The Intelligent Design Coloring Book – and more

| 68 Comments

William Dembski in 2002 wrote

Building a design curriculum is educational in the broadest sense. It includes not just textbooks, but everything from research monographs for professors and graduate students to coloring books for preschoolers [emphasis added].

Mr. Dembski has apparently got his wish, though it would be a stretch to say that The Intelligent Design Coloring Book is (a) written for preschoolers or (b) quite what Mr. Dembski had in mind.

I have not yet ordered the book, but you can find a few pages from it here. One of the panels shows two young men and a young woman on the beach. The text on the opposite page says

Carrie is doing the Intelligent Designer’s work. Using her breasts, she attempts to distract Matt from looking at Michael.

Breasts can be used for good or evil. When they’re used to foil homosexual activity it pleases the Intelligent Designer.

To celebrate her success, color her bathing suit PINK because she’s a girl and Matt and Michael’s bathing suits BLUE because they’re boys.

The Web page for the book is somewhat ambiguous in that it shows two slightly different covers; one of them bears the legend “*100% FACT FREE,” just in case you thought I was overstepping my literary critic’s license in labeling the book a parody.

The author of the book is called Pastor Brett. I have never heard of Pastor Brett, but if you search for him on Amazon, you will find a book, Relate Well: Properly Relating to Your World and the People Most Important to You, by Pastor Brett Everett Fuller. I do not know whether the fact-free Pastor Brett is attempting to parody the other Pastor Brett, but he need not have bothered; Mr. Fuller has done a good job all by himself. Specifically, I “looked inside,” as Amazon would have it, and I found a sort of interlinear commentary on the Bible. And I found

To enjoy uninterrupted supply, Man was required to be a good steward (Genesis 2:15). Stewarding was work but not hard work. He never had to pull out the water sprinkler because the fountainhead, from which four rivers obtained their origin, began in Eden and watered the entire garden. Its tributaries were so navigable that they could transport the future lady of the house to the finest jewelry and perfume boutiques (Genesis 2:11-12). As far as cultivating went, there wasn’t a need to weed and no fallow ground to plow: just picking and gentle trimming.

And

Man refined his rulership, as he successfully cultivated and kept the garden. For example, the development of Eden’s agri-health would allow his occupational skills to grow. His understanding of “homeland security” would allow him to disciple [sic] his descendants with “best practices.”

And, just in case you wondered who was in charge,

Although Adam (because he was at her [Eve’s] side during the entire conversation [with the serpent]) was ultimately responsible, his wife was the one who dialogued [sic] them out of house and home.

As I skimmed the text, I found this amusing homily: Mr. Fuller interprets the flat statement, “He went in to Hagar, and she conceived,” as “Abram was all too willing to comply.” He then gives Abram advice based on modern, not bronze-age morality, and advises you (and Abram) not to employ unprescribed means and succumb to temptation – never mind that the means that Abram employed were precisely the means that were prescribed at the time. See under: presentism.

In another instance of presentism, Mr. Fuller avers that “Adam allowed God to anesthetize him for surgery,” after which God removed a rib and fashioned Eve from it. Either God or Mr. Fuller must have forgotten that God had already created humans, male and female, in Genesis 1:26-27. Or has Mr. Fuller not heard that the Bible contains two distinctly different creation stories?

Indeed, not until someone pointed out to me that the publisher of this book was Thomas Nelson did I look more closely and realize that the book was serious, that is, not a parody by the Pastor Brett who drew the coloring book. I do not think it is intended as a young-adult book, but neither can I see a grown man or woman reading it and getting anything much out of it. I am certain of one thing, however: Thomas Nelson would do well to hire a couple of good editors. As for me, though I am largely inartistic, I am sure I would much prefer the coloring book.

Acknowledgments. Glenn Branch first alerted me to the existence of the coloring book, and Steve Reuland provided the Dembski link. Neither is guilty of contributing to this essay.

68 Comments

Breasts can be used for good or evil.

QFT

They’re useless for starting earthquakes though. Which I already knew well before BoobQuake because ID predicted it after the fact. It’s obvious to anyone who examines breasts that they are intelligently designed to absorb and dissipate shock waves. The Designer created them to stop earthquakes. Duh.

Great, now we got a spammer screwing with us!

Where did the antisthetic come from? Intelligent Parmaceuticals?

“Adam allowed God to anesthetize him for surgery,”

“Breasts can be used for good or evil. When they’re used to foil homosexual activity it pleases the Intelligent Designer.”

Hmmmmm, what else could Carrie use to please the Intelligent Designer?

I don’t normally comment, but this one is just to funny to pass up.

And any of you ladies looking to do the Lord’s work and keep me from turning homosexual, feel free to whip then out. It’s for my own good.

I knew something was up when this was advertised:

Unlike so many other books which establish Intelligent Design theory by questioning scientific facts, this one actually explains how Intelligent Design operates.

Imagine that, someone trying to explain anything by Intelligent Design. That’s as believable as UD allowing open discussion of ID’s ubiquitous failings.

Glen Davidson

If any scientist or even pseudo-scientist out there is doing any research in the “Breasts can be used for good or evil.” field, please may I have a job? I’m even happy to have breasts doing evil things to me if necessary. Very happy. Please.

Looks as if Amazon has pulled it, probably due to “controversy”.

It is a beautiful spoof.

The difference between apes and humans? Apes don’t stone other apes to death for religious reasons. Just draw one big cicle.

If the Intelligent Designer (notice the upper case letters) doesn’t like homosexuality then we can have a good guess at who the author is refering to. A real ID fan would refuse to make that connection to Him.

I love it. Anyone know the ISBN?

Unlike so many other books which establish Intelligent Design theory by questioning scientific facts, this one actually explains how Intelligent Design operates.

Yeah, that’s the page that reads “this page intentionally left blank.” Just like the ID research page.

This is absolutely brilliant. Wonder how long we have to wait before the Dishonesty Institute takes critical note of this. An eternity perhaps?

P. S. BTW, I’m now among those who “like” its FB fan page.

Looks as if Amazon has pulled it, probably due to “controversy”.

Amazon still lists it here, but it is described as “currently unavailable.”

I love it. Anyone know the ISBN?

978-0615337999.

Quick, everyone put the coloring book on their wish list!

And add reviews praising the Fuller book for its slapstick parody.

I just did and please be sure to vote yea on its behalf:

Monado, FCD said:

Quick, everyone put the coloring book on their wish list!

And add reviews praising the Fuller book for its slapstick parody.

I for one am amazed that there’s anyone left who thinks it’s safe to leave creationists with such sharp instruments as crayons…

But perhaps we could take up a collection and purchase a copy for Dr. Dr. D? He might learn something.

no hugs for thugs,

Shirley Knott

At the other extreme, see The Human Evolution Coloring Book by Adriennne Zihlman. The act of coloring draws your attention to specific parts of the illustrations, which unfortunately aren’t included in the excerpt.

I’ll consider it when he reimburses the Dover Area School District board of the $20,000 he bilked from them as an absent witness for the defense prior to the start of the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial, apologizes to University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka for falsely accusing Pianka of being a suspected “bioterrorist” to the Federal Department of Homeland Security, apologizes to David Bolinsky, founder and president of XVIVO animation firm for “borrowing” a cell animation video of theirs that was produced for one of Harvard’s biological science departments (a crude version apparently was featured in an unreleased edit of “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”), apologizes to Jerry Coyne, Kevin Padian, Eugenie Scott and others for humiliating and harassing them on his Uncommon Dissent website, for condemning his other critics who have correctly pointed out his abysmal knowledge and understanding of probability and statistics (though he has a M. S. degree in Statistics from the University of Illinois, Chicago), and apologizes to me and buys some expensive Leica rangefinder camera equipment as compensation for crudely asking Amazon.com to delete a review of one of his books and conducting an online smear campaign there which was noted here at PT a few years ago (He allowed Amazon.com to post that review after I sent him an e-mail ultimatum to do it or else suffer the consequences.):

Shirley Knott said:

I for one am amazed that there’s anyone left who thinks it’s safe to leave creationists with such sharp instruments as crayons…

But perhaps we could take up a collection and purchase a copy for Dr. Dr. D? He might learn something.

no hugs for thugs,

Shirley Knott

You couldn’t honestly, make this stuff up. Good for you Mr Kwok, it won’t make the blind bit of difference however, Dembsky is loosing the plot, quickly. At UD the poster going by the moniker ‘Bornagain77’ is so loony they actually sometimes try to calm him down. That talentless tart, Denise O’Leary talks about things using one, and only one argument; increduility. She just doesn’t understand how this could possibly be true, therefore, the logic goes, it is all wrong. The rest of them push each others books, have pointless conventions in obscure locations, pushing theories no one experiments on, in places scientists are devoid of or better restricted from, all for Dog! Sorry God.

A “Who’s who” in Intelligent Design Creationism, the Ph.D’s of the Intelligent Design Creationism movement, the peer reviewed research and all that stuff, when will they take stock of what they’ve got, and ask themselves Quo Vadis, where goes the road ahead, warriors for God? Where have they got in the twenty years or thereabout they’ve been on the move towards the ever distant ID-future?

Or is there something to what Dr. Phil so often days: The past is the key to the future - or words to that effect?

Looking back the future looks rather bleak don’t you think, Dr. Dr. Dembski? Or maybe not, no worries as long as books sell?

What else is ID than a modern version of the great American invention: snake oil?

It boggles my mind that eminent philosopher Michael Ruse frequently goes out on “debates” with his “brother” Bill Dembski, telling audiences how much he loves Dembski as his “brother”. Wonder if he would feel the same way if he went on tours with the likes of Josef Goebbels (BTW I regard my “buddy” Bill as the “Josef Goebbels of the ID Movement”), Raul Castro, or Uday Hussein:

robert van bakel said:

You couldn’t honestly, make this stuff up. Good for you Mr Kwok, it won’t make the blind bit of difference however, Dembsky is loosing the plot, quickly. At UD the poster going by the moniker ‘Bornagain77’ is so loony they actually sometimes try to calm him down. That talentless tart, Denise O’Leary talks about things using one, and only one argument; increduility. She just doesn’t understand how this could possibly be true, therefore, the logic goes, it is all wrong. The rest of them push each others books, have pointless conventions in obscure locations, pushing theories no one experiments on, in places scientists are devoid of or better restricted from, all for Dog! Sorry God.

Well he doesn’t mind being the Dishonesty Institute’s bestselling mendacious intellecutal pornographer who is also best buds with my favoritte “conservative” pundit Ann Colter (BTW I’m one conservative who finds her revolting and utterly detestable.). Why he even admitted that he loves writing books instead of submitting “scientific” papers for publication since he knows that they will sell. Anyway, I am intrigued with how much he has become the ID version of Isaac Asimov, having published more books from 2000 to the present than Niles Eldredge, Ken Miller, Jerry Coyne, Mark Pallen, Mark Norell, or Michael Novacek combined (or at least it seems that way, given his fecund proclivity for getting books published):

Rolf Aalberg said:

A “Who’s who” in Intelligent Design Creationism, the Ph.D’s of the Intelligent Design Creationism movement, the peer reviewed research and all that stuff, when will they take stock of what they’ve got, and ask themselves Quo Vadis, where goes the road ahead, warriors for God? Where have they got in the twenty years or thereabout they’ve been on the move towards the ever distant ID-future?

Or is there something to what Dr. Phil so often days: The past is the key to the future - or words to that effect?

Looking back the future looks rather bleak don’t you think, Dr. Dr. Dembski? Or maybe not, no worries as long as books sell?

What else is ID than a modern version of the great American invention: snake oil?

I’m sorry, I refuse to believe that breasts can be used for evil…

Ann Coulter and breasts should not be mentioned in the same blog (funny, I was just reading about brainbleach on another post). The best description I’ve heard of her is as the right’s “spokesharridan”.

True, but she does regard my “pal” Bill Dembski as her “expert” on “scientific” matters:

fnxtr said:

Ann Coulter and breasts should not be mentioned in the same blog (funny, I was just reading about brainbleach on another post). The best description I’ve heard of her is as the right’s “spokesharridan”.

Kwok, could you “explain” to us why GOPers “insist” on putting “scare quotes” around words seemingly “at random” in your writings? It makes for very “jarring” reading.

Science Avenger said:

Kwok, could you “explain” to us why GOPers “insist” on putting “scare quotes” around words seemingly “at random” in your writings? It makes for very “jarring” reading.

It’s almost reminiscent of Joey on Friends… “Sorry” in air quotes…

Yes, why resort to such a kwokamamie writing style?

Science Wimp -

Sure, when you explain why you opt to drop by like a creo troll as a means of offering yet another ad hominem bit of breathtaking inanity that you think is insightful criticism of yours truly:

Science Avenger said:

Kwok, could you “explain” to us why GOPers “insist” on putting “scare quotes” around words seemingly “at random” in your writings? It makes for very “jarring” reading.

Shouldn’t feed a New Atheist troll like Science Wimp. You’re merely offering him more encouragement:

MrG said:

Yes, why resort to such a kwokamamie writing style?

John Kwok said:

Shouldn’t feed a New Atheist troll like Science Wimp. You’re merely offering him more encouragement:

MrG said:

Yes, why resort to such a kwokamamie writing style?

Cool it, John Kwok! You and Science Avenger are looking equally trollish, IMO.

Not so in my case, with regards to listing each and every one of Dembski’s misdeeds or noting that Ann Coulter has relied upon his “scientific” expertise, having acknowledged that in one of her recent screeds, oops, I mean bestsellers:

Dale Husband said:

John Kwok said:

Shouldn’t feed a New Atheist troll like Science Wimp. You’re merely offering him more encouragement:

MrG said:

Yes, why resort to such a kwokamamie writing style?

Cool it, John Kwok! You and Science Avenger are looking equally trollish, IMO.

henry said:

phantomreader42 said:

henry said:

Proverbs 5 18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

Oh, Proverbs!

The book where the invisible sky tyrant revels in his own sadism (well, ONE of those books, it seems to be a common biblical theme):

1:26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; 27 When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. 28 Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:

The book that proves creationists will all burn in hell forever!

6:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, 19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.

Like every book of the bible, it contradicts itself (see 1:28):

8:17 I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.

Sometimes immediately:

26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

And of course it wouldn’t be the bible without some grotesque cruelty, like demanding children be beaten with a stick or blaming starvation on the supposed wickedness of the hungry:

13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. 25 The righteous eateth to the satisfying of his soul: but the belly of the wicked shall want.

26:4 and 5 are not contradictory. v.4 gives the reason to not answer and v.5 gives the reason to answer. The reasons are different.

So, in henry’s delusions, ordering people not to do something and then immediately ordering them to do it is not contradictory. Either that or this is a case where the bible itself demands that people make their own decisions rather than mindlessly following the cult’s indoctrination manual as a literal instruction book, a theological concept that is anathema to henry.

Also, henry is hoping no one notices his failure to address the rest of the post. Too late.

Henry, will people who seek your imaginary god early find it, as it says in proverbs 8:17, or will they not, as in 1:28? Does this supposedly benevolent and loving delusion of yours mock people who suffer, as it is explicitly said to do in 1:26? Do you endorse beating children with a stick, henry? Do you think hungry people are only hungry because they’re evil, as it says repeatedly in proverbs? Do you think wealth is a sign of holiness and the favor of god, as it says repeatedly in proverbs? If so, then why do other books of your allegedly infallible book of mythology have jesus h. tapdancing christ say the exact opposite?

Or are you, henry, just too much of a stupid, lying coward to dare even try to address these questions?

henry said:

Just Bob said:

henry said:

That’s right–don’t give your strength to women, but rather to a virtuous woman 31:10-31.

Your loose change actually would support the drunk’s habit. What else would he spend the money on? It would be better to give to a rescue mission and let it do the work of redemption.

Notice how FAST Henry backed away from taking the Bible literally when it didn’t suit him!

Oh, and Pv:10-31 says nothing about giving YOUR STRENGTH to a virtuous woman (and if it did, or meant that, it would be a direct contradiction of Pv:3). And the praise it heaps on a virtuous woman is separated from the “Give not thy strength unto women” passage by the ‘give booze to the poor’ and ‘be a fair judge’ admonitions. If 10-31 is supposed to be a response or follow-on to 3, then the writer was–dare I say it–pretty damned incompetent.

Rather, I think that it’s Henry’s reading and apologetics that are incompetent.

Proverbs 31:1 The words of king Lemuel, the prophecy that his mother taught him.

King Lemuel recalled the advice that his mother gave him which is covered in v.2-9. I should have pointed that out first. In quoting v.3 out of context, you made it appear that it was meant generally, rather than specifically to King Lemuel.

Oh, that clears it up. But Henry, something must have been left out of my KJV: I can’t find where it says that the verses from 10 onwards aren’t part of Lemuel’s mama’s “prophecy”!

So how did YOU determine what was meant only for Lem and what for the rest of us?

And why would advice meant only for Lem, but not the rest of us, even be in the Bible?

And why is this stuff called a “prophecy” when it doesn’t prophesy anything? Advice or commandments, maybe, but none of that is a prophecy.

And regardless of whom it’s meant for, do YOU think it’s good policy to “Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more”?

Remember, you’re a literalist, so don’t give us any crap about how “strong drink” really means the “word of god” or the “blood of Jesus” or some such nonsense.

A suggested project for Henry. Or even AIG, or the Southern Baptist Convention, or the JWs, or somebody:

Take an old, standard translation of the Bible (let’s go with King James’s), and print up a new batch that are color-coded. Mine already uses red for Jesus’ words, so let’s go with green–for all parts that are NOT actually literal (in the true sense of the word), but are “poetic,” or “figures of speech.” For instance, were there actually doors in the “firmament” that had to be opened to let rain through, or should that be greened ? Was there really an actual mountain somewhere from which “all nations ofthe Earth” could be seen? Was Solomon writing literal erotic poetry, as Song of Songs seems, or was it something symbolic about Jesus-to-come, or the church, or the Holy Spirit, or anything besides its surface meaning? Does the Earth actually have four corners? Did Solomon’s “sea” actually violate the geometry of our space-time continuum (where circumference equals pi times diameter), or was there an approximation in there somewhere? Did St. John the Divine mean there would be an actual beast (non-human animal), with numerous heads, horns, crowns, etc., or was all that symbolic of something else (like the Catholic Church maybe, hm?) . Will the actual stars actually fall to Earth? Anything that takes any explaining probably should be green.

Huh Henry?

Just Bob said:

henry said:

Just Bob said:

henry said:

That’s right–don’t give your strength to women, but rather to a virtuous woman 31:10-31.

Your loose change actually would support the drunk’s habit. What else would he spend the money on? It would be better to give to a rescue mission and let it do the work of redemption.

Notice how FAST Henry backed away from taking the Bible literally when it didn’t suit him!

Oh, and Pv:10-31 says nothing about giving YOUR STRENGTH to a virtuous woman (and if it did, or meant that, it would be a direct contradiction of Pv:3). And the praise it heaps on a virtuous woman is separated from the “Give not thy strength unto women” passage by the ‘give booze to the poor’ and ‘be a fair judge’ admonitions. If 10-31 is supposed to be a response or follow-on to 3, then the writer was–dare I say it–pretty damned incompetent.

Rather, I think that it’s Henry’s reading and apologetics that are incompetent.

Proverbs 31:1 The words of king Lemuel, the prophecy that his mother taught him.

King Lemuel recalled the advice that his mother gave him which is covered in v.2-9. I should have pointed that out first. In quoting v.3 out of context, you made it appear that it was meant generally, rather than specifically to King Lemuel.

Oh, that clears it up. But Henry, something must have been left out of my KJV: I can’t find where it says that the verses from 10 onwards aren’t part of Lemuel’s mama’s “prophecy”!

So how did YOU determine what was meant only for Lem and what for the rest of us?

And why would advice meant only for Lem, but not the rest of us, even be in the Bible?

And why is this stuff called a “prophecy” when it doesn’t prophesy anything? Advice or commandments, maybe, but none of that is a prophecy.

And regardless of whom it’s meant for, do YOU think it’s good policy to “Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more”?

Remember, you’re a literalist, so don’t give us any crap about how “strong drink” really means the “word of god” or the “blood of Jesus” or some such nonsense.

The words of king Lemuel, the prophecy that his mother taught him. 2 What, my son? and what, the son of my womb? and what, the son of my vows? 3 Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings. 4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for ° princes strong drink: 5 Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted. 6 Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. 7 Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more. 8 Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction. 9 Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.

Lemuel’s mother wanted him to judge righteously, which would be hard to do if he were to drink wine and be involved with many women, which was a disaster for King David and King Solomon.

This note is taken from ICR’s website under Defender’s Bible notes Proverbs 31:1

31:1 the prophecy. See note on Proverbs 30:1. The “prophecy” could be understood simply as an “oracle,” inspired of God but not predicting the future. The Hebrew word for “prophecy” here is never so translated elsewhere in the Old Testament, except in Proverbs 30:1. Its usual translation is “burden” (Isaiah 21:1,11-13, etc.). Such a prophecy was a divinely inspired burden which the prophet was constrained to convey to his people.

If you want to take V 6 and 7 out of context, you can make mean the opposite of its intent.

They are highly qualified to produce a colouring in book. They have been colouring in “the gaps” for years.

phantomreader42 said:

henry said:

phantomreader42 said:

henry said:

Proverbs 5 18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

Oh, Proverbs!

The book where the invisible sky tyrant revels in his own sadism (well, ONE of those books, it seems to be a common biblical theme):

1:26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; 27 When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. 28 Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:

The book that proves creationists will all burn in hell forever!

6:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, 19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.

Like every book of the bible, it contradicts itself (see 1:28):

8:17 I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.

Sometimes immediately:

26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

And of course it wouldn’t be the bible without some grotesque cruelty, like demanding children be beaten with a stick or blaming starvation on the supposed wickedness of the hungry:

13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. 25 The righteous eateth to the satisfying of his soul: but the belly of the wicked shall want.

26:4 and 5 are not contradictory. v.4 gives the reason to not answer and v.5 gives the reason to answer. The reasons are different.

So, in henry’s delusions, ordering people not to do something and then immediately ordering them to do it is not contradictory. Either that or this is a case where the bible itself demands that people make their own decisions rather than mindlessly following the cult’s indoctrination manual as a literal instruction book, a theological concept that is anathema to henry.

Also, henry is hoping no one notices his failure to address the rest of the post. Too late.

Henry, will people who seek your imaginary god early find it, as it says in proverbs 8:17, or will they not, as in 1:28? Does this supposedly benevolent and loving delusion of yours mock people who suffer, as it is explicitly said to do in 1:26? Do you endorse beating children with a stick, henry? Do you think hungry people are only hungry because they’re evil, as it says repeatedly in proverbs? Do you think wealth is a sign of holiness and the favor of god, as it says repeatedly in proverbs? If so, then why do other books of your allegedly infallible book of mythology have jesus h. tapdancing christ say the exact opposite?

Or are you, henry, just too much of a stupid, lying coward to dare even try to address these questions?

This is from the ICR website under Defender’s Bible notes

Proverbs 8:17

8:17 seek me early. Superficially this seems to conflict with Proverbs 1:28: “they shall seek me early but shall not find me.” However, the subjects of the first promise are “those that love me;” those of the second are those who “have set at nought all my counsel” (Proverbs 1:25).

So, to find God you have to have found him already, because otherwise how could you love Him? And if you can’t find him, it’s because you “have set at nought all (his) counsel”, even though if you haven’t found him you couldn’t have had that counsel in the first place.

Very illuminating.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Matt Young published on June 27, 2010 8:26 PM.

In the Zone was the previous entry in this blog.

Freshwater: (Lightly) annotated index to Freshwater-related Thumb posts is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter