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.

32719 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.

FL said:

I might as well do a warm-up post using Mattdance’s latest offering.

Jesus said to his Jews: “The law was for servants – love God as I love him, as his son! What are morals to us sons of God!”

–Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

Okay, that’s cute. Not sure where to exactly find that statement in the Bible, but that’s okay. Surely Mr. Nietzsche wouldn’t be telling a Devil Booboo Lie on Jesus. (Surely not.)

So, let’s respond to Mattdance with THIS quotation from Jesus and see how well it fits. Jesus (the real one) says:

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Hmm. Seems to be a bit of a discrepancy between what Mr. Nietzsche said, and what the Lord Jesus Christ said.

Oh FFS, Floyd, you’re not serious, are you? Do you not already see how effortlessly I will swat that back into the abyss from which it came?

You’re saying that Nietzsche is wrong in saying that we are sons, under love, instead of servants, under law? And you’re saying so because Jesus said he came to fulfill the law and that the law would remain in effect until it was fulfilled?

I’m just going to let these quotes “speak for themselves”, as you seem so fond of doing:

For Christ is the fulfillment of Moses, the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Romans 10)

“I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.” (John 15)

The heir is no different from a servant, but he is under guardians until the date set by his father. We also, when we were children, were enslaved to the law. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. So you are no longer servants, but sons, and if sons, then heirs through God. (Galatians 4)

Q.E.D.

Meanwhile, Scott says:

Here, David and mattdance demonstrate and model a respectful, constructive conversation about the difficult issue of religion.

Instead, what does FL see?

Compromise. Capitulation. Giving away the farm.

Yes indeed, that’s exactly what happened. Giving away the Christian farm to an diametrically opposing worldview.

You see, the two items you mentioned there (“respectful, constructive conversation”) (Compromise, Capitulation, Giving away the farm”) are NOT mutually exclusive.

In other words, you really CAN do a respectful conversation that falls into the traps of compromise and capitulation. As happened this time with David.

You want “respectful and constructive”? You should have been there for a live debate between atheist Richard Carrier and Christian professor Mike Licona at my hometown university.

Perfectly respectful on both sides, not one harsh word between them. Educational all the way. Perfect model of how debates should work.

But I noticed that there wasn’t one inch of ground given by either man. Not one millimeter. No compromises. No capitulations.

If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, then just forget the entire Christian gig right here and now. No jive on either side. Perfect clarity accompanying perfect respect.

****

None of this soggy you-might-be-right-it’s-just-a-personal-choice stuff. Even though both men were fully respectful, Mike Licona made clear that not only did the evidence favor his side (the Rez is actual history), but that each person faced a crucial up-or-down life decision as a result of the Rez being actual history.

Now THAT’s how a Christian’s supposed to do a respectful constructive discussion. If you’re defeated, then just say out loud that you’re defeated, and go join the dark side.

But if you ain’t defeated baby, stand up and fight like Helen B. Merry already!!!

FL

FL said:

Meanwhile, Scott says:

Here, David and mattdance demonstrate and model a respectful, constructive conversation about the difficult issue of religion.

Instead, what does FL see?

Compromise. Capitulation. Giving away the farm.

Yes indeed, that’s exactly what happened. Giving away the Christian farm to an diametrically opposing worldview.

You see, the two items you mentioned there (“respectful, constructive conversation”) (Compromise, Capitulation, Giving away the farm”) are NOT mutually exclusive.

In other words, you really CAN do a respectful conversation that falls into the traps of compromise and capitulation. As happened this time with David.

You want “respectful and constructive”? You should have been there for a live debate between atheist Richard Carrier and Christian professor Mike Licona at my hometown university.

Perfectly respectful on both sides, not one harsh word between them. Educational all the way. Perfect model of how debates should work.

But I noticed that there wasn’t one inch of ground given by either man. Not one millimeter. No compromises. No capitulations.

If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, then just forget the entire Christian gig right here and now. No jive on either side. Perfect clarity accompanying perfect respect.

****

None of this soggy you-might-be-right-it’s-just-a-personal-choice stuff. Even though both men were fully respectful, Mike Licona made clear that not only did the evidence favor his side (the Rez is actual history), but that each person faced a crucial up-or-down life decision as a result of the Rez being actual history.

Now THAT’s how a Christian’s supposed to do a respectful constructive discussion. If you’re defeated, then just say out loud that you’re defeated, and go join the dark side.

But if you ain’t defeated baby, stand up and fight like Helen B. Merry already!!!

Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, Flawd. That’s just a baseless, unsupportable story about zombies, like The Walking Dead. It is not true, no matter how fervently you believe it.

So, David, do you agree (as a Christian) with Mr. Nietzsche’s statement that Jesus himself said,

“What are morals to us sons of God!”

You agree with Mr. N on that one? Hm?

FL

FL said:

So, David, do you agree (as a Christian) with Mr. Nietzsche’s statement that Jesus himself said,

“What are morals to us sons of God!”

You agree with Mr. N on that one? Hm?

FL

Oh look! A wild goose!

David gave you his alternative to PSA here. You’ve had your answer for three days. You’ve posted multiple times since then, but never actually answered my question (hat tip to SWT for this simpler form of it): does someone who rejects the PSA concept of atonement but otherwise worships Jesus, asks his forgiveness, etc… go to heaven or hell? Is that someone Christian? You’ve said “no” to that latter one already, but I thought I’d give you a chance to revise, now that you’ve had a chance to read what David believes.

Well?

FL complained:

None of this soggy you-might-be-right-it’s-just-a-personal-choice stuff.

Now THAT’s how a Christian’s supposed to do a respectful constructive discussion. If you’re defeated, then just say out loud that you’re defeated, and go join the dark side.

I love how you think that acknowledging the existence of uncertainty is “soggy”. And how you think that “giving up even a millimeter of ground” is “defeat”. No wonder you’re so stubborn.

FL prattled:

David, do you agree (as a Christian) with Mr. Nietzsche’s statement that Jesus himself said,

“What are morals to us sons of God!”

You agree with Mr. N on that one?

As eric pointed out, you’re still ignoring what I wrote you before.

But yes, that is basically what Jesus said. Have you ever read John 15? Or, I don’t know, the rest of the Gospels? Or are you so bogged down by your pastor’s misquotations of the pastoral epistles that you can’t read Jesus’s words without getting confused?

Here, I’ll help you out.

“If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love. This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. No longer do I call you servants…but I have called you friends. This I command you, to love one another.” (John 15)

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matthew 5)

The collectors of the half-shekel tax went up to Peter and said, “Does not your teacher pay the tax?” When he came home, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their sons or from others?” And when he said, “From others,” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free.” (Matthew 17)

Just when I thought Floyd could not get any more boring …oh, sorry - I fell asleep.

FL said:

Meanwhile, Scott says:

Here, David and mattdance demonstrate and model a respectful, constructive conversation about the difficult issue of religion.

Instead, what does FL see?

Compromise. Capitulation. Giving away the farm.

Yes indeed, that’s exactly what happened. Giving away the Christian farm to an diametrically opposing worldview.

Floyd, your “farm” is nothing but a dilapidated wasteland overgrown with weeds. High time to bring in the bulldozers and dump trucks and build something useful - like a parking lot.

FL said:

Good morning! Let’s start off with an apparent Ick Factor, courtesy of Mattdance:

I’m an atheist, after all, and atheists are icky. Jesus, you see, never associated with the icky.

Well, atheism IS rather icky, to be honest about it.

Yes, and once upon a time – not so long ago, actually – many an “honest” Southern Christian would’ve said black people were icky, too. It’s why they railed against miscegenation and had separate drinking fountains.

Honesty is no disproof of prejudice. You are soooooo very un-self-reflective, Floyd.

However, Jesus freely associated with everybody–or at least everybody who wanted to associate with Him.

Therefore, are you, as an atheist, wanting to associate with the Jesus of the Bible?

Sure. If he’s going around performing miracles, there’d be something to the claim of his divinity. And whether the actual historical Jesus did or did not perform such miracles or make such a claim – and based on consideration of the evidence, I believe he did neither, but truly: either way – his ethical views seem to be pretty similar to my own. I imagine associating with him would be both challenging and educational.

Maybe you shouldn’t just jump to conclusions based on your prejudice about icky atheists.

I might as well do a warm-up post using Mattdance’s latest offering.

Jesus said to his Jews: “The law was for servants – love God as I love him, as his son! What are morals to us sons of God!”

–Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

Okay, that’s cute. Not sure where to exactly find that statement in the Bible, but that’s okay. Surely Mr. Nietzsche wouldn’t be telling a Devil Booboo Lie on Jesus. (Surely not.)

Nietzsche never claimed to be quoting from the Bible, Floyd. Maybe you should not take the epigram literally, as if it spoke for itself. Although…

So, let’s respond to Mattdance with THIS quotation from Jesus and see how well it fits. Jesus (the real one) says:

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Hmm. Seems to be a bit of a discrepancy between what Mr. Nietzsche said, and what the Lord Jesus Christ said. Somebody will have to account for that, I suppose.

…there’s more going for it as a characterization of Jesus’ teaching than you let on. David has already brought up some passages that are quite in keeping with Nietzsche’s characterization. So I’ll just add this passage. It’s kinda famous.

Matthew 22: 34-40

Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Note that when asked to explain the highest of all laws (and the next highest, too), Jesus went outside the laws as hitherto written. Moreover, note that both of these “laws” place love over legalism. Perhaps this is what Nietzsche was on about? After all, only a few epigrams before the one I quoted, he wrote, “Whatever is done from love takes place beyond good and evil.” Perhaps?

I would think that, given your insistence that Mosaic slavery law condoned slavery only among the ancient Israelites, this sort of insight would be right up your alley. – Or did you intend that sort of limitation only to apply to slavery?…

mattdance18 said:

I would think that, given your insistence that Mosaic slavery law condoned slavery only among the ancient Israelites, this sort of insight would be right up your alley. – Or did you intend that sort of limitation only to apply to slavery?…

Obviously. Otherwise, how would he be able to maintain that the gays and Red Lobster patrons are worthy of death?

FL said:

Well, atheism IS rather icky, to be honest about it.

And where I grew up, the niggers couldn’t swim in the municipal pool because they were dirty.

FL said:

You want “respectful and constructive”? You should have been there for a live debate between atheist Richard Carrier and Christian professor Mike Licona at my hometown university.

Perfectly respectful on both sides, not one harsh word between them. Educational all the way. Perfect model of how debates should work.

But I noticed that there wasn’t one inch of ground given by either man. Not one millimeter. No compromises. No capitulations.

If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, then just forget the entire Christian gig right here and now. No jive on either side. Perfect clarity accompanying perfect respect.

Two things to note.

1. Presumably, the two debaters you mention also did not characterize themselves as engaged in a “war” against each other, as you have repeatedly characterized Christianity and evolution. Presumably, despite the fact that neither of them convinced the other, despite the fact that neither conceded to the other, they were willing to accept reasonable disagreement and let each other go with what seemed best to them. I say “presumably” because of course I wasn’t there. I don’t know. But if my presumptions are true – it does seem to me that they would be, if indeed the exchange was “respectful and constructive,” as you say – then it really doesn’t seem at all different than that between me and David. For – and this brings us to the second point:

2. David believes that Jesus did rise from the dead, Floyd. He has stated this belief explicitly and repeatedly, and has said that a non-literal resurrection strikes him as “hollow.” He has offered as much rational justification as he thinks can be given for this belief, albeit acknowledging that ultimately it comes down to a matter of faith for which he cannot claim the status of knowledge. The only thing that he “conceded” to me was “perhaps” my idea was true, namely that part of Jesus’ teaching was for us to rethink and reevaluate our traditional ideas about selfhood and its role in our moral lives. He did not even concede that this was true, just possible, and still less did he concede the truth of the resurrection as a historical event.

Actually, there’s a third point, closely related to the second, and kind of interesting.

3. I of course agreed with David that his position seemed conceptually possible to me, and that he had made a good case for it – even though I still disagree with it substantively. And yet, you did not accuse me of having “conceded” to him, as you accused him of conceding to me. Why is that? Given that apparently “perhaps” or “it’s possible” amount to concession in your book, I’m surprised you weren’t celebrating a victory over my conversion.

If you’re defeated, then just say out loud that you’re defeated, and go join the dark side.

What if David doesn’t think he’s been defeated, or that he’s defeated me? What if I feel the same way? What if we simply believe that we disagree about religious matters? And what if, unlike you, we don’t see each other as some sort of evil “dark side,” just because we disagree?

You want to know why I find your view so worthy of rejection, Floyd? Not because it’s religious, nor even because it’s Christian, but because it’s dehumanizing. And moreover, given that this is pretty much the opposite message that I think can be taken from the teachings of the Biblical figure of Jesus (whether historically accurate or not), it’s also hypocritical to the point of being a perversion of the very faith you claim to uphold.

On the other hand, insofar as I really do think that the world would be a better place without religion in the long run, if you want to keep on driving people away from Christianity with your hypocritically dehumanizing perversion of it – and of course, David’s series pointed out that both creationism in particular and fundamentalism more generally have this effect – by all means, continue. You do atheists’ work for us.

FL said:

So, David, do you agree (as a Christian) with Mr. Nietzsche’s statement that Jesus himself said,

“What are morals to us sons of God!”

You agree with Mr. N on that one? Hm?

And maybe you should find a hermeneutic other than letting texts speak for themselves, Floyd. Nietzsche certainly wasn’t claiming that Jesus “literally” said this, nor did the term “morals” mean to him what it means to you. Maybe he didn’t think of the Biblical Jesus as historically accurate, and maybe, despite his criticisms of Christianity and of Jesus, he thought that some of Jesus’ teachings (Biblical or otherwise) were worthwhile. Maybe he thought of “morals” in terms of “mores” and “moralism,” but maybe, whatever criticisms he made of these ideas, he was not completely contemptuous of the ideas of morality and ethics as such – maybe his own criticisms even presuppose that there is some sort of moral or ethical basis for the criticisms in the first place. Maybe?

Maybe – I realize that you have trouble with this word, since “maybe” and “perhaps” and “possibly” are evidently indicative of total concession and capitulation and compromise, but: maybe – in order to understand what Nietzsche was on about in this little epigram, you’d have to study some actual Nietzsche, and how these ideas fit into his thought, and how they cohere with or conflict with other things he wrote, and what the circumstances were under which he did his work, and…

Maybe! I mean, golly, understanding old texts is hard work!

But who has the will to concern himself with such dangerous maybes? For that, one really has to wait for the advent of a new species of philosophers, such as have somehow another and converse taste and propensity from those we have known so far – philosophers of the dangerous “maybe,” in every sense. [Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil]

Maybe you should find a less self-servingly lazy hermeneutic.

david.starling.macmillan said:

mattdance18 said:

I would think that, given your insistence that Mosaic slavery law condoned slavery only among the ancient Israelites, this sort of insight would be right up your alley. – Or did you intend that sort of limitation only to apply to slavery?…

Obviously. Otherwise, how would he be able to maintain that the gays and Red Lobster patrons are worthy of death?

Waitaminnit… Is Floyd being >gasp!< inconsistent about which parts of the Mosaic law he does and does not accept?!?

Well, whodathunk it?

Tarred with the Epithet Loony: An Intermittent Series

Women should not laugh in public. So said Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc in a speech on Monday about “moral corruption” in Turkey. “Chastity is so important,” he said. “She will not laugh in public.”

BBC

phhht said:

FL said:

Well, atheism IS rather icky, to be honest about it.

And where I grew up, the niggers couldn’t swim in the municipal pool because they were dirty.

Anyone want to place a bet on whether Floyd’s “let the text speak for itself” hermeneutic leads to him to denounce phhht’s “obvious” racism?…

I wonder what it’s like not to be able to take words at anything other than face value.

FL said:

But I noticed that there wasn’t one inch of ground given by either man. Not one millimeter. No compromises. No capitulations.

Then, why bother with conversation at all? If you intend simply to talk past the other person, not understand their position, not even listen to their position, and don’t expect them to listen to you, why do you even bother engaging?

I notice that the Operation Rescue “christians” who invade other people’s churches don’t seem to be interested in “giving ground”, or even in respectful dialog. Their whole point seems to be stifling conversation, screaming at other people’s children, intimidation, and killing the people they believe are doing the work of Satan.

Perhaps you approve of these “christian” tactics of “dialog” with other people of faith?

phhht said:

Tarred with the Epithet Loony: An Intermittent Series

Women should not laugh in public. So said Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc in a speech on Monday about “moral corruption” in Turkey. “Chastity is so important,” he said. “She will not laugh in public.”

BBC

Damn. But, but, I married her for her laugh. Well, there goes that one.

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