the man and woman are created together, but in the second story, the male is created first, with the female made later from his rib.

Making women out of bone and other materials was common in prehistoric times. They are called "Venus Figurines"(1). The theory is that they were used in the practice of sympathetic magic(2) to influence the fertility of the earth.

Sympathetic magic is the practice of trying to influence outcomes using objects or techniques that have only an apparent similarity in appearance or relationship and is not based on any causal link at all. Examples of this can be seen throughout history with the possible inclusion of cave paintings as far back as 32,000 years ago, to belief that behavior of groups or individuals influence nature, to (though not exclusive to) pre-game rituals of modern day athletes. At its core it is a common fallacious reasoning scheme known as "confusion of correlation and cause". One relevant example of sympathetic magic is the Venus Figurine.

Venus Figurines are representation of women with large breasts and bottoms carved in bone, antler, stone or molded of clay(3). Coincidentally, tools in the prehistoric era were made of bone, antler and stone(4). Both were used to help bring about successful outcomes. Examples of them are on display in various museums around the world, but the earliest reside at The Hermitage Museum(3) in Russia.

Theoretically, over time, the concept behind the Venus Figurine came to represent a Mother Goddess(5), which later became represented in various near eastern mythologies as can be seen by the Ashera in the Bible. Similarly, the concept of a God fashioning a woman from bone or some other material has parallels in the East.

Humans originated in sub-sahara Africa(6). They migrated out and began to compensate for their environment and situations. This led to the making of tools, higher order organization, planning, development of agriculture and the establishments of settlements that developed into cities, populated regions and civilizations. The Near East was at the center of trade and conflict between established and robust civilizations all within 1000 miles or about two months march of each other. Egypt and Sumeria developed more or less simultaneously fighting and trading all the while. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle credit Egyptian thought as the foundation of Ancient Greek thought, so even the all-mighty ancient Greeks didn't live in a bubble and it explains their love for the culture.


GENESIS 2:21- 22

21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.

22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.


WOMAN FROM RIB FOLKLORE
The following is a list of cultures where there exists a parallel story of woman being made from bone or some other material and is compiled from Sir James G. Frazer's book "Folklore In The Old Testament".

Origins of the people are ~60,000 BC or earlier
* Karens of Burma, pg 10.
* Bedel Tartars of Siberia,pg 11.

Origins of the people are ~18,000 BC or earlier
* Diegueno Indias Kawakipais, south-western California, pg 25.

The following list represent examples where Frazer believes that cultures have been influenced by Christian missionaries because of the similarity of the word for woman and rib, and some cases where the tribes trace their ancestry to Adam. The influence of missionaries does not necessarily mean that the whole concept of woman being made from a rib came from them but it is sufficient to add details to an existing myth.

* Tahiti - Taaroa the god, pg 9.
* Fakaofo Bowditch Island - Man made from stone, pg 10.
* Ghaikos Karens, trace their genealogy to Adam, pg 11.


GENESIS 23 - 25

23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,
for she was taken out of man."

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

For the following discussion I used Tim Callahan's Secret Origins of the Bible(8) pages 40 - 49 as a quick reference because it is a convenient "Handbook" collection of relevant information that I've found in other reference material and in lecture courses. This book has hundreds of references listed and I highly recommend it for anyone attempting a serious study of the origin of the bible.

RATIONALE FOR MAKING EVE COME FROM ADAMS RIB
- In Gen 3:20 Eve given the name "Mother of All Living". This is the concept of the mother goddess.
- Like the bible states that the Jews were trying to get rid of the Ashera, the story of Eve serves as a demotion of the Mother God, and a conflation of concepts and ideas circulating at the time.

SYMBOLISM OF EVE
- Reducing the Mother Goddess
- She was derived from Adam, therefore reduced in status, she was supposed to help him.
- From his side, she was equal to him, or supposed to be his partner

LINGUISTIC
- The fact that ancient languages omitted the vowels creates a potential for creativity and relationships between concepts. In Hebrew, the reference to the first woman was written as HWH. HWH when pronounced is similar to Hebe, the greek goddess of youth, guardian of the cups and fruits of immortality. The sound and the ideas are similar to the Hurrian Goddess Hiba, Hebat, Hebatu, Hepatu and Khepat. The Hurrians were referred to in the Bible as the Horats, Hivites and Hittites (even though they preceded the Hittites). She was the consort of the Storm God Teshub. Teshub, like Yahweh and Zeus was associated with Bulls.

EVES DIVINE ORIGIN, PARALLELS BETWEEN GODESSES
- In Sumeria and Babylonia Ashratum wife of Anu
- In West Semitic Ahserah wife of El
- The iconography (ancient picture representations) are essentially the same.
- El had a consort and when Yahweh succeeded him in folklore he kept Asherah as a consort. Subsequently the Hebrews tried to get rid of the Ashera from the pre-exile Jerusalem temple.
- Mother of all living associated with Hebat, Ashtart and/or Asherah
- in the Enuma Elish the goddess Ninti is created to heal the rib of Enki who has violated a taboo on eating forbidden herbs and has been punished. Nin-ti means "Lady of the Rib". In some variations of the story, Nin-ti is created from Enki's rib.

From Wikipedia
Cuneiform TI or TÌL (Borger 2003 nr.) has the main meaning of "life" when used ideographically.

With the determinative UZU "flesh, meat", UZUTI, it means "rib". This homophony is exploited in the myth of Ninti ( NIN.TI "lady of life" or "lady of the rib"), created by Ninhursag to cure the ailing Enki. Since Eve is called "mother of life" in Genesis, together with her being taken from Adam's "tsela"` (side, rib), the story of Adam and Eve has been taken to derive from that of Ninti.

In Akkadian orthography, the sign has the syllabic values di or ṭi, in Hittite ti, di or te.


Continuing From Callahan
- Athena breathed life into the clay men created by Prometheus, and she popped out of the Head of Zeus when he was in pain with a headache.
- In the creation myths in Atrahasis and Enuma Elish their respecitve Mother Godesses mold primordial beings (called the Lullu) out of clay under the supervision of a male deity. This is more relevant compared to Gen. 4:1b, Eve says "I have gotten a manchild with the help of the lord". This verse is evidently abmiguous and could be translated as "I, as well as God have created a man" or "I have gotten a man by the lord" meaning the lord was the father of Cain instead of Adam.
- In Gilgamesh, Aruru (a female deity) makes Enkidu out of clay to defeat Gilgamesh.
- A female Deity has sex with Enkidu to help him become more civilized, to help make him more like a civilized adult man.

---------------------------------------
Quick References

1. Venus Figurines
2. Sympathetic Magic
3. The Hermitage Museum
4. Prehistoric Bone Tools
5. Mother Goddess
6. The Genographic Project
7. Folklore in the Old Testament, Vol. 1 Online
8. Secret Origins of The Bible, Tim Callahan

----------------------------------------
Other Quick References
1. Creation Myths
2. Enuma Elish Text online
3. Prometheus
4. The Myth of Adapa

----------------------------------------
Further Study

ORIGINS OF YAHWEH
* Early History of God, Mark Smith

VENUS FIGURINES
* Archeology.about.com
* Magdalenian excavation
* Minnesota State University E-Museum

SYMPATHETIC MAGIC
* Anthropology of Religion

NEAR EASTERN MYTHS
* Sumerian Myths, Grand Valley State University

-----------------------------------------
SOURCES
1. Human Prehistory and First Civilizations, The Teaching Company
2. Religion in the Ancient Mediterranean World, The Teaching Company
3. The Book of Genesis, The Teaching Company
4. Great Figures of the Old Testament, The Teaching Company, (Discontinued)
5. Alan Dundees Holy writ as oral lit
6. Folklore in the Old Testament, Vol. 1 Online, Sir James G. Frazer
7. Ancient Near East Mythology, The Teaching Company, (Discontinued)
8. Classical Mythology, The Teaching Company
9. Great Battles of the Ancient World, The Teaching Company
10. Great World Religions: Judaism (2nd Ed.), The Teaching Company
11. Introduction to Judaism, The Teaching Company
12. History of Ancient Egypt, The Teaching Company
13. Between the Rivers: The History of Ancient Mesopotamia, The Teaching Company
14. Great Ancient Civilzations of Asia Minor, The Teaching Company

192 comments:

Evan said...

Lee, the hits just keep coming in this series. Let's see what Harvey and the others can come up for this one.

Lee Randolph said...

Thanks, glad you liked it.
This series is a helluva lotta work.
A labor of love.

Dan said...

Lee, when I read your post I straight away thought of the following articles. I wondered what you would make of them. Its basically what I concluded, although rather more less succint than Dickson presentation, from taking a course that dealt with Genesis.

http://publicchristianity.org/genespurpose1.html

http://publicchristianity.org/genesgenre1.html

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Dan,
thanks for the links, I glanced at them, and will go over them in the next days.

please don't expect anything scholarly from me, I'm just a guy with a day job and do this as a hobby. ;-)

Ty said...

I just started reading the articles provided by Dan, but my two-year-old is demanded attending. The articile starts off saying just was you did Lee, that it looks on the surface like plagarism. However, it then attempts to persuade the reader that Genesis is not plagarism of this earlier story. The first defense is that the God of Genesis is clearly monothesitic. Hmmm, with out doing a Biblical analysis, then how to they deal with the "US" portions. Let "us" create man in "our" image?

I'll read the rest later, but this is fascinating none the lass.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Dan,
comment on the genesis genre link.
It doesn't make a difference one way or the other to me how it gets interpreted.

The text says "RIGHTLY INTERPRETED".
What does that mean? Who interprets RIGHTLY? Me? You? the pope? Fallwell? you get my point.

and then any truth must have facts related to it or its not truth is it? So in the symbolic and metaphoric interpretation, where do the facts come in? And if the 'facts' are self-evident, then what characteristic of them qualifies them to be divine and what characteristics set them apart from competing scriptures?

I'm all for interpreting the bible as "historical fiction with profound insight" with "insight" being in the eye of the beholder, but to say it represents information from THE CHRISTIAN GOD isn't warranted in that scenario or a more restrictive interpretation either that its "Holy Metaphor", (pun intended) that informs about a real living god.

in a nutshell,
(w)Holy Metaphor, fine, but where do to facts come in? Lets verify them!

I'll critique the other one later.

Evan said...

Dan I read the first bit of the articles you posted but I have to admit they exhibit EXTREME dishonesty when they blithely translate Elohim as "God", without even mentioning any other possible translation.

It is just as proper (if not more so) to translate Elohim as "Gods". Of course this would prove their entire case false in a single swoop, so they don't mention it prominently.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

So what this proves is that God is global and traces of His existance can be found throughout the history of mankind - thanks for affirming the gospel. Even though mankind has a difficult time loving even his enemy, God's grace and forgiveness is for the ancients who corrupted the meaning of love as well as for us and for future generations. Also thanks for debunking the outsider test and for challenging religious pride.

Lee Randolph said...

MMM,
if you keep talking that way you are going to be doomed to repeat life until you start living properly Vedic.

goprairie said...

interesting and fits with my theory that christianity as all other religions started with stories to explain why things are they way they are. in some cases, i am sure it was someone thinking they knew the answer and telling it as truth and in others, it was someones way of saying we have absolutely no idea and might never, but it could have happened this way, or here is a fun story made up about the concept - and that happened all over in many places and at many times - and some got to be beleived more than others and the ones that held huge promises - everlsting life with dead loved ones - and terrible consequences - hell - for not beleiving became 'religions' -
But all a true 'beleiver' is going to say is that these similar myths 'prove' genisis is true. they will say that it really did happen that way and some people remembered part of the story but left the true god out or that they started out knowing the true story and the true god but sent astray so are not christians as a result. they do it with noah and the ark all the time, say that the creation stories involving water harken back to people talking about the flood and that it is 'proof' the flood happened -
if adam and eve are how it all started, then all those other 'myths' got made up AFTER adam and eve, so adam and eve are the SOURCE of those stories, they will say. so it is interesting, but not any progress in 'debunking' - but thanks for the information. I, too, am enjoying the series a great deal.

Lee Randolph said...

goprairie,
I'm glad you are enjoying them.

it is a hypothesis test. one of these days I'll do the matrix, probably at the end. if you have a copy of the 'the thinkers toolkit" you'll see what I mean.

they say adam and eve are true, I say they aren't. I'm putting up evidence to show they aren't, and I'm waiting for someone to point out where adam and eve fit into history.

so far no one is even close. all I see from them is sophistry and stinky piles of rhetoric.

people like mmm are never going to give up the ghost because they have too much invested. I"m not interested in them. I'm looking for fence-sitters and the casual believers. They are my target audience.

I know I can't solve the whole problem, but I can solve part of it. At least thats what George Polya says, and it works for me in real life.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi Lee!

I think God can be trusted with loving Hindus. I just don't understand how a religion that promotes territorialism and human heirarchy can be very freeing, do you? Nonetheless, I suspect there are those who are raised amidst religious caste systems who hate that lifestyle and work to set people free from them. Those are the ones who will recognize Jesus when they see Him.

Then you wrote, "people like mmm are never going to give up the ghost because they have too much invested". If it were by my own investment that I came to know and love God, then that would be idolotry and yes, before I travelled into atheism, I did see god as an idol. But nonetheless, I'm glad to see that you understand that I do love God and no, I'm not going to go back to my life of compulsion again. I am bound to a free spirit.

Thanks!
3M

Jeff said...

Lee, first I would like to say "Good job!" on this series, I certainly appreciate the time and effort you put into this. It is very informative.

This series will be especially hard for those people that don't particularly like to think for themselves.

zilch said...

Glory Gee to Beezus, Lee! You are indefatigable! Is DC your day job?

goprairie said...

mmm: "I just don't understand how a religion that promotes territorialism and human heirarchy can be very freeing, do you?"
Yes, I really hate how christianity sets itself up as better than everyone else with that 'chosen people' stuff and the saved/notsaved categories and all the judgementalism - they see themselves as superior to every other religion and especially to the nonreligious and label themselves good and their stuff good and everyone else evil and their stuff evil. that sort of thing, the hierarchy and territorialism of christianity turned me off even as a young child before i even knew such a thing as an atheist existed. i feel much more free since i declared myself free of trying to make christianity and all its contradictions and illogic make sense. i feel free to enjoy nature and study it without trying to fit god into the picture somehow. i feel free to enjoy people without having to worry if they are one of 'us' or not.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Goprairie,
I'll respond to 3m later, but I want to point out that 3m, like hinman, and many others that comment here get stuck in this "black or white" thinking. Its either good or bad. They can't live with uncertainty. Gray is no good, but for the rest of us, we get along fine in gray. They need to frame everything one way or the other or have it framed for them. They just can't seem to accept things for what they are.

Historically, they have to rally around a common enemy. Studying history, it is so clear that people could not deal with uncertainty, they made up rituals using pascals wager thinking that to manage uncertainty, something is better than nothing, couting the hits rather than the misses, they started thinking that 'priests' had the angle, the priests hid thier gods in temples with exclusive access, and the people just crowded around, uniting against this common enemy, trying to hedge thier bets giving junk to the priests to petition on thier behalf.
Civilization was born out of a scam.

it is so clear to me now after trying to figure it out since 2001.

People stink at reasoning. It takes discipline but thats too much like work. so they just keep using these built-in fallacious reasoning schemes, and hoping for the best, praying for the best instead of trying take control of their lives and figuring out how to increase their likelihood of successful outcomes.

in my opinion, we should all become preachers. Theres plenty of 'marks' out there ripe for the taking.

I think that god can be replaced by game theory and the world would be a better place

I'll get off my soap box now.......

Lee Randolph said...

Hi zilch,
no I just like puzzles and the persistence of religion is the best puzzle I know.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi Lee -

You said, "I'll respond to 3m later, but I want to point out that 3m, like hinman, and many others that comment here get stuck in this "black or white" thinking. Its either good or bad."

That is really an interesting interpretation, but I'm accustomed to people applying their own ideology and construing misunderstandings. In fact, if you have followed my writings, you may have noticed that I am a proponent of grace which comes from a base of secure love and allows for travel through all sorts of what you are calling gray areas (I view gray areas as the fullness of life BTW). God allows grace for what you refer to as grayness - in fact without grace people do tend to react with only two choices - fight or flight wen confronted with provocation. The conviction that I do have is that God loves without ulterior motive and without pride or arrogance. And He did do something called Easter to show that He isn't up to anything suspicious - He just wants to invite us to dinner - so sue Him....
It's not a crime to be a fallible human being, but people get infected with condemnation and punishment and some are unwilling to relinquish that - they prefer to express that in relationship with one another.

At any rate, I enjoy the company of people who practice atheism (although I have my own limitations on my ability to express love sometimes), but God loves them purely. It's just that they don't love Him in return.

3M

J.L. Hinman said...

the authors of Genesis were using pagan myth to stand it on its head. It never says "this is a scientific account and it is 100% accurate." not it's not supposed to be. It's supposed to be mythology. That's the Hebrew answer to pagan mythology. they were Babylon when they wrote it.

goprairie said...

'this "black or white" thinking. Its either good or bad' - i just had an argument with a moderate christian friend who made the statement that the 10 commandments were good 'starting point' for law - well, just take "don't kill" and see how perfect it is - exceptions abound - for whom and how much? if there were a perfect law, it would probably state that the choice that saved the most lives is the best one, yet we clearly are so programmed to instintively save family first then tribe then others of our species then other species - a clear instinctive heirarchy - that in those puzzles where you have to chose between your kid and a train load of people, you would choose your kid and they would see nothing wrong iwth that, yet it could be seem as the least moral choice. my argument on the 10 commandments was that law needed to be a living process with people to decide of your killing in self defense was needed and 'right' and that a pure "don't kill" would make it not be ever. so a god would KNOW that a legal system had to be alive and involve active deciding and would not attempt to give a perfect written stand-alone law and if he was going to try, the 10 would certainly not be it. while you are on these myths, what other myths are there about being given law? given rules?

John W. Loftus said...

Joe said, It's supposed to be mythology. That's the Hebrew answer to pagan mythology.

Of course it is. We agree here. Why can't we camp out on our agreements?

But then the next question is why should I believe one myth over another?

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi GoPrairie - Jesus demonstrated that what God meant by being "chosen" was a life of servanthood and relinquishing heirarchal pursuits and our own superiority over one another - especially conceit. I don't like being judged unfairly either nor being condemned, but I don't want to cooperate with that system by condemning the condemners - they are doing that job themselves. Although it's hurtful, I respect that God loves them as well and that they are invited just like me, to quit cooperating with hellish practices to embrace another Way.

Lvka said...

Uhm, ... are ALL the occurences of the phrase "this or that culture believed women to have been taken from bone or earth" equivalent to "these cultures had women-figurines made from clay or bone"? Because, if they are so, then they are pseudo-scientifical.

For instance, the Latin homo [man] comes from the Latin humus [clay]; just like the Jewsih adam [men] comes from the Jewish adamah [soil]. And the reason for that is rooted universal realities:
-- in observing how a body decomposes after death and enters into the earth or soil by decay;
-- in the practice of burrying the dead; and
-- in the fact that humans are obviously earth-lings.

I'm not sure if what You've presented here specifically regarding "myths of woman being made from earth or bone" is all that accurate. Could You please kindly elucidate this for me and present some clearer and more explicit examples, or explicate more on the ones that You've already provided? Thank You.

Lee Randolph said...

Lvka,
And the reason for that is rooted universal realities:
-- in observing how a body decomposes after death and enters into the earth or soil by decay;
-- in the practice of burrying the dead; and
-- in the fact that humans are obviously earth-lings.

or maybe since we all came out of africa and all started speaking about the same time, when the foxp2 gene came into play, they started communicating some myth of making people from clay or earth because of the similarity to the skin color, or the similarity to how things 'magically' grow from the ground or etc.

I am skeptical that your average homosapien practicing the first iteration of language knew anything about being an "earth-ling".

and what is it exactly you don't get? Its pretty clear to me, that these stories incorporated their technology, the way ours do today.

Lee Randolph said...

hi 3m,
I just don't understand how a religion that promotes territorialism and human heirarchy can be very freeing, do you? Nonetheless, I suspect there are those who are raised amidst religious caste systems who hate that lifestyle and work to set people free from them.
you don't understand therefore it must be false?
It is a belief system just like yours rooted in scripture more ancient than yours. What characteristics of your scripture guarantee its veracity over Hindu scripture? It doesn't matter what you think, only what god thinks, isn't that how it goes? who are you to judge god? right? its pure human arrogance to say whats wrong about scripture right? who are you to judge hindu scripture?

From my perspective Hindu scripture was first, is still here and in my mind they have bragging rights if anyone does. Judaism and christianity shoot themselves in the foot with the old "false prophet" dogma, because they qualify as "false prophets" in the history of religion.

Thats why I use Hindu as a platform to argue against christianity.

Lee Randolph said...

Joe,
It's supposed to be mythology.
so where do the facts come into play? show me the facts. Lets verify them.

Lee Randolph said...

3m,
The conviction that I do have is that God loves without ulterior motive and without pride or arrogance.
yea, yea, yea,
show me the facts.
Its audit time for the bible.
The quality assurance team has arrived.

Lvka said...

Lee Randolph,

I am a very meticulous and curious man. And I'm neither affraid nor ashamed to ask for help and clarifications when I find myself personally put in the objective impossibility of pursuing the issues all by myself. In this case, external help is very much needed and appreciated. Thanks.

I also have an extreme tendency to shy away from common-origins-type hypotheses when the reality or realities that are surrounding certain things are ubiquitous. It's a rather very obvious fallacy.

And since people neither fly nor swim all day long underwater like fishes, but are walking on the earth, I don't see Your point. We're land-creatures, and have an understanding of ourselves as such.

In either case, the decay and decomposition of the body into the ground or soil (its "integration" into the earth) are universal constants, and there's no point in crying "wolf" where there are none present. (That's why we usually burry the dead; that's from where we got the ideea of being made from earth: because we "return" to it: and this ideea is as old and as universal as death itself and as mankind itself).

Lee Randolph said...

and for the record, this idea that mythology and such is evidence that god came first and was misunderstood has no precedent anywhere else. It is a case of special pleading.

If I re-write "the davinci code", change the names and such, I'm still going to lose to Dan Brown in Court no matter how much I plead that the idea was there all along, we got it from the same place but mine is better.

it can be shown that ideas build on one another, this is how humans have historically derived technology, or stories. To say that the story of adam and eve was corrupted for tens of thousands of years and only rediscovered after abraham, violates this principle. And then theres this nagging problem of how did they come about finding the truth, and where are the facts.

Lee Randolph said...

okay then lvka,
How do you account for the venus figurines and their conceptual inclusion in genesis? Instead of typing a bunch of junk, why don't you go point by point refuting my article?

Its pretty simple,
* making tools from bone, clay, stone
* people try to influence chance
* wishful thinking
* symapthetic magic, "maybe if we do this...."
* ritual,
* coincidence occurs
* reinforce wishful thinking, "we gotta do that again"
* earth bears food,
* women bear children
* make figurine representing the correlation between women and earth, use it with wishful thinking (sympathetic magic) to try to influence chance
* Imagine little figurine growing, coming to life
* stories are told, written
* documented errors in reasoning compound to reinforce a belief system
yada, yada, yada,

These are not great intellectual leaps, in fact if you watch your children play you can see some of this in action.

and
And since people neither fly nor swim all day long underwater like fishes, but are walking on the earth, I don't see Your point.
what the hell does that mean? I think I know what you mean but I just want to see you articulate it.

goprairie said...

"Jesus demonstrated that what God meant by being "chosen" was a life of servanthood and relinquishing heirarchal pursuits and our own superiority over one another - especially conceit." so that is the definition of 'chosen people'? you really do make this up as you go along, don't you?

sconnor said...

3M,

With all this talk of god loving us -- can you please explain how, exactly, does god love us? Can you also, explain how you are privy to this information, while myself and others are not? And is it possible you can tell us how god loves us, without referring to the bible?

--S.

Lvka said...

Lee Randolph,

I am here neither to refute, nor to support, things about which I truly possess no knowledge what-so-ever. I (already) said (twice) what I meant; and I meant what I said. Any further clarifications are welcomed and desired, especially on these interesting affirmations:

The following is a list of cultures where there exists a parallel story of woman being made from bone or some other material:

Origins of the people are ~60,000 BC or earlier
* Karens of Burma, pg 10.
* Bedel Tartars of Siberia,pg 11.

Origins of the people are ~18,000 BC or earlier
* Diegueno Indias Kawakipais, south-western California, pg 25.

* Tahiti - Taaroa the god, pg 9.
* Fakaofo Bowditch Island - Man made from stone, pg 10.
* Ghaikos Karens, trace their genealogy to Adam, pg 11.


I honestly doubt that the "Ghaikos Karens" [which aren't obviously Semites] can trace their genealogy back to "Adam" (a specifically Semite word; I honestly doubt ANY Semitic roots in these islanders that are probably from the Pacific)

I also sincerely doubt ANY links of Semites with ... Tatars; ... OR of Semites with ... Canadian Indians ... OR of the Tatars with Canadian Indians. (I'm sorry). That's surely looks like pseudo-science. :-( Africans-Asians are one group; Indo-Europeans another group; and Finno-Ugric populations [such as Tatars] yet another one: there's no super-culture or super-language or super-civilisation to embrace them all. So these claims seem -at a first superficial glance, at least- to be awfully strange and suspicious. :-\ This uneasy feeling is also further reinforced by other hard-to-believe things presented in this relatively short essay:

1) UZU-TI = live flesh; NIN-TI = living lady; I don't understand how one arives at rib-lady [UZU-NIN or UZU-TI-NIN]. (It's a blatant non-sequitur). If "blue blood" means "blue blood", then it also follows that "blue saphire" means "'blood'-saphire" !?? :-\

2) The Greek word "hebe" is *completely unrelated* to the Semitical word 'havvah or hayyah', (or any other Semitic [or African or Finno-Ugric] words, for that matter). That's simply pseudo-science. Greek is Indo-European and it has nothing in common with any Semitic culture or language or civilisation. (Pretty much for the same reason that the Greek dikaios [righeous] is unrelated to the African dik-dik [antilope] or to the English dick [penis]). I'm sorry! BUT the Greek dikaios *IS* related to the English 'teacher'; Greek didaskalos [teacher], Latin doceo [to teach], Gypsy 'dik!' [look!], etc. (This *IS* science!).

Lee Randolph said...

Lvka,
I don't think they can trace themselves back to adam either. neither does frazer. sorry you didn't get that from the article.

don't like the linguistics? okay, I have to bow to the experts, so lets cross that datum off the list for arguments sake and see what we have left.

quite a lot.

Lvka said...

Lee Randolph,

all I want is to know, (if You'ld be so kind to help me out here), whether there are any actual peoples here (still surviving, or extinct) that believed, or still believe, that woman was taken from man: that's all I ever asked for.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Lvka,
yes i know there are still some people standing today, even where I work, that still beeive that eve was made from adams rib.

does that answer your question?

Lee Randolph said...

even if 29% of the 30% (figures off the top of my head) of christians in the world don't believe the story of eves origin is true, then how much of the rest of the story is true?

show me the facts.
lets lay them out and check them off or cross them off. Lets verify them.

Lvka said...

does that answer your question?

No. Was that even a real question, or did You have to have a certain word-count in order to post the comment? :-\ And thanks for nothin'

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

I don't know if my last comment made it through Blogger do so I'll try and recreate it

Hi Lee, GP and Sconner,

So, Lee, are you in favor of caste systems? Now I think castes are a natural expression of our territorial mindsets, but I don't think a religious system that promotes what is natural is exactly divine or super-natural.

GP, as far as servanthood being a benchmark of being one of God's chosen, that is Jesus 101 - and that can be taken literally (without spiritual or divine intervention) out of scripture. And do you really think that conceit would be a virtue of someone who is a chosen one??

As for you Sconner - love ya! (and I didn't even have to quote scripture to do that either...) Now, I wouldn't mind getting that kind of response from one of you...

Peace, flowers and love,
3M

Lee Randolph said...

Lvka,
instant replay...
Lvka:
whether there are any actual peoples here (still surviving, or extinct) that believed, or still believe, that woman was taken from man:

Lee:
yes i know there are still some people standing today, even where I work, that still believe that eve was made from adams rib.

where did I go wrong, or what don't you get?

what is your point?

Lee Randolph said...

3m,

So, Lee, are you in favor of caste systems?

how is this relevant to the article? What does it matter what I think about any given belief system? This is an attempt to derail the dialogue.

You are arrogant without realizing it. goprairie displayed your inconsistency above but you don't get it.

thats all I have to say about that.

anyone care to dissect the article? From here on out I'm ignoring anything unrelated, including responding to Lvka's apparent difficulty in understanding me when I directly answer a direct question. I think he's trying to derail the dialogue as well.

Lvka said...

figures off the top of my head

Was that figures, or figurines? :-)

what don't you get?

I don't get ... laid. (That's waht I don't get). So I have nothin' better to do with my life than to waste it on blogs like this -- not that I don't have a sense of humour, but I kinda don't like it that much when the joke is on me. :D

what is your point?

My point has reached the breaking point, and I find no more Power Point left in me to continue this pointless conversation.

You've been of tremendous help! :-)

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Lee said, "You are arrogant without realizing it."

Now how would one who has openly confessed to a checkered past (including arrogance) be unaware of it?? I'm not the one pouring my life into image maintenance here.

At any rate, as far as derailing a conversation, I'm also not the one who brought up Vedic......

As Always,
Your Pal,
3M

Lee Randolph said...

3m,
i knew you'd go there.
I brought it up to counter you, and explained why I brought it up, but you saw the opportunity to bail out of the article topic and try to show I was inconsistent because I don't really believe in the caste system.

enough of that.

Peace, love and flowers.
your pal
lee

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Dan,
just finished "purpose".
so genesis is a competing hypothesis to the pagan one.

What makes it a better hypothesis?

Jason said...

Lee,

It seems as though you're using the existence of similar stories of people being fashioned out of bone and "theoretically" linking this into the creation of mother goddesses to debunk the legitimacy of the Genesis account. Is this correct?

As I'm sure you know, from a Christian perspective, the stories you refer to all come after the creation of man, and thus the account in Genesis. I trust then you can see why your argument can't be taken seriously.

Lee Randolph said...

hi jason,
I trust then you can see why your argument can't be taken seriously.
no I don't, please spell it out for me.

John W. Loftus said...

Lee, I don't know who published Jason's comment (I wouldn't have, given his naivete), but if you want to deal with him go ahead. He's all yours in this thread only. If not, then not. But it's bound to be frustrating simply because he believes the Bible no matter what outside research tells us.

Jason, may I suggest to you that you consider the proposition "all truth is God's truth" wherever you find it? Christian apologist and philosopher Arthur Holmes wrote a book by that same title. The Bible does not contain any "higher" truth than any other truth because all truth comes from God, whether you find it inside the pages of the Bible or outside of them. The consequence of such a solid Christian truth as this means you cannot discount what you learn outside of the pages of the Bible just because they are outside those pages. Therefore, the other disciplines of learning, if true, are something the believer must reconcile with what he understands the Bible to say. If, for instance, Lee is correct, and I think he is, then this must cause you to take another look at what you think the Bible is saying. If God's truth is not to be found in the Bible alone, then when you come across these historical truths you must try to harmonize them with what you find in the Bible. You cannot dismiss them just because the Bible says otherwise.

Good luck Lee.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi John,
I probably published it without looking at it carefully. I"ve seen his comments in some of the other articles. If we are still restricting him for being disruptive I'll be more careful but either I forgot or didn't get the memo. ;-)

In this thread only, I'll let him lay his argument out there, deal with it, then when he becomes characteristically unreasonable I'll break it off.

Jason said...

Lee,

From a Christian perspective, similar stories of people being made from bone and mother goddesses were created after the creation of Adam & Eve in Genesis 1. Thus, whether or not similar stories exist, while interesting, doesn't debunk the creation account. You follow?

John W. Loftus said...

Lee, I published Jason's last comment.

Again, good luck. He believes the Bible because he believes the Bible. He thinks it contains a higher truth that trumps all other truths. According to him all truth is not God's, even if it can be shown these stories pre-date the Biblical texts, which they do, and even though historians treat prior sources as the original ones.

Go figure.

Lee Randolph said...

Jason,
from a christian perspective, is that your perspective? If so why not own up to it? are you trying to distance yourself from what you are about to say? You should.

anyway, sure humans came first, then they made the venus figurines, but unless you can show that adam and eve popped into existence the way the bible says they did, then the venus figurines came before adam and eve were thought up and the authors of the bible incorporated stories utilizing that technology into it. And It doesn't matter if the concept of woman from bone came before the figurines or not. My data predates the compilation of the bible by tens of thousands of years.

All you have is a story with nothing to back it up, no evidence whatsoever, no DNA evidence, not even a plausible theory that takes into account all the data accumulated through archeology, paleontology, anthropology, biology etc. all converging somewhere else besides adam and eve and the garden of eden. Even your own peers are insinuating that I'm silly for concentrating on a literal adam and eve. If they don't believe it why should you? Do you know something they don't? One of you are wrong.

go ahead, do it, I'm waiting for you to say that all that data is irrelevant.

Lee Randolph said...

thanks for the heads up john.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Lee said, "but you saw the opportunity to bail out of the article topic and try to show I was inconsistent because I don't really believe in the caste system."

Okay so now I'm being accused of bailing on the article topic - it's okay for you to introduce a comment but not for me to respond to it - okey doke - I understand.

At any rate, I don't believe an eternal God whose creation got hijacked and infected with a proprietary nature, is all that impressed with the amount of time it took for Him to finally get someone down here who was willing to relinquish just a small portion of that nature in order to connect with Him and begin paving the path for someone who could finally and fully convey the messianic nature and spirit of God.

Similarities in the stories of creation throughout the history of mankind only affirms to me what I already see in scripture - the story of man's desire to connect with creative divinity and God finally accomplishing it through a group of people who were willing to trust a promise of divine salvation and do the hard work of paving the path for the Christ. Jesus Himself addresses our vulnerability to surrounding influences of others and yet His plan was to bring us into a different way (those who are described as wearing white robes in the 7 letters to the 7 churces are the ones who were immune to surrounding corruptions).

These articles are no surprise to me nor do they discount the work of Jesus - they only serve to affirm it.

As far as OT stories being mythological as has been suggested, I'm not fully convinced of that. What I do see in OT stories that requires discernment, is the integration into and the projection of human nature onto God's will and law for which the savior had not yet been manifested.

Your friend in the lower caste (one of the untouchables I believe),
3M

Jason said...

Lee,

I'm a Christian so yes, that makes it my perspective. It's also a general Christian perspective considering most, if not all, Christians believe Adam & Eve were created before the Karens of Burma, the Bedel Tartars of Siberia and the Diegueno Indias Kawakipais of south-western California.

I'm not trying to convince you the Bible is correct with this, since your mind is already made up to the contrary. I'm simply explaining to you why your argument won't debunk Christianity.

Jason said...

lol Well said, 3m.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi 3m,
You're high caste to me baby!

anyway...
Similarities in the stories of creation throughout the history of mankind only affirms to me what I already see in scripture - the story of man's desire to connect with creative divinity and God finally accomplishing it through a group of people who were willing to trust a promise of divine salvation and do the hard work of paving the path for the Christ.
uh, does that go for the majority of creation stories which are not in any way similar to the bible?
You might want to re-think that.

I'm just picking stories and data from the Near East that could conceivably be sources for the stories in the bible. Theres a whole world full of stories and gods. And don't forget, two thirds of the abrahamicly derived religions don't buy into Jesus.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi jason,
so when do you and them think adam and eve popped into existence?
Lets see the data so we can verify it.

sconnor said...

3m,

3m said, As for you Sconner - love ya! (and I didn't even have to quote scripture to do that either...) Now, I wouldn't mind getting that kind of response from one of you...

That was an idiotic and evasive response and non-answer to my questions.


evidently, you can't explain how, exactly, god loves us? and you can't explain how you are privy to this information, while myself and others are not? And you can't do it without referring to the bible?

Can you answer my original questions or not?

--S.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi Lee -

Thanks much for the promotion to upper casteman - even if I were to take you up on that elevation, I in no way would cast you out Lee!

As far as ancient stories about deity that don't reflect a God who expresses Himself through His creation and desires to share it, I am not surprised by that either. God's grace extends backwards in time - there is mercy for the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah (who thought it was great to violently force themselves on others - why couldn't they believe they were loveable enough to attract a mutual partner??) just as there is mercy for those who could not yet know the fullness of God's love in other ancient civilizations. Although some people may not find heaven very appealing if the activities they grew fond of here aren't allowed in a loving domain.

And there's Sconner - "That was an idiotic and evasive response and non-answer to my questions."

I beg to differ - I felt I was responsive but you do have the right to reject it even if it is by ad-hominem means. But just to clarify here - by sharing love even for those who would relegate my expression to idiocy, I have made public the knowledge and practices of God. But, of course, you as well as others, are more than welcome to devalue and reject such. It's not uncommon to do so and it is in keeping with the nature of disbelief. I know of this stance firsthand.

BTW, you do not have to believe my word for it about God, but at the very least, I hope you can see that it is not my intention to condemn those who disbelieve.

At any rate, Godly love is not a proprietary exclusive property, but an expression of a connection with one who does not wish us to suffer from territorialism. It is somewhat painful to love people in a faithful way, but I am growing more courageous on account of I know the One Who heals such pain (thanks, God!).

Okay, enough - Lee you did do a lot of work on gathering this information and you should be commended for your thoughtfulness and thorough research. I think that you are first caste!

Take care! (you too Sconner)
3M

gap said...

Manifesting Mini Me,

You wrote: God's grace extends backwards in time

If you haven't already, will you expound on that please?

Lee Randolph said...

ooh, gap, good one.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi Gap - You asked "If you haven't already, will you expound on that please?" Thanks for asking, Gap.

As a believer, I actually trust what Jesus said about there being more mercy for the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah than the religious elite who portray an arrogant god and propagate a spiritual desert in their surroundings. In Revelation Jesus also mentions grace for another Old Testament character, Jezebel, who was infected with avarice and had elevated the practice to a murderous and slanderous level. Nonetheless, Jesus's extension of grace is consistant with His promise of resurrection. In the case of Jezebel and those who are infected with avarice, I don't think that someone who values property to the point where it supercedes the practice of justice and respect for human life must be a very happy person - at least that's not consistant with my definition of happiness and freedom. And yet there are some who hold to such ways and that can also be seen throughout the history of mankind.

At any rate, Jesus is not a coward in approaching people filled with all sorts of symptoms of death and brokenness - He isn't easily offended by us and all the ways we tend to get lost and perish nor does He condemn us. I know Him to be pretty cool and not at all reactive and rejecting like I am tempted to get sometimes.

Take care, Gap,
3M

Rotten Arsenal said...

I saw that too, gap...

I'm also curious if the time travelling grace extends to those tribes, kingdoms, and people who were wiped out violently at God's command by the Israelites. You know, those other groups of people who apparently didn't get the Adam & Eve memo and instead worshipped other gods and had other ideas about how humans came to be.
Odd that God would create people that from the start had no chance at receiving his love and grace.

Cole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jason said...

Lee,

Are we going to play 'you show me yours and I'll show you mine'? Sorry, not interested. :) As 3m said, you are to be commended for the research and work you've put into this. However, as I said before, I don't believe you've debunked anything.

Evan said...

Examples of the "coolness" of Y'shua:

"You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks."

""You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?"

"And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. Everyone will be salted with fire."

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean."

And who can forget John 2:13-16:

When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Y'shua went up to Jerusalem. 14In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"

He must have changed from back then for you to think that now he is cool as ice.

sconnor said...

3m,

What the hell are you talking about? Could you please answer the questions. The only thing you have been doing thus far is, spewing loquacious double-talk, that is meaningless, babble.

They are simple questions, 3m.

Who else here, at DC, agrees, that 3m is the reincarnated, Al Kelly -- the famous double talker from the classic Candid Camera show?

double-talk Al Kelly

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Thank you one and all for your responses - I'm not quite certain, but perhaps your comments are an expression of hostility??? nah, couldn't be.....

At any rate, there may be some hope for you yet, Evan. I'm thinking so anyway. Or is it possible that you really are now converting towards enabling and defending the very behavior that you claim to debunk here??? And BTW, those are some of the very same scriptures that I found to be enlightening. But, if one defends the practice of religious moneychanging as a virtue instead of the religious portraying a God who expresses freely, then who am I to argue - alternate systems of value exist that are contrary to faith and that's the truth.

And Cole - I doubt that God would be so boring as to make another 3M - too redundant - totally unnecessary!

Hi again, Sconnor - I don't think I can make my reply much simpler than I already have - I doubt you would appreciate it. As far as my being a reincarnation of AlKelly, my link didn't complete but I understand all the potential reactions that might be elicited in these sorts of conversations. And BTW, love Candid Camera!

At any rate, I hope you all take care!

As always,
3M

sconnor said...

Hi again, Sconnor - I don't think I can make my reply much simpler than I already have.

That's BS and you know it. You are excessively, all over the place, saying a whole lot of nothing.

My daughter is in second grade and she knows how to answer questions. She is taught to use part of the question in the answer. As a second grade refresher course, this is how it's done; I ask a question like:

How, exactly, does god love us?

As an example, You should answer:

God loves us by ___________________________.
And then you give exact examples, that aren't vague, illusive or overtly chatty.

Or

How are you privy to this information, while myself and others are not?

I am privy to this information because__________________________and you are not privy to it because_________________________________.

Or

Can you tell us how god loves us, without referring to the bible?

Without referring to the bible, this is how god loves you____________________________.

My questions are simple. Your answers are nothing of the sort.

Again,

With all this talk of god loving us -- can you please explain how, exactly, does god love us? Can you also, explain how you are privy to this information, while myself and others are not? And is it possible you can tell us how god loves us, without referring to the bible?


--S.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

I forgot someone here - it's RA who wrote, "I saw that too, gap..."

(Thank you, Lord, someone is finally actually reading the words I write!)

Then RA said, "I'm also curious if the time travelling grace extends to those tribes, kingdoms, and people who were wiped out violently at God's command by the Israelites."

Well, let's see----God loves sinners per Jesus (and enemies too)---so I guess that would qualify them. Unless, of course they've got an overly developed bloodthirsty nature that they aren't willing to surrender - then in that case, I doubt they'd find heaven too attractive. Murder not allowed in heaven - not a people friendly endeavor (per God, not me).

Thanks RA!

3M

3M

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi again Sconner! I am starting to feel protective of you.

I have a child too - When this child of mine insists on asking for ice something other than the dinner I've prepared, I often get a response of frustration and rejection similar to the one you've expressed. Because my child doesn't always accept what I've prepared, doesn't mean I haven't prepared a meal - it's just that it's been rejected and my meal has been condemned.

I am willing to say this - I have experienced what the Bible describes as being reborn of a free spirit. It happened to me and then I found it described in the Bible. At the time I was cynical and a nonbeliever.

Bye Sconner!

3M

Jason said...

Lee,

Ohhhh, are we going to play 'you show me yours and I'll show you mine'? Sorry, not interested. As 3m said, you are to be commended for the research and work you've put into this. However, as I said before, I don't believe you've debunked anything.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

SConner, I made a reply earlier, but it didn't go through.

I too have a child. So I'll respond to you this way - if my child were to decide she wanted ice cream for dinner and become demanding of ice cream for dinner rather than the dinner I made, that doesn't mean I didn't prepare a meal for her - it just means that my meal was rejected by her and she felt the need to express her frustration by attacking me personally because she didn't get her way.

It would be perfectly alright by me if you want to respond by saying something like: "I reject you 3M and your ______________________ (insert whatever you please here). That would most likely be the most forthright and efficient response.

BTW, Sconner, the way you pursue this I might think you actually had a heartfelt interest in cooperating with my style of idiocy. Really.

Blessings
3M

Cole said...

"And Cole - I doubt that God would be so boring as to make another 3M - too redundant - totally unnecessary!"

Sweethart do you ever listen to what anybody ever says to you? I'll retract what I said about Jesus Christ but I think that parts of the New Teatament had it all wrong about God. Jesus Christ according to the New Testament threatened people with everlasting punishment. If this is true then Jesus Christ was a maniac.

Love You.

Jason said...

Something wrong with my answer to the question?

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hey, my comment to Sconner did make it through afterall - sorry about the redundancy! Boring, very boring - my sincerest apologies.

Hi Cole, you said, "Jesus Christ according to the New Testament threatened people with everlasting punishment." Threatening - using fear tactics - now I don't know of any parent that does that with a rebellious child........I look at His actions - did He condemn anyone? No, He did not. Instead, He overcame the forces of death and the weapons formed against Him and not only that, He forgave those who hated and rejected Him. So I'm somewhat optimistic here - it's kind of looking like good news.

BTW, I had some serious soul searching to do to finally conclude that it really wasn't very logical to condemn someone who wasn't condemning me. But then again, one does not have to take my word for it.

Okay that's all for now - take care!

3M

goprairie said...

I THINK, and I can never be quite certain since she makes up words and uses words in unconventional ways and seems to have an interpretation of christianity i have heard from no other christian, that MMM is saying that God loves you through her and thru other people. God does not show us love directly, by say, giving us a big hug, because he, you know, doesn't have arms to hug us with, so he hugs us thru other people. I think there are lyrics to a Jewel song about us being God's eyes and God's hands - lots of Christians have a wacky version of this being how god works. and well, sure fine, could be, but it could also be there is not god at all and it really is just the people loving us, couldn;t it? and that would be the MORE LIKELY scenario, right, that it isn't god working thru people but just people doing what people do. at least that is what makes more sense to ME. everything 'god' does to us or for us also has another perfectly natural and logical explanation that does not require god. yet god requires people and nature to show he exists???? yeah, right . . .
and when MMM goes nuts and gets fed up with us arguing with her and hunts us each down and shoots us, that will be god showing his dissatisfaction with this website, eh? oops, i hope i didn;t give anyone ideas there . . .

goprairie said...

and while I am translating, MMM is also saying that she will not give you clear and simple answers because it would not be good for you and her vague and frothy depections of god are all you are going to get. because they are better for you. see how god loves you thru her?

sconnor said...

3m,

I didn't ask for your affirmation of love for me.
I don't need to know, that you wish people would respond to you with affirmations of love.
I don't need to know that you will not condemn people, for their beliefs.
I don't care how courageous you are, in loving people, in a faithful way.
I don't care that you loved Candid Camera.
You have not answered my questions in a simple way.
You have not answered my questions at all.
I didn't ask for your protection.
You waste time with bogus analogies and still you do not answer my questions.
In actuality, I asked for the meal but was not, even, given the ice cream, which is reason enough for being frustrated.
I didn't ask about your experience of being reborn of a free spirit.
I didn't attack you; everything I stated is true. You use double talk and diverging tactics and you will not, can not, answer these very simple questions.

How, exactly, does god love us?

How are you privy to this information, while myself and others are not?

Can you tell us how god loves us, without referring to the bible?

And you still diverge and play games.

You say, It would be perfectly alright by me if you want to respond by saying something like: "I reject you 3M and your ______________________ (insert whatever you please here). That would most likely be the most forthright and efficient response.

I can't reject you. You have not answered the questions for me to formulate a response. Answer my questions and I will fill in your blank.

Additionally, although you thought it clever, to try and duplicate my way of getting you to, specifically, answer the questions -- it is in no way the same. First there were never any questions issued by you about me rejecting you or not rejecting you, nor is there any context in which to do so. Secondly, I have no reference to the "your" part of the fill in the blank scenario.

Are you going to continue to be evasive?
Are you going to continue to diverge and rant?
Are you going to continue to respond, without addressing my three, very, simple, questions?

--S.

Lee Randolph said...

jason,
no,
you elected to end the dialogue. no problem.

sconnor said...

I thought the nescient Christadelphian, whack-job was banned.

--S.

Lee Randolph said...

sconner,
you must be talking about Jason.
I didn't get the memo and I accidently turned him loose in this thread.
I'll be more careful in the future.

sconnor said...

Lee,

Yep that's the guy.

No problem letting him loose. It just reminds us of why he was banned to begin with.

Thanks,
--S.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Sconner, GP, I appreciate your willingness to be the poster children for why people should embrace a life of faith. BTW, as you may or may not be aware, villifying one's opponent to justify expressing whatever condemnation one has housed within is just one of the options for responding that I'm well acquainted with. Nonetheless, it's nice to see some of that coming to light here rather than say, in a traffic jam or public space. I find your comments very revealing of your level of humanitarianism. Thanks for sharing!

It's nice to see you returning for conversation - I think we've made a connection here. Hope to talk to you again soon!

Peace Out,
3M :-)

sconnor said...

Sconner, GP, I appreciate your willingness to be the poster children for why people should embrace a life of faith.

I have no idea what, the hell, you are talking about. You make zero sense. What exactly do you appreciate here? What am I willingly doing that would cause people to embrace their faith?

It would not seem you are too acquainted with vilifying responses, because I have done no such thing. I have not made cruel or debasing remarks, in an effort to malign you. What are you talking about?

What are you thanking me for? Sharing what exactly? Are you thanking me for your erroneous assumption that I am lacking in humanitarianism? I have no idea what you are trying to convey -- these are very flippant remarks that do not make sense.

It's nice to see you returning for conversation - I think we've made a connection here. Hope to talk to you again soon!

Again what are you talking about? What we have been doing, hardly resembles a conversation. Sure we email back and forth but you seem to be in an entirely different conversation. We certainly have not made a connection and your bogus enthusiastic tone is bizarre.

All I want you to do is answer the questions.

How, exactly, does god love us?

How are you privy to this information, while myself and others are not?

Can you tell us how god loves us, without referring to the bible?

--S.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Again, Hi Sconner --- You are asking "How are you privy to this information, while myself and others are not?"

What makes you believe that you and others aren't privy to "it"? And exactly what is this "it" you are trying to inquire about? Since I seem to keep getting my answers rejected (and since Jesus giving up all hints of ulterior motive including his own life wasn't enough for you), I just thought I better learn what "it" is that you are looking for exactly.

Looking forward to your response as I suspect you will provide a much better role model for answering questions than I can.

Love (and peace)
3M

Ty said...

I just read this rather lengthy thread.

As for Jason: he comments have been quite appropriate. However, it is amazing that we have uncovered that vast amounts of the OT are borrowed from pagan cultures, but then the Christian says, "Those pagans just wrote down the truth first!" There should at least be a pause or admission that it does suggest that the Jewish religion was a man-made invention borrowed from surrounding beliefs.

3M: You seem to be most like a Catholic Mystic. No fact can ever contradict their beliefs because it all part of the "mysterious nature of God." However, in the real world, the laws of physics do apply. Making conclusions based on feelings is unwise. In my opinion, you should base your beliefs on all the facts you can learn. You on the other hand, have had an emotional response that you believe to be from God and will not allow yourself to consider facts that disagree.

Lvka: What in the hell? Your posts made les-and-less sense as they went on. Were you drinking?

Cole: I don't understand this "any idiot can see that there is a creator" idea. Well, this idiot cannot see any creator beyond the Big Bang and Evolution. And no, I'm not offending by the use of idiot because I readily acknowledge that I am a fucking idiot quite often. Here I agree with Paul's, "What I want to do, I don't; and what I end up doing is what I didn't want to."

Scooner: I think you should accept 3M's argument on "God's deomonstrated love" for what it is. Emotional nonsese. Well, now its not nonsense in the sense that it give her comfort and a sense of purpose. Its just nonsense in the sense that it can't be backed up by any facts and that their is not proof that would ever seemingly convience 3M that her belief system is nothing more than wishful thinking.

goprairie said...

s - you will not get your answer. generally, when this happens, it is because the person is not strong enough in the idea to defend it. I really suspect the answer to how god loves us is right along the lines of what i said - by loving us 'thru others' and you or i can shoot that down in a second - i think i already did in my previous comment. you will not get anything but vague because mmm cannot defend any answers she would come up with.
i bet the mystical experience that she found in the bible will be something that most any psychologist or brain scientist could explain right away too - and just because someone in the past had a similar naturally occuring but outside the realm of normal brain event and called it god, she thinks it was god too, instead of strange neuron firings. and if you ask, you won't hear details about that either because you could put the 'symptoms' into a search engine and find the psychological name for the phenomenon. i think there are cracks in that rock of belief and your insistence on answers is probably driving a wedge in them as she thinks about how she could answer and immediately sees the arguments you would use against any of them.
i think you won without even starting on this one.
it would hjave been fun to hear the answer tho, just for sport.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Ty, good to see you. FYI, it's standard operating procedure to take other's contributions and reduce them to one's own level of understanding, but thanks for the somewhat condescending approach. I am not adversely affected by being reduced to a diminutive stature by others. Thanks for revealing your outlook here.

Bless you,
3M

Cole said...

MMM,

Thank you for your response. I understand that Jesus didn't condemn anyone while He was here but His teaching on eternal punishment doesn't fit well with me anymore. When He returns He will condemn just as the Bible clearly states.

Anyway, good talking to you.

Oh! Why did you delete your blog? I was enjoying reading it.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Well GP, you've got it all summed up here - what else is there to add? And BTW, how did you overcome your brain make-up to place yourself in a position of superiority in order to judge such matters? Just wondering....

Thanks,
3M

Ty said...

Dear 3M

Tell me where my condesending analysis of you is wrong then? While I didn't mean for it to be condesending, I did mean for it to be challenging. How are you not like a Catholic mystic with your faith? Do you or do you not provide as one of the primary evidences for your beliefs the emotional changes you've had? Or, are you beliefs based on science and I am mistaken?

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Evan, you're just so nice to do this with a side bar of me in mind...I just got back to this today and I've got a busy weekend scheduled so believe me I'll get back asap. I'm readin these other comments too so I won't reduplicate.

Thanks my atheist friend!

sconnor said...

3m,

Again, Hi Sconnor --- You are asking "How are you privy to this information, while myself and others are not?"

Well not exactly. It's a three parter. I'm asking these three simple questions:

1. How, exactly, does god love us?

2. How are you privy to this information, while myself and others are not?

3. Can you tell us how god loves us, without referring to the bible?

If you answered the first question you would know what "it" was.
It is in reference to, "how does god love us". I'm asking you to tell me how does god love us and give a detailed and precise explanation. then in question two I'm asking you to divulge where you acquired the information, while others, including myself are not privy to that particular knowledge. Question three ponders if you can answer any of these questions without referring to the bible. easy -- 1 2 3.

They are quite easy and very simple questions.

Since I seem to keep getting my answers rejected

I have not seen any answers to reject, refute or comment on.

(and since Jesus giving up all hints of ulterior motive including his own life wasn't enough for you)

I can not make heads or tails with this comment -- it's nonsensical. Has Jesus supposedly been giving me hints? What ulterior motives? And what does Jesus' life have to do with my questions? I have no idea what you are talking about.

Looking forward to your response as I suspect you will provide a much better role model for answering questions than I can.

Ummm, the model for answering questions is simple and has been well established. I do not need to provide you with a much better role model while the one we have will suffice.

I ask a question like:

How, exactly, does god love us?

Then you answer the question. It's elementary.

Or are you going to continue to be evasive, flippant, intangible, condescending, and otherwise do everything in your power as to not answer the three questions?

--S.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Sconner you can go ahead and cut and paste my previous response (below) in your blanks okay? Especially if it gives you a sense of closure or something to continue to attack - either way - enjoy yourself.

"I have experienced what the Bible describes as being reborn of a free spirit. It happened to me and then I found it described in the Bible."


Peace Out,
3M

sconnor said...

3m,

Sconner you can go ahead and cut and paste my previous response (below) in your blanks okay? Especially if it gives you a sense of closure or something to continue to attack - either way - enjoy yourself.

"I have experienced what the Bible describes as being reborn of a free spirit. It happened to me and then I found it described in the Bible."


I don't care what you experienced. it does not, in the least, answer my questions. You make the claim the god loves us. I smply ask three questions to that effect.

1. How, exactly, does god love us?

2. How are you privy to this information, while myself and others are not?

3. Can you tell us how god loves us, without referring to the bible?

Subtantiate your claim and answer the three questions.

--S.

goprairie said...

how ridiculous an answer. the question is not how do you know about god. it is how does god love us. for fun, i emailed that to 3 of my moderate xtian friends and had 3 plainly worded easy to understand answers within three hours. i don't for my self that the things cited are evidnce of god-love as i could provide other explanations for the things, but at least my friends were not afraid to answer the simple question.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Wow! GP, I had no idea that my conversation here could inspire you into such actions - emailing 3 (was it 3 you say?) friends? And just when I was beginning to believe I was no influence here AT ALL! I was just about to get discouraged and I mean that! Thank you for the encouragement.

You also said, "how ridiculous an answer. the question is not how do you know about god. it is how does god love us" So, by GP's standard, it is a ridiculous (your word) notion to expect to know someone to experience how they love us. By your standard, we really should only get love from those we don't know - is that what you're saying here? Just wanting to confirm.

Blessings and Flower Power to you,
3M

goprairie said...

"I had no idea that my conversation here could inspire you into such actions - emailing 3 (was it 3 you say?) friends? And just when I was beginning to believe I was no influence here AT ALL! I was just about to get discouraged and I mean that! Thank you for the encouragement'
That makes no sense. I am saying that the question SConnor asks is not difficult to answer. what your delight that i emailed 3 friends has to do with anything is . . . strange? and pointless. you seem to think you achieved something. I fail to see what you think you achieved. That i was so frustrated that you seem incapable or unwilliing to answer a simple question that i posed that question to 3 people? how does that make you so spankiin' happy? what is your point here?

"You also said, "how ridiculous an answer. the question is not how do you know about god. it is how does god love us" So, by GP's standard, it is a ridiculous (your word) notion to expect to know someone to experience how they love us. By your standard, we really should only get love from those we don't know - is that what you're saying here? Just wanting to confirm."
I said nothing like that. In fact i can't even really parse what you seem to be saying i said. YOu are making no sense. What is your point here? Why do you refuse to answer the question that has been posed to you? YOu keep making these smug little comments that you are pleased to be having some effect, but what effect is it that you are trying to have? to confuse? to waste time? i am going to stop feeding this troll. Sconnor, you might want to join me in that.

sconnor said...

3m and GP,

I think I'm going to take a different approach, other than stop feeding the troll. Usually I abide by this rule, especially if the troll is simply proselytizing. Although if DC and the powers that be want to dump her because she can't offer anything substantial, by all means go for it.

I truly want to get to the bottom of this and I have just enough OCD to do it. GP, you are right of course, that at this particular juncture, 3m is only offering cluttered, nonsensical, responses with a sickening, smarmy, condensation that is just a waste of time, coupled with phony self-grandizing, thinking she achieved something. It's as if she has created a reality where only she resides.

For some odd reason I feel it necessary to keep asking her these questions. She needs to be held accountable for her words.

Again, 3m, please, substantiate your claims on how god loves us.

And so it's perfectly clear it's "US" not you or someone else.

1. How, exactly, does god love us?

2. How are you privy to this information, while myself and others are not?

3. Can you tell us how god loves us, without referring to the bible?

--S.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Sconner wrote; "For some odd reason I feel it necessary to keep asking her these questions."

I rest my case...

Your Friendly (and Well-Fed) Troll,
3M

Lee Randolph said...

HI Lvka,
I know how you like short, elegant and succint answers so here goes. ;-)
if all those populaces or populations or peoples whose stories and legends were mentioned and presented as though offering some sort of support for the idea that they also believed woman to be have been taken from man's side were actually equivalent to "all these people or populations or populaces had dolls and figurines of women, and these were made from bone or earth" ?
let me see if I get the question first.
"do the people who have a "woman made from bone story" in thier culture also use venus figurines?"

I don't know, that was never the claim and I don't see why it matters.

hows that?

Lvka said...

No, the question was IF they actually had such a story or legend or belief in the first place, or did Your sources just simply assumed that they believed so, based on unrelated facts such as having puppets made from various materials. :-\ It's the nth time that I address to You this question, so I still can't believe You haven't understood it, or maybe You just don't want to answer it.

Just give me a Yes or a No. :-\

Cole said...

Mini Me,

I admire you because you at least talk about God's love. At least you believe He has a positive property, namely He is loving. So you do have KNOWLEDGE of God being loving. Unlike the retarded mystics who have no positive knowledge at all of God.

sconnor said...

3m,

Sconnor wrote; "For some odd reason I feel it necessary to keep asking her these questions."

3m said, I rest my case...

What are you talking about? What case? You have no case. You, simply, refuse to answer the questions. I have no idea where you are coming from. Your comment, "I rest my case..." has no context -- it's merely pulled out of thin air.

What has been, abundantly, clear is -- in an effort to turn a blind eye to my questions -- you have disguised your replies, in elusive, non-answers and arbitrary nonsense, with all the eloquence of a large flightless bird, planting it's small head, firmly in the sand.

Could you, please, answer?

1. How, exactly, does god love us?

2. How are you privy to this information, while myself and others are not?

3. Can you tell us how god loves us, without referring to the bible?

--S.

Lvka said...

retarded mystics who have no positive knowledge at all of God

Uhm, Cole,

the part of God about which NOONE has any knowledge of (whether mystic or not; whether retarded or not) is God's essence. Not his energies, which are the part of God we actually come in contact with. (These energies or graces are: love, goodness, kindness, wisdom, purity, cleanness, sanctity, holiness, righteousness, justice, an so on -- and about these St. Paul says that "against such as these ther is no law"). :-)

Lee Randolph said...

Lvka,
I am not the only one that doesn't get you. Someone else told you that seemed to be drinking.
so now I'll try one more time
IF they actually had such a story or legend or belief in the first place, or did Your sources just simply assumed that they believed so, based on unrelated facts such as having puppets made from various materials.
My sources were wide and varied, and they didn't actually put the belief that woman was made from rib together with the venus figurines. There is no smoking gun link. There may or may not be a link. So when I say I don't know, and why does it matter I honestly sincerely think I understand the question and am trying to get you your answer.

So now will you please explain your point rather than just rephrasing your question and disregarding my answer of "I don't know, why does it matter and what is your point"?

See if you take your question and rephrase it, you can make a statement. Here I'll do it for you and you can fill in the blank.

* " if people who have a story about women being made from a rib and don't believe it then ___________"
* " If people who made venus figurines don't have a belief in woman being from rib then _________"
* If people who have a story about woman being made from rib, and they don't use venus figurines _______"
If one of these don't fit, then please feel free to come up with your own.

If you want to say that the concept of woman being made from rib in the bible is just a happy coincidence to the stories and the prehistoric venus figurines and tools made from bone that is your perogative. I suppose it would be like the happy coincidences of Moses and Sargon, the similarities between Yahweh and the other near eastern gods, the garden of eden and the myth of adapa, the leviathan and whales, not abrahamic religions having origin stories with men made from earth, the adoption of a persian like god of evil after being liberated by them from babylon, the inclusion of hellenistic TYPE ideas about the logos or any of the city names that appear coincidently in the bible and the area. No COMPELLING reason to think there is any causal link between any of them is there?

Lee Randolph said...

oops typo,
not abrahamic religions
should read
"non-abrahamic religions"

kilo papa said...

Has anyone else here noticed that if you take mini me's responses and replace the words Jesus or God with Zeus,Buddha or Siegfried and Roy that the level of logic remains about the same?

Lee Randolph said...

Lvka,
you seem to be a christian,
so why don't we just get to the point,

what unique characteristics about the bible suggest it has a divine source of origin?

This is really the missing box in my hypothesis test that must be checked off to undermine my hypothesis that the bible is cultural folklore like all the other cultural folklore.

In these articles I am just iterating through all the ways the bible is similar to the other cultural folklore in the near east and asking "does this qualify as a characteristic of other cultural folklore?" of course the answer is yes, because it is cultural folklore. If you know of some "show-stopper" Please put it out there.

sconnor said...

kilo papa,

Has anyone else here noticed that if you take mini me's responses and replace the words Jesus or God with Zeus,Buddha or Siegfried and Roy that the level of logic remains about the same?

Of course for 3m, logic being an extremely, loose term.

--S.

Lvka said...

Lee Randolph,

OK, now I understand. Thanks. (I personally am really curious to find out whether they did or did not entertain such beliefs because I'm very curious about religious and scientifical subjects in general).

If all there is is just dolls and puppets, then the direct logical conclusion is that there is no link

If otherwise, then it will be very intersting to see all the links and similarities, etc.

Someone else told you that [You] seemed to be drinking.

Well, I'm sure the question that drives us all here present is TRUTH... which my Latin forbearers called VERITAS ... and about which they also had a nice little proverb: IN VINO VERITAS :-) ;-) :D

I am not the only one that doesn't get you.

I believe that, and it makes me angry: at first I started >harrassing< Protestants on their little blogs; when they told me they don't "understand" me I just thought they don't or won't agree with me; then an Orthodox person such as myself told me he doesn't get me. Then even a cute, bold, pipe-smoking Aussie Catholic told me the same. AND -to top ALL that- the ONLY person that ALWAYS understood me was an old Lutheran ex-Pastor ... of whom everybody else said that they don't understand him either !!! ??? :-| I mean: how ***ed up is THAT? :-\ And I'm decent, regular guy; not a "show-off" that pretends to be >misunderstood< all the time, and **** like that. And it drives me nuts! :-<

In any case: I have nothing against Judaism as an ancient religion that stands on world-wide myths, common to ALL mankind (the Old Testament begins by stating their descendance from Adam, the first man, and then goes on to show their "place" in that world inhabited by his descendants [that is: mankind], by the genealogical chapters which immediately folow) which are basically non-scientifical ways of traditioning human history throughout an uncountable number of ages. (Think of the Flood, which, [were we to take a scientifical grid] happened literally a myriad years ago!). -- It's simply mind-blowing!

In any case, it's ludicrous to expect or demand that the ancient Semites that had lived 3,500 yrs ago in the Middle East should "bow down" to Western European scientifical notions that came into being just some 500 yrs ago. That would be like trying to mock Scripture by pronouncing its Greek or Hebrew words in English; or like saying that since it's not written with Latin characters, the letters therefrore bear no meaning at all.

And as far as Chr. are concerned, all that they always wanted to do is "read" Christ into their Old Testament Scriptures. (The New Covenant being the primary authoritative document on how to properly exegete Christologically the Law of Moses).

To give You some examples: What is the meaning of the first verses in the Book of Genesis? Is it evolution? Is it instant-creation? Well, ... it's neither. :-) It's Trinitarian. :-)

Genesis 1:1
 ¶In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3  ¶And God said
etc.

Lvka, I know how you like short, elegant and succint answers so here goes. ;-)

I also see that You've discretely criticised me for makin' long [and unintelligible] comments, so I think I'll just stop here.

Cole said...

I think we should all just say "I don't know" and then we'll be standing in God's presence. (mystery).

Give me a fuckin break.

That's agnosticism.

Lee Randolph said...

I agree with you cole,
John used to say that christians "punt to mystery". I think that when they do that, they are effectively assuming agnosticism with a bias.

Lvka said...

That's agnosticism.

Uhm, nope. That's apophaticism. (I can hardly blame You for making that statement, since there's an entire millennium of Western Scholasticism talking through You right now). Since Protestants in general scoff at the very concept of Mystyery, it's only fair that they reap what they sow.

Cole said...

Nope. When you don't know something it's called ignorance. You're not standing in God's presense because your ignorant.

Cole said...

I take that back. Maybe you are.

Lvka said...

Again, Cole,

it's apophaticism: not "ignorance" and not "agnosticism".

Ty said...

Lvka,
First, apophatism (dictionary.com)

noun
the religious belief that God cannot be known but is completely 'other' and must be described in negative terms (in terms of what God is not)

Based on the definition above and the working definitions most people are accustomed to using, Cole's understanding of agnosticism is correct. But why even pick a debate over his terminology???

Your writing demonstrates that you are intelligent and have the ability think well at times. But your admission that people sometimes don't get you is telling. Your post sometimes comes off as manic/borderline (in terms of Bipolar and Borderline Personality disorder in the DSM).

You are also passive/aggressive in presenting your argument. For example, you timidly present your case, then you get pissed when Lee doesn't provide the response you are looking for.

My jackass opinion only, you should be polite and strongly present your case. If you disagree and need to clarify things then do so. But you float between the unwritten message of "I don't want to offend anyone and I feel personal rejection when someone disagrees with me."

Don't take this stuff so personally. If my opinion is nothing more than a pile of stinking shit, then say so and move on.

Maybe I'm going over the line, but at least try to be more coherent in your posts. Maybe use numbering to order your steps of logic, that way maybe you won't leave so much out that we need to follow your thinking???

Lvka said...

Ty,

You're just scratching the top of the iceberg. >;) I mean, after all those years of studying bipolar transistors in engineering, it's only natural ... >:)

No, I wasn't mad at Lee Randolph; my words should be read as if spoken with the semi-comic, semi-serious tone of a bored man that kinda had it with all that tail-twistin'. :-)

The reason I care about mystery is because -pretty much like anyone else- I have my dirty little axe to grind as well. (No anti-Islamic pun intended).

First of all, the first Christians defined or viewed their faith in such "mysterious" terms. (A simple search [using Bible-software] will return 27 hits in 27 verse, all of them in the NT). Secondly, the liturgical Church-services are known as Mysteries (which Roman Catholics call Sacraments -- different words, same concepts). Thridly, the bipolar, errr... bimillennial :-) [oops, sorry!] apophatical theology used by the Church to express such lived and experiential realities.

And the only crap I take offence or insult at is stuff like this.

Lee Randolph said...

Lvka,
a bored man that kinda had it with all that tail-twistin'. :-)
speaking of twisting,
either i missed your point or you never said what it was. if i missed it, would you restate it Please?

Lvka said...

Lee,

what point?

Cole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lee Randolph said...

Hi Lvka,
continued from evans article....
I did cut you some slack with the last sentence when I asked if english was not your first language. I'm not psychic you know. But knowing that english is not your first language clears up some things that I was wondering about. I assume that being romanian, english is not your first language.

in any case, you are mighty presumptuous about what my reaction was. I was not upset that you came over pointlessly asking questions. However, I am not convinced that you got the point of the article since you have not explained what it is that is wrong with the article, but have merely claimed that is it pseudoscientific.

If I understand you right, you say,
"lee your article is pseudoscientific because there is no link between eve being made from rib and the fact that prehistoric humans made tools from rib, made figurines of women from rib, used the tools from rib to change their environment, tried to use the venus figurines to change their environment, the purpose of venus figurines was to be used in rituals to influence the environment through sympathetic magic, and the venus figurines are smaller versions of larger sculptures of women as evidenced by the asherah and we know that human beings will use technology in stories. "

In my opinion you are asking for impossible precision and are denying the obvious inference.

Sometimes you just have to make the call whether its what you it to be or not.

How would you explain all this "circumstantial evidence"? You still have not given an alternate explanation.

Shygetz said...

To give You some examples: What is the meaning of the first verses in the Book of Genesis? Is it evolution? Is it instant-creation? Well, ... it's neither. :-) It's Trinitarian. :-)

That is NOT Trinitarian. At best, one could interpret it as two aspects of God, although if I were to allow you to do that, then you must grant me that the Hand of God is a third aspect, the Face of God a fourth, etc. which puts you into Hindu territory when it comes to the numbers of god-aspects.

And lvka, of course we don't know what stories pre-literate cultures told. What we do know is that the tale of a revered mother-figure being born from the body of another revered male figure is widespread among many cultures, and that there is abundant circumstantial evidence of an all-mother figure in pre-literate cultures, which is connected to body parts.

What evidence is there that God made Eve from Adam's rib? Oh yeah, none.

I also sincerely doubt ANY links of Semites with ... Tatars; ... OR of Semites with ... Canadian Indians ... OR of the Tatars with Canadian Indians. (I'm sorry). That's surely looks like pseudo-science.

You're wrong...they have all been linked anthropologically, and the dates of their migration from their central groups have been estimated quite well.

I honestly doubt that the "Ghaikos Karens" [which aren't obviously Semites] can trace their genealogy back to "Adam" (a specifically Semite word; I honestly doubt ANY Semitic roots in these islanders that are probably from the Pacific)

And you probably believe that "Jupiter" and "Zeus" are clearly unrelated, one being a Latin word and the other Greek. C'mon, I know you're smarter than that. Given the millenia that the oral stories would have had to change, the names of the revered figures would change also to reflect local cultural heroes and villains or at least typical phonemes in the language, while the basic gist of the narrative would remain. I'm certain your local university would have a course in comparative mythology that you would find useful.

Lvka said...

Shygetz,

the Greek Zeus and the Latin Deus and Ju-Piter are obviously related Indo-Europeanly, all three of them descending from the same Dyaus-Pitar supreme-deity-figure. -- But neither Jews (who are Semites) nor Tatars (which are Finno-Ugric) are related to any I.E. populations whatsoever (linguistically, or culturally, etc). -- nor are Tatars and Jews related either.

-------------
Lee Randolph,

In order for it to be a link, there has to be a ... link. :-\

If someone prehistorical wants to make a puppet, out of which possible materials is he going to make it? I can ONLY think of a few:
-- clay (or earth)
-- wood (or fruit)
-- bone
-- stone
(I somehow highly doubt that either metal or ice-sculptures or flesh are in order here).

Many portions of Genesis' innitial chapters are based on "backwards" logic, so to say, trying to find a meaning as to WHY things are the way there are, in the first place. (I think You've obviously noticed that Yourself, so I'm hardly saying anything new, I guess):
-- we know that the outcome: namely that man "returns" to the earth (the universal process of corpse-decomposition, that also resulted into an almost-instinctual universal response of burrying the dead), so this is why we've got (quite independently) the idea that he must've been taken from the ground also. (humus-homo; adamah-adam: unrelated; but come from common human experience).
-- we know the outcome: namely that humanity is all alike and shares in the same human nature ("flesh and bone"), there's from where we've got the wide-spread idea of a common ancestor. (since every human has a mother and a father, and all You really need is one such pair to make the whole race, theoretically).
-- we know the outcome: namely that snakes are our enemy, since they bite people and poison them, and that people fear their poisonous bites, so there must've been a reason for this "enmity" or "hatred" between the two.
-- the outcome: namely that the snake crawls; and we perceive crawling as being something negative and undesirable (since having a pair of feet comes so much "handier") and we also know another outcome: that we're being punished when we do something bad, so there has to be a reason as to why the snake was "punished".
-- we know the outcome: that Africans were usually slaves, and we perceive slavery as being something negative and undesirable (since it's so much betetr to be free) and we also know another outcome: that we're being punished when we do something bad, so there has to be a reason as to why they were "punished".
-- etc.

And -last; yet definitely NOT least (quite on the contrary, THE most important)- :

-- we know the outcome: that man definitely doesn't want or desire to be alone, and that that's NOT good for him (Genesis 2:18)... so:
-- since man and woman have this powerful tie or bond of affection that so strongly unites them, called love, which is being felt so deeply in the heart, and that when you love someone, your heart just begins to beat faster and stronger, and you feel the need to hug them to your chest, then it also logically follows that that's (obviously) the spot from which she was taken in the first place: that which lies near the heart, because you just feel that she belongs there. (Genesis 2:21-22).
-- and since the fructification of this very powerful erotical bond of mutual attraction is fulfilled in sexual union or intercourse, when man and woman `become` one flesh, then this obviously means that they "were" one flesh to begin with (Genesis 2:23-24), and that they'll never rest or find peace until they "re-become" one `again` (Genesis 2:18).
-- the very deep sleep into which Adam fell when Eve was taken from his side (Genesis 2:21) is a reminder of the very deep sleep into which every man falls after sexual union or inter-course with his wife.
-- we know the outcome: that women are responsible for giving life to new little life-forms called children: so it logically follows that the name of the "first" woman was "Life".

The fact that people make sometimes all sorts of puppets or dolls to play with, and that one of the very very few possible elements used is bone is so completely strange, foreign and secondary (to say the very least) to the whole thing (erotical love [the rib near the heart] and sexual union [one flesh]) that one can't read this post without feeling that he's having his leg pulled. (If that's the correct expression). -- I honestly can't think of a SINGLE good reason why You even bought this in the first place, or what on earth could've possibly convince You of its scientifical credibiltiy to begin with ... :-\ (Again: NO affront whatsoever is meant by these words; I'm just expressing my sheer amazement and utter perplexity here at this point).

She was not taken from his front so that she might not rule over him; she was not taken from his feet so that she might not be trampled underfoot by him; she was not taken from his right-side so that she might not have power or exercise dominion over him; but rather she was not taken from his left-side, near the heart, so that she might love him and be loved by him. - That would be a traditional Talmidic commentary (Mishna) that can also be found in the Syrian Fathers of Christianity (which are Semites by nation).

Hope this helps You better understand my reasons. (Though I'm sure that You probaly knew them already; but You probably didn't engage them in full or didn't pay deserved attention to them). :-\ [There's no link because there's just none].

Lvka said...

And the reason that Athena popped out of Zeus's head is because she's the Greek godess of wisdom and philosophy.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Lee~ "My sources were wide and varied, and they didn't actually put the belief that woman was made from rib together with the venus figurines. There is no smoking gun link."

I believe that this is the problem with the article in it's entirety, you make a leap in trying to say that the stories (all of them together) were somehow amalgamated into one story and you in essence blame the Biblical authors for this and that's is incorrect. But with your Documentary hypothesis anything is possible.

However, I personally believe that it was beyond Israel's ability to have researched all available stories and to have incorporated them and all elements into one. In addition, there is no story that reveals the nature of God as the OT does. The OT was a multi-thematic in it's presentation for both God and man, and serious elements of the other stories such as sexual relations between the God (gods of the myths) and men do not exist.

Yjere are more than enough differences to suggest different stories but yet enough similarities to suggest common origin's, but that is what the Christian expects and what other posters have been trying to say in this post.

I agree with LVKA that any linguistics relationships. Your author Callahan has a terrible history for creating linguistic messes based on his not having ANY knowledge of where certain words came from and basing them on appearance and sound associations. Anything that is gleaned from him in this article are at best overstatements and more likely leaps and are more suited for conspiracy theorists.

You use Sir James G. Frazier, this I suppose, is solid proof that ridiculous hypothesis tend to stay on the internet as factual information. His garbage has already been taken out many times over here’s why,

"Frazer's theory is loaded with problems. Whole papers, even books, criticizing his theory have been written, and nowadays it is extremely difficult to find any recognized, reputable anthropologists who will accept it even in a modified form. Here are some of the major difficulties with it:
1. Frazer's sources were frequently inaccurate or irrelevant, or else he interpreted them in tendentious ways.
2. Frazer himself subscribed to discredited nineteenth-century ideas such as the evolutionist model of human societal development (which has nothing to do with the theory of biological evolution and is today firmly rejected by experts) and the notion that present-day primitive tribesmen can be studied as a means of finding out what things were like at the dawn of civilization.
3. Evidence which has emerged since Frazer wrote has not merely failed to back up his hypotheses: it has fatally undermined them. For interesting critiques of Frazer's work, see e.g. Sir Edmund Leach's articles in Daedalus 90 (1961) and Current Anthropology 7 (1966); also (in much greater detail) J.Z.Smith, 'The Glory, Jest and Riddle', Diss. Yale 1969 (by one of the greatest living historians of religion)." ~ Courtesy J.P. Holding

In the article Lee says,
"In Genesis, there are two versions of the creation of Man and Woman. In the first story, the man and woman are created together, but in the second story, the male is created first, with the female made later from his rib."

Incorrect Lee. There is only one creation account. The restatement in Gen. 2 is only that, a restatement with additional details. I won't go further here because that's off topic but that's a false statement that atheists often raise.

In short if there are convincing parallels, parallels does not a BORROWING make. It is a great leap to say or assume that these parallels were borrowed to make the OT document…

So what are the problems here, an example of parallellomania at work at best and bad and already debunked scholarship at worst. Sorry, but that’s what I get from it. Thanks though.

Lee Randolph said...

Lvka,
no offense taken and i appreciate you taking the time to write something substantial. I appreciate this type of participation. And I am proud to have participation from other countries, especially when someone makes the extra effort to participate in another language.

there is no doubt that genesis is a myth that includes explanations, like the other myths, athena included. But they are crude explanations for and by a primitive people that all have similar elements. I honestly think that the writers and the audience at the time probably didn't take them literally. I think they probably got taken literally when knowledge of the source disappeared but that is just speculation (to a higher degree than the rest ;-) ).

If you don't see the link, I'm sorry, I'm not going to try to convince you. I've argued my case, you don't get it, thats fine. But I think, at its core, that its telling that eve was made from a rib, like primitives used mastadon ribs, and not from his skin or muscle. Happy coincidence? I don't think so. Tribal knowledge, folklore? I think so.

we'll have to agree to disagree.

I was going to make some other comments but it occurs to me that i still don't know if you take genesis literally or not. That makes a difference in what I say.

Evan said...

Harvey let me welcome you back with a hearty atheist backslap and a cheerful grin. Good to see you again, sir.

Secondly let me roundly disagree with you on a minor, but significant point.

You say:

The OT was a multi-thematic in it's presentation for both God and man, and serious elements of the other stories such as sexual relations between the God (gods of the myths) and men do not exist.

Except it's just not true. Genesis 6:4:

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Who are the Nephilim?

The Encyclopedia Mythica tells us that they were angels.

Now you can say to me that angels aren't Gods but it's really a distinction without a difference.

If you say there are a bunch of supernatural beings with some having limited powers and one ruling over them all with unlimited power aren't you really just recreating the polytheistic pantheon of the Greeks or Hindus?

So the Genesis account quite clearly retains the idea of humans mating with divine or semi-divine beings.

Lee Randolph said...

harvey, harvey, harvey,
I was wanting to move on to my next article! I'm sorry you didn't get to participate earlier. I'll answer you in a little while.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi harvey,
I'll nickel and dime it till I can address it all.
you make a leap in trying to say that the stories (all of them together) were somehow amalgamated into one story and you in essence blame the Biblical authors for this and that's is incorrect.
No, I tried to say they all had elements of each other, not that they all became the eve story. From a cultural anthropological perspective, they share elements between them, meaning they picked them up from each other. The eve story is one element that is shared among disparate cultures so it doesn't qualify as being historical. Its a datum to support the folklore hypothesis.

Evan got you on the god-sex thing.

Your author Callahan has a terrible history for creating linguistic messes based on his not having ANY knowledge of where certain words came from and basing them on appearance and sound associations.
I used callahan like a quick reference. What he says is represented in the different sources, mainly courses I took. I'm not playing him down, but I never used him as a primary source. I don't really care about the linguistics too much, I don't speak it or read it, or study it so I have to word of experts. If you think you are an expert, I'll take that under consideration.

I used the courses as the primary sources.

I used Frazer's data because it was convenient, not his conclusions or hypotheses. As far as I know, Frazer said nothing about the link between venus figurines and Eve, but he did collect a ton of myths and published them in a book for all to see.

you quoted jp holding? puleeze! any way, I'll get to the rest later. Gotta go.

Lvka said...

Lee,

were they mastodont "ribs", or rather mastodont "bones"? And was Eve [Life] taken from man's "bone" or rather from man's side, near the [blood-pumping] heart, which is the seat of life? (Genesis 9:4).

This would pretty much be my last comment on this thread, since I don't mean to pester, or to annoy, so before my "great exit, stage left" :-), I'll try and "pimp" You one of the most fundamental and basic concepts that people who engage in comparing variously different cultures, languages, or civilisations etc. use: namely the notion of FALSE FRIENDS.

I mean, ... I hope I didn't make You think -even for a moment- that I was a "true" friend,...did I? :-)

------------------------------
District Supt. Harvey Burnett,

there's truly no point in spitting in the eyes of the first pioneers: we stand on the shoulders of giants
(or at least that's was what C.S. Lewis would've had us believe). ;-)

sconnor said...

Harvey/Evan,

The OT was a multi-thematic in it's presentation for both God and man, and serious elements of the other stories such as sexual relations between the God (gods of the myths) and men do not exist.


Except it's just not true. Genesis 6:4:

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.


Also, god works his magic, so that the menopausal, 90 year old Sarah can be impregnated (by god or Abraham -- not too clear?). And god gets his dirty little hands, in the reproductive organs, of women by giving them miscarrying wombs and dry breasts -- "nor shall they bear fruit" -- " Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb."

Oh, ho, ho
It's magic you knowwwww
Never believe, it's not so
It's magic, you knowwww
Never believe, it's not sooooooo.

--S.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Harvey,
Incorrect Lee. There is only one creation account. The restatement in Gen. 2 is only that, a restatement with additional details. I won't go further here because that's off topic but that's a false statement that atheists often raise.
You are in the minority on this one Harvey.
The consensus of scholars, even Jewish scholars, is that Genesis 1 was written post babylon, the other was written during "davids kingdom". The both served a political purpose. Gen 2. a personal interactive god and a way to distance themselves and from the "pagans" and establish and an identity , and get god off the hook for the problem of evil/suffering, provide explanations etc, but Gen 1 was intended to show a god that was more distanced and more regal, and inferred less culpability for letting the Jews get trashed so badly.

as far as borrowing and such goes,
lets use the null hypothesis test on it.
Would Genesis have this particular detail about woman being made from mans rib if there were not pre-existing precedents?
no,
why?
because there are so many other likely ways to represent woman being equal to man, being a helper to man, being 'of one flesh' etc.
What ways?
* from a finger,
* hand
* forearm
* upper arm
* shoulder
* skin
* muscle
* mole
* feckle
* hair
* some organ that was removed from man to make woman that we don't have anymore exactly because now its woman
* the lung,
* the heart
* the intestine
* any other organs you can name

the egyptians knew rudimentarily about bodily organs because the preserved them in mummification

and it is important to note that by woman being made from man, it one upped any claim to power that woman had because they can make babies.

If it were part of the Jewish culture, and consequent christian culture to make little eve figures we would certainly think it came from the OT, so why wouldn't we think that little woman figures predating the OT wouldn't be the source of that myth?

It is a myth you know, and any claim other than myth requires a burden of proof. Any other claim than myth should be historical. Good luck with that.

Lee Randolph said...

harvey,
typo,
above, I meant to say the following,
"If venus figurines did not pre-exist and it were part of the Jewish culture, and consequent christian culture to make little eve figures we would certainly think it came from the OT, so why wouldn't we think that little woman figures predating the OT wouldn't be the source of that myth?

Lee Randolph said...

Lvka,
mastadon ribs were used to build rudimentary shelter in addition to tools. Follow the link to the magdellenean excavations.

of course other bones were used to, they were just as useful, but I don't think its likely that we can tell with any certainty what bone a venus figurine was made from at this late date.

anyway, see ya' around.
How do I say that in romanian?

goprairie said...

Harvey states "There is only one creation account. The restatement in Gen. 2 is only that, a restatement with additional details. . . . that's a false statement that atheists often raise. "
The second is NOT a restatement of the first, a obviously false claim christians often make - pathetically. Things happen in different ORDER in the two stories, so one cannot just be the other in more detail. What a ludicrous claim that keeps being made over and over. In the first story, the sea animals are made one day, the land animals the next, and man AND woman the next day. In the second version, there is man in a garden of plants and god is going to make him a helper so he makes animals, and since none is adequate a helper, god makes woman. See the difference, Harvey? One story: Animals then man and woman at same time. Other story: Man first, then animals, then woman. How can the second be more details about the first? In fact, in the first, there is night and day for a few days, THEN God makes the lights in the sky, including the sun. So how could there be night and day before there was the sun? Obvious malarky. Read it in detail before you make claims about how one can be details of the other. It takes a lot of twisting of words to make a claim like that.

Lee Randolph said...

harvey,
also,
Making woman out of the same material as adam would have been more appropriate to meet the goal of the story for eve.

DingoDave said...

I wonder whether the ancient Hebrews pictured Eve as looking like one of those Venus figurines? If they did, then I don't think much of their taste in women. : )

Evan wrote:
"Let's see what Harvey and the others can come up [with] for this one."

I can't speak for 'the others', but I think that I know what Harvey Burnett will do, if he follows the same pattern as he did during our recent debate about over at his 'Dunamis Word' website, where he was arguing against the proposition that early Christianity was marked by an enormous diversity of beliefs and practices.

What he'll more than likely do is this;

He'll try to convince you that black is white, and that up is down.
If that doesn't work, he'll summarily dismiss all of the best modern scholarship, and quote only from conservative fundamentalist sources.
If that doesn't work, he'll then arbitrarily attempt to re-define the subject matter of the debate out of existence.
If that doesn't work, then he'll start shouting over the top of you, and begin hurling gratuitous insults at you.
Finally, if that doesn't work, then given the opportunity, he'll start editing his opponent's posts. At which point his opponent will probably give up and go elsewhere, as I did.
He'll then claim to have won the debate.

Hi Harvey. Been editing any good posts lately?

DingoDave said...

As I understand it, the 'rib woman' account in Genesis is thought to have originated in the Northern kingdom of Israel, while the first creation account is thought to have originated much later in the Southern kingdom of Judah. They seem to combine both Canaanite and Mesopotamian mythic themes.

"Canaanite religion was strongly influenced by their more powerful and populous neighbours, and shows clear influence of Mesopotamian and Egyptian religious practices."
Ancient Semitic religion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Semitic_religion

The second creation account bears a striking resemblance the Mesopotamian 'Enûma Eliš' legend. With the god Marduk having been replaced by Yahweh Elohim.

"When on high heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsû, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamat, the mother of them both,
Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
When of the gods none had been called into being"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enuma_Elish

"Higher criticism regards chapters 1–4 of Genesis as the re-workings of Babylonian and Canaanite myths concerning creation. While the myths stress human servitude to the gods, Genesis places humankind at the center of the created order, over which it exercises dominion as God's agent."
'Adam, the first man in the Bible' - 2007 Columbia University Press.

"Genesis is not, however, a simple re-telling of the Babylonian myths: instead, the myths are inverted to serve a theological purpose. For example, the Babylonian serpent-god Ningishzida is a friend of mankind who helps the human hero Adapa in his search for immortality, while Genesis' serpent is man's enemy, seeking to trick Adam out of the chance to attain immortality. The inversions represent a rejection of the power of Babylon's gods in favour of the might of Yahweh; more than this, they replace the essentially optimistic world-view of the Mesopotamians - "things were not nearly as good to begin with as they have become since" - with a world-view in which the world was created perfect but grew steadily worse, until God finally had to do away with all mankind except for the pious Noah who would beget a new and better stock."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_according_to_Genesis

The first two chapters in Genesis certainly do appear to be a tangled web, don't they?

Is this anyone else's understanding of these stories?

Lee Randolph said...

HI Dingo,
I'm with you,
and will raise you Lilith
Shes a sumerian myth. A magical being whose key elements are a tree, snake and fleeing into the wilderness. Jewish midrash incorporated the story making her the first wife of Adam to reconcile the differences in the two creation stories, and she was responsible for 'misfortune' in the world such as infant death and "wet dreams".
I was saving that for an upcoming article.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Evan ~ "Who are the Nephilim?
The Encyclopedia Mythica tells us that they were angels.
Now you can say to me that angels aren't Gods but it's really a distinction without a difference."

Thanks Evan, but I don't take that approach with Nephilim. I believe they were people but were probably known for special gifts or traits such as being a worior class individual. This is debateable, but to dogmatically apply that they were angles or non-coporal beings is more of a leap than I'm willing to make even though I strongly believe in angles. Nevertheless thats my opinion on that issue.

Fido~ "Hi Harvey. Been editing any good posts lately?"

No I don't edit the good ones I only edit the bad ones like the rambling trash you offer when you've been whooped in a debate!

To Lee and others on the creation account it goes like this:

These are the 2 primary arguments critics use to say that Genesis has 2 creation accounts. (1) It is claimed that the two creation stories show evidence of different styles of writing. (2) It is argued that the accounts conflict in that they reflect divergent concepts of deity and a mismatched order of creation.I can't tell which ones you employ, looks like a combination of both so I'll give you a bit and piece of a defence.

First neither position is supportable and I'll copy and paste from a friend here and be as brief as possible with this as not to draw out the debate here.

STYLISTIC VARIATION

Professor Kenneth Kitchen of the University of Liverpool has noted, “stylistic differences are meaningless” (1966, p. 118). Such differences may as much indicate a variance in the subject addressed as the suggestion of multiple authors. On the basis of archaeological evidence, Kitchen has shown that the “stylistic” theory simply is not credible. For example, a biographical inscription of Uni, an Egyptian official who lived about 2400 B.C., reflects at least four different styles, and yet no one denies the unity of its authorship (Kitchen, 1966, p. 125).

The plural authorship of the “creation accounts” is supposed to be indicated by the use of two names for deity in these sections. “God” (Elohim) is employed in Genesis 1, whereas “Jehovah” (Yahweh) is found in 2:4ff. In response it may be observed, first, that solid biblical research has clearly shown the use of different appellations for deity to possibly reflect a purposeful theological emphasis. For example, Elohim, which suggests “strength,” exalts God as the mighty Creator. Yahweh is the name that expresses the essential moral and spiritual nature of deity, particularly in terms of His relationship to the nation of Israel (see Stone, 1944, p. 17). Second, the multiple employment of titles was common in the literature of antiquity as a device of literary variety. Archaeological discoveries have amply illustrated this point. Consider Genesis 28:13. The Lord speaks to Jacob and says: “I am Jehovah (Yahweh), the God (Elohim) of Abraham, the God (Elohim) of Isaac.” Would one argue for the multiple authorship of this single sentence upon the basis of the use of two Hebrew names for the Creator? Hardly. One scholar pointedly observed:

To conclude that differences in style or vocabulary unmistakably indicate different authors is invalid for any body of literature. It is well known that a single author may vary his style and select vocabulary to fit the themes he is developing and the people he is addressing. It goes without saying that a young graduate student’s love letter will vary significantly in vocabulary and style from his research paper (Davis, 1975, p. 23).

SUPPOSED CONTRADICTIONS:

First, it is supposed that in Genesis 1 the Creator is a transcendent Being, majestically and distantly bringing the creation into existence. In Genesis 2, however, He is characterized by naive anthropomorphisms (human terminology applied to deity) which imply an inferior status. For example, in Genesis 2 the writer says that Jehovah “formed,” “breathed,” “planted,” etc. (7-8).

While it is true that such expressions are found in chapter 2, what the critics have failed to notice is that anthropomorphic terminology also is employed in Genesis 1:1-2:4. In that section, God “called,” “saw,” “rested,” etc. (1:8,12; 2:1). There is no validity in this argument, and one is not surprised that serious scholars have labeled it “illusory” (Kitchen, 1966, p. 118).

Second, as indicated above, some reversed language order, as seen in the two chapters, is also supposed to demonstrate conflicting creation accounts. E.A. Speiser has written: “The first account starts out with the creation of ‘heaven and earth’ (1:1). The present narrative begins with the making of ‘earth and heaven’ (2:4b).” Speiser goes on to emphasize that in the first record heavenly activity is in focus, while in the latter account man is the center of interest. He thus concluded: “This far-reaching divergence in basic philosophy would alone be sufficient to warn the reader that two separate sources appear to be involved, one heaven-centered and the other earth-centered” (Speiser, 1964, pp. 18-19). This argument for a dual authorship of Genesis 1 and 2 is truly unconvincing. Let us carefully note Genesis 2:4. “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.” In this one verse there is contained the heaven/earth and earth/heaven motif. [Does this mean that two people must have written this one sentence?] Even the critics do not so contend!

Third, the claim is made that in chapter 1 man is represented as having been made “in the image of God” (27), yet in chapter 2, he is merely “formed...of the dust of the ground” (7), thus suggesting a distinct contrast. The point of comparison is too limited, hence, unfair. As professor John Sailhamer observed:

...we should not overlook the fact that the topic of the “creation of man” in chapter 2 is not limited merely to v. 7. In fact, the topic of the creation of the man and the woman is the focus of the whole of chapter 2. What the author had stated as a simple fact in chapter 1 (man, male and female, was created in God’s likeness) is explained and developed throughout the narrative of chapter 2. We cannot contrast the depiction of the creation of man in chapter 1 with only one verse in chapter 2; we must compare the whole of the chapter (1990, 2:40-41, parenthetical comment in orig.).

Fourth, Genesis 1 and 2 are said to contradict each other in the relative creation-order of plants and man. In chapter 1, it is argued, plants were created on the third day of the initial week (11-12), and man was made on the sixth day (26ff.), whereas in chapter 2, plants and herbs seem not to appear until after the formation of man (5ff.). The real problem exists only in the mind of the critic. There are possible means by which to resolve the alleged difficulty.

One view is that Genesis 2:5 does not refer to the condition of the Earth at large; rather, the writer simply is discussing the preparation of the beautiful garden in which man was to live (Young, p. 61). In any event, we must stress this point: whenever there is the possibility of legitimate reconciliation between passages that superficially appear to conflict, no contradiction can be charged!

BETTER EXPLAINATION:

First, careful analysis reveals that there is deliberate purpose in the individuality of these two sections of Scripture. In Genesis 1 there is a broad outline of the events of the creation week, which reaches its climax with the origin of mankind in the very image of God. In Genesis 2 there is the special emphasis upon man, the divine preparation of his home, the formation of a suitable mate, etc. Edward J. Young has a good statement of this matter:


There are different emphases in the two chapters...but the reason for these is obvious. Chapter 1 continues the narrative of creation until the climax, namely, man made in the image and likeness of God. To prepare the way for the account of the fall, chapter 2 gives certain added details about man’s original condition, which would have been incongruous and out of place in the grand, declarative march of chapter 1 (1960, p. 53).
This type of procedure was not unknown in the literary methodology of antiquity. Gleason Archer observed that the “technique of recapitulation was widely practiced in ancient Semitic literature. The author would first introduce his account with a short statement summarizing the whole transaction, and then he would follow it up with a more detailed and circumstantial account when dealing with matters of special importance” (1964, p. 118). These respective sections have a different literary motif. Genesis 1 is chronological, revealing the sequential events of the creation week, whereas Genesis 2 is topical, with special concern for man and his environment. [This procedure is not unknown elsewhere in biblical literature. Matthew’s account of the ministry of Christ is more topical, while Mark’s record is more chronological.]

Second, there is clear evidence that Genesis 2 was never an independent creation account. There are simply too many crucial elements missing for that to have been the case. For instance, there is no mention in Genesis 2 of the creation of the Earth, and there is no reference to the oceans or fish. There is no allusion to the Sun, Moon, and stars, etc. Archer has pointed out that there is not an origins record in the entire literature collection of the ancient Near East that omits discussing the creation of the Sun, Moon, seas, etc. (1982, p. 69). Obviously, Genesis 2 is a sequel to chapter 1. The latter presupposes the former and is built upon it.

Even Howard Johnston, who was (at least in part) sympathetic to the Documentary Hypothesis, conceded:

The initial chapter [Genesis 1] gives a general account of the creation. The second chapter is generally declared by critics to be a second account of the creation, but, considered in the light of the general plan, that is not an accurate statement. Evidently the purpose of this chapter is to show that out of all the creation we have especially to do with man. Therefore only so much of the general account is repeated as is involved in a more detailed statement concerning the creation of man. There is a marked difference of style in the two accounts, but the record is consistent with the plan to narrow down the story to man (1902, p. 90).

That's the short version, I won't bore you with the details but one creation story is highly defensible.

Peace!

By the way I totally miss the Lillith myth so far as Genesis is concerned...there is no character in the creation account that presents any even similar conflict to that of lillith etc....once agan and leap 4-real.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Lee~ I'm sorry I forgot to give you who I copied and pasted from... you can go to

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2194

There is also additional information but since you don't like JP, I'll save that for now.

Evan said...

Harvey, the Nephilim were the products of the "Sons of God" mating with men.

Jesus was the "Son of God". Without special pleading explain how Jesus is not just a divine being but the one, omniscient, omnipresent God incarnate but the Nephilim are not the products of divine beings mating with humans.

After you're done, please explain how a non-believer can determine the differences between the phrase "Son of God" when it means "God" and when it means "Non-divine being".

Thanks.

goprairie said...

so since the ORDER was not the POINT of the man/animal thing, then it is okay that they are different and both can be literally true. uh huh. got it.

Lee Randolph said...

Harvey,
thanks for the reasoned response.

If you don't like the datum of the documentary hypothesis, then there is always the abundance of prior myths with key elements of Genesis.

However, far be it from me to tell someone who does biblical scholarship for a living how to do their job. Your arguments have not convinced the majority of experts, and I can only appeal to experts in this matter, so I'll come down on the side of the majority, especially since I can see with my own eyes that there are stories that have key elements that predate genesis. So while I don't think there is one author in genesis, I think it wholly possible there was one editor.

I'm sorry if you don't see the similarities between lilith and Eve.

I'll try to make it easier for you.
Lets do a hypothesis test on these two stories. One Hyp. is that they are similar, one is that they are not. If they are not similar, we would not expect to see any shared elements, if they are, we do expect to see shared elements.

lets compare them for a moment. I'll type an element of the stories and then put an initial of E for eve and L for lilith if it appears in the story.

* Tree: E, L
* Snake: E, L
* interaction with snake: E, L
* Interaction with snake is a cause for an action: E, L
* reposition of woman to wilderness: E, L.

they are similar. A characteristic of folklore is multiple instance and variation. This qualifies as folklore.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Evan~ you ask a great question my friend and one that cannot be overlooked. Now, you know as well as I that this has been debated for millinia and I'm not smart enough to settle it here but here's my take with some assistance:

There are 3 Primary uses for the phrase "Son of God" in the bible,

1. In the Book of Job the phrase is used for angelic or nonhuman beings (Job 1:6; 2:1). These sons of God presented themselves before God in what might be called a heavenly assembly. Satan appeared with them, although this does not necessarily mean he was one of the “sons of God.” Thus the stage was set for the telling of the story of Job.

2. The phrase, “sons of God” appears in the New Testament as a name for people who are in a covenant relationship with God. This exact phrase never appears with this meaning in the Old Testament, although the idea is implied. For example, God referred to the scattered children of Israel, whom He promised to gather together again, as His sons and daughters (Is. 43:6; 45:11).
The classic New Testament passage where this phrase occurs is Romans 8:12–19. The apostle Paul encouraged the Christians at Rome to live not “according to the flesh,” but “by the Spirit,” because those who “are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God” (v. 14).
The process is described as one of adoption, by which the believer becomes a child of God, and thus an heir of God, a joint-heir with Christ (Gal. 4:5; Heb. 2:10; 12:7). Other passages use the phrase “children of God” with the same basic meaning (John 1:12; Phil. 2:15; 1 John 3:1–2).

3. The third usage of the phrase occurs in Genesis 6:1–4. Certain “sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose” (v. 2). The offspring of these unions are described as “giants,” “mighty men,” and “men of renown” (v. 4). The question centers on the identity of these “sons of God” mentioned in this passage.

There are two basic possibilities. 1- The phrase could refer to nonhuman beings such as those mentioned in Job (1:6; 2:1). Or, 2-the phrase may be an unusual way of referring to human beings.

The context of the verse gives important clues that the “sons of God” in this case are not angelic beings. Nowhere else in the Bible is there even a hint that nonhuman and human beings can mate.

There are many parallels in pagan thought, but none in biblical thought. A second clue occurs right in the passage itself. The Hebrew verb in verse two translated as “took them wives” is the standard verb in the Old Testament for marriage. In the New Testament, Jesus stated that angels do not marry (Matt. 22:30).

Thus, “sons of God” in this passage must refer to human beings.
Youngblood, Ronald F., General Editor; F.F. Bruce and R.K. Harrison, Consulting Editors, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1995.

I believe to interpret this any other way is inconsistent. That leads to another question, if angles could marry women then, what would prohibit them now or at any other time during biblical recorded history. We just don't find any inference to such behavior.

So far as contextualization or when does it mean one thing verses another, we do that almost everyday...have you ever called your wife baby? or has a friend ever called you Dog? You know what's being talked about based on context. "Sons Of God" is understandable within context. Who is being talked about and what are they doing? That's how we know, just like anything else.

That settles it for me, but I know others will have a field day...so be it (LOL)

Lee~ "However, far be it from me to tell someone who does biblical scholarship for a living how to do their job. Your arguments have not convinced the majority of experts, and I can only appeal to experts in this matter, so I'll come down on the side of the majority, especially since I can see with my own eyes that there are stories that have key elements that predate genesis. So while I don't think there is one author in genesis, I think it wholly possible there was one editor."

I won't argue with you Lee, there are scholars all across the board and not all of them are without balance.

Now this is something I've wanted to find. We often talk about majority/minority scholars etc...Does anyone know of any particular study among college religious studies professors where thay have been polled or asked their opinions on certain debateable data? I'm not asking this critically, I ask because I think that would be intersting, and I would like to have that information as a resourse especially against you guys(LOL).

I mean if I have a position as a Christian that 80% of the scholars have rejected, I need to know that so I can find out why. I don't believe that majorities indicate a lock on truth but I also realize that works BOTH ways. Just because a bunch of scholars agree doesn't make it automatically so.

Anyway, good and insightful convo. I'm gonna research this Lillith thing a little more Lee. That is an interesting subject and i haven't given it the attention you bring to light.

Thanks fellas.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Harvey,

"In the Book of Job the phrase is used for angelic or nonhuman beings (Job 1:6; 2:1). These sons of God presented themselves before God in what might be called a heavenly assembly. "
....
"1- The phrase could refer to nonhuman beings such as those mentioned in Job (1:6; 2:1). Or, 2-the phrase may be an unusual way of referring to human beings."
2. The phrase, “sons of God” appears in the New Testament as a name for people who are in a covenant relationship with God. This exact phrase never appears with this meaning in the Old Testament, although the idea is implied.


Since the OT was written well before the NT, by a group of people with a different philosophy, the NT use is irrelevant to the OT use. It is an obsure inference but on the other hand, there is a clear precedent in Job for its use.

"Nowhere else in the Bible is there even a hint that non-human and human beings can mate. "
This only means that there is no OTHER mention of it, except for the Nephilum passage. If we exclude the Nephilum passage, then we can't affirm or deny that non-humans can mate.

"There are many parallels in pagan thought, but none in biblical thought. "
There are parallels in pagan thought, and this is evidence of Hebrews incorporating Near Eastern folklore into thier culture. Syncretism.

"A second clue occurs right in the passage itself. The Hebrew verb in verse two translated as “took them wives” is the standard verb in the Old Testament for marriage. In the New Testament, Jesus stated that angels do not marry (Matt. 22:30). "
my old pastor told me they were "fallen angels", demons, Lucifers guys. What right do you have to tell me he was wrong? If he's wrong, then there are others cause he got it from somewhere. Looking at it in context, I guess angels don't marry if jesus says so but that doesn't exclude the sons of Zuess, The Titans, the other greek, egyptian and Mesopotamian gods.

"I believe to interpret this any other way is inconsistent. That leads to another question, if angles could marry women then, what would prohibit them now or at any other time during biblical recorded history. We just don't find any inference to such behavior. "
One reason I can think of is that they aren't real. But on the other hand, the bible is silent on the issue isn't it? You choose to give more weight to an obscure inference than to a real precedent. When atheist argue that the bible is silent on this or that we get smacked down. "Arguments from Silence" are unstable aren't they? You expect this or that but its not there so can an inference be made? Its also an argument from ignorance. Its not true simply because there's nothing denying it and vice versa. All we can really say is that we don't know whether angels had sex with humans or not, if we exclude the nephilum passage.

Look it doesn't matter to me if they were angels or not, but it is a clear indication using your evidence that they are the incorporation of Near Eastern Folklore into the Hebrew tradition.

And thats what I'm all about. Showing that the Bible is an amalgam of Near Eastern Folklore all the way up to Revelations.

And don't focus on Lilith, she's just one of many concepts conflated and incorporated into hebrew culture. There's plenty more where she came from.

DingoDave said...

Harvey Burnett wrote:

-"In the Book of Job the phrase is used for angelic or nonhuman beings (Job 1:6; 2:1). These sons of God presented themselves before God in what might be called a heavenly assembly. Satan appeared with them, although this does not necessarily mean he was one of the “sons of God.”

Rubbish!

Job.1
[6] Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.

Job.2
[1] Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the LORD.

These verses clearly refer to Satan as being one of the 'sons of God'. To try and assert anything else, is nothing less than blatant dishonesty. Incidentally, the 'heavenly assembly' as you call it, is referred to by most scholars as the 'divine council', which is a thoroughly polytheistic idea in case you hadn't noticed.

Ps.82
[1] God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:

-"There are two basic possibilities. 1- The phrase could refer to nonhuman beings such as those mentioned in Job (1:6; 2:1). Or, 2-the phrase may be an unusual way of referring to human beings. The context of the verse gives important clues that the “sons of God” in this case are not angelic beings. Nowhere else in the Bible is there even a hint that non-human and human beings can mate."

What a load of bullshit Harvey!

Matt.1
[18] Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit;
[19] and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.
[20] But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit;
[21] she will bear a son...
[23] "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
[24] When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife,
[25] but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.

Luke.1
[26] In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,
[27] to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
[28] And he came to her and said, "Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!"
[30] And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
[31] And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.
[34] And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?"
[35] And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God."

If these verses don't speak of a god 'mating' with a human female, then nothing does.

-"There are many parallels in pagan thought, but none in biblical thought. A second clue occurs right in the passage itself. The Hebrew verb in verse two translated as “took them wives” is the standard verb in the Old Testament for marriage...Thus, “sons of God” in this passage must refer to human beings...I believe to interpret this any other way is inconsistent."

'Took them for wives' in this context, simply means 'had sex with them', whether they were willing or not. Take for example the following passage. It illustrates perfectly the Biblical concept of 'taking a woman as wife'. "Taking", being the operative word.

Deut.21
[10] "When you go forth to war against your enemies, and Yahweh your god gives them into your hands, and you take them captive,
[11] and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have desire for her and would take her for yourself as wife,
[12] then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and pare her nails.
[13] And she shall put off her captive's garb, and shall remain in your house and bewail her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.
[14] Then, if you have no delight in her, you shall let her go where she will; but you shall not sell her for money, you shall not treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.

If this is your idea of a 'marriage', then you are one sick puppy.

-"I believe to interpret this any other way is inconsistent. That leads to another question, if angles (angels) could marry women then, what would prohibit them now or at any other time during biblical recorded history. We just don't find any inference to such behavior."

I call bullshit once again Harvey. You simply make things up as you go along. Please read the following passages.

1Cor.11
5] but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head -- it is the same as if her head were shaven.
[6] For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.
[10] That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.

Jude 1
[6] And the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day;
[7] just as Sodom and Gomor'rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
[8] Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious ones.

2Pet.2
[2] And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.
[3] And in their greed they will exploit you with false words; from of old their condemnation has not been idle, and their destruction has not been asleep.
[4] For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment...
[9] then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment,

These passages refer to the 'sons of God' who had sex with mortal women in the 'Nephilim' passage. There was quite an elaborate mythology built up around the 'Nephilim' passage during the inter-testamental period, and in early New Testament times. You need to do a bit more reading Harvey. Read the book of Enoch for example, and you'll see what I mean.

-"have you ever called your wife baby? or has a friend ever called you Dog?"

No.

-"That settles it for me, but I know others will have a field day...so be it (LOL)"

Then all I can say is that you appear to be very easily satisfied.

-"No I don't edit the good ones I only edit the bad ones like the rambling trash you offer when you've been whooped in a debate!

Do you realise how unethical it is to edit an opponent's posts during an online debate?
Whether they're 'rambling trash' as you describe it, is for the readers to decide. Not you.
Now edit this post if you can. (LOL)

Lee Randolph said...

thanks dingo,
nice comment!

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Lee~ I'm surprised that you thought anything that Fido said was good. You too must suffer from delusia conspiratopia!

The argument is not an argument from silence. The argument is clear and spells out what the people were doing. The terms are traditionally used terms that indicate physical marriage. A noncaporal being cannont and does not marry physical beings. Neither do they impregmnate them or cover them sexually.

The ABSOLUTE CRAP that Fido spews is par for the course because he has a sever case of mental retadadosia that has graduated from delusia conspiratopia and is only cureable upon his last human breath.

I'm glad to see you fight for your former pastor, I can't help it that he didn't use the best skills in discerning this passage.

Peace.

Fido...What up DOG?

Lee Randolph said...

harvey, harvey, harvey,
he got you good with mary being impregnated by god.
admit it.
Jesus is the product of human and divine relations.

and he did show that women had to wear coverings to dissuade those horn-dog angels.
;-)

although it could also be that paul was warning against offending the angels who were believed to "be present at sacred gatherings and sacred times, to watch over and to join with the saints in their spiritual exercises. Any serious offense against propriety during these sacred moments will stir up the disapproval of these angelic helpers of the saints, perhaps causing them to depart; and any good deed they witness will bring all the more aid from them."
naaaaahhhhhh.....they're horn-dogs.

DingoDave said...

Harvey wrote:
"Fido...What up DOG?"

Nuttin much. Just watchin da game; havin a brew. Whazzup wit-chu blood?

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Lee that was the most ridiculous thing in the world...get all the way outta here with that...(LOL) that WAS DEFINATELY not a gotchya moment.

Fido, it's your world hommie...Get at me when ya can partna!

Now don't say you don't contextualize in order to know what I'm talkin about...we do this all the time...and by the way, why don't you call your wife baby at least sometimes (and I am assuming you're married)I mean even atheists need a love life---LOL!

Peace

sconnor said...

Harvey,

Nowhere else in the Bible is there even a hint that nonhuman and human beings can mate.

Hint, hint.

When Lot is tooling around with two of god's messengers the crowd wants to play nookie with them. Send them out so we can have sex.

Does lot say, no, these supernatural beings don't have sex with mortals? Does he insinuate that these angels are incapable of doing the horizontal hokey-pokey? Does he say come on guys, don't you remember, that supernatural beings, don't fuck around? NO. Lot substantiates their sexual potential by telling the crowd, take my daughters instead, these angels are guests in my house. You would think that Lot and the crowd should have known that the angelic, supernatural beings, didn't posses the junk to fuck, but from the context of the story, there is more than a hint, that non-humans and humans could get it on. --S.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Sconnor

Obviously some non humans got it on to produce some of you guys...I can see that much more clearly now...with crazy hypothesis like these...

The story of Lot was filled with wicked men...I know some of you may act like aliens and demons but you're just men...

This is one of the biggest laughs I've had in a long time. That is just too funny! Which one of you is the last comic standing? All of you oughta be on comic-view....

WOW!

sconnor said...

Harvey, you are not making sense.

Contextually, the wicked people wanted to have sex with the angels.

Contextually, Lot was going to offer up his daughters so the people could have their way with the girls, instead of the supernatural beings.

Contextually, Lot never reminded the unruly mob that, supposedly, angels were not equipped to do the nasty.

So we can conclude from the context of the Lot story, people believed the angels were capable of being sexual beings.

There is more than a hint, that supernatural beings are sexual, whether you care to see it, or not.

--S.

DingoDave said...

Harvey Headbanger, alias - 'The Editor' wrote:

-(With fingers in ears) "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

-"...and by the way, why don't you call your wife baby at least sometimes (and I am assuming you're married)I mean even atheists need a love life---LOL!"

I don't call my wife 'baby', because the term 'baby' is an American idiom, and very few native-born Australians use that term. My wife would laugh at me if I went around calling her 'baby'. She would probably imagine that I was mimmicking a line out of some cheap porno flick, or some old gangster movie.
You need to travel more Harvey. You might be only vaguely aware of it, but there is a whole wide world out there beyond the United States. I prefer to use the words darling, or sweetheart, which are far more popular terms of endearment here in Australia.

-"This is one of the biggest laughs I've had in a long time. That is just too funny!"

It wasn't a laughing matter to Lot, who obviously didn't want to see his new angel friends get reamed in the butt by a crazed mob. (he would have preferred to see that happen to his adolescent daughters instead)
Now, if Lot assumed that these angels had arseholes, then why should we suppose that he didn't also assume that they had the dangly bits that go with them? Oh, I almost forgot, logic isn't your strongest skill is it?

-"Obviously some non humans got it on to produce some of you guys...I can see that much more clearly now"

Goddammit, now my secret's out! Yes, I admit that my virgin mother was 'overshadowed' by the great god Mulungu, and that his Holy Spirit 'came' upon her (or rather IN her).

I'm really one of those pesky 'Nephilim', and I can do some pretty nifty party tricks (one of my favourites is changing water into wine). Now that you know this, what do you think should be done with me? Should I be 'cast into hell and committed to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment', or just given a firm slap on the wrist and told that I'm a very naughty boy? : D

I'm afraid that you can't see the forest for the trees Harvey. Your primitive supersitions have blinded you to the obvious.

Now edit this Harvey Wallbanger!

Evan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Fido~ "Harvey Headbanger, alias - 'The Editor' wrote:"

[I like that, "Harvey the Head banger, the Editor" "Headbangin’ and Editing atheists out of existince and driving them crazy with the truth!"

Thanks DOG, you are good for somethin’ no matter what they say about you]

Fido~ “She would probably imagine that I was mimmicking a line out of some cheap porno flick, or some old gangster movie.
You need to travel more Harvey. You might be only vaguely aware of it, but there is a whole wide world out there beyond the United States. I prefer to use the words darling, or sweetheart, which are far more popular terms of endearment here in Australia.“

[OK "darling", "sweetheart" we American's are so uncultured and debase...you’re just a real thespian aren’t you? I bet your loved one’s can’t wait for that "darling" to just roll off your tongue...only don’t open that mouth too wide, that pea of a brain just might fall out.

It’s because of statements like this that I say that:]

Fido~ "Job.1
[6] Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.
Job.2
[1] Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the LORD.

These verses clearly refer to Satan as being one of the 'sons of God'. To try and assert anything else, is nothing less than blatant dishonesty."

[OK since I see you are still reading and intellectually challenged (when it comes to the bible) I’ll help. The word "among" does not mean that he was one of them...it just means that he (satan) was in the crowd. Look carefully Fido...The "Son’s Of God" came and satan was "among them" he wasn’t an additional son, or even one of the sons he was ONLY among them...

That’s like the Detroit Pistons coming to receive a community service award at a banquet and I’m on the stage with them receiving another community service award...I would be "among" them...NOT, one of them (Pistons)...PLEASE!

Let’s do this, since you're so twisted you bring your thespian self to America and learn how to read while I learn how to spell and type. We can do this together Dingo...no need for you to live like this...(LOL!) By the way all the rest of your twisted refrences are just that...TWISTED. WHAT A GAG!

Lee, Evan and Sconnor, I believe that you guys are undercover perverts. You render the sickest account of a biblical story(ies) in history.

For starters, the men that wanted to “know” or have sex with the angels that were with Lot were perverts that controlled the city nightlife. They were homos and bisexuals, and otherwise wicked people that thought the angles were MEN. (Gen. 19:5) The angles had no sympathy for their wicked condition and what they were trying to do and blinded them (Gen. 19:11) and later destroyed the city with them in it. So your complete argument here is not only off the original topic but it’s a complete rewriting of the passage.

Secondly, you ought to go to the front of the “freak line” for your egregious interpretation of God’s interaction with Mary.

#1- the Holy Ghost “coming upon” and “overshadowing” Mary in Lk. 1:35 has nothing to do with semen or sexual integration and or intercourse. The word “come” in the passage or [Eperchomai{ep-er’-khom-ahee}] means to arrive or overtake at an appointed time and the word “overshadow” or [Episkiazo {ep-ee-skee-ad’-zo}] is used of the Holy Ghost exerting creative energy upon the womb of the virgin Mary and impregnating it (a use of the word which seems to have been drawn from the familiar OT idea of a cloud as symbolizing the immediate presence and power of God) ~ Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.

At either rate both of those words are totally contrary to the word “know” or “knew” or [Ginosko{ghin-oce’-ko}] which was the word used as a Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. Why is [Ginosko] reserved to describe sexual intercourse between man and woman only?

BECAUSE sexual intercourse between humans and angles DO NOT EXIST! You sick, twisted, PERVERTED FREAKS! (and I do mean that in the nicest way imaginable)

Of course I would expect die hard historical critical metaphysical naturalists as you guys to not get it because you have a handicapped brain, but for those with some semblance of sense after reading the perverted clan's comments the truth makes us free of their garbage.

I’m outta here freak clan!

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

I just couldn't resist this one...everytime Fido opens his mouth he says something so ridiculously stupid it's unbelieveable...

He uses Deut. 21:10-14 to show that God and the men of Israel have such a low view of women when the passage actually speaks to providing and building the decency and respectability for women who have lost all as a result of battle...These are the verses he sites:

Deut.21
[10] "When you go forth to war against your enemies, and Yahweh your god gives them into your hands, and you take them captive,

[Meaning when you've fought a battle and defeated the enemy]

[11] and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have desire for her and would take her for yourself as wife,

[And you see a woman of them that have been defeated and are interested in making her a part of your family...ie: INSTEAD of raping her or making her a slave do this...]

[12] then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and pare her nails.

[Shave her head, which was the custom of the day to change the identification of the barbarous person (which groomend hair would grow in it's place) and "pare" he nails, in other words give her a manicure, clean her up and take time for her to get strength and...]

[13] And she shall put off her captive's garb, and shall remain in your house and bewail her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.

[Show her some respect, put some new clothes on her so that she doesn't resemble a defeated enemy, let her grieve her family that was killed in the battle and wait a month before the marrige is consummated]

[14] Then, if you have no delight in her, you shall let her go where she will; but you shall not sell her for money, you shall not treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.

[Then if she doesn't want you and you don't want her and there's no hope of making the marriage work...LET HER GO BECAUSE SHE'S NOT A SLAVE or second class citizen. The word "humbled" or "humiliated" (as Fido's interpretation) simply reminds the man to have mercy because she lost everything due to the war and battle and may yet be grieving.

Yes Fido, that's marriage God's style...with a healthy respect for the what, why and how someone came to be in the situation that they're in...They may not do it like that in Australia "darling"..."sweetheart"... but that's what we expect in America...RESPECT for one another's feelings and situations...and a message of ANTI-SLAVERY and freedom!

Haedbangin' Editor to the rescue...keep talking Fido...just give me more to laugh at you ramblin' fool!

And just in case...Ps. 14:1 and Ps. 53:1 so I'm good!

Peace.

DingoDave said...

Ref. Harvey Headbanger's last post, regarding Israelite prisoners of war:

I wonder whether the American military establishment will put your rules into practice regarding female prisoners of war in Iraq and Afganistan? Should American soldiers be allowed to take female sex slaves for themselves, as per the instructions in your 'holy' book?

I'd certainly like to see THAT one get past congress! : D

Your pathetic rationalisations of these ancient brutalities hold no water with me Harvey. (just in case you hadn't already noticed)

By the way, the passage in question says NOTHING about how the poor unfortunate women might feel about the whole situation. You just made that one up, all on your own.
Can you imagine ANY woman WANTING to have sex with ANY man who had just slaughtered her entire family?
Get real for once in your life Harvey.

P.S. - 'Headbanging' refers to the practice of someone fruitlessly banging their OWN head against a solid object, thereby causing themselves self-injury. It does NOT refer to banging one's head into an opponent to any good effect. I just thought that you might want to know that, before you go around describing yourself as a 'headbanger'.

"The term 'headbanger' was coined on Led Zeppelin's first US tour in 1968...During a show at the Boston Tea Party, audience members in the first row were banging their heads against the stage in rhythm with the music...
Health issues;
In 2005, Terry Balsamo, Evanescence guitarist, received a stroke from headbanging. There have also been cases of people receiving whiplash from headbanging, and it is not uncommon for some to receive headaches and bloody noses from headbanging."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headbanging

Obviously the subtleties of my reference were completely lost on you. Now why doesn't THAT surprise me?

"Be careful when you spit out the window of your car, that the wind doesn't blow it back in your face".
-Stan Ridgway

Rachel said...

DingoDave,

Just out of curiosity, which books/articles/online sources/other have you read about the culture of the ANE and what life was like then?

Lee Randolph said...

Hi harvey,
here's the situation as I see it with sex between humans, angels and gods, then I'm working on my final draft of my next article.

Since before the invention of writing, there were stories of the gods interacting with humans and human offspring from gods. Gilgamesh was 'half-god', a defining characteristic of an egyptian pharoah was to be decended from a god, and Alexander the Great was told that he was the son of an egyptian god by an oracle, and used that as his justification to become pharoah in the last days.

If you want to say that the culture of the more powerful civilizations didn't affect the hebrews in this case, more power too you, but you are simply denying a sound principle of civilizations and of human nature, which are "the greater civilization influences the lesser" and " to survive humans compromise and adapt".

sure we were 'taking liberties' with the angels, but the fact is that in the near east in general, sex between the gods and humans was accepted as normal and in some cases necessary and there is evidence of "leakage" through the boundaries of hebrew culture in the bible.

DingoDave said...

Harvey Headbanger wrote:

-" The word "among" does not mean that he was one of them...it just means that he (satan) was in the crowd. Look carefully Fido...The "Son’s Of God" came and satan was "among them" he wasn’t an additional son, or even one of the sons he was ONLY among them..."

How absurd. Who was it that supposedly created Satan in the first place Harvey? According to your mythology, what was Satan's position before he and his fellow angels rebelled against Yahweh and his regime?
Wasn't Satan supposed to have been the highest of all the angels in the heavenly hierachy, before being kicked out of Heaven along with one third of Yahweh's other angels?
Wasn't he supposed to have been Yahweh's 'Top Dog'? The Archangel of Archangels? Wouldn't that qualify him for being described as a 'son of God', just the same as all the other of Yahweh's angels / sons?
In the Old Testament Satan functioned as mankind's chief prosecutor in Yahweh's divine council. He was pictured as being Yahweh's prosecuting attorney. That is what he was doing in Yahweh's divine council in the book of Job, along with all the rest of Yahweh's sons.

Read this.

"Among those books of the Hebrew Scriptures written before 300 BCE, the term "satan" (root word "s'tn") appears often. The word is derived from the original Hebrew verb "satan" which means "to oppose."... In Job 1 and 2: Satan is described as one of the members of the court of heaven. God mentions that he is impressed at the behavior of Job, a blameless man who has lived an upright life. Satan attributes Job's commendable behavior to his good fortune and says that Job would soon curse God if he had a string of really bad luck.
God decides to conduct an experiment with Job; he instructs Satan to destroy all that Job has: kill his animals, murder his employees, and murder his innocent children. But, even after these disasters, Job still does not curse God. So God instructs Satan to up the ante by returning to earth and destroying Job's health. Here, Satan is portrayed as a servant of God whose task it is to dutifully carry out evil deeds at God's instruction...There are no passages within the older parts of the Hebrew Scriptures where Satan is portrayed as an evil devil - the arch enemy of God and of humanity. At most, he is described as a henchman who carries out God's evil instructions. There is no dualism here between two powerful supernatural entities: an all-good God and an all-evil Satan. God is portrayed as performing, directly and indirectly, both kind and evil deeds."
- 'Satan: Early history',
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_sat2.htm

Do you even believe your own bullshit Harvey?

In your previous post, you asserted that female prisoners of war were not looked upon simply as captured booty, just like any of the other spoils of war which the victorious Israelite soldiers were entitled to a share of. Once again, I call you on your incredible bullshit Harvey.

Read the following passages and weep.

Numbers 31
[7] They [the Israelites] warred against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and slew every male.
[9] And the people of Israel took captive the women of Midian and their little ones; and they took as booty all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods.
[10] All their cities in the places where they dwelt, and all their encampments, they burned with fire,
[11] and took all the spoil and all the booty, both of man and of beast.
[12] Then they brought the captives and the booty and the spoil to Moses, and to Eleazar the priest, and to the congregation of the people of Israel, at the camp on the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho.
[13] Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the congregation, went forth to meet them outside the camp.
[14] And Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in the war.
[15] Moses said to them, "Have you let all the women live?
[17] Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him.
[18] But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
[25] The LORD said to Moses,
[26] "Take the count of the booty that was taken, both of man and of beast, you and Eleazar the priest and the heads of the fathers' houses of the congregation;
[27] and divide the booty into two parts, between the warriors who went out to battle and all the congregation.
[28] And levy for the LORD a tribute from the men of war who went out to battle, one out of five hundred, of the persons and of the oxen and of the asses and of the flocks;
[32] Now the booty remaining of the spoil that the men of war took was: six hundred and seventy-five thousand sheep,
[33] seventy-two thousand cattle,
[34] sixty-one thousand asses,
[35] and thirty-two thousand persons in all, women who had not known man by lying with him.
[36] And the half, the portion of those who had gone out to war, was in number three hundred and thirty-seven thousand five hundred sheep,
[37] and the LORD's tribute of sheep was six hundred and seventy-five.
[38] The cattle were thirty-six thousand, of which the LORD's tribute was seventy-two.
[39] The asses were thirty thousand five hundred, of which the LORD's tribute was sixty-one.
[40] The persons were sixteen thousand, of which the LORD's tribute was thirty-two persons.
[41] And Moses gave the tribute, which was the offering for the LORD, to Eleazar the priest, as the LORD commanded Moses.
[42] From the people of Israel's half, which Moses separated from that of the men who had gone to war --
[43] now the congregation's half was three hundred and thirty-seven thousand five hundred sheep,
[44] thirty-six thousand cattle,
[45] and thirty thousand five hundred asses,
[46] and sixteen thousand persons [47] from the people of Israel's half Moses took one of every fifty, both of persons and of beasts, and gave them to the Levites who had charge of the tabernacle of the LORD; as the LORD commanded Moses.
[53] (The men of war had taken booty, every man for himself.)

Deut.20
[10] "When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it.
[11] And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you.
[12] But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it;
[13] and when the LORD your God gives it into your hand you shall put all its males to the sword,
[14] but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourselves; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you.

Did you notice that these passages refer to the prisoners of war as BOOTY, and SPOIL?
Yes, those certainly would have been 'marriages made in heaven' wouldn't they?
I don't think that there is anything wrong with MY reading comprehension skills Harvey, however I do believe that YOURS could use a little bit of polishing up.

-"Yes Fido, that's marriage God's style...with a healthy respect for the what, why and how someone came to be in the situation that they're in...They may not do it like that in Australia "darling"..."sweetheart"... but that's what we expect in America...RESPECT for one another's feelings and situations...and a message of ANTI-SLAVERY and freedom!"

You're such a kidder aren't you Harvey?
Stop it, you're making me laugh, and this is supposed to be a serious conversation. : D
Since when has viewing female hostages as nothing more than 'Booty' and 'Spoil', been synonymous with 'respect for their feelings and situations'??? WTF? : O
Have you completely lost your mind man?
And you've certainly been reading the wrong book if you want to find principles such as respect, anti-slavery, and freedom, because the Bible certainly doesn't promote any of THOSE values.
However you were right about one thing. That's certainly NOT the way we do things here in Australia, thank goodness. Here in Australia it is illegal to take young girls hostage, and keep them as sex slaves. I'm sorry to hear that you think it should be OK to do so in America. You are one sick puppy Bro!

-"The word "humbled" or "humiliated" (as Fido's interpretation) simply reminds the man to have mercy because she lost everything due to the war and battle and may yet be grieving."

No Harvey. Wrong yet again. The word 'humiliated' (which incidentally is not MY interpretation, but that of the RSV Bible translators) means that the man had de-flowered her, that is, he had deprived her of her virginity, thereby making her in the eyes of any other prospective husbands, 'second-hand goods', and therefore virtually unmarriable. Her rapist had all but ruined her future prospects of marriage, which in those days meant a ruined life for most young women.

-"Let’s do this, since you're so twisted you bring your thespian self to America and learn how to read while I learn how to spell and type."

I have visited America on a couple of occasions Harvey. I have been to Los Angeles, San Fransisco, and New York, as well as Hawaii, so I am passingly familiar with your culture, and people. I also lived and worked in England for several years, and have travelled extensively throughout Great Britain, Europe and South East Asia. Unfortunately, my travelling days are over for the time being, because I now have a young son who attends primary school, and who needs to stay put for now. Thanks for the invitation though, I might take you up on it one day.

-"Lee, Evan and Sconnor, I believe that you guys are undercover perverts. You render the sickest account of a biblical story(ies) in history."

It's unfortunate that there are so many sick and twisted stories in the Bible to draw attention TO Harvey! Hey, we didn't write the bloody thing, we've just read it and understood it for what it really is.

-"The word “come” in the passage or [Eperchomai{ep-er’-khom-ahee}] means to arrive or overtake at an appointed time and the word “overshadow” or [Episkiazo {ep-ee-skee-ad'-zo}] is used of the Holy Ghost exerting creative energy upon the womb of the virgin Mary and impregnating it (a use of the word which seems to have been drawn from the familiar OT idea of a cloud as symbolizing the immediate presence and power of God)"

What is the essential difference between Yahweh somehow mysteriously mucking about inside Mary's womb, and mating with her? Where do you suppose the sperm came from to impregnate her, if not from Yahweh himself?

-"BECAUSE sexual intercourse between humans and angles DO NOT EXIST! You sick, twisted, PERVERTED FREAKS!"

Tell that to all the Bible scholars who interpret the 'Nephilim' passage the same way we do, in contradiction to all your empty blusterings and outraged handwavings. Also tell that to all the ancient authors who thought the very same thing.
Your absurd apologetics reminds me of a line out of William Shakespeare's play 'Macbeth'; "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Read the passage again CAREFULLY Harvey, and then repeat your ridiculous bullshit to us once again, if you dare. Here it is.

Gen.6
[1] When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them,
[2] the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose.
[4] The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.

You are in the minority, with your strained and tortured interpretations of this passage Harvey, so in this case I'm going with the majority of scholarly opinion (and my own common sense), rather than with your mental contortions.
In summary, methinks that it is YOU who is the 'perverted freak' with the reading comprehension problems, not us.

Chow DOG.

DingoDave said...

Rachel asked:
"Just out of curiosity, which books/articles/online sources/other have you read about the culture of the ANE and what life was like then?"

Enough to see through Harvey's bullshit apologetics.
There is a vast wealth of information available online about Biblical studies and ancient Near Eastern history.
Try reading some of Richard Carrier's work, or Robert Price's stuff. Hector Avalos has also written some excellent books and articles.
I used to have lots of links saved on my old computer, before it suddenly gave up the ghost, so regrettably I've lost them all.
But an online search should give you heaps to read. However, stay away from Christian apologetics websites, because thay are nearly always full of the same tendentious rubbish that you've no doubt seen Harvey Burnett spouting on this website.

Perhaps start by reading 'Biblical Beginnings in Canaan'.
You can find it here;
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/canaan.html
or,
Virtual Religion Index: 'Ancient Near East'
http://virtualreligion.net/vri/aneast3.html

A good book is 'The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities in Ancient Israel' by Mark S Smith
You can find some exerpts from this book online.
Another of Smith's books is, 'The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts'
It is also online. You can find a short summary here, http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/MSmith_BiblicalMonotheism.htm

A good website is 'The Bible and Interpretation' here, http://www.bibleinterp.com/index.htm

You could also read 'Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan', by John Day, which is also online.

'Occidental Mythology: The Masks of God', by Joseph Campbell.
'Middle Eastern Mythology', by S.H. Hooke.
Another excellent book in my opinion, is 'The Religion of the Occident', which was also published under the title 'The Story of Christian Origins', by Martin A Larson.
Also 'The Essene Heritage', by Martin A Larson.
'By the Waters of Babylon', by James Wellard.
And a good introduction to the Bible is surprisingly enough, 'Asimov's Guide to the Bible', by Isaac Asimov.

These are a few that I would recommend to you.

Cheers, David.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Fido It's hard to believe that a thespian such as yourself can be so incredibly stupid...but what the hey...to what one aspires is what one becomes...

Anyway, for your long rants you already know the answers for the Midianites...guess what, God's standards of morality and justice are much greater than yours and all your little "whiner" atheist friends who just CRY over the fact that those Midianite children had to die...no mention of the fact that they would have been sacrificed or become animal food otherwise.

Since you like to refer people to to GARBAGE websites in order to support your LIES Let me at least refer someone to a TRUE site that you can't stand...go on over to my friends J.P's site and learn something 4-real:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fem02b.html

And my friends at Quartz Hill

http://www.theology.edu/lec22.htm

If you had an inkling of an understanding of truth you'd realize that God's mercy and love demands justice and the Midianites had over 400 years to get things right and they did what you and many of your other cronies do...they rebelled...Just like touching a hot stove against right advice, you'll pay the price everytime...but you rational and functional objectivists have such a grasp on morality and the care for children right?

Yea right you DOG.

You're the same ones that feel killing someone is justifiable if that person is not, in your opinion, self-aware don't ya? Ooh, we won't let that little secret out...right! PLEASE DOG!

To show how twisted atheists are in general, LvKA gives a refrence to giving you Lee the finger and all of your "moral gods" jump all over him...while you cuss INSISENTLY in your answers to me.

See Fido, I know the truth of what atheism REALLY is when prepared by RADICAL MORONS such as you...I can honestly see the difference between those in it for the arguments sake such as Evan and those who are yielded to it such as you. I know none of you "believe" in Christianity, but you and as I told you before, HATE God...you're one of those radical haters of truth and a despiser of God to the CORE. A classic FOOL in the biblical sense.

Anyway, your fictitious LIES are nothing but that. Your insisent cussing is only a smoke-screen for a shallow empty and OLD arguments refuted many times over.

By the way if you did know anything about ANE captives you'd see tha the Biblical command exceeded anything that existed in that day and was TOTALLY more honoring of captives than any other culture existing during that era. You won't admit that and your garbage atheist friends won't either because it KILLS your whole hypothesis...

Stop spreading your CRAP like a plague and get some truth...I for one and not scared of any of your GARBAGE...Saying junk like you offer louder doesn't give it or the authors any more creedence than they had 100 and 200 years ago when the arguments were created and ultimately put down.

So waive the hands at that Fido, cuss all you want in the end the bible TRUTH and Jesus as Lord will live beyond you and ALL your atheist partners...That's yet another thing that you can count on.

Later Fido...Yo quichreo Taco Bell!

DingoDave said...

Harvey Headbanger wrote:

-"Anyway, for your long rants you already know the answers for the Midianites...guess what, God's standards of morality and justice are much greater than yours and all your little "whiner" atheist friends who just CRY over the fact that those Midianite children had to die...no mention of the fact that they would have been sacrificed or become animal food otherwise."

The Midianite children HAD to die? They would have been sacrificed? They would have become animal food? : D : D : D
Where on earth do you get these crazy ideas from Harvey? Your brain obviously 'works in mysterious ways'.
Anyway, if that were really the case, then why were the Israelite soldiers permitted to keep all the young virgin girls for themselves to use as sex slaves? Sixteen thousand of them according to the text, with thirty two of them being sacrificed to Yahweh as I recall.

-"Since you like to refer people to to GARBAGE websites in order to support your LIES Let me at least refer someone to a TRUE site that you can't stand...go on over to my friends J.P's site and learn something 4-real"

Harvey, you wouldn't recognise the truth, even if it walked up behind you and bit you on the butt.
By the way, I have read some of the stuff over at christian-thinktank.com, and what I have read there merely confirms what I told Rachel about Christian apologetics websites. Their absurd and desperate rationalisations are just as 'off the planet' as yours are here. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Thanks anyway Harvey.

-"If you had an inkling of an understanding of truth you'd realize that God's mercy and love demands justice and the Midianites had over 400 years to get things right and they did what you and many of your other cronies do...they rebelled...Just like touching a hot stove against right advice, you'll pay the price everytime...but you rational and functional objectivists have such a grasp on morality and the care for children right?"

The Midianites had 400 years to get things right? Where in the Bible does it say that Yahweh ever revealed himself to the Midianites the way he is supposed to have revealed himself to his 'chosen people' the Israelites? Where in the Bible does it say that the Israelites ever tried to talk the Midianites into joining their Yahweh cult? The Bible doesn't mention either of those things happening, and you know it as well as I do. So stop with your ridiculous excuses for what can only be described as a cold blooded massacre of innocent women and children, combined with a slave gathering expedition.
Your mind has been so twisted by your primitive, brutal superstitions, that it has blinded you to any sense of TRUE morality Harvey. The intentional massacre of women and children is immoral. It was immoral then, and it is immoral now. So yes, I do feel sympathy for those unfortunate victims of such a heinous crime. If you can describe the wholesale slaughter of women and children as 'caring for them', then there is something seriously wrong with you bro.

Your analogy about someone putting their hand on a hot stove is also a monumental failure. The god you worship allegedly tells people not to put their hand on a hot stove, then if they do, he supposedly throws their WHOLE BODIES into a red-hot oven as a punishment for disobeying him. If any parent on earth did such a thing to their children, they would probably be locked away in an insane asylum for the rest of their lives. And deservedly so.

"Imagine how much hatred you would have to have for another person to take his hand and press it against a hot stove, and hold it there while he struggles and screams in pain. Now imagine, not just burning a person's hand, but setting his entire body on fire; and now imagine doing it not just for a few moments, not for hours or days or years or millennia, but forever; and now imagine tormenting not just one, but thousands, millions, billions of people like this, inflicting on each and every one of them a suffering beyond imagination or description, for every single instant without rest or relief throughout all the endless span of eternity. And this is the work of a good god?"
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/infinitepunishment.html

A truly wonderful god you've got there Harvey. What a guy! It's a good thing he's only make-believe isn't it?

-"You're the same ones that feel killing someone is justifiable if that person is not, in your opinion, self-aware don't ya? Ooh, we won't let that little secret out...right! PLEASE DOG!"

What the hell are you banging on about now Harvey? Who told you that I condone the killing of people who aren't self aware? That would include all new-born babies by the way. You just can't help making things up as you go along can you? You've been a preacher for far too long Harvey, because you still can't seem to get it through your thick skull that your bullshit doesn't work on me. I'm afraid your posts are becoming more like the ravings of some deranged street person as time goes by.
And even if I did condone such a thing, it wouldn't hold a candle to what YOU are condoning, ie. the cold blooded murder of thousands of innocent SELF AWARE women and children, and the enslavement of all the rest.

-"To show how twisted atheists are in general, LvKA gives a refrence to giving you Lee the finger and all of your "moral gods" jump all over him...while you cuss INSISENTLY in your answers to me."

I have no idea what you were going on about in that one Harvey. That sentence wasn't even written in English as far as I can tell. Is English your second language by any chance? What little of it I can understand, seems to indicate that you get all hot under the collar when someone uses the phrase 'bullshit', yet you feel no sense of outrage about the massacre of thousands of innocent women and children, and the enslavement of all the others. Your priorities are all screwed up Harvey. But I guess that's what the Abrahamic religions inevitably do to their most fanatical followers in the end.

-"See Fido, I know the truth of what atheism REALLY is when prepared by RADICAL MORONS such as you...I can honestly see the difference between those in it for the arguments sake such as Evan and those who are yielded to it such as you. I know none of you "believe" in Christianity, but you and as I told you before, HATE God...you're one of those radical haters of truth and a despiser of God to the CORE. A classic FOOL in the biblical sense."

Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods and goddesses Harvey. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't 'hate God' any more than I 'hate Santa Claus'. I hate what many people do in the names of their gods, and in the names of their ridiculous religions, but I don't hate their gods themselves. A person can't hate something which doesn't exist. That's elementary my dear Watson. So what was your point again?
Oh, by the way Harvey, read this.

Matt.5
[22] "But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, `You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire."

So, I guess I'll be seeing you in Hell then Harvey. Don't forget to take some sunscreen lotion with you. I suggest that you get the strongest one possible, because I've heard that it can get pretty damned hot down there. : D >:->

-"Anyway, your fictitious LIES are nothing but that. Your insisent cussing is only a smoke-screen for a shallow empty and OLD arguments refuted many times over."

I simply call bullshit, "bullshit" when I see it Harvey. I prefer to call a spade a spade, rather than a 'manually operated, flat bladed excavation device'.
Do you have a problem with that, oh self-righteous one?

-"By the way if you did know anything about ANE captives you'd see tha[t] the Biblical command exceeded anything that existed in that day and was TOTALLY more honoring of captives than any other culture existing during that era."

There you go making stuff up again Harvey. How does raping a female captive, after murdering her entire family, constitute any kind of moral superiority? Every army used to do similar things back in those days, and in that regard the ancient Israelites were no different than any other nation. In fact in many ways, they were a lot worse than the surrounding nations, because of their alleged practice of systematic genocide. Someone once said that having the ancient Israelites as neighbours, would have been a bit like having the 'Hell's Angels' move in next door to you, only MUCH worse. I agree.

-"Stop spreading your CRAP like a plague and get some truth...I for one and (am) not scared of any of your GARBAGE..."

You might not be scared of it, but so far you haven't been able to refute any of it. Go on, keep trying Harvey, I DOUBLE-DARE ya! : )

-"So waive the hands at that Fido, cuss all you want in the end the bible TRUTH and Jesus as Lord will live beyond you and ALL your atheist partners...That's yet another thing that you can count on."

Harvey, have you ever considered the possibility that you might be wrong? Or is humility not part of your apologetics arsenal? I'm convinced that most of you preachers are on some kind of bizarre, vicarious power trip. And every time you open your mouth you simply reinforce that conclusion.

-"Later Fido...Yo quichreo Taco Bell!"

Huh? What's that supposed to mean? English really is your second language isn't it? What's your first language, speaking in tongues?

What's a 'quichreo'? I tried looking up the meaning of the word, but all I got was this,

"Your search - quichreo - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords."

Never mind Harvey, I think I've finally figured what you were attempting to say. It's obvious that Spanish isn't you first language either.

Yo, quiero Taco Bell! - "Yo, I want Taco Bell!" ??? : /

It still doesn't make any sense to me, but then again, you rarely do.

Adiós por el momento, Pajero.
(and I mean that in the nicest possible way) : )

sconnor said...

Harvey,

Anyway, for your long rants you already know the answers for the Midianites...guess what, God's standards of morality and justice are much greater than yours and all your little "whiner" atheist friends who just CRY over the fact that those Midianite children had to die...no mention of the fact that they would have been sacrificed or become animal food otherwise.

It is telling how you have to do mental gymnastics and jump through hoops to salvage your god's reputation -- a desperate act that has the eloquence of trying to bash a big square peg, with a sledgehammer, in a tiny, little hole.

What you do not take into account, about the Midianites and other vile accounts in the bible such as the killing of the first born in Egypt and the Amelak Massacre, is the devastating long-lasting suffering, that all the families must endure, because god killed their children. Did god not take this into account when he decided to curse the first born Egyptians or ordered genocide? I can attest, to the anguish and monumental grief of losing a son. My ten year old son died from a heart attack, related to leukemia and everyday, sometimes every minute of everyday, the tsunami of grief makes my blood run cold and my heart turns to lead. For me it has been a crippling grief, where I lost everything; my job, my friends, and my identity. The egregious pain is parroted in the support group, I belong to, called compassionate friends -- some have divorced their spouses, some harm themselves, by cutting into their arms, some drink themselves to death every night, some use illicit drugs to block out the pain, while others, like myself have been institutionalized, in mental hospitals and some have even succumbed to the egregious pain and have killed themselves. To this day -- wanting to kill myself -- has become a part of my very existence. Along with my suffering, my daughter suffers; never to have her big brother in her life, destined to be an only child and emotionally scarred for life. She too suffers everyday, dreading to go to sleep thinking she will die, like her brother did. She feels her throat closing in and thinks she can't breathe. She suffers with night terrors and also sees a psychologists regularly. This, too, is what god wrought upon his earthly children when he killed the first born of Egypt and ordered the massacres of his earthly children. So while god was supposedly saving children from sacrifice and becoming animal food and or, leading his chosen out of bondage, he left in it's wake a devastation, so great, because so many families were affected, the untold suffering, where joy and hope have been obliterated, is unimaginable. A god that would do this, is nothing less then, a repugnant, vile, torturer of souls -- a megalomaniac that is both utterly contemptible and thoroughly indefensible.

I've heard all your bullshit apologetic, pat, answers, but nothing addresses the aftermath suffering.

Why did god create the babies and children, in the first place, knowing he was going to kill them, anyways? And god, just, didn't kill babies, he caused them to suffer! Why does an all-loving god cause babies and children to suffer? Why does a god allow babies to suffer? Presumably, god is all-powerful and all-loving, he could, easily, have waved his hand and magically made the babies and children disappear, without suffering, into his awaiting arms, but no -- egregious suffering was his will and he still left the families to wallow in their unimaginable, grief, until they died. I find that utterly vile and contemptible and I find you equally reprehensible, for condoning his atrocious acts, in a vain attempt to salvage your psycho-fuck god's reputation.

And I guess I'm not asking you, so much, these questions, as you must relinquish to those really smart guys at those christian think tanks and Apologetics, instead of using your own mind. Please, let me know, what they tell you, on how to think.

--S.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Sconnor ~ I have every bit of feeling for you and your situation. I have an 11 year old son that I also love with my life. I do not minimize the pain or the reality of your situation IN ANY MANNER. Your grief is in accordance with how I believe that I would feel if the same or a similar thing happened to me or my babies (That’s what I call my children)

I will submit this to you…your situation and that of your precious son was not what I was commenting about and is totally unrelated to God dealing with the SIN of Midian. I understand better now any negative feelings, but you must know that the events of the bible and the events of the life or your son and family cannot be and should not be reconciled in discovering this topic and subject, they are unrelated.

The Midianite problem was spiritual, which led to sin and sin, caused death (James 1:14) Sin is a real enemy not just a condition or state of mind. God was not exacting judgement upon you or your family. I believe you must separate your situation from these passages and for ANYONE atheist or Christian to encourage you to view your situation in light of these passages or this discussion is unconscionable and totally irresponsible. Your son is safe does not suffer anymore and I’m sure wanting his father to repent so that all of you can have the ultimate reunion, relationship and understanding for all eternity.

What we have in dealing with Midian and the nations that God displaced in Canaan was called self-righteousness and unrepentant actions in the face of truth. This was a flat out rebellion against what God had said and set forth clearly. Therefore rebellion which is SIN equivalent of witchcraft and stubbornness similar to idolatry (1 Sam 15:22-23)is the problem and the ultimate destruction and displacement of the Midianites, Cannanites and Amelekites…

Lev. 18:27-28 ~ “27(For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) 28That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.”

Similarly, Egypt exalted themselves in a and paid the price also. They even thought they were gods. Neither of these situations has REMOTELY ANYTHING to do with yours. This is not mental gymnastics, this is simply setting forth an accurate accounting of events based on the complete information given.

To answer the assertion set forth by Dingo, that a child’s entire body is not punished for touching a hot stove, I offer that a statement like that is filled with self-righteousness. One example of his misunderstanding of the deeper issue, is if I purjer myself in court by lieing about what I consider to be a minor detail, and this is exposed by the record, what goes to prison, my tongue or my complete body? The court of man requires that individuals have a high regard for it. Notice that whether you believe in sin or not, whether you are a naturalist or not is not at question. The punishment (in many cases) is commensurate with the level of dissidence.

To approach God in a cavalier manner as the Midianite leaders did, and to afflict people simply trying to go on and complete their journey is total self righteous and complete disregard for who God is and what he had already revealed himself to be to them through their history. Both the Midianites and Amalekites knew and were familiar with the God of Israel but THEY minimized what they knew and thought nothing of it. Amalek had no regard for God, were proud and filled with discord, plotted against God’s people and their actions displayed the epitome of sin and unrighteousness…They also rightly were punished for leading their people into sin and error.

Prov 6:16-19 ~ “16These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: 17A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, 19A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.”

To restate, the gravity of the sin and who is sinned against determines the severity of the punishment. To sin against God by trying to conspire against his people as the Midianites and Amalekites did is a high manner of sin especially since they already knew better.

I don’t blame most atheists for having a hard time with this and many Christians do as well. The human mind is weak regarding these things historically. For instance, we both know that the Midianites and Cannanites were involved in Molleck worship. (and other deities under other names) From what has been able to be determined, Molleck worship regularly required solemn child sacrifice as duty to Molleck. Families had to sacrifice their children and sometimes throw their children into fire unremorsefully. Failure to abide by the sacrificial rules resulted in death to the family. This was the fate of any number of Midianite and Cannanite children unknowingly and without explanation or preparation. Somehow the frailty of our minds allows us to reconcile these societies doing this to their children more easily than God (who is the giver of all life) reconciling it, ending it and correcting it himself.

In the case of the Midianites, the atheist blames God for reclaiming INNOCENT LIVES that HE GAVE in the first place ensuring their salvation by not allowing them to be subject to or worship a false idol God. To think that a child left in a village with rotting corpses would find a way to rehabilitate themselves or fend for themselves is incredulous and to think that it would have been better to simply leave them alone to begin with(which I have spelled out above) is a dilemma similar to the Iraq, WMD or not…

Contrary to what has been said, there is no scripture that suggests in any manner that captives were to be raped male-female-boy or girl. The idiom “took wives” is the manner of saying “marrying” or “being given in marriage” which was the standard of the societies in that day (Gen. 11:29) Abram “Took Saria” this did not and does not mean rape. In fact some eastern cultures IN MODERN TIMES, still offer prearranged marriages and the women which are usually given to men for a dowry are married whether they know OR like their husbands or not. They are not considered RAPED. That is a “strawman” to stir emotion and again shows complete self-righteousness and no consideration for the real argument.

In short, I am in full agreement with your pain, but SIN, the collective choice of man, is to blame for all pain in this world NOT God. For it is from Sin that all evil and sickness proceeds.

Thank you Sconnor.

DingoDave said...

Dear SConner,
I just read your post, where you mentioned the loss of your son.
It brought tears to my eyes.
Please accept my heartfelt condolences.

I have a seven year old son, and I know that I would be absolutely devastated if anything similar were to happen to him. Especially, considering that he is my only child.

I hope that the pain will ease for all of you, with the passing of time.

With best wishes,
David.

sconnor said...

Harvey,

Let's be absolutely crystal clear, the only thing you have to offer me is superstitious nonsense, morbid ignorance and delusions of grandeur. I've been down this path before. I went to the clergy for comfort -- two pastors from my church, a pastor from an evangelical church, a Lutheran pastor/therapist and a non-denominational pastor who had a profound Near Death Experience -- all of whom had vast and differing notions, that boiled down to meaningless verbal bullshit. I also went to the bible for comfort, which it did not afford me -- in fact, I was flabbergasted that a religion was based on this atrocious book. All my romanticized notions of god's benevolence was flushed down the toilet. I was enlightened and realized that up until that moment I have been lied to, by people like you.

I also want to be perfectly clear, I in no way solicited your help and it is thoroughly denied. Your proposal of ministering to me, offered at my blog comes off as your god-ordained obligation, under the delusion you're doing god's work. No thanks.

Harvey says, I will submit this to you…your situation and that of your precious son was not what I was commenting about and is totally unrelated to God dealing with the SIN of Midian. I understand better now any negative feelings, but you must know that the events of the bible and the events of the life or your son and family cannot be and should not be reconciled in discovering this topic and subject, they are unrelated.

That is complete and utter bullshit. You simply avoid and dismiss the correlation I made because you do not have a tidy way of coming to terms with it.

There are several examples (thousands of examples), in the bible, like the ones I offer, where god either kills his earthly children or orders their death, at the hands of barbarians, thus leaving monumental suffering in it's wake -- sin or no sin. Not only were innocent people dispatched, they also, suffered egregiously, in the process. Specifically, the remaining families, the brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers, who were not killed in cruel and barbaric ways are now left to suffer in their monumental grief. The same grief my family is crippled by today.

Your loquacious rantings, said a whole lot of nothing and completely avoided my main argument.

Now if you can refute, specifically to god's negligence, of not realizing, that by killing or ordering the deaths of so many, that he would synonymously inflict undeserved suffering -- profound, devastating, grief -- on his earthly children, who survived the many onslaughts -- I'm all ears.

I await your many diverging/avoiding tactics, and convoluted reasoning.

Harvey exclaims, at my blog, And by the way, prayer does change things. I am a living witness of the fact.

Fucking, hallelujah! Why don't you take your miracle-workin' prayer groups on the road if you believe in prayer, so much. The first place you, your wife and merry band of miracle workers could go and pray is your local Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, where the horrors of children suffering in unimaginable ways could "change things". And after you stroll down the chamber of horrors where anything from preemies to adolescents, suffering in mind boggling, egregious pain, hooked to every machine available, that looks more like medieval torture devices rather then medical technology -- after you pray over every child in this gauntlet of pain and suffering, why don't you go next door to the Pediatric Burn Unit, where some children are suffering from 4th and 5th degree burns over their entire body -- hellish burns down to the bone. Go there and pray for them, that they will miraculously heal and be good as new. And after you miraculously heal all those children with prayer, you can take your miracle prayer party and heal all the children in all the PICUs and PICU Burn Units, across the nation. What are you waiting for? God is waiting for you to pray over children, so you can "change things", but for some reason your demented, mother-fucking, dumb-ass god is waiting for you to beg for his help in the form of a prayer.

You offer me nothing but vomitous delusion and superstitious bullshit.

--S.

Harvey rationalizes, In short, I am in full agreement with your pain, but SIN, the collective choice of man, is to blame for all pain in this world NOT God. For it is from Sin that all evil and sickness proceeds.

the collective choice of man? Illogical bullshit.

More superstitious nonsense, that has an illusion of an explanation but in reality only substitutes one mystery for another. Why does god continue to create his earthly children, bringing us into an existence of suffering -- egregious, unimaginable, suffering? Not to mention the complete absurdity and unjustness of god allowing sin to become a birthmark, that passes on to the undeserving next generations, causing them to suffer in horrific and unimaginable ways. It's all equivocal bullshit and that we are even debating it points to it's unreal nature.

sconnor said...

Harvey,

Quick amendment:

And where does Harvey get his infinite knowledge, on all things and how they work, specifically, suffering in the world? From mythology, silly superstition and his idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture, all found in the wholly, spurious, bible. Then with all-together divine obtuseness, Harvey uses the supposed and construed, "words of god" -- as his own -- to push his delusional agendas, affording him a bogus sense of authority and a false sense of superiority.

--S.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Sconnor~ "Now if you can refute, specifically to god's negligence, of not realizing, that by killing or ordering the deaths of so many, that he would synonymously inflict undeserved suffering -- profound, devastating, grief -- on his earthly children, who survived the many onslaughts -- I'm all ears."

[Sconnor, I don't expect you to lay down for anything that I have to offer, so you missed the point of my offer. There are some things that are common to humanity, so my idea is not to change you only apply what I know works...Now speaking of what prayer can do...my baby was BORN DEAD.Umbilical cord wrapped around his neck TWO times..That's right for all of you that have exited God out...I gave up on having a living son, my wife while cut open and bleeding had the faith and trust in God until he breated and his heart beat...Then he was perfectly normal on all tests and is normal today.

So I know you're hurt and I know I'm no better than Jesus, you'll persecute me and I've done NOTHING wrong either BUT I KNOW what God through prayer can and will do...I've also leaned through experience that God is not here to serve me....

Heck naturalism isn't here to serve you either. With naturalism it's all a matter of random processes and genetics with NO apology or explaination...

I have an understanding that God is soveriegn and every twist of the dagger of sin into human life only brings me one step closer to the ultimate goal. So yes, I pain like others, but I have assurance of my future...

There are a lot of questions and things that people suffer and they are ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION a result of SIN. So God is never and has never been negligent in any of his ways...they are past us and past our rationalizations and understandings.

I am under NO obligation to you so don't get it twisted, that's a part of the ground I walk on and I learn to "shake the dust" well. As I said, Prayer changes things situations and people...and it also ministers to US that are left as a result of tragedy to sort out the pieces. So the very children you name I was one of them...you offer me no useful analogy and maybe you should find out who you're talking to before you suggest that I find out how to cope with things that I am personally acquainted with.

On another issue and point on the CITY RECORD...A year ago in our city murders were running off the hook...city officials and leaders did not know what to do. I called Christian leaders together for a prayer rally and march. We made spiritual declarations against the "powers of darkness". Before we did that event there were 3 murders that week...There has not been another week close to that since. There were other leaders that addressed the issues with open prayer and the culmination was a 40 day prayer vigil of all Christians coming together to address and pray for a reversal of crime....slightly over a year later there has only been 2 murders this year and two since the rally. Last year this time there were 15 murders, crime is down OVER 60-75% IN ALL categories...THESE ARE FACTS THAT I KNOW BECAUSE WE MEET WITH THE POLICE CHIEF AND THE CRIME STATISTICS AMAZED HIM AND ALL CITY OFFICIALS...

You know what this means? It means that someone's son is living today as a result of our efforts. Somebody has a LIFE that would have otherwise have died because of what God did through prayer...

So you and EVERY atheist in the world can vie against me, Christ and the Bible...I don't care and other Christians like me don't either...WE KNOW in whom we trust and that HE is WELL ABLE to do EXACTLY what he said.

No, everything doesn't always go our way, but God is in control no matter what...Speaking of all those situations in the hospital...that's part of who I minister to and that's me...I'm not an ivory tower Christian...I'm in the trenches...that's why I'm here, to shed some light in this dank darkness...

So in short...you walk with me and you'll be walking with somebody because I don't play, and I live what I preach and believe...I have been delivered from sin and this is REAL not a delusion.

Peace to you.

Also Dingo~ You and I are very passionate about issues and I know you especially love your family like me...I promise to draw the line in future convo to discussion of the issues only. I appreciate you even though you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed(LOL) Just kidding...Wish well to you and your family.

Peace

sconnor said...

Harvey,

...Now speaking of what prayer can do...my baby was BORN DEAD.Umbilical cord wrapped around his neck TWO times..That's right for all of you that have exited God out...I gave up on having a living son, my wife while cut open and bleeding had the faith and trust in God until he breated and his heart beat...Then he was perfectly normal on all tests and is normal today.

Ahhhh, the umbilical cord -- one of god's intelligent designs. If anyone on this planet had a design flaw, that atrocious, that causes the deaths of thousands of babies a year and/or causes thousands of babies to become physically or mentally incapacitate, to suffer for years, would be held in contempt and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

And that's what's needed -- faith? That's the secret to getting god off his fat ass and actually answering the cosmic phone? Are you, fucking, telling me that, all the people, who prayed for my son and my family were doing it wrong? When my son was diagnosed with leukemia (his own blood, poisoning him) we prayed every minute, of every day. Our church put him on the prayer list and other churches followed suit. We gave my son a blanket, that was prayed over and was blessed by our pastor. We held prayer circles around Connor, while he was in his hospital bed, as he clutched a form fitting cross, in his hand. Friends, family, and people who we didn't even know prayed -- thousands of people -- and none of them had faith? Is this why my son suffered for months and then egregiously, in the hospital, where he was hooked up to machines keeping him alive? Is this why we suffer, still, to this day? Is this why there is so much sick, unimaginable, suffering in the world, that god's too busy to answer us?

This is why your son lives and my son suffers, for months only to die?

If god is using you, to minister to me, then both you and your god are morbidly, incompetent!

So, evidently god won't listen when a Hindu family prays to Brahma, when they are suffering? What about the Muslim family, the Buddhist family, the non-religious family? Does god turn a blind eye to these people -- his other earthly children, because they don't have faith? This begs the question, do they ever come out of dire situations and make the extraordinary claim, their god answered their prayers? We know these people don't have faith in your one and only, true, christian, god. So what is it? A delusion that their god intervened or a happy coincidental, outcome?

Oh but Harvey Christian, because he's got the right god, on the cosmic phone and because he has faith, why, his god jumps right into action, while the rest of the suffering world is damned -- aren't you one, lucky, motherfucker.

Are you beginning to get the idea, now, that god didn't send you to minister to me? Are you beginning to understand that your bullshit is completely, meaningless and it only affects the mindless drones, you minister to? Are you beginning to see that those same sheep reinforce your delusions, that you are so steeped in?

Your "praying miracle", hardly impresses me. The thing is, you can't discern, if the medical circumstances allowed your child to come out of it unscathed, compared to a supernatural intervention by a supreme being, that changed the laws of nature. Honestly, this just comes off as a happy co-incidence. If your child was dead for days and the doctors and nurses could attest to this and miraculously, he came back to life, then that might be something to write home about, but as it stands right now, all you did was assign a miracle to nothing but an unusal but normal, medical outcome.

And your "murder rate miracle" doesn't impress me either. There are an infinite amount of possibilities as to why murder rates go up and down, but I'll tell you what, if you ever have a stroke or a heart attack, by all means, pray to get better, in lieu of medical intervention.

So in short...you walk with me and you'll be walking with somebody because I don't play, and I live what I preach and believe...I have been delivered from sin and this is REAL not a delusion.

And billions of Muslims claim to be saved and will posthumously, fly up to paradise, all claiming it to be REAL and not a delusion, either. Spare me your bullshit proselytizing.

There are a lot of questions and things that people suffer and they are ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION a result of SIN. So God is never and has never been negligent in any of his ways...they are past us and past our rationalizations and understandings.

And yet, god keeps creating more earthly children, sentencing them to endure egregious pain and unimaginable suffering. EXPLAIN THIS!

--S.

I, also, am still waiting for you to -- without equivocating -- address, specifically, to god's negligence -- in the bible -- not realizing, that by killing or ordering the deaths of so many, that he would synonymously, inflict undeserved suffering -- profound, devastating, grief -- on his earthly children, who survived the many onslaughts -- whether they were a "just" punishments or ludicrous ways to save babies and children from the evils of other religions -- god still left indiscriminate suffering and monumental grief in the wake of the destruction. God caused the suffering of untold millions.

--S.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Sconnor~ "Ahhhh, the umbilical cord -- one of god's intelligent designs"

[Also, could be one of those naturalistic blind chances, purposeless kind of things too couldn't it?]

Sconnor~ "And that's what's needed -- faith? That's the secret to getting god off his fat ass and actually answering the cosmic phone? Are you, fucking, telling me that, all the people, who prayed for my son and my family were doing it wrong?"

[No that's that baggage you're carrying that says that to you, read my statement carefully, at no point was there a comparison made only a statement of fact. There is no "wrong" faith in Christ. That's a burden I don't bear and one that you can't. Being thankful for a successful outcome to anything only creates a greater humility and willingness to serve others, not self]

Sconnor~ "So, evidently god won't listen when a Hindu family prays to Brahma, when they are suffering? What about the Muslim family, the Buddhist family, the non-religious family? Does god turn a blind eye to these people "

[God hears and listens to all and he blesses all everyday with LIFE, and certainly things that none could ever deserve or ask for and further everything in life points to him.]

Sconnor~ "Are you beginning to get the idea, now, that god didn't send you to minister to me?"

[NO! You'll have to do much better than what I'm seeing so far...and nothing in life is by chance]

Sconnor~ "I, also, am still waiting for you to -- without equivocating -- address, specifically, to god's negligence -- in the bible -- not realizing, that by killing or ordering the deaths of so many, that he would synonymously, inflict undeserved suffering -- profound, devastating, grief -- on his earthly children, who survived the many onslaughts -- whether they were a "just" punishments or ludicrous ways to save babies and children from the evils of other religions -- god still left indiscriminate suffering and monumental grief in the wake of the destruction. God caused the suffering of untold millions."

[Already addressed, and your moral court is NOT greater than God. HE has authored life without your assistance...if he takes it IT'S HIS to take no matter how we feel about it...blatant, yes...but it's the way it is...We are all subject and noone has a free pass, God is not some cosmic belhop waiting for our demand...you got it twisted...but that's ok...

Vent some more sailor...but this time go deep, I wanna really see what's in there!]

Peace.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Harvey, some people use their pain as a permission slip to punish and condemn others, thinking that is the way to alleviate suffering. They view death as a condemnation and do not allow themselves to be healed of grief and hostility. I was one of those people myself.

There is pain and suffering in this world - while some may refer to this as the "problem of evil" Jesus acknowledged this as part of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and He didn't label it a "problem" - He saw it as a spiritual virus, in need of spiritual salvation and grace. It's evident that there is death, evil and suffering - but that's because God isn't a hypocrite like people can be - He really does love His enemies.

Take care Harvey!
3M

sconnor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sconnor said...

3m,

They view death as a condemnation and do not allow themselves to be healed of grief and hostility. I was one of those people myself.

Oh, and you're an expert on grieving now? I'll tell you what you read this article The Death of a Child -- The Grief of the Parents: A Lifetime Journey and find out how monumentally apathetic and ignorant -- no strike that -- how monumentally stupid you are. (You might even learn something there, too, Harvey)

but that's because God isn't a hypocrite like people can be - He really does love His enemies.

Oh, goody, another question, I can add to my list that you avoid like the plague.

1. How, exactly, does god love us?

2. How are you privy to this information, while myself and others are not?

3. Can you tell us how god loves us, without referring to the bible?

4. How exactly does god love his enemies?

Very simple questions. All I'm doing is asking you to substantiate your claims and thus far you have not done so. Kind of gives the impression you just pull this shit out of thin air, speak it, but you don't know why or how to justify it.

--S.

sconnor said...

Harvey,

Sconnor~ "Ahhhh, the umbilical cord -- one of god's intelligent designs"

[Also, could be one of those naturalistic blind chances, purposeless kind of things too couldn't it?]

I'm not the one who believes in an intelligent designer --you are.

1. So explain to me why your god designed the umbilical cord with such a devastating flaw?

On faith -- [No that's that baggage you're carrying that says that to you, read my statement carefully, at no point was there a comparison made only a statement of fact. There is no "wrong" faith in Christ. That's a burden I don't bear and one that you can't. Being thankful for a successful outcome to anything only creates a greater humility and willingness to serve others, not self]

Wrong. In your defense of prayer, supposedly your faith was all tapped out, but your wife's unwavering faith, sent the right message to god so that your son miraculously, came back to life.

2. Did your wife's faith, in god, bring back your son from death or not?

Sconnor~ "So, evidently god won't listen when a Hindu family prays to Brahma, when they are suffering? What about the Muslim family, the Buddhist family, the non-religious family? Does god turn a blind eye to these people "

[God hears and listens to all and he blesses all everyday with LIFE, and certainly things that none could ever deserve or ask for and further everything in life points to him.]

Keep focused Harvey, We are talking about suffering -- not your interpretation, that life is a blessing. Once again you avoid and diverge.

3. Does god answer the prayers and intervene to eradicate suffering and miraculously bring back dead babies, of other religions?

4. Also when other religions pray to their god and one of their dead babies comes back to life, was it an act of god, or a delusion that their god intervened or a happy coincidental, outcome?

Sconnor~ "Are you beginning to get the idea, now, that god didn't send you to minister to me?"

[NO! You'll have to do much better than what I'm seeing so far...and nothing in life is by chance]

Then your delusions of grandeur are deep.
I'll have to do better, huh? You only have ignorance, delusion, and superstition to offer me and none of it comforts or helps me, in any way, which means you have zero to offer me. The bullshit you spew is convoluted, nonsense, that only, makes sense in the religious omelet of your myopic, mind and you continually and habitually skirt the issues. Your arrogance is dwarfed by your bullshit pat answers and you are worthy of no respect.

If my lack of belief in a personal god and disgust for religion, in general, wasn't completely solidified, you -- Harvey Christian -- just cemented it for me; and you prove, once and for all, that you are nothing but a pathetic, insecure, waste of skin and oxygen – bound by inadequacies and shortcomings -- who uses the supposed, voice of god -- as your own -- to elevate yourself, above others, while wallowing in a false sense of security and a bogus sense of superiority and authority. Again I say, If god is using you, to minister to me, then both you and your god are morbidly, incompetent!

Sconnor~ "I, also, am still waiting for you to -- without equivocating -- address, specifically, to god's negligence -- in the bible -- not realizing, that by killing or ordering the deaths of so many, that he would synonymously, inflict undeserved suffering -- profound, devastating, grief -- on his earthly children, who survived the many onslaughts -- whether they were a "just" punishments or ludicrous ways to save babies and children from the evils of other religions -- god still left indiscriminate suffering and monumental grief in the wake of the destruction. God caused the suffering of untold millions."

[Already addressed...

In your mind, maybe.

5. Explain why it's OK for your all-loving god to cause such misery and crippling grief caused by the after-effects of god killing people or ordering barbarians to kill people.
You are a liar. You have not answered it.

...and your moral court is NOT greater than God.

And you speaking for god is not recognized, thusly, you have no authority to even utter that statement. You do not possess any special knowledge of god or his morals. And the knowledge you think you have is creative interpretation, coupled with deluded imaginings, based on your idiosyncratic views, of your spurious, bible. Get it through your thick head, you have zero authority, with me. Anything you say about god carries no weight.

HE has authored life without your assistance...if he takes it IT'S HIS to take no matter how we feel about it.

That's your dumb-ass argument, that doesn't address the god of the bible, who causes his earthly children to suffer, egregiously, in grief, because he killed people or ordered the killing of others.

6. Is it your assertion, that your all-loving god -- the one who created life has a right to cause you to suffer in egregious pain?

7. And how far are you willing to take it? Since god created my 7 year old daughter, is it HIS right to anally rape her and smear shit on her face, for the rest of her life?

8. Or do you have limitations on what is acceptable for a supreme being to do to his earthly children?

Don't give me the bullshit pat answers, like, god would never do that or god is not capable of doing that, it would go against his nature.

I just know you will weasel out of this and skirt the issue, once again.

Vent some more sailor...but this time go deep, I wanna really see what's in there!]

Let me guess you think you are helping in some, idiotic, delusional, way. More of your deluded psychological idiocy. Spare me the psychological analysis. Evidently, your delusions of religious authority cross over into the behavioral sciences and yet they are still both entirely inept.

And I noticed you conveniently avoided this altogether. Here it is again for you to avoid or skirt, or ramble on about without ever addressing it, specifically.

There are a lot of questions and things that people suffer and they are ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION a result of SIN. So God is never and has never been negligent in any of his ways...they are past us and past our rationalizations and understandings.

9. And yet, god keeps creating more earthly children, sentencing them to endure egregious pain and unimaginable suffering. EXPLAIN THIS!

--S.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Hi Harry - Just a follow-up to my last comment - I wasn't implying that you're a hypocrite - It just occurred to me that that could have been implied. Also, I don't know if you happened to watch Larry King last night, but it was a very compelling program about a popular Christian singer whose daughter was accidentally killed by her brother.

As I said before, some use their pain as justification to presume all sorts of things and attack others. But, after all, one never knows who one is talking to on the 'net...


3M

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Thanks 3M, I appreciate it and your observations are right on point without a doubt. I have appreciated how you have shared your personal experiences to let these and others know that what they are enthralled with and by is not unique and that God can destroy any darkness…Keep up the good work.

Sconnor~ "1. How, exactly, does god love us?

[God loves us in spite of our faults and pernicious ways based on his own choice to do so ]

Sconnor~2. How are you privy to this information, while myself and others are not?

[His love is manifest to all mankind and is not hidden from anyone. We partake of it everyday by waking, moving breathing and a host of other small and large things.]

Sconnor~3. Can you tell us how god loves us, without referring to the bible?

[Should we ask you to define laquatious without referring to a dictionary? Although your gymnastics are absurd and unreasonable one stark display of God’s love toward you is that we would even meet and talk. Admittedly you’re sick, I know a physician and a referral is in order, that’s an example of the Love Of God]

Sconnor~4. How exactly does god love his enemies?"

[He loves his enemies by giving them ample warning before they bring destruction upon themselves. A little like an Ali-Cooney fight, he only asks that you listen to the warning signs first. He does this through the proliferation of truth and open, clear and objective rebuke at times. “Love is NEVER having to say you’re sorry”]

Sconnor~ 1. So explain to me why your god designed the umbilical cord with such a devastating flaw?

[Can you FIRST explain why natural selection or any other naturalistic process has not eliminated the problem?]

Sconnor~Wrong. In your defense of prayer, supposedly your faith was all tapped out, but your wife's unwavering faith, sent the right message to god so that your son miraculously, came back to life.

[You can’t call me wrong because you have no basis and this is not a right or wrong question or answer. My wife held to the promise that God made to her 3 years prior even when the Dr. said it was impossible for her to have a child…Get a clue.]

Sconnor~2. Did your wife's faith, in god, bring back your son from death or not?

[The promise of God who cannot lie brought my son back all my wife did was exercise her belief through trust, this only displayed her level of trust and belief, not a determination of the eventual outcome.]

Sconnor~ "So, evidently god won't listen when a Hindu family prays to Brahma, when they are suffering?

[So evidently you suffer reading too..I said, “God hears and listens to all and he blesses all everyday with LIFE, and certainly things that none could ever deserve or ask for and further everything in life points to him.”]

Sconnor~ "Keep focused Harvey, We are talking about suffering -- not your interpretation, that life is a blessing. Once again you avoid and diverge."

[Obviously staying focused or identifying focus is not a strong point for you, please stick to your most capable assets and best arguments...ooh, I forgot, there are none...]

Sconnor~3. Does god answer the prayers and intervene to eradicate suffering and miraculously bring back dead babies, of other religions?

[God being good answers all prayer prayed to HIM. Do you read others mail or intercept emails that are not yours? Goodness is displayed in cultures and societies that don’t know God because HIS grace has been revealed and given to ALL men and his mercy is upon each one daily, including you]

Sconnor~4. Also when other religions pray to their god and one of their dead babies comes back to life, was it an act of god, or a delusion that their god intervened or a happy coincidental, outcome?

[Name some that prayed and others came back to life and let’s examine each on it’s own merit…I’m waiting]

Sconnor~ "I'll have to do better, huh? You only have ignorance, delusion, and superstition to offer me and none of it comforts or helps me, in any way, which means you have zero to offer me. The bullshit you spew is convoluted, nonsense, that only, makes sense in the religious omelet of your myopic, mind and you continually and habitually skirt the issues. Your arrogance is dwarfed by your bullshit pat answers and you are worthy of no respect."

[That’s right dig a little deeper...still not there yet and I’m not impressed!]

Sconnor~If my lack of belief in a personal god and disgust for religion, in general, wasn't completely solidified, you -- Harvey Christian -- just cemented it for me; and you prove, once and for all, that you are nothing but a pathetic, insecure, waste of skin and oxygen – bound by inadequacies and shortcomings -- who uses the supposed, voice of god -- as your own -- to elevate yourself, above others, while wallowing in a false sense of security and a bogus sense of superiority and authority. Again I say, If god is using you, to minister to me, then both you and your god are morbidly, incompetent!

[And your communication skills are a little above competence I suppose??? Still not impressed...You wouldn't last ONE day dregging the trenches I do...you have no idea-(LOL)Sconnor I’m beginning to believe that you’re overrated!]

Sconnor (on a previous answer)"In your mind, maybe."

[Obviously not in what’s left of yours...when one doesn’t want to know the truth one cannot find truth, but when one walks in the truth that is made available to them truth becomes much more abundant]

Sconnor~5. Explain why it's OK for your all-loving god to cause such misery and crippling grief caused by the after-effects of god killing people or ordering barbarians to kill people.

[First God DID NOT cause misery. Unbelief, rebellion, and disobedience (aka SIN) and man’s choice of SIN did that...so your whole premise is baseless]

Sconnor~And you speaking for god is not recognized, thusly, you have no authority to even utter that statement. You do not possess any special knowledge of god or his morals. And the knowledge you think you have is creative interpretation, coupled with deluded imaginings,

[And how do you know this? And what is your basis for this knowledge?]

Sconnor~based on your idiosyncratic views, of your spurious, bible. Get it through your thick head, you have zero authority, with me. Anything you say about god carries no weight.

[So I suppose you carry some...weight (of SIN in your soul) maybe but other than that...OVERRATED!]

Sconnor~HE has authored life without your assistance...if he takes it IT'S HIS to take no matter how we feel about it.
That's your dumb-ass argument, that doesn't address the god of the bible, who causes his earthly children to suffer, egregiously, in grief, because he killed people or ordered the killing of others.

[You and your posterior are not the object of the conversation, but all one has to do is let you ramble aimlessly so that you can show that posterior for what it is...please try to produce something at least beneficial to the reader next time.]

Sconnor~6. Is it your assertion, that your all-loving god -- the one who created life has a right to cause you to suffer in egregious pain?

[ABSOLUTELY and there is no army THAT CAN STOP him if he so wills]

Sconnor~7. And how far are you willing to take it? Since god created my 7 year old daughter, is it HIS right to anally rape her and smear shit on her face, for the rest of her life?

[That is a psychotic question from a psychotic mind and since there is no precedent set ANWHERE in which God anally rapes or authorizes anal raping. The argument is lacking and is only an emotional strawman you’ve constructed to medicate yourself…TRY AGAIN.

John or Lee You OUGHT to be ashamed for letting this one go…I see DC is full of sensationalists and grandstanders at any cost]

Sconnor~8. Or do you have limitations on what is acceptable for a supreme being to do to his earthly children?
Don't give me the bullshit pat answers, like, god would never do that or god is not capable of doing that, it would go against his nature.

[MN says if it happed before it can happen again right? God has NEVER encouraged or allowed the psychotic events that your SIN nature conjures up, therefore it is not likely to be a future event...strawman!]

Sconnor~I just know you will weasel out of this and skirt the issue, once again.

[was that weasel enough for ya?]

Sconnor~Let me guess you think you are helping in some, idiotic, delusional, way.

[No, I don’t claim to be helping you at all...I just wanna see how overrated you actually are, obviously you need to vent, and you could be telling a lie using a tragic event to grandstand...I wanna be front line and center so that world can better see the depth and emptiness of a godless heart as it exposes itself.]

Sconnor~More of your deluded psychological idiocy. Spare me the psychological analysis.

[You do that yourself, you’ve already said you’re crazy, (and demonstrated it somewhat) I’m just looking and asking you to talk about it]

Sconnor~ 9. And yet, god keeps creating more earthly children, sentencing them to endure egregious pain and unimaginable suffering. EXPLAIN THIS!

[SIN is the cause of all suffering NOT God...All that God created was good and very good and there was no pain or suffering in it. Sin effects the genome and creates horrendous effects beyond human control in everyone small and great]

Peace Sconnor.

sconnor said...

3m,

As I said before, some use their pain as justification to presume all sorts of things and attack others. But, after all, one never knows who one is talking to on the 'net...

Playing Jr. psychologist, again? I know you are very use to jumping to conclusions and pulling shit out of your ass, with absolutely nothing to back up your claims except delusions, faith, and flights of fancy, but as usual, your generalization is off the mark and completely in error -- your judgment, in the matter, is severely lacking. My attacks are justified and are made in response to Harvey's lame, absurd and insensitive arguments and his attempts of answering by being evasive and diverging. My points are germane and salient and yet Harvey still has to play games -- much like you do -- and run-around the issues, because, let's be honest, he doesn't have a platform to stand on and he has no clean way of salvaging god's reputation, specifically on the points I make. My son has been dead for over a year and a half and yes I do get angry from time to time, which is absolutely normal -- it is a very complicated situation -- but I don't expect you to understand, unless maybe you read the article, I made available for you. I can assure you, my pain plays no part in my responses to Harvey -- he alone conjures up my ire. With this I make a simple request, please, do not burden me with your expectations or preconceived notions on how I am suppose to or not suppose to act, in regards to my pain and the death of my son. Leave it be.

These questions, still, loom

1. How, exactly, does god love us?

2. How are you privy to this information, while myself and others are not?

3. Can you tell us how god loves us, without referring to the bible?

4. How exactly does god love his enemies?

You believe in these statements. Evidently, your faith isn't strong enough to stand up to scrutiny.

--S.

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Harvey, I'm grateful for the witness of your wife's faith. Thanks for sharing that!

Peace to you!
3M

Manifesting Mini Me (MMM) said...

Harvey, I'm glad to hear the witness of your wife's faith. Thanks for sharing!

Peace,
3M

sconnor said...

Havey,

Thanks 3M, I appreciate it and your observations are right on point without a doubt.

Oh there's doubt. It's unfair to pass judgment, based on a few postings and preconceived ideas and does nothing to further your arguments. My ability to reason and use logic, in light of your absurdities and lame non-answers and your habitual use of diverging and being evasive, are enough to cause me to respond, as I do.

Sconnor~ "1. How, exactly, does god love us?

[God loves us in spite of our faults and pernicious ways based on his own choice to do so ]

Bullshit, non-answer. You didn't tell how he loves us; you just simply reiterated "god loves us" and declared humans to be sinners.

Try this on for size. Sconnor how exactly did you love Connor?
1. I fed him when he was hungry
2. I gave him drink when he was thirsty.
3. I clothed him.
4. I gave him shelter.
5. I protected him from harm.
6. Whenever it was humanly possible, I protected him from disease.
7. Under no circumstance would I lay a hand on him to harm him.
8. Under no circumstance would I mentally abuse him.
9. I encouraged him.
10. I hugged him.
11. I kissed him.
12. When he was sick, I took care of him.
13. When he got boo-boos, I treated them and kissed them.
14. I held his hand.
15. I provided for him.
16. When he was sad, I listened.
17. I rubbed his back.
18. When he failed, I was there to support him.
19. When he succeeded I was their to complement him.
20. When he cried, I wiped away his tears.
21. I helped with his homework.
22. I helped him learn life lessons.
23. I taught him to be compassionate.
24. I just hung out with him.
25. When things went wrong for him, I told him things will get better.
26. I helped him with school projects.
27. I disciplined without being abusive.
28. We laughed together.
29. We'd joke together.
30. I would hold him close, just under the nape of my neck, kiss his forehead, while smelling the top of his head and I would tell him, the kiss on your forehead is a kiss that goes to your heart and to your very soul -- I love you with all my heart.

Everyday, of every minute, your god is AWOL and neglects his earthly children, and turns a blind eye to my list. Your god shows no love like humanity is capable of. That's because your god is imaginary -- a figment of your twisted mind.

The best minds will tell you that when a man has begotten a child he is morally bound to tenderly care for it, protect it from hurt, shield it from disease, clothe it, feed it, bear with its waywardness, lay no hand upon it save in kindness and for its own good, and never in any case inflict upon it a wanton cruelty. God's treatment of his earthly children, every day and every night, is the exact opposite of all that, yet those best minds warmly justify these crimes, condone them, excuse them, and indignantly refuse to regard them as crimes at all, when he commits them. Your country and mine is an interesting one, but there is nothing there that is half so interesting as the human mind. -- Mark Twain

You, of course, are the one who condones, excuses, and indignantly refuses to regard them as crimes at all.


Sconnor~2. How are you privy to this information, while myself and others are not?

[His love is manifest to all mankind and is not hidden from anyone. We partake of it everyday by waking, moving breathing and a host of other small and large things.]

Bullshit mystical, non-answer. Arbitrarily listing everyday things we do in life is not evidence of god's love. Just because I walk and breathe is not god's love manifesting itself. When I shit and barf and masturbate, is that god's love manifesting itself?

Sconnor~3. Can you tell us how god loves us, without referring to the bible?

[Should we ask you to define laquatious without referring to a dictionary? Although your gymnastics are absurd and unreasonable one stark display of God’s love toward you is that we would even meet and talk. Admittedly you’re sick, I know a physician and a referral is in order, that’s an example of the Love Of God]

Bullshit non-answer and straw-man. Thus far you have not demonstrated -- in the least -- how god shows his love for us. You and I talking, as a manifestation of god's love, is just another lame and ludicrous equivocation and non sequitur . You and I talk therefor god loves us -- bullshit.

BTW, there is no such word as "laquatious" -- and I didn't even have to look it up.



Sconnor~4. How exactly does god love his enemies?"

[He loves his enemies by giving them ample warning before they bring destruction upon themselves. A little like an Ali-Cooney fight, he only asks that you listen to the warning signs first. He does this through the proliferation of truth and open, clear and objective rebuke at times. “Love is NEVER having to say you’re sorry”]

Bullshit non-answer and inaccurate analogy. To fit your logic the analogy should go like this: Ali told Cooney TO WORSHIP AND OBEY HIM and when Cooney didn't listen, Ali put anthrax spores in Coony's water and killed him -- therefore Ali loves him. Another ridiculous non sequitur that I can't even believe makes sense in your mind -- but evidently that's what happens when reason and logic is replaced with faith and ignorance, the mind becomes a wreck.

Sconnor~ 1. So explain to me why your god designed the umbilical cord with such a devastating flaw?

[Can you FIRST explain why natural selection or any other naturalistic process has not eliminated the problem?]



Bullshit answer. I asked first. Give me a straight forward, concise, answer and I 'll be glad to offer reams of information on natural selection.

Sconnor~Wrong. In your defense of prayer, supposedly your faith was all tapped out, but your wife's unwavering faith, sent the right message to god so that your son miraculously, came back to life.

[You can’t call me wrong because you have no basis and this is not a right or wrong question or answer. My wife held to the promise that God made to her 3 years prior even when the Dr. said it was impossible for her to have a child…Get a clue.]

Sconnor~2. Did your wife's faith, in god, bring back your son from death or not?

[The promise of God who cannot lie brought my son back all my wife did was exercise her belief through trust, this only displayed her level of trust and belief, not a determination of the eventual outcome.]

Oh, I called you wrong and you still are wrong.
Your argument of what prayer can do (...Now speaking of what prayer can do...) fails and crumbles under the weight of your bullshit. Your new arguments are counter-intuitive and prove that prayer did not bring you baby back from death.

Here's your original statement:

...Now speaking of what prayer can do...my baby was BORN DEAD.Umbilical cord wrapped around his neck TWO times..That's right for all of you that have exited God out...I gave up on having a living son, my wife while cut open and bleeding had the faith and trust in God until he breated and his heart beat...Then he was perfectly normal on all tests and is normal today.

Notice that part in your argument about what prayer can do? You are all over the place. It is a dizzying sight, to behold.

Sconnor~ "So, evidently god won't listen when a Hindu family prays to Brahma, when they are suffering?

[So evidently you suffer reading too..I said, “God hears and listens to all and he blesses all everyday with LIFE, and certainly things that none could ever deserve or ask for and further everything in life points to him.”]

My reading comprehension is just fine. You exclude the prayer part of the argument and jump in with an explanation that god blesses us with life, which has nothing to do with my question and then you further elaborate with more non sequiturs.

Point blank question. Does god answer prayers, that are prayed by other religions? If a Hindu prayed to Brahma to bring back his dead baby, would god jump in and do it?

Sconnor~ "Keep focused Harvey, We are talking about suffering -- not your interpretation, that life is a blessing. Once again you avoid and diverge."

[Obviously staying focused or identifying focus is not a strong point for you, please stick to your most capable assets and best arguments...ooh, I forgot, there are none...]

Wasting time with more bullshit, avoiding and diverging.

Sconnor~3. Does god answer the prayers and intervene to eradicate suffering and miraculously bring back dead babies, of other religions?

[God being good answers all prayer prayed to HIM. Do you read others mail or intercept emails that are not yours? Goodness is displayed in cultures and societies that don’t know God because HIS grace has been revealed and given to ALL men and his mercy is upon each one daily, including you]

*Yawn*, unbelievable. In your scramble brain logic you propose god answers prayers but you don't answer if he brings dead babies back to life, when asked to by other religions. I'll ask again, does god answer the prayers of other religions by not only listening to the prayer, but by his action of bringing the dead baby back to life?

Sconnor~4. Also when other religions pray to their god and one of their dead babies comes back to life, was it an act of god, or a delusion that their god intervened or a happy coincidental, outcome?

[Name some that prayed and others came back to life and let’s examine each on it’s own merit…I’m waiting]

You know as well as I do this was a hypothetical question. It does not need real life examples to give it merit. Out of the thousands and thousands of other religions and throughout history, another couple prayed to their god to bring their baby back to life and it happened. Contextually it is a different religion to yours, they prayed to their god and their baby came back to life. Is it because your god intervened? Is it because they are delusional or is it because it was a happy coincidence.

Sconnor~ "I'll have to do better, huh? You only have ignorance, delusion, and superstition to offer me and none of it comforts or helps me, in any way, which means you have zero to offer me. The bullshit you spew is convoluted, nonsense, that only, makes sense in the religious omelet of your myopic, mind and you continually and habitually skirt the issues. Your arrogance is dwarfed by your bullshit pat answers and you are worthy of no respect."

[That’s right dig a little deeper...still not there yet and I’m not impressed!]

Sconnor~If my lack of belief in a personal god and disgust for religion, in general, wasn't completely solidified, you -- Harvey Christian -- just cemented it for me; and you prove, once and for all, that you are nothing but a pathetic, insecure, waste of skin and oxygen – bound by inadequacies and shortcomings -- who uses the supposed, voice of god -- as your own -- to elevate yourself, above others, while wallowing in a false sense of security and a bogus sense of superiority and authority. Again I say, If god is using you, to minister to me, then both you and your god are morbidly, incompetent!

[And your communication skills are a little above competence I suppose??? Still not impressed...You wouldn't last ONE day dregging the trenches I do...you have no idea-(LOL)Sconnor I’m beginning to believe that you’re overrated!]

Yeah, I can tell I'm not striking a nerve at all.

You wouldn't last ONE day dregging the trenches I do...you have no idea-(LOL)Sconnor I’m beginning to believe that you’re overrated!]

... said the man with the over-inflated ego.

Sconnor (on a previous answer)"In your mind, maybe."

[Obviously not in what’s left of yours...

Snap! very articulate comeback, well said, very witty!

when one doesn’t want to know the truth one cannot find truth, but when one walks in the truth that is made available to them truth becomes much more abundant]

Preposterous. I do not sit on my ass, wallowing in complacency. I have been on an obsessive search ever since my son died. Just because I don't accept your myopic, bullshit truth, doesn't predispose me to not wanting to know the truth.

Believe those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it -- Andre Gide

And if that quote isn't clear, you're the one wrapped in a delusional cloak, of the one and only truth -- that I doubt greatly.

Sconnor~5. Explain why it's OK for your all-loving god to cause such misery and crippling grief caused by the after-effects of god killing people or ordering barbarians to kill people.

[First God DID NOT cause misery. Unbelief, rebellion, and disobedience (aka SIN) and man’s choice of SIN did that...so your whole premise is baseless]

Ecc. 7:14 -- In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider: God also hath set the one over against the other, to the end that man should find nothing after him.

Which means: When times are good, you should be cheerful; when times are bad, think what it means. God makes them both to keep us from knowing what will happen next.

The Hebrew word for "Adversity" is "[r '', meaning, bad, evil bad, disagreeable, malignant bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)

Reference -- BIBLE CROSSWALK

Also if god was not there who would have smote all the first born of Egypt? I know you have a difficult time with hypothetical but try really hard and think of a non-evasive, answer.

Exodus 12:29 -- the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon

Reference -- BIBLE CROSSWALK

And after god smote (hkn -- to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill ) the first born Egyptians -- the surviving families, the brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, uncles and aunts, grandfathers and grandmothers all lived in misery -- unbearable anguish and grief -- because of god's actions.

Just because you emphasize god "DID NOT" cause misery -- doesn't make it true.

Sconnor~And you speaking for god is not recognized, thusly, you have no authority to even utter that statement. You do not possess any special knowledge of god or his morals. And the knowledge you think you have is creative interpretation, coupled with deluded imaginings, based on your idiosyncratic views, of your spurious, bible. Get it through your thick head, you have zero authority, with me. Anything you say about god carries no weight.

[And how do you know this? And what is your basis for this knowledge?]

Oh I'm sorry does god hang out with you or does he talk -- with your voice -- in your head? The important thing to remember is I do not recognize you as an authority, nor does the bullshit you spew come directly from god. Your nothing but a bullshit artist, another deluded, ass; the equivalent of an ignorant, sweaty preacher, in a cheap suit, proselytizing on a street corner. You know the ones -- where everyone points at them and laughs, while the psycho-preacher is oblivious and continues to vomit up unsubstantiated, idiosyncratic, religious, nonsense, deep in a delusional orgasm.

Sconnor~HE has authored life without your assistance...if he takes it IT'S HIS to take no matter how we feel about it.
That's your dumb-ass argument, that doesn't address the god of the bible, who causes his earthly children to suffer, egregiously, in grief, because he killed people or ordered the killing of others.

[You and your posterior are not the object of the conversation, but all one has to do is let you ramble aimlessly so that you can show that posterior for what it is...please try to produce something at least beneficial to the reader next time.]

Which is just your way of relinquishing by diverging, because you can't argue the specifics of a bible god killing his earthly children causing thousands and thousands of the survivors to mourn in misery for the loss of their loved ones.

Sconnor~6. Is it your assertion, that your all-loving god -- the one who created life has a right to cause you to suffer in egregious pain?

[ABSOLUTELY and there is no army THAT CAN STOP him if he so wills]

Unbelievable. Then every vile, unimaginable, reprehensible, act that god could perpetrate, is perfectly all right and condoned by you?

Oh and your god had a hard time driving out this army.

Judges 1:19 -- And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Sconnor~7. And how far are you willing to take it? Since god created my 7 year old daughter, is it HIS right to anally rape her and smear shit on her face, for the rest of her life?

[That is a psychotic question from a psychotic mind and since there is no precedent set ANWHERE in which God anally rapes or authorizes anal raping. The argument is lacking and is only an emotional strawman you’ve constructed to medicate yourself…TRY AGAIN.

How dare you insinuate, that I used this example to soothe my emotions or feed my libido. It is a perfect example -- lewd and vile -- to make my point. I know it is a vile example. Just because I bring it up does not make me a psychotic. There are thousands of examples that are even more vile. This is hyperbole to be sure and another hypothetical you can't answer. I knew you would diverge and use the, "It's not in god's nature argument".

Evidently, there are limits to what your god could inflict.

John or Lee You OUGHT to be ashamed for letting this one go…I see DC is full of sensationalists and grandstanders at any cost]

Stop Pussy-whining -- now you have to resort to tattle-telling?

Sconnor~8. Or do you have limitations on what is acceptable for a supreme being to do to his earthly children?
Don't give me the bullshit pat answers, like, god would never do that or god is not capable of doing that, it would go against his nature.

[MN says if it happed before it can happen again right? God has NEVER encouraged or allowed the psychotic events that your SIN nature conjures up, therefore it is not likely to be a future event...strawman!]

You already set limitations on what your god can do to his earthly children -- you just can't admit it.

[No, I don’t claim to be helping you at all...I just wanna see how overrated you actually are, obviously you need to vent, and you could be telling a lie using a tragic event to grandstand...I wanna be front line and center so that world can better see the depth and emptiness of a godless heart as it exposes itself.]

F-you Harvey, you deluded psycho. Now your delusions of grandeur stifle you with suspicion. If this is any indication how you minister to the sick, grieving and suffering, again both you and your god are, apathetic, incompetent, malfeasants.

Connor's Obit.

[You do that yourself, you’ve already said you’re crazy, (and demonstrated it somewhat) I’m just looking and asking you to talk about it]

I, most assuredly, do not need your kind of help, nor do you have the proclivity or expertise to deal with the complex issues of my grief. I have sought the help I needed. This is the ultimate straw-man for you Harvey, but I can assure you my mental faculties are intact and I would appreciate that you do not use my grief as a leverage tool -- it is an unfair practice and again it does not forward your many illogical arguments.

Do yourself a favor, read these excerpts from The Death of a Child -- The Grief of Parents: A Lifetime Journey. Maybe you can learn something.

It is frequently said that the grief of bereaved parents is the most intense grief known. When a child dies, parents feel that a part of them has died, that a vital and core part of them has been ripped away. Bereaved parents indeed do feel that the death of their child is "the ultimate deprivation" (Arnold and Gemma 1994, 40). The grief caused by their child's death is not only painful but profoundly disorienting-children are not supposed to die. These parents are forced to confront an extremely painful and stressful paradox; they are faced with a situation in which they must deal both with the grief caused by their child's death and with their inherent need to continue to live their own lives as fully as possible. Thus, bereaved parents must deal with the contradictory burden of wanting to be free of this overwhelming pain and yet needing it as a reminder of the child who died.

But there are also many unique ways that bereaved parents express their grief. These individual parental responses are influenced by many factors including the person's life experiences, coping skills, personality, age, gender, family and cultural background, support and/or belief systems, and even the death or the type of death that occurred.

Moreover, those who seek (Harvey) to comfort grieving parents need to recognize and understand the complexities of the parents' emotions and should avoid relying on preconceived ideas about the way a couple is supposed to grieve if their child dies. Reactions of grieving parents may seem overly intense, self-absorbing, contradictory, or even puzzling. For bereaved parents, the death of a child is such an overwhelming event that their responses may often be baffling not only to others but to themselves as well.


So yeah, crazy. But I am fully capable of engaging you.

Sconnor~ 9. And yet, god keeps creating more earthly children, sentencing them to endure egregious pain and unimaginable suffering. EXPLAIN THIS!

[SIN is the cause of all suffering NOT God...All that God created was good and very good and there was no pain or suffering in it. Sin effects the genome and creates horrendous effects beyond human control in everyone small and great]

Bullshit diverging, again. Even if sin isn't an imaginary magical substitution for what is evil in the world, we are both in agreement egregious suffering inflicts the world -- the world is full of vile, horrible, suffering, and yet god keeps creating earthly children to send on to that abysmal planet, of suffering. Why does god keep creating more earthly children, that he sends into this sinful world?

It is painfully, obvious, you have nothing but delusion and skewed rationalizations and your game plan is browbeating me with evasive equivocations and loquacious misdirection -- you have not answered one question honestly, without equivocating, on a mass scale.

I'm now waiting for the typical dim-witted christian, excuse, that "you answered all the questions, you just choose not to see the answer".

--S.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Sconnor~ "Oh there's doubt. It's unfair to pass judgment, based on a few postings and preconceived ideas and does nothing to further your arguments. My ability to reason and use logic, in light of your absurdities and lame non-answers and your habitual use of diverging and being evasive, are enough to cause me to respond, as I do."

[That’s just the problem you have repeatedly shown your inability to reason and use logic. As I said I don’t care if you don’t like the answers, I don’t like a lot of things but that’s just the way it is]

Sconnor~ "Bullshit, non-answer. You didn't tell how he loves us; you just simply reiterated "god loves us" and declared humans to be sinners."

[You ask "How, exactly does God love us" and respond with a list of functions that one does BECAUSE one loves. Obviously you don’t understand your own question.

BEFORE you had an opportunity to do any of those things you loved Connor. Now either you don’t know what you’re asking or you don’t know how to properly articulate the question, either way from what I can see...OVERRATED!]

Sconnor~"2. How are you privy to this information, while myself and others are not?"

[His love is manifest to all mankind and is not hidden from anyone. We partake of it everyday by waking, moving breathing and a host of other small and large things.]

Sconnor~ "Bullshit mystical, non-answer. Arbitrarily listing everyday things we do in life is not evidence of god's love. Just because I walk and breathe is not god's love manifesting itself. When I shit and barf and masturbate, is that god's love manifesting itself?"

[Not only do you not understand what you ask or what you SUPPOSEDLY question you have no clue as to how to discern or know truth...Now that’s impressive, that you can fake your way along so well using a tragic situation as a defense and shield for your ignorance]

Sconnor~ "BTW, there is no such word as "laquatious" -- and I didn't even have to look it up."

[Yea...OK...so go here and see how WRONG you are AGAIN. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=laquatious
Mr. Knowledge and reason, you gave the most laquatious answer to the most laquatious question and further you’re the most laquatious person I know...OVERRATED!]

Sconnor~ 1. So explain to me why your god designed the umbilical cord with such a devastating flaw?

[Can you FIRST explain why natural selection or any other naturalistic process has not eliminated the problem?]

Sconnor~ "Bullshit answer. I asked first. Give me a straight forward, concise, answer and I 'll be glad to offer reams of information on natural selection."

[Doesn’t matter who asked what first...GIVE ME AN ANSWER MR. god of the world!]

Sconnor~ "Oh, I called you wrong and you still are wrong.
Your argument of what prayer can do (...Now speaking of what prayer can do...) fails and crumbles under the weight of your bullshit. Your new arguments are counter-intuitive and prove that prayer did not bring you baby back from death."

[And yea I call you WRONG and still hiding out blaming others for your pain and trouble...so you’re WRONG Sconnor...prove me wrong why don’t you, instead of providing a diluted, meaningless, blanket assertions... and inarticulate profanities. YOU’RE OVERRATED!]

Sconnor~ "Notice that part in your argument about what prayer can do? You are all over the place. It is a dizzying sight, to behold."

[And that doesn’t even account for the other’s I’ve seen and personally know that have were dead and are alive today because of God moving according to believing prayer...face it Sconnor, it’s beyond you to figure out and just when you think it’s where you can discern it it’s beyond your capacity to comprehend, God defies and is totally above what is left of your intellectual capacities.]

Sconnor~ "My reading comprehension is just fine."

[You say so but the evidence is in your responses that a remedial class in reading comprehension is in order]

Sconnor~ "Point blank question. Does god answer prayers, that are prayed by other religions? If a Hindu prayed to Brahma to bring back his dead baby, would god jump in and do it?"

[Stay focused, point blank...the question HAS BEEN ANSWERED]

Sconnor~ "Wasting time with more bullshit, avoiding and diverging."

[Sconnor is wasting time and life PERIOD with ridiculous assertions and pursuits that he calls logical all the while looking for a platform to proliferate his preconceived biases by any means necessary]

Sconnor~"4. Also when other religions pray to their god and one of their dead babies comes back to life, was it an act of god, or a delusion that their god intervened or a happy coincidental, outcome?

You know as well as I do this was a hypothetical question."

[You know that’s was a stupid question and lends nothing to the conversation and you’re frustrated that I recognize your stupidity and won't buy into it...deal with facts not hypotheticals]

Sconnor~ "I'll have to do better, huh? You only have ignorance, delusion, and superstition to offer me and none of it comforts or helps me, in any way, which means you have zero to offer me. The bullshit you spew is convoluted, nonsense, that only, makes sense in the religious omelet of your myopic, mind and you continually and habitually skirt the issues. Your arrogance is dwarfed by your bullshit pat answers and you are worthy of no respect."

[You’re not worthy of respect either Sconnor, you believe that just because you’ve suffered tragedy the world should stop for you...WELL IT DOESN’T! You have no greater pass in life than I had and no greater grip on reality and suffering than me. You haven’t acted or behaved yourself respectfully in any manner in this blog and I am human like you. What RESPECT do you deserve? NONE HERE! Yet you’re extended grace, because I have no obligation to talk to you at all, but others need to see the utter futility of an empty soul and I say that even in that you’re still OVERRATED!]

Sconnor~ "... said the man with the over-inflated ego."

[If you move that INFLATED chip off your shoulder then maybe you can see at least something accurately...like your OVERRATED and SELF-EXPLOITIVE NATURE!]

Sconnor~ Preposterous. I do not sit on my ass, wallowing in complacency. I have been on an obsessive search ever since my son died. Just because I don't accept your myopic, bullshit truth, doesn't predispose me to not wanting to know the truth.

[Yes but your total disrespect for me (and I’m sure) others as HUMANS displays your self-centered and pious attitude in your "supposed" search. Since men are the vehicles used to convey truth, you hold truth hostage to your fanciful presuppositional thinking and biases. That’s both illogical, unscientific and a total denial what you say you’re seeking...but you won’t be able to see it because you’re blinded by your own irrationality and self-centeredness]

Sconnor~ "Also if god was not there who would have smote all the first born of Egypt? I know you have a difficult time with hypothetical but try really hard and think of a non-evasive, answer."

[God has a host that he uses to do his bidding. Death is one of those enemies that was given birth by the SIN, rebellion and deliberate turning of man away from God.(Jas. 1:14-15) That’s why death is our enemy and it will be obliterated( 1 Cor. 15:26, Rev. 20:14 )

Death was sent to do the bidding of God. Was God in control?...Yes, that's why none died but the firstborn, which refrenced Jesus. Could God have stopped it?...Yes,but there would have been no freedom without that event, this also refrences Jesus. The whole story points to the redemption of all people by blood and the sacrifice of the firstbegotten or firstborn which God himself would step up and accomplish...Your point has NOTHING to do with the issues of the scripture]

Sconnor~ "Just because you emphasize god "DID NOT" cause misery -- doesn't make it true."

[Just because you emphasize that God DID cause misery DOESN'T make it true either, in addition you have to twist scriptural messages to support your assertions, I don't.]

Sconnor~ "Oh I'm sorry does god hang out with you or does he talk -- with your voice -- in your head? The important thing to remember is I do not recognize you as an authority,"

[I am beginning to recognize you as a pious, and self exalted exploiter]

Sconnor~ "nor does the bullshit you spew come directly from god. Your nothing but a bullshit artist, another deluded, ass; the equivalent of an ignorant, sweaty preacher, in a cheap suit, proselytizing on a street corner."

[That’s exactly where I began, and do it now as often as time will allow...I just saw a prostitute that I ministered to 25 years ago come to church. She laughed at me 25 years ago, but she's totally different now..That was a blessing.]

Sconnor~ "You know the ones -- where everyone points at them and laughs, while the psycho-preacher is oblivious and continues to vomit up unsubstantiated, idiosyncratic, religious, nonsense, deep in a delusional orgasm."

[Laugh at me, I’m in good company, I just happen to know the one who put all this together and who’ll bring it all to an end]

Sconnor~ "That's your dumb-ass argument, that doesn't address the god of the bible, who causes his earthly children to suffer, egregiously, in grief, because he killed people or ordered the killing of others."

[Ooh, it more addresses your self-exaltation and your twisted view of humanity being there at your beck and call]

Sconnor~ Oh and your god had a hard time driving out this army.
Judges 1:19 -- And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."


[No. Obviously you didn’t read the rest of the story:

Judges 2:21-23 ~ "I also will not henceforth drive out any from before them out of the nations which Joshua left when he died: , That through them I may prove Israel, whether they will keep the way of the Lord to walk therein, as their fathers did keep it, or not. , Therefore the Lord left those nations without driving them out hastily; neither delivered he them into the hand of Joshua."

The reason was to "prove" them or so that their hearts, thoughts intents and aspirations could be exposed. Later in Chapter 4 God deals with those chariots. He destroys the army through the use of natural events...rain, with chariot wheels stuck in the mud. God corrects 20 years of pain and affliction in one day and the leadr of the Chariots head is stuck to the ground.

In short,the heart of the people was exposed through pain...just like your is today. Neither those chariots, leaders or your heart is problematic for God.]

Sconnor~ "How dare you insinuate, that I used this example to soothe my emotions or feed my libido. It is a perfect example -- lewd and vile -- to make my point."

[No it’s a perfect example of the depravity of your heart to use your son’s tragedy as an instrument to disrespect humanity and people such as myself who didn’t reach out to you as a religious leader but AS A MAN AND A FATHER...THAT’S LEWD AND VILE!

Your contemptuous behavior and self-exaltation of you and your pain above all men and women, Christian and non-Christian is loathsome.]

Sconnor~ "I know it is a vile example. Just because I bring it up does not make me a psychotic."

[I beg to differ with you sir...This shows the epitome of insolence, a desire to grandstand, and a callous approach toward the pain of others who may have experienced events you describe...but that doesn’t matter to you, only your weird, preconceived self-exaltation, behavior above all humans and perverted desire to try to prove that you have an intellectual superiority which the exact OPPOSITE has been demonstrated here.]

Sconnor~ "F-you Harvey, you deluded psycho."

[I believe that by your own words you have proven to be the DELUDED PSYCHO and continue to demonstrate such with your inability to articulate any reasonable argument that doesn’t use profanity or require individuals to worship you.]

Sconnor~ "Now your delusions of grandeur stifle you with suspicion. If this is any indication how you minister to the sick, grieving and suffering, again both you and your god are, apathetic, incompetent, malfeasants."

[This is how I minister to individuals who exploit pain and use tragedy to support their presuppositional biases. You have no free pass on suffering. If your sons life meant as much to you as you say it does you wouldn’t disrespect his memory in the self-centered manner that you do. Pain is one thing. You have NO LOCK on pain and suffering and your experience IS NOT above humanity and more specifically MINE. I won’t bow down to worship you as you require that Christian do, you’re not God and you certainly have NOTHING of value to offer but a story that is COMMON to me and others. As I said OVERRATED! I’ll further add EMPTY and WANTING.]

Sconnor~ "So yeah, crazy. But I am fully capable of engaging you."

[All I’ve asked for you to do is expose yourself, which you’ve done quite well and more specifically in a rather embarrassing manner for yourself]

Sconnor~ "Bullshit diverging, again. Even if sin isn't an imaginary magical substitution for what is evil in the world, we are both in agreement egregious suffering inflicts the world -- the world is full of vile, horrible, suffering, and yet god keeps creating earthly children to send on to that abysmal planet, of suffering. Why does god keep creating more earthly children, that he sends into this sinful world?"

[Why do you not stop eating, because you know there are people starving? Why not stop drinking, because someone is thirsty? Why don’t YOU sell you home and live outdoors because someone is homeless? You’re a bleeding heart liberal, with your own preconceived brand of morality based on you your totally irrational assessment of what you think life should be to you.

Arguments as such do not make sense and further leave the burden on you to be what you require everyone else to be.

WHAT HAVE YOU GIVEN UP FOR THE COMFORT OF OTHERS? What have you done to befriend someone else’s living child? Are you a mentor at a school? Or are you just further totally absorbed in your self and your desire for everyone to bow down to you?

Since you don’t quite know how to "go there" without becoming vulgar, and showing showing your vile and empty emotionalism, I’ll just be specific as this will be the culmination of my interaction to you, because you have demonstrated, against my hopes, that YOU are more valuable to you than anyone including your son.

I don’t know you and you certainly don’t know me, but to come off as you have has demonstrated the real problem. That problem BEGINS and ENDS with YOU!

As I said from the beginning, your son is FINE he’s quite OK. But you like pharaoh, have exalted your intellect to a place where you feel that you are unapproachable and above all humanity. Yet you’re just like us...a person with vile thoughts and expressions that cannot deliver yourself. YOU NEED GOD, for you will be the only problem that you will continue to face in life.

Stop exploiting the tragedy of your child as if that gives you a license to disrespect and act contemptuously or some special knowledge above all humanity.

Sorry, I love my children dearly and if either of them were to die it would change my life dramatically, but based on what I’ve already lost in life and what I’ve had to experience personally just to survive today...My faith stands firm and I simply render YES to God for my complete life, tragedy and joys. My life and mind belongs to him. He sustains me not some BLIND CHANCE in which there are no answers for even the smallest occurrence except for what can be discerned by a man based on what he can see in a test tube physically.

So thank you for exposing yourself and I appreciate any kindness displayed as I can see that whatever I have received is beyond you to provide.

The shame of SIN covered with leaves still exists and is displayed here clearly.]

Thanks.

sconnor said...

Harvey,

Urban Dictionary is a wiki, where any imbecile, anonymous, user can make up a word and offer a definition, which is exactly the way you interpret the bible. You will not find "laquatious" in any authentic, credible, dictionary.

Umbilical cord?
Not all problems can be eliminated when dealing with complex organisms. As biological organisms we are susceptible to disease and injury.
OK, now your turn why did your god, the intelligent creator, of the finely tuned universe, create an umbilical cord, with the devastating, unintelligent design, that can cause thousand of babies to die a year or causes thousands of babies to suffer with severe mental deficiencies?

To equivocate, god loves us, without showing how he loves us (his actions) only proves he is the figment of your delusional, mind. Care to offer tangible proof that comes directly from god, without equivocating or trying equate absurd, arbitrary, correlations, that shows god loves us?

yea I call you WRONG and still hiding out blaming others for your pain and trouble

Making false allegations again? Explain to me how I am hiding out and show me where I blamed others, for my monumental grief.

This was your proof for what prayer can do:
Now speaking of what prayer can do...my baby was BORN DEAD.Umbilical cord wrapped around his neck TWO times..That's right for all of you that have exited God out...I gave up on having a living son, my wife while cut open and bleeding had the faith and trust in God until he breated and his heart beat...Then he was perfectly normal on all tests and is normal today.

Your argument is you have to have faith in Christ. That when you pray it has to be with unwavering faith in Christ, so your prayers can be answered. This is what you used to substantiate your claims that prayer works.

Will god answer the prayer of a person, who does not have faith in christ -- who prays to their deity -- by actually bringing their dead baby back to life?

You answered, God hears and listens to all and he blesses all everyday with LIFE, and certainly things that none could ever deserve or ask for and further everything in life points to him.]

You never answered if other religion's prayers are answered by god's actions, specifically in the case of bringing dead babies back. Does god act upon the prayers of other religions, by changing the laws of nature and causing miracles to happen, like what, supposedly, happened with your baby?

You know why you can't answer, because if god answers the prayers of other religious people and they don't have faith in Christ, then your faith is null and void -- just another insignificant, delusional belief. So by all means rant and diverge.

Sconnor~ "Also if god was not there who would have smote all the first born of Egypt? I know you have a difficult time with hypothetical but try really hard and think of a non-evasive, answer."

[God has a host that he uses to do his bidding. Death is one of those enemies that was given birth by the SIN, rebellion and deliberate turning of man away from God.(Jas. 1:14-15) That’s why death is our enemy and it will be obliterated( 1 Cor. 15:26, Rev. 20:14 )

Death was sent to do the bidding of God. Was God in control?...Yes, that's why none died but the firstborn, which refrenced Jesus. Could God have stopped it?...Yes,but there would have been no freedom without that event, this also refrences Jesus. The whole story points to the redemption of all people by blood and the sacrifice of the firstbegotten or firstborn which God himself would step up and accomplish...Your point has NOTHING to do with the issues of the scripture]


So god did cause misery.

But God wasn't completely in control. Evidently your god was cosmic moron, not able to distinguish between the Jewish first born and the Egyptian first born, so they had to put up blood markers so god wouldn't be confused. More mythology conundrums.

You made this statement -- [First God DID NOT cause misery.

Your answer was -- [Just because you emphasize that God DID cause misery DOESN'T make it true either, in addition you have to twist scriptural messages to support your assertions, I don't]

...conveniently avoiding the scripture that says god does cause misery:

Ecc. 7:14 -- In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider: God also hath set the one over against the other, to the end that man should find nothing after him.

Which means: When times are good, you should be cheerful; when times are bad, think what it means. God makes them both to keep us from knowing what will happen next.

The Hebrew word for "Adversity" is "[r '', meaning, bad, evil bad, disagreeable, malignant bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)


Sconnor~ "Oh I'm sorry does god hang out with you or does he talk -- with your voice -- in your head? The important thing to remember is I do not recognize you as an authority,"

[I am beginning to recognize you as a pious, and self exalted exploiter]

WTF?
Like I said, you have no authority, you use god's supposed, voice as your own, wallowing in delusion and bogus sense of superiority. You make the extraordinary claims that god talks to you through the bible and that you know what god thinks and does and how he wants us to act -- all I'm doing is asking you to substantiate those extraordinary claims -- can you?


Sconnor~ Oh and your god had a hard time driving out this army.
Judges 1:19 -- And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."


[No. Obviously you didn’t read the rest of the story:

Judges 2:21-23 ~ "I also will not henceforth drive out any from before them out of the nations which Joshua left when he died: , That through them I may prove Israel, whether they will keep the way of the Lord to walk therein, as their fathers did keep it, or not. , Therefore the Lord left those nations without driving them out hastily; neither delivered he them into the hand of Joshua."

The reason was to "prove" them or so that their hearts, thoughts intents and aspirations could be exposed. Later in Chapter 4 God deals with those chariots. He destroys the army through the use of natural events...rain, with chariot wheels stuck in the mud. God corrects 20 years of pain and affliction in one day and the leadr of the Chariots head is stuck to the ground.


Oh, I read the rest of the story. Contextually, it says, "The lord could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

It doesn't say god pretended to be weak so he could leave other enemies for Israel to fight. And even, if later on, in the story god says, I left other enemies for you to fight, it comes off as if, he is making excuses, for not being able to drive out the inhabitant of the valley. It's either, god backtracking or the writers of the bible, saw that their almighty god was not as powerful as he should be and they backtracked. In any case, god couldn't drive out the inhabitants -- at that time -- and how does scripture explain this? Because they had chariots of iron, not because of some elaborate plan for god to pretend to be defeated by chariots, so he could leave enemies for Isreal, later on.

we are both in agreement egregious suffering inflicts the world -- the world is full of vile, horrible, suffering, and yet, god keeps creating earthly children, to send on to that abysmal planet, of suffering. Why does god keep creating more earthly children, that he sends into this sinful world?"

Your answer -- true to form -- incessantly diverges, makes inaccurate analogies and makes faulty conclusions.

Why do you not stop eating, because you know there are people starving? Why not stop drinking, because someone is thirsty? Why don’t YOU sell you home and live outdoors because someone is homeless? You’re a bleeding heart liberal, with your own preconceived brand of morality based on you your totally irrational assessment of what you think life should be to you.

Whaaat?
I'm not asking god to stop eating or drinking, I'm asking why does he continue to send his earthly children, into, what he knows is, a land of suffering, levels of egregious pain more egregious then the first?

Arguments as such do not make sense and further leave the burden on you to be what you require everyone else to be.

Is this a comment on your arguments? Sure fits the bill.

WHAT HAVE YOU GIVEN UP FOR THE COMFORT OF OTHERS? What have you done to befriend someone else’s living child? Are you a mentor at a school? Or are you just further totally absorbed in your self and your desire for everyone to bow down to you?

This has nothing to do with my philanthropic endeavors, we are talking about god sending his earhtly children to an earth where there is mass suffering -- remember?
God does not have to give up his comfort, to send his earthly children, to a planet, that he knows is full of sin, evil, and vile suffering -- why does he continue to send his earthly children to a planet where there is egregious, vile suffering?

Diverge, diverge, diverge.

--S.

sconnor said...

Harvey,

Your accusations and conclusions based, on my vulgar examples are unwarranted and wholly illogical. To conclude I am psychotic because, I offered up a dramatic and vile representation of what really happens in this cruel and violent life, is a heinous tactic, that associates the story teller with the crime they are talking about. You might as well condemn any person (survivors of the Holocaust, rape victims who were brutally, tortured for years, victims of sexual mutilation etc.) who give vivid, testimony of the vile and vulgar atrocities, perpetrated against them. The only reason you, lower yourself, and resort to maligning me, falsely accusing me to be in league with the atrocious acts I mention, branding me psychotic, is to blatantly, misdirect the viewer from the real arguments and paint me as immoral -- which is absolutely not true. It's a devious, underhanded trick, revealing, your inability to argue my specific points -- demonstrating fully -- you got nothing.

We are lucky as agnostics, atheists and the non-religious, that we have a testament of your unethical and illogical equivocations, encapsulated in writing, forever exposing your colossal, ineptitude and inability to, honestly, answer questions, that even most Christians would find wholly, absurd and interminably, fallacious.

Next:
Let's review; I opened up and bared my soul, giving real-life examples, of my intense grief and how others are affected by the death of their children. I used these examples to lend a sense of verisimilitude to the aftermath of god's actions, resulting in the misery and unimaginable grief, the survivors had to endure. The examples I used, solely, serve to illustrate the devastating effects of grief; specifically, the grief that cripples parents, who's children have died. The small sample, I shared, doesn't even -- remotely -- come close, to clarifying how monumentally overwhelming and tragic it is to lose your child. Mark Twain -- who lost two of his daughters -- wrote that, you could use every word, of every language, and still, not convey the unbearable loss, of your children. The pain and misery is ineffable.

The only reason I used the examples I did, is to express, to people, who couldn't possibly, comprehend or imagine the heart wrenching, crippling, pain parents trudge through, when their child dies. Everything I do and everything I say -- everything -- comes from the perspective of my son dying. So when I took to studying the bible, all I could see is, god's supposed "just" actions of punishing his earthly children, by killing them, had a truly reprehensible side effect, that is not conveyed in scripture -- the surviving families must, now, live with unimaginable grief and pain, because of what god wrought. The magnitude of overwhelming, grief and anguish is staggering.

This is an observation, that I became painfully, aware of, while reading the bible, with the perspective of having to watch my son suffer and die, coupled with the dreadful, long-lasting, suffering, of intolerable grief, I live with, to this day.

Shamelessly, you accuse me of exploiting the pain and tragedy of my son's death, when I am consumed with nothing but the incredible loss of my child -- which if you learned anything from the article I presented -- you would understand, is normal. When confronted with what I read in the bible, it would have been criminal for me not to make my comparisons and arguments, while expressing the suffering I've gone through.

I have to wonder, how, any book on suffering (the Holocaust, atomic bombing of Japan, slavery, war etc.) could convey the horrific suffering, without personal testimonies, that which you condemn me for.

Then with all the eloquence of a cantankerous, pompous ass, saturated with grave insensitivity, that only a callous, cold-hearted, depraved and delusional, asshole, could vomit up, you unabashedly, maligned and slandered me, by accusing me of disrespecting my son's memory, and devaluing him. You are -- with out a doubt -- a despicable, cruel, little, man, a reprehensible, cretin, who -- in me -- evokes an utter, disgust and repulsion and what's truly, pitiful, is you are completely, oblivious, to your uncaring, insensitive words, having no idea how disgraceful and hurtful you are. You are beyond reproach and have made it perfectly, clear, you could never come to me with the compassion of Christ -- it is entirely beyond you; a never-ending chasm.

Do not use my son against me; you have no right to do so. I don't care about the jabs leveled at me, specifically, I can tolerate those, but using my son, in the loathsome, way you did, is crossing a humongous line, in a malicious, hurtful way -- way, way out of bounds. Refrain, from that behavior or the discourse will be terminated.

--S.

John W. Loftus said...

Unless Lee reopens this thread I'm shutting it down for good. 191 comments is enough, especially when it degenerates like it has.

Cheers.