Blogcritics Comments on Man, God and Armageddon

Comment by bliffle on Man, God and Armageddon

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:23:50 EDT

Damn! the new Firefox is doing the same thing: not returning focus to a TextArea. That's a beginners mistake, and the FF guys aren't beginners so I guess they're breaking in a new guy. Did it twice to me on this one comment.

Comment by sr on Man, God and Armageddon

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 20:03:53 EDT

Correction. Bastards not bastars.

Comment by sr on Man, God and Armageddon

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 19:59:41 EDT

Who created mosquitoes? I have one of these little bastars flying around my office at this moment. When I lived in Alaska the suckers were so big you could grab the pricks by the wings and burn their cute little feet off with a smoke and send them into the air. Best part was watching them try to land with no feet. Great fun.

Comment by Baritone on Man, God and Armageddon

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:45:36 EDT

With respect to theologians, or more precisely, theology, I loved Richard Dawkins' writing that he wasn't even sure that it is a subject. Certainly not, in his opinion something worthy of inquiry. The fact that a great percentage of scientists, not all certainly, but most are either proclaimed or in effect atheists should not be taken lightly. By and large science is not a field for the feeble minded. These are intelligent people. Christopher's comments regarding good and bad scientists and theologians is apt and insightful. It should also be pointed out the a "good" scientist will quickly abandon a position given new evidence to the contrary. Theologians hold fast to ancient dogma despite new understanding of humanity, the world or the universe. Baritone

Comment by bliffle on Man, God and Armageddon

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:42:29 EDT

There was a bug in (yesterdays) Firefox/linux that scrambled text entry formatting and swapped among threads. I suspect it's a keyboard handler run amok. Hope it's fixed by the new version that just installed. The problem is compounded by BCs interface which does not allow an author to edit a mistake in an input he's posted.

Comment by Christopher Rose on Man, God and Armageddon

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:27:37 EDT

You just know when commenters start taking cheap shots like criticising the good manners of their colleagues that they have entirely run out of adequate or relevant responses. I'm not going to engage in an entirely pointless debate with you about the flaws of Isaac Newton, but it is simply ridiculous to try to justify your previous comment, or criticise my entirely contemporary view, by leaping back in time several hundred years. As you full well know but deceptively ignore, there was no clear distinction between science and mysticism in those less enlightened times. In this more clear sighted age, the "pure" theologian has been most thoroughly discredited for being at best hopelessly naive, at worst a deliberate deceiver that refuses to accept facts they find inconvenient. I'm not hostile to theologians Ruvy, I'm hostile to all those who would perpetrate lies in order to serve their own ends and mislead humanity. I know enough about you and what you know to be sure that you are one of those who will warp any facts to suit your own dogmatic views. It's one of your pet techniques to come out with blatantly ludicrous remarks like "But your own evident hostility to theologians is so great that you refuse to see that they, like scientists, are people". I also know you're a decent bloke in essence but your heart and mind are apparently irredeemably twisted by the dogma that blinds you. You're actually fortunate that there are no gods for if there were, you would undoubtedly be rejected by those you claim to serve for the corruption that lies at the heart of your posture. Ironic, huh?

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem on Man, God and Armageddon

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:49:19 EDT

I must take issue with your attempt to tar scientists and theologians with the same brush, Ruvy. "Good" theologians routinely ignore facts so as to attempt to maintain their dogma or "faith" intact. Chris, I'm surprised that it has taken this long for you to pop in a comment here. Either your discipline has been unusually good or the general level of civility here as opposed to elsewhere at BC has kept you occupied - elsewhere... Now, I'm not an Anglican, but one of the better theologians I'm familiar with - as well one of the better scientists I'm familiar with - was Sir Isaac Newton. Are you saying that Sir Isaac was deliberately ignoring facts by devoting most of his life to deciphering the secrets of the Book of Daniel and trying to figure the codes in the Bible he had heard about? You do realize that Newton's works in gravity, mathematics and physics were not his primary efforts but mere secondary ones, don't you? Good theologians do not ignore facts at all. Like good scientists, they try to increase the sum of human knowledge and understanding. The sources they look at are different. That is why Sir Isaac Newton spent a good portion of his intellectual efforts trying to decipher the secrets in the Book of Daniel, and fish out the elusive Codes in the Torah. He was trying to increase human knowledge and understanding. In other words, Chris, it was a good Jewish theologian who figured out at least eight centuries ago that the age of the universe was over fourteen billion years - long before the cosmologists with the lab coats got there. Conversely, it is a bad Jewish theologian, Rav Eliashiv, who has condemned a fellow rabbi, Rav Nathan Slifkin, for talking about a universe millions of years old. Rav Elyashiv's actions increase human ignorance and intolerance, rather than human knowledge or understanding. PEOPLE ignore realities that are uncomfortable, no matter what their profession is. But your own evident hostility to theologians is so great that you refuse to see that they, like scientists, are people. Good Sabbath to you. Reuven

Comment by Christopher Rose on Man, God and Armageddon

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 07:59:35 EDT

I must take issue with your attempt to tar scientists and theologians with the same brush, Ruvy. "Good" theologians routinely ignore facts so as to attempt to maintain their dogma or "faith" intact. On the other hand, only "bad" scientists ignore information in order to maintain the integrity of their scientific understanding. It is therefore entirely inaccurate to try to justify the wilful ignorance of a theologian with the temporary intransigence of one individual scientist, although of course I fully understand why you are trying to do so, you little faithist you!

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem on Man, God and Armageddon

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 07:50:58 EDT

"In some of the events you describe, keep in mind that you had a group of people, in this case the Iraqi army, intent upon death and destruction. Couple that with the unpredictability of scud missiles, any number of results are likely, even unlikely ones. Remember chaos theory and the flapping butterfly wings in Africa being the source of a hurricane that hits Florida." You are pushing that "coincidence" button awful hard there, Baritone. With that kind of pressure, it just might break. Theologians are not alone in refusing to see facts they do not like. Scientists do the same thing when confronted with evidence that shreds their theories to bits. One such individual found evidence that indicated that Darwin's theory of slow evolution over the millennia was wrong. The evolutionary process seemed to jump quickly, according to the geologic and archaeological evidence he had found. Unwilling to go against what had become scientific orthodoxy in the 1920's, the scientist quietly left all the evidence in a drawer, catalogued but undocumented. There it sat for decades. Mind you, I'm NOT taking the side of the folks who misread the Bible and insist on a six-day creation process that took place 6000 years back. That is not the issue here at all. I am pointing out that scientists can be and are just as blind as theologians. This is the origin of my first two comments here, and the reasons why.

Comment by gonzo marx on Man, God and Armageddon

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 02:20:08 EDT

lol..wrong thread there, bliffle Excelsior?

Comment by bliffle on Man, God and Armageddon

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 02:15:50 EDT

Dave sez: "glad to see dan came back to actually defend his position and present his evidence." Yet Dan presented NO evidence nor did he give any citations. Stop the insanity, Dave.

Comment by gonzo marx on Man, God and Armageddon

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 02:07:50 EDT

still no excuse for such a boneheaded mistake, but thanks for understanding it was a slip up of names...it's not like anyone could confuse the two of you based on your viewpoints sorry about that Excelsior?

Comment by Baritone on Man, God and Armageddon

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 02:05:08 EDT

Gonzo, That's all right. I've learned to live with it. Baritone

Comment by gonzo marx on Man, God and Armageddon

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:02:51 EDT

d'oh!! my humblest Apologies to both of you, Baritone AND Baronius...pure mental lapse for a moment /chagrin Excelsior?

Comment by Baritone on Man, God and Armageddon

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:49:06 EDT

Gonzo, Just another note. Mormons are wierd. Baritone (who is not Baronius)

Comment by gonzo marx on Man, God and Armageddon

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:21:57 EDT

should say "some Americans"...with that Qualifier i would have no argument hey, we all like that bottom line to be in our favor, but some do NOT want it to come at an unethical cost big difference between the two, eh? Excelsior?

Comment by Baritone on Man, God and Armageddon

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:19:12 EDT

Gonzo, Yes, you are correct about the "dispensationalists." A fellow named Darby, as I recall along with a corhort or two. All a load of crap. But leave it to some enterprizing American christians to figure out a way to bamboozle a large number of gullible people to make millions. When it really comes down to it, the god Americans truly bow to is the bottom line. If it makes money, then it must be sacred and holy. Baritone

Comment by Lee Richards on Man, God and Armageddon

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:32:01 EDT

Re #51: "The arse is the proletariat of body parts", except for sr's, which is his seat of knowledge and understanding. Re: #53: Using his immense knowledge and understanding, sr has declared that there is a God. That certainly should clear that up!

Comment by gonzo marx on Man, God and Armageddon

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:24:14 EDT

thanks Baronius, that is covered in my link to Dispensationialism from earlier it's made up from whole cloth and has nothing to do with any scriptural text i can find hence my amusement when some who refer to themselves as "Literalists" also profess belief in this "prophecy" but they deride the Mormons, or the Wiccans....go figure Excelsior?

Comment by Baritone on Man, God and Armageddon

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:20:45 EDT

I can't remember exactly the origins of the "rapture." Its beginning goes back, I believe, to a couple of religious nuts during the 19th century. If I'm not mistaken, there is a fairly lengthy account of its origins in a book by Gore Vidal. Unfortunately, I'm not sure which one. I do know it was one of his essay collections, perhaps The Last Empire or United States. Nevertheless he dismisses it as ludicrous drivel and bemoans the popularity of LeHaye & Jenkens' Left Behind series of books and considers them to be gibberish, as I do. Again in an effort to hedge my bets, I want to remind all raptiles to consider me in your wills. They must be worded so that they will be enforced upon your sudden disappearance (say, a pilot leaving his plane in midair or someone leaving a toilet unflushed [eeewww!]) not your death. Proving one's death without a body takes considerable time which, I assume, would be in short supply under the particular circumstances. If I'm doomed to eternal hell, at least I'd like to have some cool stuff to play with before I tumble into the firey pit. Baritone

Comment by gonzo marx on Man, God and Armageddon

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:11:21 EDT

i knew it right after i hit submit, sorry about that Christopher... miss me? heh Excelsior?

Comment by Christopher Rose on Man, God and Armageddon

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:09:27 EDT

gonzo, tag fixed; fyi, you opened an "a" tag but closed a "b". Damn those letters!

Comment by gonzo marx on Man, God and Armageddon

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:29:22 EDT

lol..sr , didn't i ask you to put the bottle down for a moment as for the Captain... take a frosted mug, mix Captain, Berenzen apple schnapps and tonic equally over ice and enjoy! a fav of mine from the dim past of my drinking days Excelsior?

Comment by sr on Man, God and Armageddon

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:26:15 EDT

gonzo was just wondering why you think Im a tea-totaler. How could I make all these intellectual comments with half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair if I spent time with the bottle. Captain Morgan sends his best gonzo.

Comment by gonzo marx on Man, God and Armageddon

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:14:12 EDT

argh..i messed up a tag in #56, sorry Christopher!! and sr...helps as much as ya can, i guess for you, sr....sorry Charlie.... heh Excelsior?