tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post6797886949517265192..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Reasonable Doubt That God Is Intentionally MysteriousUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-49985041634270964342007-12-26T10:45:00.000-05:002007-12-26T10:45:00.000-05:00Hi Rich,I checked out your documents and I had to ...Hi Rich,<BR/>I checked out your documents and I had to stop shortly after i read this gem.<BR/><B>" 7 And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies.<BR/> 8 And again, tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill.</B><BR/><BR/>tobacco for bruises and sick cattle?<BR/>Strong drink to wash with?<BR/>This is a revelation from god? In 1833? <BR/><BR/>You want to say that the evils of strong drink and tobacco were unknown until then?<BR/><BR/>No offense rich, but give me a break. <BR/><BR/>Your prophet could have beat Pasteur and Koch to "Germ Theory" as long as they were prophesying along health lines. Must have escaped them somehow because it happened only about 50 years later.<BR/><BR/>Not god but humans.<BR/><BR/>Here's a little bit of what was going on in science in the 19th century<BR/> * 1801 - Thomas Young: double-slit experiment showing wave-particle duality<BR/> * 1820 - Hans Christian Ørsted discovers the connection of electricity and magnetism<BR/> * 1843 - James Prescott Joule measures the equivalence between mechanical work and heat, resulting in the law of conservation of energy<BR/> * 1845 - Christian Doppler demonstrates the Doppler shift<BR/> * 1851 - Léon Foucault uses Foucault pendulum is to demonstrate the rotation of the earth<BR/> * 1859 - Charles Darwin publishes The Origin of Species showing that evolution occurs by natural selection<BR/> * 1861 - Louis Pasteur disproves the theory of spontaneous generation<BR/> * 1863 - Gregor Mendel's pea plant experiments (Mendel's laws of inheritance)<BR/> * 1887 - Heinrich Hertz discovers the photoelectric effect<BR/> * 1887 - Michelson and Morley: Michelson-Morley experiment, showing that the speed of light is invariant<BR/> * 1896 - Henri Becquerel discovers radioactivity<BR/> * 1897 - Joseph John Thomson discovers the electron<BR/><BR/>and in medicine<BR/><BR/># 1800 - Humphry Davy announces the anaesthetic properties of nitrous oxide<BR/># 1816 - Rene Laennec invents the stethoscope<BR/># 1818 - British obstetrician James Blundell performs the first successful human blood transfusion.<BR/># 1842 - Crawford Long performs the first surgical operation using anaesthesia with ether<BR/># 1847 - Ignaz Semmelweis discovers how to prevent puerperal fever, childbed fever, a blood infection passed to women during childbirth by their doctors. The fever killed one-third of mothers in some hospitals of the time.<BR/># 1849 - Elizabeth Blackwell is the first woman to gain a medical degree<BR/># 1867 - Lister publishes Antiseptic Principle of the Practice of Surgery, based partly on Pasteur's work.<BR/># 1870 - Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch establish the germ theory of disease<BR/># 1879 - first vaccine for cholera<BR/># 1881 - Louis Pasteur develops an anthrax vaccine<BR/># 1882 - Louis Pasteur develops a rabies vaccine<BR/># 1890 - Emil von Behring discovers antitoxins and uses them to develop tetanus and diphtheria vaccines<BR/># 1895 - Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen discovers medical use of X-rays in medical imaging.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-29804475392513563552007-12-21T00:33:00.000-05:002007-12-21T00:33:00.000-05:00Hi Rich,thanks I'll check it out. Glad you repson...Hi Rich,<BR/>thanks I'll check it out. Glad you repsonded, and if I don't talk to you before then, I hope you have a great holiday.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64928250673902015262007-12-20T12:41:00.000-05:002007-12-20T12:41:00.000-05:00Sorry this is late Lee but just an interesting sto...Sorry this is late Lee but just an interesting story that ties in to your questions to me about prophets.In fact you may have already forgotten completely by now. Just a food for thought (pun intended) link.http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/89<BR/>http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/246893/Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816549810869986623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64735001825093485472007-12-15T12:43:00.000-05:002007-12-15T12:43:00.000-05:00HI bill,about the russ thing, I comment using my r...HI bill,<BR/>about the russ thing, I comment using my real name. If you google me you can find me on the Non-sequitur and the fallacy files mostly and other sites centering on critical thinking, informal logic and philosophy. I don't have a need to use a pseudonym...yet.<BR/><BR/>I grazed through your site, chewing on bits here and there after you started commenting on Spong.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83208358641329023512007-12-15T12:27:00.000-05:002007-12-15T12:27:00.000-05:00HI Bill,I'm arguing in my spare time.I apologize, ...HI Bill,<BR/>I'm arguing in my spare time.<BR/>I apologize, I missed your answer among all those other words.<BR/><BR/>so to refresh my memory, I revised my question for clarity and asked <BR/><B><I>"do you think it is inappropriate to use the principle of clarity to clearly state your position and instruction on matters of importance."</B></I><BR/><BR/>and you said that yes you do.<BR/><BR/>would you mind elaborating?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-90784561083688365692007-12-15T10:51:00.000-05:002007-12-15T10:51:00.000-05:00Bill, it's ludicrous to suggest that Lee writes as...Bill, it's ludicrous to suggest that Lee writes as someone else. You are close to being banned for being intellectually dishonest. I've reached the same conclusions as <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-must-omniscient-god-behave.html#c9043069872259967936" REL="nofollow">Russ did</A>. No I am not Russ!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33264095896070892312007-12-15T09:36:00.000-05:002007-12-15T09:36:00.000-05:00Dear Lee Randolph,Actually, Lee, I do not expect y...Dear Lee Randolph,<BR/><BR/>Actually, Lee, I do not expect you to be as clear as God, I was only hoping that you'd be as clear as you expected others to be, including God. <BR/><BR/>(BTW, the link to the Monty Python clip does not seem to be working, at least for me. Thanks for the effort, though. I do love Monty Python.)<BR/><BR/>Also, Lee, is your name really Lee? Or are you Russ? Or is Russ the real Lee? I am confused. <BR/><BR/>In fact, Lee, only ONE reader took me to task about my <A HREF="" REL="nofollow">Andy Rooney piece</A> back in October, before I ever visited here (I think), and his name was Russ. Russ, as you know, was <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/12/apologetics-is-blatant-form-of.html" REL="nofollow">featured this week at DC</A>; he also <A HREF="http://exposingatheism.blogspot.com/2007/12/i-got-john-loftus-book.html#c7769835919643478631" REL="nofollow">made comments</A> at Exposing Atheism regarding John W. Loftus' book (which is how Mr. Loftus came to feature Russ at DC). So I find it amazing that I should have stumbled into your thread here, especially with you dropping the word "omni-incompetent" and then referring to my Rooney essay; I DID call Rooney omni-incompetent, didn't I? Russ came to my website and <A HREF="http://contratimes.blogspot.com/2007/10/that-droll-man.html#c440539738129587577" REL="nofollow">talked about his PhD-endowed brothers</A>; he was going to talk to them to see if my ideas made sense. Of course, he never returned to report to me what his brothers decided. Over at Exposing Atheism, Russ <A HREF="http://exposingatheism.blogspot.com/2007/12/i-got-john-loftus-book.html#c7769835919643478631" REL="nofollow">mentions his brothers again</A>, only this time he adds that he was on a PhD track but didn't get that far. Wow. (I note too that no one has visited my Andy Rooney essay in days.)<BR/><BR/>So I see that there is at least some sort of connection between Russ, you and this website. Amazing.<BR/><BR/>Alas, Lee, I retract my earlier statement. I am not sure I am out of the fog at all! <BR/><BR/>Finally Lee, you should have at least noted that I did in fact reply to your revised question. Apparently you don't think enough of either that question or my reply -- or both -- to make further comment. <BR/><BR/>Peace to you,<BR/><BR/>Bill GnadeBill Gnadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18343608982238562089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31081266896698410342007-12-15T07:10:00.000-05:002007-12-15T07:10:00.000-05:00HI Chris,I'm not sure I follow you, but my intenti...HI Chris,<BR/>I'm not sure I follow you, but my intention was that "none shall perish" means that "none are supposed to "be punished" unless they disobey god".Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64070466876747800072007-12-15T02:38:00.000-05:002007-12-15T02:38:00.000-05:00In case anyone is interested, here is link to my o...In case anyone is interested, here is link to my other half-heartedly maintained blog where I post snippets regarding informal logic including van eemeren and grootendorsts "rules for a critical discussion".<BR/><A HREF="http://casuallogically.blogspot.com/2007/12/rules-for-critical-discussion.html" REL="nofollow">CasualLogically</A>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-47958087742318833962007-12-14T23:53:00.000-05:002007-12-14T23:53:00.000-05:00Hi Bill,I'm sorry that I haven't been as clear as ...Hi Bill,<BR/>I'm sorry that I haven't been as clear as you expected. But honestly as I pointed out it does not seem to have been a problem for anyone else. I have exercised due care and diligence to try to express myself as clearly as I am humanly able. If I you expect to me to be as clear as God, well, that presumably is a high standard to live up to, but we all know we fall short, but I have to say that I think I have been more clear than god has.<BR/><BR/>In any case, no need to be flattered. When I searched for <A HREF="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bill+gnade&btnG=Google+Search" REL="nofollow">your name in google</A>, as I do for most people I dialogue with, the language guy link was the third one and I read it along with the other two.<BR/><BR/>You have an Andy Rooney attack in there too called that droll man which your readers to you to task for.<BR/><BR/>But now I notice that since you are admittedly out of the fog, you still haven't expressed your opinion about whether god should have used the principle of clarity to preserve the integrity of his church for example. <BR/><BR/>But in any case, I'm sorry but your complimentary argument session for this topic has expired. I won't argue with you anymore until you've paid for my premium <A HREF="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-572077907195969915" REL="nofollow">argument clinic</A>. I won't argue anymore unless you've paid. You can pay using paypal and this <A HREF="https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_flow&SESSION=fKtfTXj9ts8kakQ0T8o2UX9t5lokPNLcJEjxFlJktSpjosWSZLIPBTa-Pgq&dispatch=5885d80a13c0db1f3893a48c4ade7e5f97951af3b1813a4533cbed6b60706f2a" REL="nofollow">link</A>. When John has notified me of your contribution, then I'll continue to participate.<BR/>thank you for your patronage.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69689080836594777532007-12-14T17:53:00.000-05:002007-12-14T17:53:00.000-05:00"See, the key here is importance. What is importan..."See, the key here is importance. What is important to god is that none shall perish (his words, not mine) so the principle of clarity should come into play."<BR/><BR/>Lee,<BR/><BR/>A faulty presupposition here. It seems that your reading of the bible is that the term "none shall perish" is a statement of God's intent for us in this present system, or this dispensation if you prefer. God makes no such promises, in fact quite the opposite is the case regarding our present lives. The wages of sin, we are told, are death. With few exceptions, we will all die before eternal life is bestowed upon us. It is after the resurrection, whether to life or judgment, that God desires that none shall perish but have eternal life.Chris Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13134785155889204025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-18688930988014767842007-12-14T15:22:00.000-05:002007-12-14T15:22:00.000-05:00Dear Lee Randolph,In your earliest efforts to assi...Dear Lee Randolph,<BR/><BR/>In your earliest efforts to assist lowly-old me, you offered the following as the "Reader's Digest" version of your argument (of course, I very much need the condensed version):<BR/><BR/><I><B>'Do you think that it is a flawed principle to clearly state your position and instruction on matters of importance?'</I></B><BR/><BR/>So you see, I was thinking that you were asking me whether "flawed" modified "principle" since that is the only thing "flawed" could modify in your question: you were asking if I thought the principle was flawed. <BR/><BR/>Now, when I challenge you about the word "flawed," you upbraid me for not knowing that you were using the word "flawed" in a "colloquial" sense. Of course, you wrote several comments to me telling me that the use of the word was irrelevant anyway. So you can see why I needed so much assistance. <BR/><BR/>Of course, since this condensed version is about clarity, I would have expected that you would exemplify the very thing you believe God has not been -- clear. Especially since you directed each of us with the following guidelines at the beginning of this essay (an addendum, I know, but it is yours):<BR/><BR/><I><B>'Discussants may not use any formulations that are insufficiently clear or confusingly ambiguous, and they may not deliberately misinterpret the other party’s formulations.'</I></B><BR/><BR/>Now I was for a time very much in a fog, since you, our gracious host, used a word -- flawed -- that is not clear at all. "Flawed" does not mean what it means, or, at least what I think it means. No, it means something colloquial, something vague and informal; a sort of ambiguous and casual word. This ambiguous word's antonym is NOT "not-flawed," it is something equally vague, though only in a negative sense. <BR/><BR/>Again, of course, I remain bewildered. You asserted that this issue of flawed/non-flawed is irrelevant, and yet it is relevant enough for you to put in "argument form." <BR/><BR/>Ahh, yes, the "Language Guy." Not much of a master of linguistics, is he? But his relevance here, as you know, is a red-herring. (Or is it a veiled ad hominem? Do you think I LOST something in my interactions with that man? Hardly. The Language Guy was <A HREF="http://contratimes.blogspot.com/2005/09/you-cannot-make-this-stuff-up.html" REL="nofollow">hoisted by his own petard</A>, I am afraid to say. But I will let <A HREF="http://contratimes.blogspot.com/2005/09/words-you-and-pink-elephant.html" REL="nofollow">readers make up their own minds</A>.) Truly, I am honored that you would search the internet for some trace of my inadequacies (if you had just asked, I could've given you a whole list).<BR/><BR/>All this to say that I am glad you have rephrased your question; doing so has helped me get my head out of the fog. But the first question was <I>really</I> a lousy question. And you should take no offense at my stating this, since we all post some very lousy things from time to time. <BR/><BR/>Now, to answer your new question: Yes, yes I do.<BR/><BR/>Alas, after all is said and done, I hope you see that I have done <I>exactly</I> what you told me to do; I've been very obedient. Do you remember what you told me to do?<BR/><BR/>You told me to "focus."<BR/><BR/>Sage advice, I think. <BR/><BR/>Peace to you, <BR/><BR/>Bill GnadeBill Gnadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18343608982238562089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35548475431633772412007-12-14T11:39:00.000-05:002007-12-14T11:39:00.000-05:00HI bill,For if the principle is not perfect, then ...HI bill,<BR/><B><I>For if the principle is not perfect, then it is flawed. </B></I><BR/>lets put this in an argument form<BR/>P: the principle is not perfect.<BR/>C: it is flawed.<BR/><BR/>or we can rephrase your statement like this so you can recognize that it is a definition:<BR/>Flawed Principle: One that is not perfect.<BR/><BR/><B><I>So, since you introduced these ideas of flawed/not-flawed (the positive implies the negative), then we are talking about YOUR definition. Not mine.<BR/></B></I><BR/>we are talking about your interpretation of one of my comments. You seem to be the only one hung on up on this "not flawed" means "perfect" thing. Maybe it is your apparent inability to grasp a colloquial usage of the term "flawed"? Maybe we should ask <A HREF="http://thelanguageguy.blogspot.com/2007/02/perils-of-sloppy-language-use.html" REL="nofollow">The Language Guy</A> You seem to be the only one having a hard time getting it.<BR/><BR/>so,<BR/>I see we have a misunderstanding.<BR/>You seem to be thinking that I am asking if the principle of clarity is flawed or not. let me "Toulminize" it for you.<BR/><BR/><B>the principle of clarity should be applied to matters of importance and instruction.<BR/><BR/>The warrant or principle is because ambiguity in matters of importance and instruction undermines the effectiveness of communicating those matters.</B><BR/><BR/>This is why it is irrelevant if the principle of clarity is perfect or not.<BR/><BR/>so when i ask <BR/>'Do you think that it is a flawed principle to clearly state your position and instruction on matters of importance?'<BR/>I'm really asking<BR/>"do you think it is inappropriate to use the principle of clarity to clearly state your position and instruction on matters of importance."<BR/><BR/>Is that better? I don't think the meaning has changed but I rephrased it to take out the offending word "flawed".<BR/>Those LSAT prep books are not very expensive and they are fun to boot.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79745808921070302752007-12-14T10:56:00.000-05:002007-12-14T10:56:00.000-05:00Dear Lee Randolph, Who introduced "flawed" here? D...Dear Lee Randolph, <BR/><BR/>Who introduced "flawed" here? Did I? No, you did. Moreover, who here said, "I don't know if its [sic] a perfect principle or not. And I don't think it is relevant whether it is or not." Did I? No, you did. And who here between the two of us was the first to use the word "definition?" Was I? No, you were. <BR/><BR/>So, since you introduced these ideas of flawed/not-flawed (the positive implies the negative), then we are talking about YOUR definition. Not mine. <BR/><BR/>But that is a small, small point. <BR/><BR/>The larger point is that I have dealt squarely -- right on the head -- with your question. I have not avoided a thing. But you have. And you're still doing it. You even note that John W. Loftus steps in here and says things clearly in your stead. And yet John starts talking about evil, and I've NOT EVEN MENTIONED EVIL. So how is John's reply even clear, let alone helpful, if it is not even on topic? <BR/><BR/>So, this is your final statement, right? <BR/><BR/>LEE: <B>Whether or not the principle is flawed, is irrelevant.</B><BR/><BR/>Well, if it is irrelevant, then why have you asked us here whether we think the principle of clarity is flawed? <BR/><BR/>Peace to you, and good luck,<BR/><BR/>Bill GnadeBill Gnadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18343608982238562089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-87262369182344778532007-12-14T10:37:00.000-05:002007-12-14T10:37:00.000-05:00Hi goprairie,thanks for the sentiment about the si...Hi goprairie,<BR/>thanks for the sentiment about the site. I think it would be appropriate if you would post it on the main article. I think your comment warrants being posted again.<BR/>thanks for your participation.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-84659648029874186462007-12-14T10:26:00.000-05:002007-12-14T10:26:00.000-05:00Hullo, Bill, knock, knock,For if the principle is ...Hullo, Bill, knock, knock,<BR/><B><I>For if the principle is not perfect, then it is flawed. </B></I><BR/>uh...you said that.<BR/>then you said the following<BR/><B><I>Actually, it is not my definition at all. It is yours.</B></I><BR/>Bill, are you guh-nodding off in the middle of your comments? If you said it, that means its your definition.<BR/><BR/>In any case,<BR/>Whether the principle is perfect or not is irrelevant. It is not an object, it is a concept, and in any case, perfection is in the eye of the beholder. Perfection is not an object either.<BR/><BR/>So anyway, like I was saying, and thanks for the term, you are being evasive. <BR/><BR/>It is simple. And john states it clearly, so I won't state it again.<BR/><BR/>Thanks John!<BR/><BR/>so now bill, I said<BR/>"Do you think that it is a flawed principle to clearly state your position and instruction on matters of importance?"<BR/>and you said <BR/><B><I>No</B></I><BR/>so does that mean that you think t he principle of clarity is a perfect principle? It sure does look like it. And thats nice cause if thats how you want to look at it I'll stipulate that with you for the sake of argument.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-21505371708135018262007-12-14T10:14:00.000-05:002007-12-14T10:14:00.000-05:00sorry, hadn't gone back to main page to realize yo...sorry, hadn't gone back to main page to realize you opened a new thread on this - so i put this comemnt there too - so responses should go there?goprairiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37352223152319226362007-12-14T10:10:00.000-05:002007-12-14T10:10:00.000-05:00"how an omniscient God must behave"To me, any answ..."how an omniscient God must behave"<BR/><BR/>To me, any answer anyone can come up with for why an omniscient and loving God would not communicate with us better is simply LESS LIKELY than that there is just no god. <BR/><BR/>'God' does not communicate with us because 'God' is an invention of the human mind. Originally useful to explain the world around us that science could not explain yet. <BR/><BR/>Any cliams that individuals now have of 'God' communicating with them can be explained by meditational states, self-inmduced trancelike states, and schizophrenia-like brain chemistry. <BR/><BR/>Most people claim no communication from God whatsoever at all. <BR/><BR/>Any 'answered prayers' can be explained by statistical chance and coincidence, the placebp or effect, or self-fullfilling behavior.<BR/><BR/>Yet people continue to pray and chalk up the tiniest of manufactured or false evidence as proof it worked and therfore there is a listening God.<BR/><BR/>So we have to live in a world dominated by customs and laws and rules based on religions made up out of whole mind cloth. Religions made up long ago or those watered down versions people cling to because they have been forced by logic to give up parts of them.<BR/><BR/>Because there are emotional benefits to holding such soft fuzzy beleifs. Until people understand those benefits and how to meet those needs with understanding of science and statistics and interactions with other people and interactions with nature, we are stuck with it.<BR/><BR/>At least this site gives credibility, reassurance, and confidence to those of us trying to make our way through a world clutter up witih false religions and their beleivers.goprairiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-63152859815633414932007-12-14T09:39:00.000-05:002007-12-14T09:39:00.000-05:00How MUST an omniscient God behave?You realize that...<I>How MUST an omniscient God behave?</I><BR/><BR/>You realize that whatever you say in answer to this question is telling us how an omniscient God must behave, right?<BR/><BR/>But I say that an omniscient God should be able to understand us as human beings such that he would be able to communicate with us better than he did in the Bible. There is no doubt in my mind that an omniscient God could've communicated in such a way that the Church as an institution would not have santioned killing people who didn't believe like they did in the Inquisition and witch hunts (which killed innocent people). And there is no justification for such a God not to have unequivacably condemed slavery either. If your response is that he has higher purposes that we simply cannot understand, then such a God should know that since we cannot understand him we would also reject him. And yet this is what I find you defending. That an omniscient God has acted contrary to his expressed desires that we accept him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-49639718633600056302007-12-14T09:31:00.000-05:002007-12-14T09:31:00.000-05:00Dear Lee Randolph,I apologize for committing a fal...Dear Lee Randolph,<BR/><BR/>I apologize for committing a fallacy, but only if I did indeed commit a fallacy. <BR/><BR/>You used the word "flawed." The opposite of flawed is "not-flawed," that is, "perfect." I asked you if you think that the principle of clarity you are arguing from is not flawed. This is hardly extreme, which is what the black-and-white fallacy implies. A thing can't be perfect and be partly-flawed; a thing can't be partly-flawed and not flawed. But a thing can be white and partly white; a gray thing is both black and white. So I am not interested in gray areas, but in clear ones, ones free from flaws: You either believe the principle is flawed, or it isn't. Remember, these are your terms I am using; you introduced the word flawed. <BR/><BR/>You claim I am being evasive, but I am not avoiding anything. It seems that you are doing the avoiding. Why? Because your first response to my question was that you did not know whether or not the principle was perfect and that such a question was irrelevant anyway. Now, in this response, you DO know: <BR/><BR/><B><I>'I challenge the premise that if a principle is not perfect it must be flawed. By your definition then all principles will be flawed. And that is simply not the case.'</I></B><BR/><BR/>Actually, it is not my definition at all. It is yours. You are asking us to answer a question whether we think the principle of clarity is flawed. But you can't answer your own question. Is it flawed, or not? If it isn't, then it is perfect, flawless, without fault or blemish. <BR/><BR/>Indeed, I might very well be saying that all principles are flawed; that IS a slippery slope (your phrase), isn't it? For if you state that these principles are indeed perfect, then you have to ask yourself how such perfection came about. You also have to ask whether perfect principles lead us to infallibility; but since no one is infallible, then we either do not have perfect principles or we do not know those principles perfectly. If we do not know them perfectly, then we are indeed errant and fallible; hence, your initial question is most likely meaningless. <BR/><BR/>In your initial question -- the one you claim is THE central point here -- you are implying that you DO know this principle of clarity perfectly. Why? Because from this presumed position of clarity to which you hold, you KNOW God contradicts the very perfect principle you know so well. You sit in judgment on God (or the idea of God): God does not adhere to a rule you believe He must obey. You dismiss Him. You see your own position as right. You obey the rule at all times. Or so you imply. <BR/><BR/>So, this is what I've noticed so far (please correct me if I'm wrong). You cannot answer your first question if you do not know whether the principle is flawed or not. And you have not been particularly clear here yourself. But you have to be clear, don't you, since you believe this to be a matter of importance? <BR/><BR/>Lastly, I would say that your CENTRAL question comes very close to committing the fallacy of the complex question and/or the fallacy of slanting. <BR/><BR/>Now, if you want to talk about God, I am game. Let me ask you this: How MUST an omniscient God behave? <BR/><BR/>Peace to you,<BR/><BR/>Bill GnadeBill Gnadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18343608982238562089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62635776009721250092007-12-14T08:11:00.000-05:002007-12-14T08:11:00.000-05:00Hi Bill,I challenge the premise that if a principl...Hi Bill,<BR/>I challenge the premise that if a principle is not perfect it must be flawed. By your definition then all principles will be flawed. And that is simply not the case. This the Black and white fallacy.<BR/><BR/>Nice attempt to avoid the conclusion that naturally follows the premise that god the perfect being decided not to use the principle of clarity in the creation of scripture.<BR/><BR/>If he were there he would have, because it follows that if there is a christitan god then the principles of logic resulted as a side effect when he created the universe and the relationships between the objects that naturally followed. In that case logic is good. It is so good that guys like W.L. Craig use it to defend the faith. Maybe its a slippery slope but I'll say it anyway,<BR/>if you say that a principle is flawed if its not perfect, then you'd have to say that reknowned apologists are using flawed principles to defend the faith.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11558855661757211932007-12-14T07:49:00.000-05:002007-12-14T07:49:00.000-05:00Dear Lee Randolph,I am glad you're glad to have me...Dear Lee Randolph,<BR/><BR/>I am glad you're glad to have me here. And I am glad to be here. Thanks.<BR/><BR/>Here's the question you have posited as central:<BR/><BR/><I><B>'Do you think that it is a flawed principle to clearly state your position and instruction on matters of importance?'</I></B><BR/><BR/>Since you were about to run off and work on something else, I said that I would bite on your question. My answer to your question was a simple no.<BR/><BR/>Immediately afterwards, I asked you if the 'principle to clearly state your position and instruction on matters of importance' was a perfect principle. My question was a simple yes or no sort of question. <BR/><BR/>Your answer is that you <B>don't know</B> if the principle is perfect or not; and you don't believe discerning whether it is perfect is relevant here. <BR/><BR/>OK. But if it is not relevant here, then why do you ask us about the principle being flawed? For if the principle is not perfect, then it is flawed. And if you do not know whether it is perfect, then you do not know if it is not flawed. Hence, you've asked us a question that is confusing at best and meaningless at worst. <BR/><BR/>So, I will not answer your next question about God because we have yet to get a decent answer about your first question. You are asking US whether we think it is a flawed principle to be clear. But you have not shown yourself that you believe the principle is not flawed. Besides, my question to you here has not been answered by you in a particularly clear manner, which suggests that you don't think the principle is something to which you need adhere at all costs.<BR/><BR/>Do you think the principle to clearly state your position and instruction on matters of importance is a <B>perfect</B> principle? It really is a yes or no answer that I am seeking. Of course, you are always entitled to defend your yes or your no, but your "I don't know" is not really an answer. And, as you know, this principle <I>is</I> important, since our goal is clarity.<BR/><BR/>Peace to you,<BR/><BR/>Bill GnadeBill Gnadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18343608982238562089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-8978711449082566292007-12-14T06:34:00.000-05:002007-12-14T06:34:00.000-05:00Hi Bill,I'm glad you're back and commented about t...Hi Bill,<BR/>I'm glad you're back and commented about the main idea.<BR/><BR/>Since I know you are an educated man, I thought you might say no.<BR/><BR/><B><I>Answer: No.<BR/><BR/>Question: Do you, Lee Randolph, think that the principle to clearly state your position and instruction on matters of importance is a perfect principle?</B></I><BR/>I don't know if its a perfect principle or not. And I don't think it is relevant whether it is or not. But I do know that it works well enough for practical purposes and until someone can show that it is generally a poor principle I think it will remain in good standing in high regard. It has set a precedent of working fine and lasting a long time.<BR/><BR/>I think if God had used the principle of clarity on what to do with witches, we wouldn't have any <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/12/children-are-targets-of-nigerian-witch.html" REL="nofollow">witch hunts</A> at least in my beloved twenty first century of which I eagerly looked forward too since I was that latch-key kid watching star trek after school. <BR/><BR/>So now, do you agree that god did not exercise the principle of clarity in the bible and it has resulted in the splintering of christianity into bits some of which are incompatible?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-87130281682204708102007-12-14T06:19:00.000-05:002007-12-14T06:19:00.000-05:00Hi Kevin,no offense but I am totally the wrong on...Hi Kevin,<BR/>no offense but I am totally the wrong one to debate biblical scholarship and theology with because I think it is mostly just tail chasing rhetoric. Once I decided long ago to look at christianity the same way I looked at the world and make a living and entertain myself which is through observation, inference and evidence, I realized that since the bible can be traced back to canaanite folklore, and the israelites are related to the canaanites, I chalk it all up to Near Eastern folklore and am now concentrating on flogging christianity with the sound principles that it violates and cognitive science to show that the likelihood that there is any supernatural correlation with our "self" is poor.<BR/><BR/>anyway, its another red herring.<BR/><BR/>But sure it deserves study. Go for it. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU LEARN AS MUCH ABOUT THE BIBLE AS YOU CAN. GO TO THE ORIGINAL TEXTS. CUT THROUGH THE REDACTION. GET TO THE ORIGIN.<BR/><BR/>been there done that, got the "no pain no gain" with the bloody jesus t-shirt. I don't wear it much anymore.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20511003237901932242007-12-13T22:51:00.000-05:002007-12-13T22:51:00.000-05:00Lee,I know conspiracy theories are not popular amo...Lee,<BR/><BR/>I know conspiracy theories are not popular among serious scholars, but I have a great deal of evidence in support of my view. Below are two examples of the parallels I have found that indicate that the writings of Josephus are allegorically related to the Gospel accounts. Note that the matching details are rather uncommon and unlikely to be found together by chance.<BR/><BR/>Matthew 27: 57 As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus.<BR/>58 Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him.<BR/>59 Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,<BR/>60 and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away.<BR/><BR/>From Life of Josephus:<BR/><BR/>And when I (Josephus) was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered. <BR/>(Also see 2 Samuel Chapter 14 for the Thecoa/Tekoa parallel.)<BR/><BR/>Mark 15:16 The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called together the whole company of soldiers.<BR/>17 They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him.<BR/>18 And they began to call out to him, "Hail, king of the Jews!"<BR/>19 Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him.<BR/>20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him.<BR/>21 A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross.<BR/><BR/>From Wars of the Jews:<BR/><BR/>This Simon, during the siege of Jerusalem, was in the upper city; but when the Roman army was gotten within the walls, and were laying the city waste, he then took the most faithful of his friends with him, and among them some that were stone-cutters, with those iron tools which belonged to their occupation, and as great a quantity of provisions as would suffice them for a long time, and let himself and all them down into a certain subterraneous cavern that was not visible above ground. Now, so far as had been digged of old, they went onward along it without disturbance; but where they met with solid earth, they dug a mine under ground, and this in hopes that they should be able to proceed so far as to rise from under ground in a safe place, and by that means escape. But when they came to make the experiment, they were disappointed of their hope; for the miners could make but small progress, and that with difficulty also; insomuch that their provisions, though they distributed them by measure, began to fail them. And now Simon, thinking he might be able to astonish and elude the Romans, put on a white frock, and buttoned upon him a purple cloak, and appeared out of the ground in the place where the temple had formerly been. At the first, indeed, those that saw him were greatly astonished, and stood still where they were; but afterward they came nearer to him, and asked him who he was. Now Simon would not tell them, but bid them call for their captain; and when they ran to call him, Terentius Rufus who was left to command the army there, came to Simon, and learned of him the whole truth, and kept him in bonds, and let Caesar know that he was taken. (Wars of the Jews Book 7 Chapter 2)<BR/><BR/>Don’t you think that, at the very least, this deserves further study?Kevin Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14083810521411319460noreply@blogger.com