The Bathroom Wall

With any tavern, one can expect that certain things that get said are out-of-place. But there is one place where almost any saying or scribble can find a home: the bathroom wall. This is where random thoughts and oddments that don’t follow the other entries at the Panda’s Thumb wind up. As with most bathroom walls, expect to sort through a lot of oyster guts before you locate any pearls of wisdom.

33803 Comments

There is a God!

And he is a plumber. The Bathroom has been flushed.

Thank you Reed.

Great!

Course, that still leaves what happens when the new plumbing acquires a big drip…

Wait, what am I saying?

Ingeborg Esbrandt said:

Hey, nice post :) - well, even though I came via Google searching for “justfaces spreadshirt” wondering why this post came up on top??? Greetings xoxo

Spammer alert!

To make one point about the previous thread. John Kwok wrote:

“Sorry Jim, but your invocation of the Ground Zero Mosque controversy is not helpful here. Incidentally there are many Muslims and Muslim Americans who oppose its construction, simply because they recognize that building it near Ground Zero is needlessly offensive to the families of the victims and the survivors of the 9/11 attack. Some of the most prominent critics - who are Muslim Americans - include Wall Street businessman Mansoor Ijaz (who tried to assist the Clinton administration in extraditing Osama bin Laden from the Sudan) and former United States Navy officer Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser.

[…]

If you are going to call Miss USA, a Muslim American, Rima Fakih, a bigot, then be my guest. Same is true for those two prominent Muslim Americans I had mentioned. Or other Muslim Americans who, like them, have spoken out against building the “Cordoba House” Islamic Center (Of course I am also against it, but am definitely not a bigot.).”

Unless YOU are a practicing Muslim your opposition to this cultural center is pure bigotry, so your saying that you’re “definitely not a bigot” is false. Your ruse of hiding behind the Muslim-Americans’ backs is the same as of the racists who think that using the n-word is OK because so many African-Americans use it. If you are a Muslim, well then, I find your views on the issue just silly, not bigoted.

Kris,

You can’t possibly know what I know.

mrg said:

DS said: Kris has certainly demonstrated that he doesn’t deserve anything more.

Actually, I was suggesting we all insult and abuse DH. If he wants to invite it, why not oblige?

We already tried that on Kris. You can only call someone an @$$hole, a bastard and crazy so many times before it gets tiresome. What’s the point of bashing me?

Kris has called me a liar for stating the obvious facts about him. We can all see what he has done, so why would he deny the stunts he has pulled? He is the one who invaded our space to attack the cause of the blog, yet he expects us to be tolerant and respectful of him no matter what he says? There is no law or principle I know that demands any such thing.

Kris said:

What you said about me is a complete lie. I didn’t start the insults and attacks. You and your asshole buddies here did. And trying to con FF with lies about me and that swill about respecting people you and they (“we”) don’t agree with is yet another one of your acts of deliberate dishonesty. You and most others here wouldn’t know what respect is if it hit you like a freight train going 60 miles per hour.

Since the statements you make about me are false, you’re a deliberate liar, according to your own standards for others. Of course your standards for yourself are completely different. How convenient for you.

The ONLY reason you and most others aren’t now viciously attacking FF is because she said she’s a woman. Even then, some of you have been pretty blunt to her, and especially rude before she said she’s a woman, even though she has been nice the whole time.

My questions to her are not an attack or a trap. They are sincere. You are grossly misrepresenting me and are just showing yourself to be the hypocritical, dishonest, delusional liar you are.

You are a seriously fucked up lunatic with delusions of godhood who needs a good ass kicking.

By the way, Mr. theological agnostic, unitarian, universalist, dis-honorable, bushido, liberal, un-scientific pseudo-skeptic, what are you going to add to or subtract from your self-created, self-serving, bogus religion tomorrow?

You just keep piling up your lies and hypocrisy Dale. You said “You do what you like, but I’m done with Kris for good.” yet you’re still bashing me and lying about me.

You also said you respect people with whom you disagree but then you say “I went after him anyway.” when you first saw me here. When I first came here I didn’t say anything that warranted you going after me.

Plus, you said you respect people with whom you disagree but then you say “I’d go after Ann Coulter if that bitch showed up here too.” So much for you respecting people you disagree with.

As usual the things you claim about yourself, and me, are false, which makes you a chronic LIAR, according to your standards for others.

You admit to slamming me a lot but of course you try to make it look like you’re a saint for doing so. Whether you or anyone else here ever accepts it or not, I’m just giving you and others shit back because you and/or they started it, either with me or someone else who didn’t or doesn’t deserve it.

I didn’t escalate the situation. You and your fellow, lying, arrogant hypocrites did.

It really cracks me up to see you guys acting exactly like some of the creationists you hate and condemn so much. You accuse and attack them for not listening and having closed minds, and for playing what you think are ridiculous games, but you do the same thing. Congratulations, you have become your enemy.

FODS

I haven’t lied about anything, you jackass! The simple fact is that you have invaded Panda’s Thumb and have been a disruptive force from the beginning and have played us like suckers. I’m not fooled by you and no one else is. Even if you were insulted by one or two people in the beginning, you could have ignored it and just responded to the ones who were being positive to you, like flowersfriend has been, but instead you started throwing shit at everyone who dared to reject your tactics. We insulted you because that seemed to be what you liked, but I get tired of that after a while. You don’t, appearantly.

If you seriously think you have made ANY positive contributions to this community here, you are even more delusional than most Creationists!

Dale Husband said: What’s the point of bashing me?

None whatsoever, but since any comments to a troll are going to produce nothing but bashing in response, that leads to what the point of the comments was.

John often fails to read for comprehension. A poor highschool education , no doubt.

Ghrom said:

To make one point about the previous thread. John Kwok wrote:

“Sorry Jim, but your invocation of the Ground Zero Mosque controversy is not helpful here. Incidentally there are many Muslims and Muslim Americans who oppose its construction, simply because they recognize that building it near Ground Zero is needlessly offensive to the families of the victims and the survivors of the 9/11 attack. Some of the most prominent critics - who are Muslim Americans - include Wall Street businessman Mansoor Ijaz (who tried to assist the Clinton administration in extraditing Osama bin Laden from the Sudan) and former United States Navy officer Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser.

[…]

If you are going to call Miss USA, a Muslim American, Rima Fakih, a bigot, then be my guest. Same is true for those two prominent Muslim Americans I had mentioned. Or other Muslim Americans who, like them, have spoken out against building the “Cordoba House” Islamic Center (Of course I am also against it, but am definitely not a bigot.).”

Unless YOU are a practicing Muslim your opposition to this cultural center is pure bigotry, so your saying that you’re “definitely not a bigot” is false. Your ruse of hiding behind the Muslim-Americans’ backs is the same as of the racists who think that using the n-word is OK because so many African-Americans use it. If you are a Muslim, well then, I find your views on the issue just silly, not bigoted.

Malchus said: A poor highschool education , no doubt.

Oh Bob, I can hear the howls now: “Set phasers to SLAUGHTER!”

Kris said:

Mike Elzinga said:

With a troll’s profile ready at hand, and with sufficient discipline on the part of the regulars, that could be cut to zero.

Profile ready at hand? What exactly does that mean Mike? Ready for what or whom? Do you have printed profiles of all the people you’ve labeled as trolls and hand them out to passersby on street corners? Or, do you create a profile file in your computer containing your intricate and exhaustive (LMAO!) calculations and determinations about each alleged troll and somehow send a copy of it to everyone on Earth to warn them of impending doom? Or, do you only dispense it to other regulars here who are able to contact you personally and who request a copy because they let you do their thinking for them?

Or, do you just think that your stupid ‘profiles’ actually matter, when in reality they actually don’t? Do you really believe that what happens on this website, or your asinine profiles, or what you do with them, matters one iota to the vast majority of the people on Earth? Get over yourself Mike.

Hey, if you have my profile handy, why don’t you post it here? I could use a good laugh.

Your “profile” is a person who needs attention and does not even try to get it by behaving in any consistent or coherent fashion. You are a manipulative jerk who takes ANY response from others and uses it as an excuse to attack. You bash us for not being tolerant enough of Creationists, while stating Creationist fallacies yourself. Then you turn around and deny being religious and question why certain others who are Creationist take their religion so seriously. Such strange behavior is pathological in the extreme.

Gee, this website seems VERY important to you, considering how much time you spend here.

You are either crazy or a fraud, Kris.

The fun thing about the BW is that the trolls either have to cave in and respond on the BW – which they don’t want to do – or pass up responding – which they REALLY don’t want to do.

Kris said:

Whatever you do, don’t even consider that when people come here and sincerely want to ask, discuss, debate, learn, and/or contribute in some way, that when they’re mercilessly insulted and attacked and erroneously lumped into your hated group of ID/creationists, they just might not like it and may fight back, and especially when they offer reasonable explanations of their words and the explanations (and the person) are ignored, misinterpreted, misrepresented, slammed, bashed, and ridiculed by you and the rest of the mindless haters here. Yeah, don’t even consider that for a second. You and the other haters and bashers here are way too perfect to have to consider such things. It’s never your fault.

Your track record is too well known here for us to consider that you are sincere about anything. You are even WORSE than the average Creationist troll because you keep going back and forth between acting non-religious and acting like a Creationist. You cannot be both, so you must be bullshitting us. Nobody here can take that seriously.

Expressed violent thoughts a number of times?? Yeah Mike, I would thoroughly enjoy kicking your ass and the asses of anyone else who has called me a liar, but I haven’t “expressed violent thoughts a number of times” in the way you’re implying. You’re the one who needs a psychiatrist, along with some others here. If you’re considered sane, I’d rather be considered crazy. And comparing me or anyone else you simply don’t agree with to a serial killer just helps show how paranoid and delusional you are.

If you don’t like being called a liar, stop being one. At least I have ALWAYS told the truth about YOU.

DH, a very minor issue here: the first part you cited above was addressed to me, and personally I find it amusing to watch such comments fall into a hole of resounding silence.

However, as far as the rest goes, carry on.

mrg said:

DH, a very minor issue here: the first part you cited above was addressed to me, and personally I find it amusing to watch such comments fall into a hole of resounding silence.

However, as far as the rest goes, carry on.

Oh, did you want to answer him here first? Be my guest. But I figured I’d just make a note of ANY inappropriate thing Kris says elsewhere and post it here, answer it here, and wait for Kris to take the hint and stop attacking us everywhere else and just slam people here.

Dale Husband said: Oh, did you want to answer him here first? Be my guest.

Why would I want to do that? But if my own rejoinder is indifference, I can at least politely ask that the effect not be spoiled.

Kris threatens: “I would thoroughly enjoy kicking your ass and the asses of anyone else who has called me a liar,…”

Lotsa bluster; everybody’s collective asses are exposed right here.

Mike Elzinga said: … everybody’s collective asses are exposed right here.

AARGH! I am so outa here!

Kris said:

Mike Elzinga said:

mrg said:

Serial killers are maybe a bit much of a comparison.

The point was the sociopathic needs of such an individual. This troll has expressed violent thoughts a number of times. But a psychiatrist would have a better handle on this that I.

I think people like attention; it’s just a question of what kind of attention. When I was the factory contact guy in my corporate life, a colleague in marketing told me that it was true I put up with a lot of abuse – I did – but added: “People thank you sometimes.”

And they did. I get thanks on occasion for my current efforts as well – not often, and maybe thanks aren’t the be-all and end-all of the effort … but on the other side of the coin, if nobody ever thanks me, what reason would I have to honestly believe what I was doing actually did anyone good?

Now take the negative mentalities that show up here … does anyone ever thank them for what they’re doing? It’s obvious it never happens, and just as obvious that they haven’t any expectation that it will.

They still want attention, and lacking any concept that they will ever be praised, they have no alternative but to be disruptive. If one cannot build, then they can only take satisfaction in destruction.

Yeah; you are pointing out common desires that nearly everyone has. But sociopaths also know this and manipulate these.

But I suspect most of us can simply walk away from these kinds of manipulations when we have other things to do that are satisfying; and I suspect most of the moderators here on PT do in fact have other things vying for their attention.

Hell, I’m retired and I can’t get through everything I want to get through in a week. The only reason I even show up here is that the PT topics are often very interesting, and I have a high speed connection that allows me to look in from time to time when I happen to be working on my computer. So most of the time I’m multitasking up a storm when I’m here.

Expressed violent thoughts a number of times?? Yeah Mike, I would thoroughly enjoy kicking your ass and the asses of anyone else who has called me a liar, but I haven’t “expressed violent thoughts a number of times” in the way you’re implying. You’re the one who needs a psychiatrist, along with some others here. If you’re considered sane, I’d rather be considered crazy. And comparing me or anyone else you simply don’t agree with to a serial killer just helps show how paranoid and delusional you are.

Whew! Glad I never called Kris a liar. I only called him a coward and a bully.

Mike Elzinga said: Lotsa bluster; everybody’s collective asses are exposed right here.

So it’s like “one of these days Alice, POW! To the mooning”?

Another collection of Kris’ delusional rants.

Kris said:

And of course your insulting comments, and the insulting comments by the other hypocrites here, don’t violate any of those rules you posted, eh?

Apparently, all that matters here is that any insults have to be aimed at creationists or anyone who doesn’t blindly and viciously attack them right along with you guys/gals.

Giving you back your own shit isn’t allowed. Questioning you isn’t allowed. Having a mind of my own isn’t allowed. Calling you on your bullshit isn’t allowed. Anything less than total devotion and obedience to you and your creationist hating ‘cause’ isn’t allowed. Hypocrisy, by you and your cohorts, is allowed, and encouraged.

Kris said:

And of course you and others going on and on about “trolls”, and repeatedly posting “DNFTT”, isn’t “SPAM”. Yeah, whatever.

Why do you think that a “dissenter” is automatically a “troll”? You’ve said you’re a Christian. Would your Christian God approve of your insulting, hypocritical, hateful behavior?

Kris said:

Maybe, just maybe the moderators are getting wise to the hypocrisy and other bullshit you and others are guilty of.

Now STFU spamming troll.

How do you like your own shit thrown back at you?

Panda’s Thumb is a blog made for defending evolution and promoting proper science education, and since Kris was the one who invaded the blog to spew both Creationist arguments that we were expected to “tolerate” (like we are supposed to tolerate falsehoods?) and then claim to be non-religious at other times, why shouldn’t we regard him as unwelcome, inconsistent and disruptive? Why shouldn’t we treat him like he is the enemy, when that’s all he has ever acted like since he arrived here?

An example of hypocrisy would be us invading and attacking ID promoters on Uncommon Descent. I’ve never done that, and never will. Maybe Kris can go over there and drive the ID people crazy for a while, to prove to us once and for all that he is an equal-opportunity critic, and not a bigoted Creationist concern troll.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/

Kris the creationist wrote:

“If, however, “descent with modification” is defined as showing that speciation (evolution) occurs and/or occurred, then that’s a different ballgame, and requires greater evidence. While a lot of evidence points to a persuasive probability that descent with modification, including divergence/speciation, occurred throughout(?) the history of life, there’s a lot more work to do to before it can reasonably be said that it has been established close to 100%, and I’m not sure it can be reasonably said that it can be established ‘empirically’. Many inferences have been and have to be made, and inferences are a matter of opinion.”

This is of course incorrect. I already posted a link to a web page entitled:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

If Kris wants to discuss the point, he can do so here. Maybe someone will want to discuss it with him. Unless of course he is just plain chicken shit.

DS said: Kris the creationist wrote:

You might just leave a short bland note on the original thread to invite him to come to the BW for discussion. He’ll ignore it, of course, but that works too.

Yawn.

(Bored.)

All the spamming at The Immune System Cross-examination Still Burns, and other forums, is very unChristlike, don’t you think?

Makes you wonder if these anti-science creation-supporters are Christians? (Never known a real creationist who wasn’t.)

It’s funny how trolls stubbornly resist being prodded to direct their comments to the BW. They know that once they do, they don’t have any real nuisance value any more: “What’s the point of trolling, then?”

Kris huffs and puffs and squeaks “What are you afraid of?” hiding behind his mommy’s apron. Afraid to mix it up on the big kid’s playground, he’ll sit in the sandbox and cry.

Poor widdle Kwis! Mean old scientists call you out on your stupid shit? Maybe if we ignore the little wanker he’ll go back into the closet and play with himself.

Geeze, I’m beginning to miss FL! I tell you, the neighborhood is going to hell.

I knew the asshole was chicken shit. All he haas to do is come here and provide a better explanation for the 29 different independent data sets that are all consistent with common descent. Until he does, I guess he will just be someone who believes in evolution but not in common descent. Yea right.

Everyone should remember, he had his chance to discuss science, he chose to quote mine and insult instead. He can cry all he wants to now, but everyone is wise to his crap.

Just Bob said:

Dave Luckett said:

The thought-experiment you propose would count as a repeatable miracle, but we would not expect to see it, even if miracles were real.

Why not? What I’m questioning is the assumption that miracles must not be repeatable to count as miracles. Why? Who says?

(from the last post but one)

“But a theist would say that if a miracle only happens by divine will, and involves a breach of physical law (which also exists by divine will), there is reason to expect that it would not be trivially repeatable: if so, God would be frequently reversing His own creation for trivial ends.”

Actually, I hereby submit that the alleged “miracle of the loaves and fishes” was not ONE miracle, but a many-times-repeated miracle. Note that the story does NOT report a huge pile of bread and fish appearing at once, but that apparently every time a hunk was taken out of a basket, another appeared. Repeated miracles. Sometimes extras materialized to supply all the leftovers. Actually, that sounds like poorly controlled mini-miracles. Why make all the extra stuff, which was going to waste (how long can you keep fresh fish around without refrigeration?)? If the point was to feed the crowd, no extra was needed. If the point was to impress the multitude, wouldn’t the bottomless baskets of bread have done that?

Indeed, why does not the regular and oft-repeated transubstantiation of bread and wine not count as an (alleged) repeatable, regular, constant miracle? That’s a claimed miracle by people who believe in miracles, and they expect to “see” it quite regularly.

Well, suppose that’s right, and that miracles can be repeated. According to the definition, they still occur only at the will of God, not because a human meets some set of predictable criteria, and attempts to induce them.

Dave Luckett said:

Just Bob said:

Dave Luckett said:

The thought-experiment you propose would count as a repeatable miracle, but we would not expect to see it, even if miracles were real.

Indeed, why does not the regular and oft-repeated transubstantiation of bread and wine not count as an (alleged) repeatable, regular, constant miracle? That’s a claimed miracle by people who believe in miracles, and they expect to “see” it quite regularly.

Well, suppose that’s right, and that miracles can be repeated. According to the definition, they still occur only at the will of God, not because a human meets some set of predictable criteria, and attempts to induce them.

But isn’t the communion ritual a set of predictable criteria that the priest meets to induce the transubstantiation?

Yardbird said:

Dave Luckett said:

Just Bob said:

Dave Luckett said:

The thought-experiment you propose would count as a repeatable miracle, but we would not expect to see it, even if miracles were real.

Indeed, why does not the regular and oft-repeated transubstantiation of bread and wine not count as an (alleged) repeatable, regular, constant miracle? That’s a claimed miracle by people who believe in miracles, and they expect to “see” it quite regularly.

Well, suppose that’s right, and that miracles can be repeated. According to the definition, they still occur only at the will of God, not because a human meets some set of predictable criteria, and attempts to induce them.

But isn’t the communion ritual a set of predictable criteria that the priest meets to induce the transubstantiation?

I think that’s right, although maybe Roman Catholics would quibble about the precise terms. But yes. How interesting. Here’s an entire branch of the Christian church that says (I think; I’m not sure) that God does miracles on demand.

Well, Jesus said much the same thing, several times, apparently. Yes, all right. Their contention that God can’t be expected to perform miracles on demand, or according to human expectation, is therefore invalidated, by their own dogmas.

But if God sometimes does miracles on demand… does that mean He always will?

“But if God sometimes does miracles on demand… does that mean He always will?”

I wonder what the RCC would say about this: Suppose, for whatever godly reason, at a particular mass the bread and wine are NOT miraculously turned to blood and human flesh (and equally miraculously retain their pre-miracle physical properties). Maybe the priest is an impostor, or the whole congregation is in divine disfavor, or Jesus is busy elsewhere – whatever. Then could anyone tell that the transubstantiation HADN’T HAPPENED? Could the Pope sniff it or something and determine if it was Jesus’ flesh or just day-old ciabatta?

If a miracle is, in principle, so undetectable as to be indistinguishable from a non-miracle, does it deserve the name of miracle? Should it be considered in the same class as turning a kilo of fish into a ton? Or materializing real rabbits in a hat?

Dave Luckett said:

phhht said:

Dave Luckett said:

phhht said:

Dave Luckett says that [if] miracles are fictional, not real, they have properties that insulate them from induction.

Uh huh.

No, Dave Luckett thinks that miracles are not real… but that if they were real, their properties would render that particular inductive argument invalid.

Make up your mind, Dave. Is this what you want to say, or not?

Yes, it’s what I say, and it’s what I want to say, and it does not follow from it that I have to prove that miracles are real. The inductive argument is invalid if miracles as defined are assumed to be real, and just as invalid if they are assumed not to be.

In other words, your argument triumphs because, well, because, because - because Jesus is magic! Your argument works because you insist that it does, and that is that.

Ancient rule of debate, phht: when your opponent uses the phrase “in other words”, he means “I am about to maliciously misrepresent you.”

Even more apposite: when your opponent starts babbling, you’ve won.

Dave Luckett said:

Ancient rule of debate, phht: when your opponent uses the phrase “in other words”, he means “I am about to maliciously misrepresent you.”

Even more apposite: when your opponent starts babbling, you’ve won.

Some readers here, both creationist and not, have trouble with modal logic, qualifiers, and conditionals. Hence, the trouble following your perfectly clear argument. Or, perhaps it’s all just an attempt to get under your skin.

Sylvilagus said:

Dave Luckett said:

Ancient rule of debate, phht: when your opponent uses the phrase “in other words”, he means “I am about to maliciously misrepresent you.”

Even more apposite: when your opponent starts babbling, you’ve won.

Some readers here, both creationist and not, have trouble with modal logic, qualifiers, and conditionals. Hence, the trouble following your perfectly clear argument. Or, perhaps it’s all just an attempt to get under your skin.

I thought what Dave Luckett said was perfectly clear - he was objecting to an argument, but not disagreeing with the conclusion it was intended to support.

Henry

A little research validates the proposition: The transubstantiation of the bread and the wine into the flesh and the blood of Jesus is held by the Roman Catholic Church (and cerain others) to be a mystery and a miracle, both. “Mystery” meaning that it happens despite what might appear to be rational reason why it should not be this way (the perfect dual nature of Jesus Christ is another such mystery); “miracle” meaning that it is, as previously defined, an event that occurs by divine will outside the order of nature, ie, in defiance and with indifference to physical law.

They’ve held these beliefs - they say - from the very beginning. (I rather think that isn’t quite true.) They are held by faith alone.

So, there we have it. A substantial (heh!) proportion of the Christian church holds that God repeats that specific miracle as often as the consecration of the Host is repeated, always assuming that the conditions that the Church sets are met.

Mind you, the miracle of transubstantiation involves no physical change to the bread and the wine whatsoever.

Of course, the whole thing makes no sense at all to me, and I don’t believe a word of it. Neither do Protestants - well, pretty much. It appears to me that the observation that this is man instructing God to perform miracles on demand should be an obvious rebuttal of the whole idea, and I suppose that Catholics would rejoin that God instructed man to do this, and said He’d perform if man did, and that they already said it was a mystery, dammit. But I only suppose that; I can’t be bothered to seek further.

Dave Luckett said:

A little research validates the proposition: The transubstantiation of the bread and the wine into the flesh and the blood of Jesus is held by the Roman Catholic Church (and cerain others) to be a mystery and a miracle, both. “Mystery” meaning that it happens despite what might appear to be rational reason why it should not be this way (the perfect dual nature of Jesus Christ is another such mystery); “miracle” meaning that it is, as previously defined, an event that occurs by divine will outside the order of nature, ie, in defiance and with indifference to physical law.

They’ve held these beliefs - they say - from the very beginning. (I rather think that isn’t quite true.) They are held by faith alone.

So, there we have it. A substantial (heh!) proportion of the Christian church holds that God repeats that specific miracle as often as the consecration of the Host is repeated, always assuming that the conditions that the Church sets are met.

Mind you, the miracle of transubstantiation involves no physical change to the bread and the wine whatsoever.

Of course, the whole thing makes no sense at all to me, and I don’t believe a word of it. Neither do Protestants - well, pretty much. It appears to me that the observation that this is man instructing God to perform miracles on demand should be an obvious rebuttal of the whole idea, and I suppose that Catholics would rejoin that God instructed man to do this, and said He’d perform if man did, and that they already said it was a mystery, dammit. But I only suppose that; I can’t be bothered to seek further.

This seems to me a working definition of magic, that is, compelling or at least attempting to compel a supernatural force or agency to perform some action, usually an action not possible by natural means. (This definition excludes stage magic, sleight-of-hand, and other forms of trickery.) Of course, this ignores the meta-context, such as who sets the rules or enforces them.

Dave Luckett said:

I suppose that Catholics would rejoin that God instructed man to do this, and said He’d perform if man did,

I was going to say something like this. But I also don’t think that there was ever any requirement that all miracles are non-repeatable, just that not all miracles are repeatable.

In this particular case, the demand is in the other direction. It’s not as if someone is forcing God to cure a case of ringworm. The doctrine itself says that there was an agreement ahead of time that it would work, and it is something that priests are required to do. Repeatable non-detectable events are admittedly meaningless from a scientific perspective, but I don’t think this violates any necessary property of miracles.

The woman who was cured after touching Jesus’ clothes (Mark 5) seems to be forcing a miracle. As stated, Jesus is supposed to have felt power going out of him. It does not say: Jesus knew what the woman was expecting and showed pity, which would have been a different situation. So there is a suggestion that some miraculous events follow from circumstances rather than the conscious will of God.

There is a lot of inconsistency. On the one hand, you have the centurion’s servant getting healed remotely. On the other hand, you have Jesus making a paste of dirt and his own saliva to cure a blind man. I actually find the miracles with physical requirements to be a lot more interesting (Moses keeping his hands held up with assistance from others). None of this is intended as an instruction manual for how to get miracles to work. Obviously, the simplest conclusion is not to accept these accounts as fact, but I think it’s a little silly to try to infer any specific properties about miracles except that they violate empirical expectations.

Yardbird said:

This seems to me a working definition of magic, that is, compelling or at least attempting to compel a supernatural force or agency to perform some action, usually an action not possible by natural means.

I don’t see that it has to be compulsion. If a magic or miracle worker could occasionally persuade a supernatural force to deliver the miracle, it’s still miraculous. And frequency of repetition doesn’t change the miraculousness: if it works just once, or a few times, or every time it’s requested (as per some promises of Jesus), it’s still miraculous. It just gets easier to prove it’s a miracle the more often it can be duplicated. I, for one, would be much more inclined to accept the reality of miraculous resurrection if I could just see one. Or better yet, several.

Prof Rovelli article is a needed correction to evolutionists. the prof stresses error is easily a part of existing ‘scientific” conclusions at any one point. Prejudices is a word he stresses. why is pandas thumb happy about this article?? A creationist knows its a rebuke to evolutions insistence it has PROVEN evolution. i speculate this prof is dealing with the string theory people and seeing their ideasa accepted without evidence enough. he brought it up. I hear string theory is not proven but , like evolution, committees are giving it thumbs up. Only speculation but its strange this prof is talking like a creationist in complaining about What is proven or not.

Henry J said:

Sylvilagus said:

Dave Luckett said:

Ancient rule of debate, phht: when your opponent uses the phrase “in other words”, he means “I am about to maliciously misrepresent you.”

Even more apposite: when your opponent starts babbling, you’ve won.

Some readers here, both creationist and not, have trouble with modal logic, qualifiers, and conditionals. Hence, the trouble following your perfectly clear argument. Or, perhaps it’s all just an attempt to get under your skin.

I thought what Dave Luckett said was perfectly clear - he was objecting to an argument, but not disagreeing with the conclusion it was intended to support.

Henry

Yes. I agree.

With respect to Dave Lucket’s disagreements about most of what I write, I have created a “collage” from pieces of The Jesus Mysteries by Freke and Gandy, “and Christendom or Psyhology” by Dr. Arne Duve.

The most pertinent bits are bolded by me. As far as I can tell, TJM echoes exactly the same arguments as used by Dr. Duve Here goes:

Dr. Arne Duve was a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst in the Jungian tradition, and was chief physician at the State Centre of Child Psychiatry in Norway. He authored several books, some together with his wife Anne-Marit. Several analytical works about Henrik Ibsen and H. C. Andersen,The real Drama of Henrik Ibsen, (Oslo 1977), Psychology and God, (NewYork. 1978). )

Christendom or Psychology, (1966): … … Religion, which also is a symbolic language, is an extension and further development of the principle of dreams. Since the central, systematic language of images always is available, a religion’s rigidly structured world of pictures becomes a very suitable means of heightening of consciousness that we all need, and which will ensue if the language is being properly translated. But this is just where it fails. And therefore religion, and perhaps particularly Christendom has become static and historic – lacking the sparkling and heightening element of life it could and should be. The Church sits with the entire picture-book of life in its lap – but doesn’t seem able to properly interpret the main elements, because it doesn’t know the language of symbols that is the collective heritage of mankind. We will endeavour to support this claim as far as possible throughout this book. Theologians, and maybe particularly the Christian ones – paradoxically are the group of professionals that least of all are competent to voice an opinion about the truth, nature and function of the religion – because they are bound to their particular religion, thus having difficulty in achieving a comprehensive overview of the multitude of religious and personal symbols in ever changing constellations that abound. Christendom became literalistic and rigid almost from the beginning. It petrified into a dogmatic form that forced life into a spiritual herbarium – in spite of the word that says that the letter kills – while spirit, i.e. understanding, gives life. A religion thus solidified such as the present state of Christianity automatically will attract a certain type of individual that feel comfortable with it. Therefore, it is quite unlikely that any radical and profound renewal may come forth from the men of the Church – even if some adjustment may be brought forth – so that they at least to some degree may remain in contact with life and the people they are meant to provide with spiritual nourishment and building vitamins for inner release and development.

On “The protestant churches in the summer of 19666 in Geneva held a convention of the World council of churches,” Dr. Arne Duve further writes:

Many words – but relatively sparse in content. Psychiatry was left to a Swiss psychiatrist working in India, while psychology was covered by a psychologist in the Syrian church.

None of these papers seemed to contain any views of significance. Depth-psychological viewpoints or problem definitions were entirely absent.

The only capacity of real format was the American anthropologist Margaret Mead. She concluded her contribution by saying that we must see Christ in all peoples and accept that it is through the differences in human culture that the common human aspect can be found. And this may only become meaningful when we realize that man who time and again fight against the loss of his innocence and today have at his hand powers almost as horrible as those with which Christ were tempted in the desert – require a stronger and more vital spiritual vision than the times when man planted wine-yards and harvested grapes in a cattle-herding society 2000 years ago. These words probably might easily get lost in passing – and they represent only her opinion. But we might be wise in taking heed. Arts and man’s creative activities were covered in an inspiring chapter by the American Malvin Halverson.

He says among other things that when we begin to consider human life and the symbol-activities it opens the possibility of a dawn for renewal of religions, arts, work and pastime. Halverson quotes Picasso: “Art is a lie that may make us realize truth”. Picasso might well have included dreams and religions, which are also truth in disguise. In contrast to Picasso, the church claims to have the ultimate truth. But this is a truth with considerable limitations, because the truth is wrapped in symbols. The church believes and teaches that the packaging is the contents. The church is in a way right when it claims to have the truth. But it has not been unwrapped.

……………………….

The Jesus Mysteries (1999):

While the Jesus Mysteries Thesis clearly rewrites history, we do not see it as undermining the Christian faith, but as suggesting that Christianity is in fact richer than we previously imagined. The Jesus story is a perennial myth with the power to impart the saving Gnosis, which can transform each one of us into a Christ, not merely a history of events that happened to someone else 2,000 years ago. Belief in the Jesus story was originally the first step in Christian spirituality - the Outer Mysteries. Its significance was to be explained by an enlightened teacher when the seeker was spiritually ripe. These Inner Mysteries imparted a mystical Knowledge of God beyond mere belief in dogmas. Although many inspired Christian mystics throughout history have intuitively seen through to this deeper symbolic level of understanding, as a culture we have inherited only the Outer Mysteries of Christianity. We have kept the form, but lost the inner meaning. Our hope is that this book can play some small part in reclaiming the true mystical Christian inheritance.

Ouch, 19666 should be 1966.

Robert Byers said:

[ nothing important ]

Has Robert ever responded to anything on the BW?

Tarred with the Epithet Loony: An Intermittent Series

[W]hen Satan steps into the octagon and he’s got rockets in one hand and bombs in another with Hamas, and ISIS, and this agenda to silence our freedoms in America, it is the Bride of Christ that steps in with our wedding gown on and combat boots on and a sword in our right hand and we will win in Jesus’ name.

David Benham

Robert Byers said:

Prof Rovelli article is a needed correction to evolutionists. the prof stresses error is easily a part of existing ‘scientific” conclusions at any one point. Prejudices is a word he stresses. why is pandas thumb happy about this article?? A creationist knows its a rebuke to evolutions insistence it has PROVEN evolution. i speculate this prof is dealing with the string theory people and seeing their ideasa accepted without evidence enough. he brought it up. I hear string theory is not proven but , like evolution, committees are giving it thumbs up. Only speculation but its strange this prof is talking like a creationist in complaining about What is proven or not.

i am impressed with your continuing ability to find new an creative ways of demonstrating you don’t understand the scientific method at all.

I also like your stated assertion that it is a character trait of creationists to always draw the incorrect conclusion from any source material.

(i have a suspicion, however, that you are unaware that you did those things)

phhht said: Tarred with the Epithet Loony: An Intermittent Series

[W]hen Satan steps into the octagon and he’s got rockets in one hand and bombs in another with Hamas, and ISIS, and this agenda to silence our freedoms in America, it is the Bride of Christ that steps in with our wedding gown on and combat boots on and a sword in our right hand and we will win in Jesus’ name.

David Benham

so David Benham is entering into a gay marriage with Jesus to fight islamic fundamentalism? that’s cool.…i guess.

I do think it’s nice that mixed martial arts has become mainstream enough to replace boxing as the go-to combat sport for psychotic war analogies, though.

phhht said:

Tarred with the Epithet Loony: An Intermittent Series

[W]hen Satan steps into the octagon and he’s got rockets in one hand and bombs in another with Hamas, and ISIS, and this agenda to silence our freedoms in America, it is the Bride of Christ that steps in with our wedding gown on and combat boots on and a sword in our right hand and we will win in Jesus’ name.

David Benham

Oh, please! I really want to see a picture of that! That’s almost as good as God’s penises that we’re all borrowing.

That’s almost as good as God’s penises that we’re all borrowing.

But at least that “model” might explain how Jesus was God’s son.

(Although, that’s only if one ignores the little detail that it also implies that pretty much everybody is God’s offspring. )

Henry J said: But at least that “model” might explain how Jesus was God’s son.

(Although, that’s only if one ignores the little detail that it also implies that pretty much everybody is God’s offspring. )

Do you know, I think that’s pretty much exactly what Jesus was saying.

Leave a comment

About this Archive

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