Danes feel Obama is greater than Jesus

[kandrathe]

Large portions of the old testament.

Another myth. Do you have a quote?

[Delc]

Another myth. Do you have a quote?

Sure. Biblical Verses Condoning and Regulating Slavery.

[Jester]

I see you've immersed yourself in Christopher Hitchens, and his fervent opposition to her and her faith. Most people feel differently.

Yes. Quite specifically, they feel, rather than think - Mother Teresa does have that effect.

Sharp criticisms of the squalor of conditions in her hospitals have been published in The Lancet and the British Medical Journal. Former nuns have complained about the anti-medical bias in her belief, including very elementary, easily solved issues of sanitation and contagion. Mother Teresa herself has been abundantly clear that her organization is about Christ, and *not* about medicine. Their suffering is holy, and they are to be delivered unto Christ - curing their worldly wounds is secondary at best, irrelevant at worst.

Incidentally, I've never read that particular book of Hitchens', though it certainly sounds interesting.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Sure. Biblical Verses Condoning and Regulating Slavery.

Ok, to start a very subjective source -- an Islamic website. Second, most of those verses are mistranslated from Hebrew often servant, or bond servant was the intention. Third, slavery was a part of every culture at that time, but have you actually heard of Israelites owning slaves? They were probably one of the earliest cultures to outlaw the practice, and prior to that had strict rules governing care, who, and for how long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_slavery

So, no generally not even though it was in the Torah. Having freed themselves from being a vassal of Egypt (again misinterpreting Jewish slavery), they tramped around Sinai for 40 years before conquering Canaan, and surrounds. Often, the old testament Hebrew has been translated using the harshest forms to justify the violence of the old testament. Different, and more moderate translations paint a very different picture.

[Delc]

but have you actually heard of Israelites owning slaves?

Nope, but I've heard of christians owning slaves, and its their holy book too.

[Ashock]

This, I'm afraid, is complete and utter nonsense --- whether or not it's due to plain ignorance or bloody-minded willfull ignorance. You might as well advocate teaching in chemistry classes along side the atomic theory of matter the idea that matter is made up of earth, water, air, and fire.

It is interesting that among a selection western/european nations, the US is next to Turkey at the bottom in its disbelief of evolution --- surely in part due to the strong fundamentalist religious beliefs in both countries:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/...VO_GRAPHIC.html

What I am trying to say, is that considering the utter lack of anything even closely resembling solid evidence, evolution explains where human beings come from about as convincingly as creationism. The fact that evolution does take place on limited basis is undeniable. The fact that we came from Bonzo, I'm afraid, is very deniable.

On a semi-related note, you are tempting me to suspend my policy of not arguing with friends on this forum. I always turn the other way when you propagate your naive quasi-totalitarian ideas. Perhaps it is time for me to reconsider that policy.

[Zenda]

Ok, to start a very subjective source -- an Islamic website. Second, most of those verses are mistranslated from Hebrew often servant, or bond servant was the intention.

You like this source better, about selling one's own daughter into slavery? BibleGateway

"If she does not please her master"

Does that sound as if she was to be a cleaning servant?

I find it hard to understand how you can voluntarily base your life on views and ideas that are 2000 or more years old, especially considering those old texts fulfilled the role of laws from a 'meddlesome government', telling people what to do regarding every aspect of their life, in a time when there were few other (written) laws. Weren't you an advocate of freedom, where people can decide for themselves what's best?

[Zenda]

What I am trying to say, is that considering the utter lack of anything even closely resembling solid evidence, evolution explains where human beings come from about as convincingly as creationism.

Just because scientist use the word 'theory', is no reason to assume there is no certainty. They do that all the time, out of habit, so they don't look so bad if they happen to be wrong. And just because you are not convinced, things aren't any less true. That goes for Evolution, as well as Global Warming.

[kandrathe]

as well as Global Warming.

That is not a theory any more than global cooling, or global spinning are theories. The unknown is what level of CO2 in the atmosphere causes bad things to happen, which is pretty unanswerable and stupid to continue to experiment on ourselves. I am still hopeful that nature has the capacity to reel us back from the brink of disaster, but only a few hundred years will tell.

[Thecla]

What I am trying to say, is that considering the utter lack of anything even closely resembling solid evidence, evolution explains where human beings come from about as convincingly as creationism.

The statement that evolution lacks solid evidence is as utterly false as the statement that galaxies, atoms, or dna lack solid evidence.

On a semi-related note, you are tempting me to suspend my policy of not arguing with friends on this forum. I always turn the other way when you propagate your naive quasi-totalitarian ideas. Perhaps it is time for me to reconsider that policy.

Yup -- I agree with that policy, and it has involved plenty of mutual restraint.:)I have no desire to argue with friends either. But while there's no ultimate right or wrong about political opinions, and plenty of room for completely diametrically opposed points of view, there are right or wrong answers about how the world works, and how humans came to be on this planet; it was simply more than I could stand to let a statement that evolution is as poorly supported by the evidence as creationism pass without comment.

[kandrathe]

Weren't you an advocate of freedom, where people can decide for themselves what's best?

I am not literalistic, legalistic nor a fundamentalist. It would be pretty hard for me to explain to you where I'm coming from, and probably with your self-described limited understanding, would be hard for you to understand.

My interest is in the human experience, and the universal pursuit of truth and purity. I believe, for example, that focus on existence or non-existence of a deity is secondary to broader truths of how we interrelate with other people, other creatures, and the world. Unless a deity suddenly appears and solves world hunger, then I really think worrying about whether or not there is one is irrelevant. There is one, or there is not one. Atheist, or theist, Catholic, Islamic, Jewish, Protestant is irrelevant and a distraction from resolving real world issues. However, even the Bible, Torah, Koran, Tao Te Ching, the Vedas or etc. offer ideas, concepts, knowledge, and wisdom that a seeker of truth might sift through for just a glimmer of insight. Humans are just as smart, or stupid as they were 10,000 years ago although less ignorant about how some of the observable world works. But, we seem to be just as ignorant as we've always been on how to care for each other, or live together without violence, selfishness, meanness, and the rest of our worst traits.

You claim that these philosophies are antithetical to harmony. I disagree. Vehemently. Without a positive structure we know the atrocities we are capable of, and even with a seemingly positive structure, some individuals will take advantage of the "momentum" for greed, and power. But, by all means, feel free to continue to undermine, criticize, and ridicule.

Jester, for example, focuses on Mother Teresa's adherence to her belief, rather than her sacrifice and devotion to the cause. Were people better off due to her? I'd say yes. Would they have been better off being shipped out of the Calcutta slums to the best hospitals in London? Surely, but who was going to do that? She was criticized for accepting money from the wrong sorts of people, but that charity meant life or death to thousands. It's hard to discern moral correctness, and ultimately she too was merely an imperfect human being capable of making mistakes. She went with what she had, and she made a difference. You and I haven't even contemplated doing anything nearly so bold. When any of us gets up from behind our computers, sells off everything, travels to the worst garbage heaps of humanity in this world and tries to make a difference, then maybe our opinions would amount to more than a hill of beans.

Edit: To add, something I read to my boys this year at Christmas time, because they are ready to contemplate the philosophical truth of it.

<blockquote>DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old.
Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus.
Papa says, 'If you see it in THE SUN it's so.'
Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus?

VIRGINIA O'HANLON.
115 WEST NINETY-FIFTH STREET.</blockquote>
<blockquote>VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except [what] they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, VIRGINIA, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

No Santa Claus! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.</blockquote>

So... Do I believe in the power of things unseen? Damn skippy I do. When we believe, and apply ourselves, we are capable of almost anything.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Just because scientist use the word 'theory', is no reason to assume there is no certainty. They do that all the time, out of habit, so they don't look so bad if they happen to be wrong.

Actually, you've hit on a little bit of truth here. I'd posted a link to what a scientific theory is and, just for you, I'll repost it here.

From my perspective, I think the terminology change has a bit to do with the reduction of hubris in the scientific community and a lot to do with an alteration of viewpoint. When scientists felt nature followed some knowable laws, they used terms like 'laws of nature'. Over the years, these 'laws' turned out to be incomplete or incorrect. Scientists began to understand that there is a great difference between 'the truth' and 'the whole truth'. And so, from a modesty forced on them by reality, the terminology became less bombastic, with 'equations' or 'theories' replacing 'laws'.

Over the same period, it became questionable if the hypotheses used to describe natural phenomena actually did so at all. It is expressed well as "The map is not he terrain". The question is whether we scientists are really explaining nature or simply generating models that mimic portions of nature. More and more of us are coming to think that the latter is true, that the more we know, the more we'll find we need to know. Ultimately, nature may never be completely understandable by the human mind.

So, yeah, unlike the pope, we scientists are giving up our claims for infallibility. But, on the average, we've still done a hell of a lot better explaining nature over four centuries of science than all the priests, shaman, and witch doctors have done over thirty millenia.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

But, on the average, we've still done a hell of a lot better explaining nature over four centuries of science than all the priests, shaman, and witch doctors have done over thirty millenia.

I'm still blown away by the concept that time is variable, and the continuum of spacetime (or pacha to the ancient Incas).

[--Pete]

Hi,

On a semi-related note, you are tempting me to suspend my policy of not arguing with friends on this forum.

To argue can have (at least) two meanings, to dispute and to discuss. On a forum, which meaning is applicable is determined by the tone one uses. A dispute is an adversarial affair, typically with each (sometimes all) sides trying to prove their point and 'win'. Often a dispute becomes heated. A discussion is simply a group of people exchanging and considering each other's opinions. It does not need to be heated nor controversial. It does force one to examine one's own opinions and the basis for those opinions.

If the only people you will talk to are those that agree with you completely, then you'll have few conversations. If the only things you will talk about are subjects that all agree on, then you'll only have dull conversations. Rational disagreement conducted civilly is how we form opinions, strengthen opinions, and sometimes abandon opinions. It is exercise for the mind, making it stronger and more flexible. And, after fencing, it is the best way to get to know another person.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

My interest is in the human experience, and the universal pursuit of truth and purity. I believe, for example, that focus on existence or non-existence of a deity is secondary to broader truths of how we interrelate with other people, other creatures, and the world. Unless a deity suddenly appears and solves world hunger, then I really think worrying about whether or not there is one is irrelevant. There is one, or there is not one. Atheist, or theist, Catholic, Islamic, Jewish, Protestant is irrelevant and a distraction from resolving real world issues.

I completely agree with you. The questions of the existence of god and the usefulness of religions are almost completely unrelated. The one place they come together is the source of the taboos and traditions. However, this is an important point, for if the strictures come from god, then they are immutable, but if they come from man, then man can change them at will. And if man is punished by the adherents to god for attempting to change what really came from man in the first place, then *that* is original sin and it is the fundamental sin of religion.

However, even the Bible, Torah, Koran, Tao Te Ching, the Vedas or etc. offer ideas, concepts, knowledge, and wisdom that a seeker of truth might sift through for just a glimmer of insight. Humans are just as smart, or stupid as they were 10,000 years ago although less ignorant about how some of the observable world works. But, we seem to be just as ignorant as we've always been on how to care for each other, or live together without violence, selfishness, meanness, and the rest of our worst traits.

Yes, there are pearls of wisdom in most religious writings. There are pearls of wisdom in secular writings, too. With the secular, you can accept the pearls without commitment and only lunatics will stone you. With the religious, you risk your life if don't buy it all. Perhaps religion is just "social clubs in drab disguise", but the assertion that god is on our side gives us license, indeed a mandate, to destroy the infidel. And there are pearls in the lyrics of Dylan's songs -- but he threatens no damnation if I do not heed them.

--Pete

[Vandiablo]

The idea that this has nothing to do with Christianity is simply ludicrous. This was the Pope, the head of the Church. Galileo was tried, and convicted, on grounds of heresy, of being contrary to Christian scripture. His offence, practically speaking, was to offend both the leader and the dogma of the Church. How could this not be about Christianity?

That the church let him publish the book, then imprisoned him for heresy for having published it, is evidence of remarkable capriciousness and hypocrisy, but hardly any kind of exoneration. They expected a whitewash - a discussion of 'hypotheses' that paid their scriptures reverence. What they got was a strong case for his scientific theory and evidence that trashed their preferred dogma, and Galileo was imprisoned accordingly.

You guys oughta read Galileo's Daughter.

I read half of it about two years ago. What I remember is that there were two factions within the Vatican and Italian priesthood. One faction was very open to discussion of ideas, including many scientific ideas, and this faction held the power while Galileo developed his work. However, the other faction came to power, and they were very dogmatic and traditional and felt that Truth was in the Bible and not in dots in the sky.

So I think both of you are inaccurate. You're inaccurate in talking about the Catholic leadership as if it were a homogenous entity. kandrathe is inaccurate in separating anti-scientific dogmatism from Christian leadership, a combination that continues to modern times.

Back to the book. G himself was a religious man, and did not want to go against God or his Church. He wasn't thumbing his nose at anybody. The fact that he wasn't given a more severe punishment speaks more about his faith and obedience than it does about any theoretical lenience of his oppressors.

[Jester]

You guys oughta read Galileo's Daughter.

Thanks for the recommendation!

I read half of it about two years ago. What I remember is that there were two factions within the Vatican and Italian priesthood. One faction was very open to discussion of ideas, including many scientific ideas, and this faction held the power while Galileo developed his work. However, the other faction came to power, and they were very dogmatic and traditional and felt that Truth was in the Bible and not in dots in the sky.

No doubt. When in Florence, visiting the lovely museums there, I was downright flabbergasted by the importance of science to the Medici. The maps, the scientific instruments, the calculations, the treatises... this was very clearly a progressive endeavour of incredible relevance. While not all the Popes were from the Medici, it seems inconceivable that such a society would fail to produce a pro-science faction, even inside the church. As much as the term has fallen into academic disrepute, they called it the Renaissance for a reason.

So I think both of you are inaccurate. You're inaccurate in talking about the Catholic leadership as if it were a homogeneous entity.

The difficulty is, my point is solid even if you grant that the Church was wildly heterogeneous, which is certainly true. An organization (or even a single Pope, as here) that occasionally allows science, and occasionally suppresses it, might be capricious, confused, or (generously) just changeable, but it is still an organization that suppresses science. The existential "there exists a case where the church suppressed science" is demonstrated, and the universal "it is never the case that the church suppresses science" is falsified.

Back to the book. G himself was a religious man, and did not want to go against God or his Church. He wasn't thumbing his nose at anybody. The fact that he wasn't given a more severe punishment speaks more about his faith and obedience than it does about any theoretical lenience of his oppressors.

In fairness, you don't write characters like Simplicio unless you're thumbing your nose at somebody. He had a rebellious streak in him somewhere, something I appreciate, even if the Church didn't.

-Jester

[Jester]

The fact that we came from Bonzo, I'm afraid, is very deniable.

Common ancestry does not equal "men came from monkeys." The evolution of hominids is well-understood. If this is debatable in more than the details, then you might as well start arguing about whether Napoleon existed, or whether the moon is made of green cheese.

-Jester

[NuurAbSaal]

or whether the moon is made of green cheese.

-Jester

Ha! Wallace and Gromit delivered all the evidence I'll ever need to keep believin'!

:)

take care
Tarabulus

[kandrathe]

And there are pearls in the lyrics of Dylan's songs -- but he threatens no damnation if I do not heed them.

I agree on pearls of secular wisdom. But, you are wrong on the damnation part. During the 60's, anyone who didn't look like a hippie was shunned by the popular movement, regardless of their disposition. I'm betting you too were a square. Discernment is a process applied to everything, but you really can't control the people with the torches and pitchforks.

Roughly, my position is that it would be easier to influence the route and driver of the bus from the inside, rather than standing in front of it. I choose to lead in the movements I agree with, regardless of why the followers are in fact following.