Today on Blogcritics
Home » Will the Pill Be Responsible for the Death of Humanity?

Will the Pill Be Responsible for the Death of Humanity?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter1Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

For years, gays have been looking for a gene that would legitimately give them the right to say nature has turned them into the opposite sex. As a result, they believe same-sex marriage should be a natural thing. To gays, same-sex marriage should be something beautiful, natural, and part of God’s big plan. But the reasons may be anything but natural.

A few years ago, right after the sexual revolution of the 1960’s, a large number of chemical ‘cocktails’ that inhibit the function of the male hormone testosterone were found in United Kingdom rivers.

Richard Sharpe (in the afore-linked article) says a specific combination of chemicals is likely the culprit for the condition known as Testicular Dysgenesis Syndrome (TDS). TDS represents a number of disorders of the male reproductive system. The more common ones include reduced sperms counts, malformed penis and testicular cancer.

The female sex hormones (estrogens), as well as many estrogen-mimicking chemicals, are leading to the ‘feminization’ of male fish, which is documented here. Exposed fish become ‘feminized’ producing a protein found in females.

Geoffrey Lean’s dissertation of some of the unheeded warning signs. In the 1970’s there were only female gulls nesting together all over the US. In the 1980’s researchers in Florida detected that the male alligators seemed to have strangely tiny penises, and had developed female hormone patterns. In that same water, they found turtles that had developed into hermaphrodites—having both female and male reproductive organs.

Lean also found that even after repeated studies in England, one third of the male roaches in rivers and streams across the country had started producing eggs coming from female sex organs.

It finally dawned on some humans that estrogen may be the culprit. In England, almost one third of the drinking water comes from rivers, some of which is directly downstream of sewage outlets. In an article on CBC News, Sebastien Sauvé describes how estrogen levels in the water downstream of major population zones are “about 100x more than the level known to have significant endocrine-disrupting effects”.

Eventually, the UK had the courage to label the “pill” as a pollutant. Unfortunately, the FDA and EPA have not done so yet.

The United States Geological Survey provided the first nationwide study (2006) of estrogens as a water pollutant. They found a huge upsurge in the number of male fish growing female reproductive organs. When they did a survey of bass in the Potomac River, it showed almost 100% of the smallmouth bass were ‘feminized’, and actually had eggs in their testes.

But no corporate polluter could be found. Then it was realized human birth control pills, morning after pills, and abortion pills all contained large amounts of estrogen. With health authorities estimating that 100 million women worldwide take some form of hormonal contraceptive, it was realized any excess estrogen would be present in women’s urine. Almost always, that estrogen is passed through all sewage treatment systems without removal by existing pollution abatement techniques.

Evidently, the action of an endocrine disruptor can “feminize” male children even in the womb. Elizabeth Green highly disputes government assurances that current exposures are too low for any mutations to take place. It seems as if regulators never look at the additive actions of these hormone disrupting chemicals (i.e., estrogen) with other pollutants.

But from unsuspecting researchers who know what girl/boy ratios in specific countries should be, there were unsettling results. They calculated 250,000 baby girls should have been born baby boys. This was deduced for only the US and Japan alone. A story on LifeSiteNews.com confirms that these ‘gender-bender’ chemicals may have deleterious effects on more than just fish.

Interestingly, Geoffrey Lean found that cities exposed to high levels of gender-bender chemicals from Russia to North America have given birth to twice as many girls as boys.

Shockingly, some radical Greens are actually honest enough to admit there’s a problem. But to paraphrase Fox Mulder (X-Files), “they will be marginalized by the environmental-industrial-entertainment complex”.

Bottom line per Lean, studies in more than 20 countries have shown that average male sperm counts have dropped during the last 50 years from 150 million per milliliter to 66 million. That technically means that men are only half as fertile as hamsters. And average male sperm counts continue to plunge 2% per year. Within a few decades, the average man will be unable to father children.

We have been given, and allowed to understand, the technology to know what is happening. Populations will begin to drop precipitously. Many males in the near future will be unable to copulate for offspring production. The gay population will increase within the existing population, and will claim they were born that way. The human species will begin its descent into nonexistence.

Back on 2/18/08, it was positively confirmed by Dr. Karen Kidd that estrogen from the ‘pill’ in water has horribly altered the procreative ability of fish. If you take all the data that has been learned to date about estrogen and synthetic estrogens, it’s almost impossible not to know the human population has been, and will be, affected in likely the same way.

The scary part is when Marcia Herman-Giddens of University of North Carolina's  School of Public Health says, “It’s virtually impossible to study. There’s no place to find an unexposed population”.

The recurring question is: Does man destroy humanity by his own machination?

Powered by

About Kevin Roeten

Orthodox Catholic, with scientific background.
  • Mark

    Definitely something to investigate further. Any idea if this is something that can be eliminated via additional processes at water treatment facilities?

  • Kevin Roeten

    Mark,

    I do know they were going to try UV and see if it was going to eliminate the estrogen. I have not heard if they have had any success. I do know that the estrogen problem will continue, if not get worse. Even if UV radiation does work, there are very few water treatment facilities that have UV. When I was in college(~30 years ago) we tried UV and it did clean the water up well. But I don’t know what the beginning and ending concentrations of estrogen were.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/fran-parker/ Fran

    Excellent article. I have been reading about this and putting it together myself as well. Not only estrogen but radiation other drugs from cancer treatments as well and all the drugs from the hospitals.

    It is a scary thing when you start putting it all together.

    Thanks for a very much needed article.

  • Kevin Roeten

    Fran,

    Thanks for your comments. It is true that a whole slew of chemicals that we thought were harmless are causing problems. The only thing about estrogen is that few if any treatment facilities remove it from the water. And estrogen is what’s causing the gender change. And we worry about over population?!?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/scott_deitche Scott D.

    As a water quality guy, there has been a lot of focus on chemical pollutants in stormwater runoff, including estrogen and other prescription chmeicals. There is an awareness of the issue and a real move towards finding ways to address the problems through various treatment technologies. I don’t deal with this much in my day-to-day job so I do not know what the latest advances are, but it’s defintely on the radar.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/fran-parker/ Fran

    Kevin, Yes, very sad when you start to realize all the potential repercussions of having all these drugs, chemicals and hormones in our water – and their potential interactions, and maybe even how they could potentially ‘enhance’ each others abilities as well.

    Scott, as a water quality guy, I would really want to see the water specialists looking into this more closely than on the radar, but I am happy to see that it is at least on the radar.

  • Kevin

    Scott,

    I’m afraid as a “water quality guy”, you’re definitely not qalified to judge what the effects of estrogen are in the drinking water.

    You know, all the estrogen from all those billions of pills that contain estrogen that are discharged into the sewer from women’s urine? You know, the organic chemical that there is no treatment method that is used (to date) to destroy any estrogen that might be there?

    Have you checked lately what the actual estrogen level in ppm is in your drinking water?

    All the data accumulated over the last 30 years says something. Did you look at the data in the reports outlined in the column? “On the radar screen” is just not good enough when men’s fertility counts have been dropping like rocks ever since the invention and marketing of the pill.

    Fran–As far as I know, and other chemical and hormone has been removed, or they certainly aren’t able to pin any characteristics on any particular chemical as they have with estrogen.

    If either you or Scott have been responsible for any estrogen in American’s drinking water, I’d be worried. Very worried…

  • Kevin W.

    Kevin,

    I’m not sure you’ve made the link from excess environmental estrogen to an “increase” in homosexual behaviour. Is there an increase, or is this perception the result of years of education removing the stigma and the shame? I actually don’t see the need to include homosexuals in your article at all. Surely the science behind the decreased sperm counts and dropping fertility rates are persuasive enough without tainting your article with hints of homophobia.

  • rdh

    I don’t know a great deal about this topic however, you seem to have ignored the possible inclusion of Bisphenol A as an agent of feminization. It is ubiquitous in the environment and in plastic bottles, cans etc. Exposure in utero leads to feminization…

    Rather than engaging is what appears (appears mind you) as a stepping stone to call for regulation/limitation of women’s access to their choice of contraceptive… perhaps you should review all possible contributors.

    As a side note… the abortion pill’s contribution to the feminization of males is a bit of a stretch. It arrived late in the game (time wise)and as a one time use drug has limited ability to contaminate waterways… it’s not as though every sunday morning every woman in the world is going out and after a Saturday night of debauchery she is making sure that she aborts any possible evidence of her behaviour.

    I agree with Kevin W. that you should try to avoid “tainting” your writing with bias… especially sci/tech writing…

  • Kevin

    KW,

    Making the link to homosexual activity to environmental estrogen in the drinking water was never planned. The link to decreased male sperm count and the feminization of males due to increased estrogen WAS planned.

    The years of education about the natural path to homosexuality was false indoctrination at best.

    Surely you understand that “homophobia” is NOT was is happening with homosexuals. You need to check out the definition of “homophobia”. Many have simply said that homosexuality is simply wrong, and is not the right way to go…

    Certainly you understand the differentiation between “homophobia” and the scientific belief that being homosexual is not a correct way to grow the human population?

  • Kevin

    RDH,

    I know of NO data indicating “bisphenol A” as an agent of feminization. It has a fire retardant application, however. And its concentration in drinking water is minute compared to estrogen and estrogen-like chemicals in the drinking water

    Regulation of estrogen (and identification) is only a minor start. It’s getting into the water because of its rampant use (in killing a fertilized ovum) and water treatment options that are not used to take it out.

    As a direct note, estrogen from the abortion pill has been proved conclusively to feminize males. I’m surprised you didn’t pick that up from the column.

    You should understand that the “pill” is not a one time use thing. I did not mention the millions of pounds of estrogen getting into the waterways because of items used in contraception.

    I don’t believe I mentioed anything about a woman’s decision to go out on any kind of debauchery spree. Does that indicate what persuation you might be under?

    I didn’t think that actual scientific tests were considered “biased”. Maybe you should rethink what sci/tech writing is actually about…

  • S L

    What a load of homophobic twaddle, there were plenty of gay people in ancient Greece, long before the pill was invented. The suggestion that gay men are somehow feminized is simply heterosexist stereotypical nonsense, liking male company to the exclusion of female company is a positive trait in many predominantly male environments – eg Army, Navy, Police etc. The idea that homosexuality is somehow unnatural is based on what evidence? Zoologists have found homosexual behaviour in most animals (eg the gay penguins in Bremerhafen Zoo) and it would appear to be as ‘natural’ as any other kind of behaviour. Question yourselves guys (and you all sound like guys) and stop letting your prejudices interfere with the science.

  • Kevin

    SL,

    You aren’t a homosexual,are you? There were plenty of gay people in Sodom and Gomorrah as well, but did numbers make it right? The fact that feminization of males has taken place is scientific fact, whether you want to believe it or not.

    We know that homosexuality cannot expand the population, and that we cannot be fruitful and multiply.

    It sounds like the end result of homosexuality is for enjoyment only. In fact, I cannot remember a long term homosexual relationship–ever.

    Homosexuals are never to be hated. But they need to be corrected. If you look at science, homosexuality exists, but is highly unfavorable in most cases to most species. I wonder why?

  • zingzing

    ewww. disturbing thread.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “In fact, I cannot remember a long term homosexual relationship–ever.”

    That doesn’t mean there aren’t any. The world is more than the bubble you live in

  • Kevin

    zing,

    I guess that’s because you haven’t opened your mind yet…

  • Kevin

    Bicho–That doesn’t mean there ARE any, either…

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Well, despite Kevin’s denials, it didn’t take much to bring his homophobia out, did it?

    I see another major flaw in his argument besides the one pointed out by Kevin W.

    Which is that by no means all gay men are ‘feminine’.

  • Clavos

    That doesn’t mean there ARE any, either…

    I personally know of three gay relationships of at least 20 years duration each.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas were together about 40 years until Stein’s death. You lose.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Gay people may, it seems, actually be more likely to form long-term relationships than their straight counterparts.

  • Kevin

    Dreadful–It seems you’ll have to crack a dictionary to get the actual defintion of homophobia.

    When did I say that ALL gay men are feminine? But most are…

  • Kevin

    Clavos–Congratualtions! What does that mean, 6 out of 320,000 people. I can believe that…

  • Kevin

    Bicho–You’re sure you know the reasons they stayed together? Ever conceive of the fact that no one else wanted to get married to them?

  • Kevin

    Dreadful–I’d sure like to know where you came up with that piece of information…

  • Clavos

    Clavos–Congratualtions! What does that mean, 6 out of 320,000 people. I can believe that…

    What does it mean? Well, for starters, it’s 25% of all the gays I know, so extrapolating, it’s possible that up to 80,000 of the 320,000 are in long-term relationships.

    But in any case, Doc’s link pretty much sums it up.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Kevin Roeten,

    You really wrecked this article – and now you’ve devalued it further by getting into debate about homosexuality.

    You had an excellent piece about the chemical polution and damage caused by larding the eco-system with estrogen. Homosexuality just doen’t have all that much to do with chemically “feminizing” men.

    Homosexuality has to do with an in-grown sexual preference – and stuffing some boy with estrogen will not change his sexual preferences.

    You are entitled to your views about homosexuality – but those views will leave you under attack – while the meat of your article goes ignored….

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Kevin says: It seems you’ll have to crack a dictionary to get the actual defintion of homophobia.

    My vocabulary is as adequate as your homophobia is plain, thank you.

    When did I say that ALL gay men are feminine?

    Your argument is that estrogen pollution in drinking water is causing males, to develop feminine characteristics; and you use what you claim is an increase in the rate of homosexuality as one of your pieces of supporting evidence.

    But most are…

    And you base this on what? The same personal experience that leads you to believe there are no long-term gay relationships? Or TV stereotypes?

    I’d sure like to know where you came up with that piece of information…

    It’s in the link I provided, Kevin.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Ruvy, you’ve pretty much nailed Kevin (no pun intended!) with your #27.

    Estrogen pollution is a justified concern. Unfortunately, Kevin’s simply using the issue as a Trojan horse to promote his real agenda: his anti-gay views.

  • zingzing

    kevin: “Bicho–You’re sure you know the reasons they stayed together? Ever conceive of the fact that no one else wanted to get married to them?”

    wow. that kind of logic is grounded upon something so thin, i’m not even sure you could write it down without tearing up the paper.

    “Dreadful–I’d sure like to know where you came up with that piece of information…”

    you mean the one he linked to? so, in a link, you follow the link and it leads you to a source. this one happens to be a newspaper article which cites a study. you read the source, you find the citation, you know where it comes from. see?

    [personal attack deleted]

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “Bicho–You’re sure you know the reasons they stayed together? Ever conceive of the fact that no one else wanted to get married to them?”

    No, that never occurred to me, but then I am not a close-minded person desperately trying to spin facts to fit my presumptive, narrow view of how the world should be.

  • Kevin

    Dreadful–We now know you’ve never read the definition of homophobia. Thanks.

    So I didn’t say all gay men are feminine. And i never said anything about an increase in the rate of homosexuality.

    I never said there wer no ling-term gay relationships. I said I couldn’t fing any.

    Wow, your making this disagreement wat too elementary…

  • Kevin

    Dreadful–How unfortunate of you to assume things. I bet you’ve done that all your life, huh?

  • zingzing

    have troubles with your fingers there, kevin? still, i’m glad you’re stepping back from your arguments. seemed much more sure of yourself yesterday.

  • Kevin

    Zing–YOU’RE talking about logic? That’s pretty good! Sorry, I missed that link Dreadful pointed to. What was that link again?

  • Kevin

    Bitcho–So you didn’t know the reasons. I can live with that. Wow, you’re omniscient too! Amazing how you knew so much about a person without…well, really knowing him.

    No problem. We prayed for you today.

  • Kevin

    Zing–I never stepped back from my arguments. But you assumed that? Wow, you’re really good.

  • zingzing

    yeah, kevin, i’m talking about logic. and you can just press that little “previous 25 comments” link right there and find the link yourself. it’s very simple. and it’s impossible to miss. you just have to make a choice (or is it christ that compels you?) to click it.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Dreadful–We now know you’ve never read the definition of homophobia. Thanks.

    A phobia is an irrational fear. Homophobia is an irrational fear of homosexuals. Your views regarding homosexuality and its connection to the estrogen levels in water have been shown to be irrational, and based on fear.

    And i never said anything about an increase in the rate of homosexuality.

    You’re being blatantly dishonest now. From page 3 of your article:

    “The gay population will increase within the existing population, and will claim they were born that way.”

    I never said there wer [sic] no ling-term [sic] gay relationships. I said I couldn’t fing [sic] any.

    Then what was your point? Surely, with a scientific background, you must be aware of how feeble anecdotal evidence is?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Without its offensive, crude, utterly false opening paragraph, this is a reasonably interesting article.

    Kevin has spent virtually all his energy in the comments section spewing ignorant bigotry similar to that first paragraph.

    Your article is [or claims to be] based on science. Your statements about gays are based only on your own opinions, which draw on your [apparently] very limited experience in the real world.

    What [nearly all] gay people assert is that we were born with this predilection — not that we wish we were members of the opposite sex.

    And yes, there are plenty of long-term gay relationships [not to mention short-term straight relationships]. If you don’t know enough about a subject to say something meaningful, the best advice is to just shut up about it and move on.

  • zingzing

    are we sure that the kevin who wrote the article is the same as the “kevin” in the comments section? there is a “kevin roeten” in the comments section, as well as a “kevin w.” i haven’t yet made the assumption that the author and “kevin” are the same, but i could be wrong, and if i were kevin roeten (and kevin roeten is not “kevin”), i’d be out here proclaiming as much, unless he agrees.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    Kevin the Troll, first you do yourself no favors acting like a seventh-grader. Everyone who resorts to “Bitcho” shows a complete lack of originality and wit, so thank for falling into the dunce trap.

    “Amazing how you knew so much about a person without…well, really knowing him.”

    Actually it’s not that amazing. All one has to do is read your article and comments. It’s rather obvious.

    Besides you claim to know so much about gay relationships without knowing the people involved. Not really sure how you come to the conclusion that Stein and Tolkas were together because no one would marry them. Are you possibly projecting your own inadequacies?

    I don’t need your prayers so spare the condescension. Besides there’s no one listening.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    zing,

    Kevin Roeten wrote and ruined this article. The other Kevin refers to himself as Kevin W. and has different views from those of the author.

  • zingzing

    ahh, but ruvy, there’s kevin, kevin roeten (comment 2 and 4,) AND kevin w. (comment 8).

    kevin w. is obviously a different person. but it’s kevin and kevin roeten that i’m not sure about. doc seems to make the assumption that they are the same person.

  • zingzing

    that may be because they write from the same ip. but i don’t know that they do.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    I’m, pretty sure that ‘Kevin’ and ‘Kevin Roeten’ are one and the same, zing. The later Kevin may have been speaking to us from his cellphone – hence the many typos.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Kevin Dreadful

    And the same tone of argument.

  • Kevin

    Ruvy–Of course homosexuality has everything to do with ‘feminizing’ men. What are you basing that info from?

  • Kevin

    Zing–I finally did read the comments on that link. You were actually right! I guess you didn’t notice that info came directly from San Francisco–the gay capitol of the world. Of course they would say those things. I’m afraid it lends no credence to it, however.

  • Kevin

    Bicho–Please forgive my misspelling of your name. I didn’t even know I had misspelled it until I read your thread about it. If I had meant to misspell your name, I likely would’ve done so on every thread before it. I’m truly sorry.

  • Kevin

    Dreadful–You found the definition of homophobia. Congratulations! It is correct. But please don’t assume that I have some sort of irrational fear of homosexuals. I didn’t know you could detect emotions from this thread.

  • Kevin

    Dreadful–It’s not nice to take statements out of context! I said “rate” of homosexual occurence. You know as well as I do that the rate hasn’t changed, but the overall number of people that admit they’re gay has increased because they think it’s fashionable now.

  • zingzing

    kevin: “I guess you didn’t notice that info came directly from San Francisco–the gay capitol of the world. Of course they would say those things.”

    jesus, kevin. not that it has anything to do with it, but the info did not come from san francisco. the article did. the info came from… oh, you just saw san fran, said “gaaaaaay” and moved on, eh? you’re fucking ridiculous.

    “I’m afraid it lends no credence to it, however.”

    i’m afraid nothing would to you. one would think that a study finding that homosexuals actually do form lasting relationships would make you think that homosexuals actually do form lasting relationships, but this is kevin’s world we live in. it’s a twisted place where things that actually are aren’t and only what kevin abides exists.

  • zingzing

    kevin: “You know as well as I do that the rate hasn’t changed, but the overall number of people that admit they’re gay has increased because they think it’s fashionable now.”

    you need to learn some history. “fashionable?” with people like you out there? yeah, they do it to piss you off.

  • Kevin

    Handy–You thought the first pargraph was “crude”? Maybe someone needs to demonstrate what crude really means. Maybe you need to understand what spewing bigotry really is. There was no namecalling, or hatred, or crude remarks. Did you just assume that?

    And why do you make the assumption that gays were always ‘born’ that way? And is there really a lot of gay long-term relationships?

  • zingzing

    “And why do you make the assumption that gays were always ‘born’ that way?”

    because they are. why do you think it’s something in the water?

    “And is there really a lot of gay long-term relationships?”

    (clavos: subject/verb) yes, there are.

  • Kevin

    Zing–Uh-oh, I must’ve pushed some buttons with you. You’re using explatives in your writing now. What was it that I did to hurt you?

    You seem to be making judgments at a whim now, even though you really know nothing about me. Please, all gay people aren’t like that.

  • Kevin

    Zing–I never made any assumption. I think you made the assumption that gays were always “born” that way.

  • zingzing

    “Zing–Uh-oh, I must’ve pushed some buttons with you. You’re using explatives in your writing now. What was it that I did to hurt you?”

    i curse all the time, don’t worry.

    “You seem to be making judgments at a whim now, even though you really know nothing about me. Please, all gay people aren’t like that.”

    i know enough about you to tell that you’re a homophobe. that is what we’re talking about, right?

    not sure what your last sentence is supposed to mean.

  • zingzing

    “Zing–I never made any assumption. I think you made the assumption that gays were always “born” that way.”

    “always born?” you mean every time they’re born? yes, gay people are born gay. it’s not a choice. did you choose to like women, and did you, at some point, weigh your options?

  • Kevin

    Zing–You KNOW I am a homophobe? When have I ever said that I hated homosexuals? That I might be scared of them? That I wanted to rid the earth of them? That I wasn’t a homosexual myself?

    An awful lot of assumptions. Do you always assume things? I guess you always assumed they were born that way. Who told you that?

    The last time I checked gays could not produce kids. They could not be fruitful and multiply. Are you in it only for fun?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    You know as well as I do that the rate hasn’t changed, but the overall number of people that admit they’re gay has increased because they think it’s fashionable now.

    OK. So first you claimed that increased gayness was due to something in the water. Now you’re saying it’s a cultural thing?

    You’re disappearing up your own bendy logic, my friend.

    I guess you didn’t notice that info came directly from San Francisco–the gay capitol of the world. Of course they would say those things. I’m afraid it lends no credence to it, however.

    Since you asked me to look up the word ‘homophobia’, Kevin, perhaps I should ask you to look up the logical fallacy known as ‘poisoning the well’. (Seems a very apt phrase in this context, BTW!)

    Saying that the source has no credence because it was reported in a San Francisco newspaper is like saying you’re not going to believe the last election result because you saw it reported in the New York Times.

    But please don’t assume that I have some sort of irrational fear of homosexuals. I didn’t know you could detect emotions from this thread.

    No assumptions necessary: unless you’re just playing a role, your words tell us much.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    The last time I checked gays could not produce kids. They could not be fruitful and multiply.

    Gay men and women are just as capable of producing offspring as heterosexuals. I know several gay parents myself (but that’s just anecdotal evidence!).

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Kevin,

    I did a google search on estrgen and men. This article describes why men take estrogen and what can happen to them. Note, it does talk about men desiring other men, it talks about a decreased interest in sex. This article also talks about estrogen in men, and how it can get there, and why. Again, there is no mention of changing sexual orientation. You may find this article from Atlantic Magazine, Homosexuality and Biology to be of some interest. What it indicates, among other things, is that estrogen does not cause homosexuality, which is your evident thesis in your article. Too bad the good data is wasted on such a bad thesis.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    In comment #64, that should be: it does NOT talk about men desiring other men,…

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Truth be told, and this whole gay row aside, I think Kevin overstates his case with regard to the feminizing effects of water-borne estrogen in humans.

    It’s well-known that many species of fish, some amphibians, a few reptiles and even the occasional bird can change genders under certain circumstances. So it’s not surprising that the most dramatic effects of estrogen pollution would be seen in fish and frogs, since their biology allows them to do so relatively readily.

    Humans, too, can be induced to take on characteristics of the opposite sex. Transsexuals do it all the time, but it takes the ingestion of massive amounts of hormones – in vastly higher concentrations than would be found in drinking water – to accomplish these physiological changes.

    I’d need to see a lot more data than is presented here to be convinced that there was a significant risk of widespread male feminization – and by extension, a risk to the species – from estrogen pollution.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    DD,

    You might find this story interesting…. Apparently estrogen has more effects than meet the eye.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    I’ll have to look at it when I get home, Ruvy. Apparently the filtering software here has deemed your link a Sexually Explicit Site! :-)

  • http://www.modern-zen.com/ Modern Zen Architecture

    Yes. We need more data. Does anyone know of any studies going on now? I guess we could all use more statistics…

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Hmm. Just spotted this…

    Kevin: Zing–I never made any assumption.

    Then, a few comments later: Are you in it only for fun?

    That’s a pretty big assumption right there…

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Kevin –

    You seem like a religious person, and I certainly am strong within the Church of Christ, of which I am a member.

    So here’s something for you to chew on: if God meant for there to be only men and women, then why are there people who are born hermaphrodites with both male and female genitalia? Why are there women who have an internal set of male testes, and who have male (instead of female) chromosomes? Why do some men develop breasts (and even have breast cancer)?

    Prejudice made its way into the Bible. Even the prophet Jeremiah complained how scribes were inserting their own prejudices into Scripture.

    You see, Kevin, Christians believe in God and Jesus and follow Their commands. However, the words we read in the Bible canNOT be used to ignore scientific fact. Both the Bible and provable scientific fact MUST agree…unless you want to believe the Catholics were on the right track when they persecuted Galileo for saying that Earth wasn’t the center of the universe.

  • zingzing

    doc: “That’s a pretty big assumption right there…”

    mhmm… because i don’t abide homophobia, i must be gay. at this point, i can’t even assume kevin is serious.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    The “Kevin” in the comments section argues and writes like an 11-year-old. [Actually, that is somewhat unfair — to most 11-year-olds.] Could all us liberals be falling for some kind of hoax here?

  • zingzing

    tis a possibility.

  • Kevin

    Glen–Please don’t put words in my mouth. GHod meant for only men and women to procreate. Mutations and submutations happen all the time. It doesn’t mean they should procreate.

    The Bible has not been used to ignoire scientific fact. Where do you get that?

    Catholics did not persecute Galileo. They put him under house arrest, but did not stop him from what he was doing. Back then, Galileo was simply stating something that went against the grain of known science at that time. Later, when the truth was known, any restrictiuons placed on him werwe removed.

  • Kevin

    Zing–why do you make that assumption? Oh, I’m sorry. You’ve made so many before, why not a few more?

  • zingzing

    what assumption?

    that there’s a possibility this is a joke? that’s not an assumption. it’s acknowledging that i can’t really tell.

    or the fact that you think i’m gay just because i don’t like homophobia? you said “do you do it just for fun?” and a few other things that seem to suggest the fact that you think i’m gay. you can deny it now, but they suggest what they suggest.

    but you never did answer my question about whether or not you weighed your options (gay vs straight) at some point before coming to the conclusion that you were straight. (of course, you could be gay, i dunno.) so how did that little thought process go?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    The Bible has not been used to ignoire scientific fact. Where do you get that?

    Oh, I dunno, let’s see… Ah, yes, there’s this minor disagreement about whether life evolved over billions of years or was created more or less instantaneously by a supreme being. You may have heard about it…?

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “GHod meant for only men and women to procreate.”

    To quote you from another thread, “Please don’t insinuate that you think you know what God wants…”

    “Catholics did not persecute Galileo. They put him under house arrest”

    How is someone under house arrest not being persecuted? No, don’t answer that. I am certain your response will make even less sense.

    To paraphrase the philosopher Jon Bon Jovi, “You give believers a bad name.”

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Aung San Suu Kyi will, I’m sure, be very glad to hear that she’s not being persecuted…

  • Kevin

    Zing–ASSUMPTION; supposition, conjecture, unpleasant boldness, arrogance, presumption. Your intelligent, right? Look back in the thread and see what fits.

    From what you said, you are likely gay. Of course, you never said anything about your tendencies anyway…

  • Kevin

    Bicho–PERSECUTE; to treat badly, to do harm again and again, to oppress, to torment.

    I got that from my dictionary. You have one, don’t you? Or are you just going from whatever is in your head?

    Wait, don’t answer that. You might indicate what you believe in. You believe in something, don’t you?

  • Kevin

    Zing–In answer to your question, I never had to weigh my options. I knew. It sounds like you’re still weighing your options, however.

  • zingzing

    kevin–BULLSHIT: well, you know.

    and what the fuck with 83? the obvious point is that it isn’t a choice. you knew? well, gay people know as well. just as i know. from what i have said, it should be obvious that i’m not gay. from what you said, it’s obvious that you think i am.

    and if you don’t think that being confined to your house is a form of oppression, you need to look that one up in the dictionary.

    we obviously see the world in different ways. your world is very strange.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    I was right. Your response did make less sense.

    “You believe in something, don’t you?”

    I believe you are quite foolish, English isn’t your first language, or your writing here is a prank. It is unfathomable that you believe being under house arrest is not meant to treat a person badly, oppress them, or torment them.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Kevin says: ASSUMPTION; supposition, conjecture, unpleasant boldness, arrogance, presumption.

    OK, here’s what you don’t seem to get, expect where it concerns you (your response to zing in #81):

    There are reasonable assumptions, and then there are unwarranted assumptions. To put it very crudely: if I’m a schoolteacher, and I go to work in the morning, I assume that my students will be waiting outside the classroom. That is a reasonable assumption based on their previous behaviour and the fact that school rules require their attendance in class.

    Conversely, if I am a schoolteacher, and I go to work in the morning buck naked, and assume that I won’t be sent straight home again by the principal, then that is an unwarranted assumption.

    You, Kevin, have said enough here for us to reasonably assume certain things about you.

  • Mrs menopause

    I think is now clear that hormone balances during fetal development have an effect here I can’t see how that estrogen in water could affect it – estrogen id a female horme not a gay hormone? When estrogen levels fall (for example after menopause) women do not exhibit gay tendencies.

  • Kevin

    Mrs,

    When estrogen levels fall after menopause, estrogen is STILL there. Just not in the high levels they were.

    Bicho-God probably wants humans to procreate. No other way to make people. Please get back when you know the actual definition of “persecution”. You actually know what God wants other than what He said?!?

    Zing–As I alluded in my thread, I don’t know if you’re gay or not. And you’ve assumed that I think you’re gay? You make a lot of assumptions, don’t you?

    Bicho–I guess you don’t believe in anything. You didn’t say if you did.

    Dr.–I think you might have to redefine the word “reasonable”. You’re assuming again, whether it’s reasonable or unwarranted. Assuming is assuming. I won’t say what ‘assuming’ means.

    It’s unfortunate I didn’t get this thread until a few days ago. We’ll see if we get any kind of response.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Kevin, here’s a response.

    As you dislike assumption so much, how do you deal with your assumption that “God” exists, wants anything, or would tell you about it if it did in fact exist and want something?

    I’d try to deal with my own problems rather than correct other people if I were you, which most fortunately I am not.

  • Kevin

    Christopher,

    Assumption has nothing to do with it. Faith does. Believing what people saw 2000 years ago dictates what I believe.

    It must be difficult dealing with life when you have no beliefs, and likely think that there is nothing left after you die a mortal death…

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Go on, do explain to me the wonderful doublethink that makes a distinction between faith and assumption?

    Why do you compound your assumptive thinking by leaping to the notion that I have no beliefs?

    As to your final point, I certainly do reckon that there is nothing left for me except recycling after I’m gone but I don’t think there is nothing left, only left behind.

  • Dillon Mawler

    Kevin, faith is belief without evidence. I have no need for that, and neither does the world.

    And if I may speak for Christopher, it is indeed difficult sometimes when you don’t know everything. So?

  • Kevin

    Christopher,
    I don’t believe the dictionary does any ‘doublethink’ on faith and assumption. It may be wise to check the dictionary before you go off on ‘definitions’. You did, didn’t you?

    I prefer the 2nd definition the dictionary had for your assumptions: unpleasant boldness; arrogance; presumption.

    And I asked you before, and I’ll ask again. Do you have ANY beliefs?

  • Kevin

    Dillon,

    Faith can have evidence. Evidence not proved without a doubt. There’s one history book out there. It’s 2000 years old. It’s beyond reasonable doubt that someone just decided to make the whole thing up.

    Nobody I know knows everything. But it’s possible to know some things.

    Here’s hoping you learn more info too…

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Kevin, your ego appears to be tripping you up – or possibly out!

    Your remark about dictionaries, assumption and faith is simply gibberish – are you speaking in tongues?

    As to the rest of your faithist babble, you still haven’t answered any of the now four questions I have put to you.

    Do you have any answers or are you going to rest on your ill-founded and uninformed arrogance, which is pretty typical for both you and the rest of your cult?

    That’s five questions now!

    Finally, until your feeble response in #93 you DIDN’T ask me if I have any beliefs – but don’t let little things like accuracy or honesty trip you up.

    As it happens, I have a lot of beliefs: amongst many others I believe that faithists will always turn to abuse at some point as they can’t actually make a case for their peculiar beliefs; I believe that you don’t know the meaning of the word “evidence”; and I believe that arguing from a position where you think you already know the answers, as you do, is always a bad idea…

  • Jordan Richardson

    I’ll bite.

    The dictionary (I’m going with dictionary.com because it’s what came up first) defines faith:

    1. confidence or trust in a person or thing
    2. belief that is not based on proof
    3. belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion

    There are other definitions, but all are essentially related.

    Dictionary.com defines assumption:

    1. something taken for granted; a supposition
    2. the act of taking for granted or supposing
    3. the act of taking to or upon oneself

    I’ll overlook the question as to how your dictionary source came up with “unpleasant boldness; arrogance; presumption” as a set of defining terms regarding assumption and leave that to Christopher.

    But what I will do is go one step further and check dictionary.com for supposition:

    1. the act of supposing
    2. something that is supposed

    Not overly helpful. Suppose, then:

    1. to assume (something), as for the sake of argument or as part of a proposition or theory
    2. to consider (something) as a possibility or an idea or a plan proposed
    3. to believe or assume as true; take for granted
    4. to think or hold as an opinion

    Faith, it seems to me, supposes the existence of a deity or set of deities or whatever without proof. In other words, it is taken for granted that deity or deities exist because it cannot be taken for fact that deity or deities exist.

    There is movement from this framework, Kevin, and it needn’t be based on condescending rhetoric.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Christopher, can you clarify what you mean by “abuse” in your #95? Seems to be quite a loaded statement.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Jordan, I mean abuse as in insulting language not anything more, er, physical; I leave that to Catholic priests…

  • Jordan Richardson

    Praise the Lord; watch your ass.

    Understood. I haven’t personally always found that to be the case, mind you, but I appreciate the clarification as to your meaning.

  • Dillon Mawler

    I always find it odd that faithists, especially Christians, so often make that illogical leap and accuse atheists of “not believing in anything.”

    The amazing assumption that anyone who doesn’t believe in gods must not believe in anything at all is really quite arrogant and, frankly, really strange.

    Can you explain why you made this leap, Kevin?

    And as to your awkwardly phrased claim that faith “can have evidence,” does “faith” just mean “belief,” then? What is the word for a belief that something is true in the absence of evidence?

    And as to your claim that “Believing what people saw 2000 years ago dictates what I believe,” I ask you what you believe Jesus’ last words were?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena irene athena

    But Christopher Rose (#95), do ALL of them resort to abuse, if only in the sense of “insulting language?”

    Yes, there is plenty of arrogance flying across the Great “faith in God or gods”/”no faith in God but faith in other things” Divide. I think we BOTH can say we’ve been part of that. But I’m trying to change, and…I think you are, too.

    The provocation to angry responses that is coming from Kevin’s remarks( which are inappropriate–unless he’s reading from a comedy script, as some of us upthread suspected)is similar to what believers in God experience from some (not all) of New Atheists.

    Look, here is an example of two people, New Atheist Christopher Hitchens and Francis Collins, the Christian director of the Genome Project, who are trying to find a better way: “I heard Christopher Hitchens in a debate last week. I was somewhat shocked that the one book he recommended to everyone to understand science and faith issues was The Language of God by “his good friend” Francis Collins, whom he said has been side by side with him through his medical issues.”

    That is a November 21st comment after this…(OK, get this right, Irene…no space, no rococo quotation marks)… this article, which describes the friendship, but from Francis Collins’ point of view.

    (I worry sometimes about what’s in our water, though estrogen might be the LEAST of our problems.)

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena irene athena

    Dillon, Kevin might be able to, but I’ve looked at the four Gospels and can’t find anything that says definitely what Jesus’ very last words are. It appears that if “Father into Thy hands I commend my spirit” and “It is finished” weren’t Jesus’ VERY last words, they were part of Jesus’ final statement.

    Matthew 28:46-54
    v46: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Jesus knew this agony was coming–that’s what the Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane the night before was about.)
    v48: was offered vinegar
    v50: Cries out with a loud voice (last words not recorded here.) Dies.
    v54: Roman soldier, witness to Jesus’ crucifixion and death, states “Truly this was the Son of God.”

    Mark 15:34-39
    v34: same as Matthew 28:46
    v36: same as Matthew 28:48
    v37 same as Matthew 28:50
    v39 same as Matthew 28:54

    Luke 23: 46-47
    v46: Cries out with loud voice. “Father into thy hands I commend my spirit.” Dies.
    (same as Matthew and Mark accounts, with final statement, or part of final statement, recorded.)
    v47: Centurion who witnessed this says: “Certainly this was a righteous man.” Similar to Mark 15:39 and Matthew 28:54. (It’s not unlikely that centurion’s statement had more than one sentence.)

    John 19:29-30 Is offered vinegar, says, “It is finished,” and dies.

    So Luke and John each say in two verses what Matthew and Mark each take about ten verses to say. I don’t think it’s that Luke and John couldn’t be bothered. The last words in John’s gospel are: John 21:25 “There are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that not even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.”

    And I hope I have the self-discipline to make these MY last words. I could talk about this stuff all afternoon, because I really LIKE talking about these things, but I just don’t have the time right now.

    Have a good day.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Irene, I reject your assertion that I have been arrogant in any way with regard to the faithist divide.

    I am really indifferent as to whether deities exist, happy if they do, happy if they don’t, but the fairly aggressive beliefs of nearly all monotheistic people are really offensive to reason and good will as I understand them.

    Although nothing could beat an actual physical manifestation, serve me up some proof of your deity’s existence and I’ll be down the front headbanging (or whatever it is you do at your odd social gatherings) with the best of them. Humble minds think you can’t…

    Where did you get this term “New Atheist” from and how do new atheists differ from the old ones?

    Why does it even matter what Jesus’ last words might have been? Accepting for the sake of argument that the bloke actually existed, he was just another normal human being being used and manipulated by various stakeholders and there have been many of them over the years since then.

  • Ruvy

    Irene, I reject your assertion that I have been arrogant in any way with regard to the faithist divide.

    Chris, you just made my day. I can’t stop laughing. If I keep laughing like this, I’m liable to get my cough (from chronic bronchiolitis) back.

    My wife, who hears how I have to deal with you, has her own opinions with respect to your arrogance. But, I’ll let her speak for herself, if she really wants to.

    I have to catch a bus to go to Jerusalem to shop for the Sabbath, so I can’t stay and chat.

  • Kevin

    Chris,

    You talk about ‘faithist babble’, and ‘cult’. Certainly you are making some assumptions there.

    I never said I was part of a ‘faithist’ movement, or even in a ‘cult’.

    I guess you can’t read in-between lines, so I’ll just ask: do you believe in God?

    I thought I’ve answered all your questions, but just ask me about what you need to know. I’ll answer so you can understand.

    Please don’t tell me that you ‘assume’ that ‘faithists’ always turn to abuse, or that I don’t know the definition of evidence.

    We hope you come around sooner than later.

  • Kevin

    Jordan,

    Interesting you say ‘condescending rhetoric’ when you use a dictionary from the internet, and I used Thorndike-Barnhart sitting right here in my residence.

    Go figure…

  • Jordan Richardson

    I get that you’re ducking the actual content of the questions thrown your way, Kevin, but I don’t understand what one’s dictionary source has to do with being “condescending.”

    I have been hard-pressed to find a dictionary definition using any source that matches what you’ve come up with, but I’m not convinced that the definitions are the point. I think you know what the point is, but you’d rather attempt to sidetrack people.

  • Kevin

    Dillon,

    Just what ‘leap’ have I made that you don’t like? Are you saying that the 2000 year-old history book I mentioned is a lie, a fabrication?

    Actually, Jesus’ last words were easy: “And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” [Matt. 28:20]

    You knew all that, right?

  • Kevin

    Jordan,

    Do you have access to a T-B dictionary? Do you have access to any dictionary other than the internet?

    You’ll have to let me now what part of what I said was ‘condescending’ as well. In fact, do you even know what the point is?

  • Jordan Richardson

    Kevin, if I have to point out what’s condescending about your comments, I’m afraid there’s really nothing to hope for out of this exchange. I’m sorry that you can’t discuss this with even the slightest modicum of civility.

    In terms of dictionaries, I’d suggest you get with the times. With Merriam-Webster, the Cambridge Dictionary, Webster’s, and so forth all having online versions, your position on the exceptional veracity of the “print dictionaries” could use a little polish.

  • Dillon Mawler

    Kevin,
    The leap you made is, again, “The amazing assumption that anyone who doesn’t believe in gods must not believe in anything at all.” These are the words right before my question “Can you explain why you made this leap.” I cannot imagine anyone misunderstanding.

    So, why did you make this leap, that anyone who doesn’t believe in gods must not believe in anything at all?

  • Jordan Richardson

    He’s not misunderstanding in the least, Dillon. Like so many others around here who can’t admit to being wrong once in a while, Kevin is stalling for time.

  • Kevin

    Jordan,

    It’s unfortunate that you can’t point anything out about my threads that is ‘condescending’. How about anything that I said that was ‘uncivil’?

    I wonder how many of those online dictionaries you’ve ever accessed? What evidence do you have that the second definition that T-B has for “assumption” is incorrect?

    It’s too bad you don’t like print dictionaries.

  • Jordan Richardson

    It’s unfortunate that you can’t point anything out about my threads that is ‘condescending’. How about anything that I said that was ‘uncivil’?

    For the sake of brevity and because it’s entirely irrelevant, I’ll withdraw both statements. You weren’t condescending and you weren’t uncivil. I apologize for misreading you.

    In terms of “how many” online dictionaries there are that I’ve accessed, I have to say that I don’t understand the relevancy of the question. Are you suggesting that dictionaries differ in their basic definitions of English words to such a great degree that they would contain vastly disparate information from source to source?

    I didn’t suggest that the definition you provided for “assumption” was incorrect, though. In fact, what I specifically said was “I’ll overlook that…”

    In my initial post on this thread lies my point:

    Faith, it seems to me, supposes the existence of a deity or set of deities or whatever without proof. In other words, it is taken for granted that deity or deities exist because it cannot be taken for fact that deity or deities exist.

    If it helps, Kevin, you can remove everything surrounding the above portion – dictionary definitions you may or may not agree with and everything else.

    In terms of print dictionaries, I can’t say that I have an opinion. If a source helps me define a word properly, I tend to use it regardless of medium. I see no sensible reason to doubt the veracity of print or online dictionaries.

    Perhaps next you’ll want to debate the difference between digital clocks and traditional hand-wound mechanisms.

  • Kevin

    Dillon,

    You’ll have to let me know what #thread I used those exact words, because I can’t find them.

    I know what you quoted is incorrect, because I would not fail to capitalize “God”. And we were discussing the belief in deities at the time. Why could you never say you did or didn’t believe in God? There was no assumption made.

    All you had to do is say what you believe in.

    “in gods” were your words, not mine. There’s no ‘leap’. We were discussing God. If you don’t believe, just say so.

    It’s funny Jordan is talking about ‘stalling for time’, when the ones doing that never answer the initial question.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Kevin,

    The tap-dancing might work over at NolanChart.com where you can pen articles that “debunk” global warming science and “prove God,” but I’m having difficulty swallowing anything you say when your interest lies only in the peripherals.

    It’s classic apologetics to think that you can “disprove” an argument by attacking the surrounding and often unrelated concepts. You are attempting to “discredit” the speaker by veering off on all sorts of tangents and stalling techniques about “exact wording” and so forth when you know that the issues remain beneath your subterfuge.

    You do this so that you can hold your head up high and think you’ve won someone when all you’ve done is exhausted your “competition.”

  • Kevin

    Jordan,

    You never replied to my statement about evidence I had for my previous statements. Evidence found in a 2000 year-old history book, that many Americans already own.

    And yes, there are differences in online and print dictionaries. Of the many, “torture” is regularly defined differently in online dictionaries than print dictionaries. There are, of course, other miss-defined words as well.

    I’m sure you understand what I mean…

  • Dillon Mawler

    Kevin:
    You are clearly just bullshitting everyone here, pretending not to understand, then pretending I’ve misquoted you when I haven’t even quoted you.

    This is not conducting intellectually honest discussion.

    For the record, you wrote, to Chris, “It must be difficult dealing with life when you have no beliefs.” My paraphrase was “not believing in anything at all.” The charge remains incredibly stupid no matter how expressed.

    I certainly won’t bother anymore, as it is a pure waste of time to argue with a dishonest person. Enjoy your continued willful ignorance of others’ points of view.

  • Jordan Richardson

    You never replied to my statement about evidence I had for my previous statements. Evidence found in a 2000 year-old history book, that many Americans already own.

    Kevin, I enter the conversation in #96.

    Virtually every word you have written to me since then has been either about whether or not you’re “condescending” or whether or not I used the right dictionary.

    So, with all due respect, what “statement” of yours is it that I should be replying to with respect to what I’ve put to you?

    Of the many, “torture” is regularly defined differently in online dictionaries than print dictionaries.

    Interesting. I hadn’t heard that.

    In the case of Webster’s dictionary, for instance, you can actually search the 1828, 1913, 1961, and current print versions online. There is, according to Webster’s, literally no discrepancy in versions.

    Ditto for the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, which is also available in CD-ROM format and as an iPhone app. There is literally no discrepancy in versions as they come from the same source text.

    There may be differences from dictionary to dictionary, but the differences between one dictionary’s online reference and the same dictionary’s print reference is non-existent.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    The Bible is not, nor was ever intended to be, a history book and to use it as such in the face of vast quantities of documentary, historical, archaeological, geological, astronomical and physical evidence is the height of foolishness.

  • Kevin

    Dillon,

    Wow, decided to leave after you could not respond or answer any questions. I’m not surprised.

    How could I be pretending to do something, when you just won’t answer any questions?

    When did I ‘charge’ someone with anything?? Do you make this much sense all the time?

    Hey, that’s the first time I’ve been called ‘dishonest’ by asking questions.

    We hope God has mercy on your soul. Sooner, of course, than later. Let me know if you need anything…

  • Kevin

    Jordan,

    You’re twisting my words. I’ve seen it many times before.

    You used the word ‘condescending’ when you were referring to me (thread #96).

    You discussed evidence, from which I discussed the 2000 year-old history book which is something not taken from just faith.

    I’m getting the “torture” definition from the print version of T-B copyrighted in 1979. Merriam-Webster (on-line) is what I’m referred to when I try to get T-B online.

    Evidently you can’t access T-B from 1979, but I assure you it says exactly what I said it did.

    It seems that online dictionaries also include pain thought to be in the mind from ‘torture’. It also seems that online dictionaries have different definitions of torture included, so yeas, definitions have changed over the years.

    It’s too bad you can’t access how things were actually defined in the late 70s, and earlier.

    Maybe you just don’t notice that any reply to you comes directly from your preceding comment to me. Nothing is made up. You just respond to how you want to respond, and leave many things out.

    We hope you will respond correctly in the future.

    We hope you have a good day!

  • Kevin

    Dreadful,

    The Bible was always meant to be a history book. Even the Romans acknowleged Jesus’ existence, even though back then they were sworn enemies of Jesus.

    Is there anything in your ‘vast’ quantities of evidence that says that Jesus didn’t exist?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena Irene Athena

    Chris Rose (#103) Where did you get this term “New Atheist” from and how do new atheists differ from the old ones?

    I understand the term was coined by the author of an article in Wired magazine. He describes those who, after reading best-selling authors Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris take their atheism to a new level, winning people over to their belief system by methods which are, intentionally, as aggressive, and perhaps, unintentionally, as offensive, as those employed by any faithist.

    Why does it even matter what Jesus’ last words might have been?
    It mattered to me because Dillon Mawr(#100) asked what they were. And Kevin, bless his heart, gave the right answer (#108), whereas I, for all my research, gave the wrong one.

    Just for the record, I don’t consider your remark(#103) about the curious activities at my “odd social gatherings” to be “arrogant.” I consider that to be a “bemused” remark. An example of an ARROGANT remark would be the reaction, by one scientist holding to this new brand of atheism, to the nomination of Dr. Francis Collins, a Christian, as director of U.S. National Institutes of Health: “I don’t want American science to be represented by a clown.”

    To provide information about what has transpired in New-Atheist/Non-Atheist relations SINCE that remark was made, and in continued appreciation of the brief refresher HTML tutorial you posted on another thread, Christopher:
    CLICK
    .

  • Jordan Richardson

    Kevin, who the hell is “we?”

    You used the word ‘condescending’ when you were referring to me (thread #96)

    Yes. Then I withdrew my remark and apologized. I assumed, apparently falsely, that you and I were beyond that.

    You discussed evidence, from which I discussed the 2000 year-old history book which is something not taken from just faith.

    No. What I said was that faith supposes the existence of a deity without proof. The “2000 year old history book,” of which I have the good sense not to debate with a madman, doesn’t supply “proof” of the existence of a deity. It supposes it into existence instantaneously and never looks back.

    As to dictionaries, definitions have changed over the years. That’s not what you were saying, however, and not what I was saying either. I fail to see the relevance of addressing this issue when you were discounting my use of “online dictionaries” as though they differ vastly from print sources. They do not.

    It’s too bad you can’t access how things were actually defined in the late 70s, and earlier.

    It’s too bad you appear to be stuck there.

    Maybe you just don’t notice that any reply to you comes directly from your preceding comment to me.

    No, I’m aware how the internet works.

    Nothing is made up.

    I don’t recall saying anything was “made up,” so I’m not sure what this is in reference to.

    You just respond to how you want to respond, and leave many things out.

    What have I left out? I expect at least a few examples, as you seem to believe that I’ve left “many things out.”

    I won’t harp on what I think you’ve “left out” because I’m frankly more fascinated with your haphazard approach to reasonable discourse. It’s far more entertaining to watch you twist yourself into knots than it is to read the same rehashed arguments from other apologetics novices.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Just to back on to what Irene’s said, Dawkins himself has used the term “new atheist” and “new atheism” a number of times. He even gave a talk entitled “The New Atheism” that can be seen quite readily with a simple search online.

    It more or less outlines the “propaganda war” that Dawkins and his contemporaries see themselves as participating in.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena Irene Athena

    Thanks, Jordan. The Wired magazine article to which I referred in #125, and have linked to many a-time, is actually credited with coining the term, by Wiki, the first source to come up in a simple search online. :) I’ll wait to hear from a person with time and interest to compare the copyright dates.

    I didn’t link to the Wired article THIS time, because my comment #125 was, actually, an attempt to EXCUSE myself from any propaganda war that might be brewing here. It was such a NICE comment,too…

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Faith is an existential concept, that of assumption or a premise a logical one. Two different language games. To equate the two is a form of reductionism conveying a basic misunderstanding of how the language works.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Kevin, the Bible is a book about humanity’s relationship with God. History books concern humanity’s relationship with itself.

    Although it contains books and passages that are accounts of events, most of the Bible is not by any means historical (e.g. the Psalms, the Proverbs, the Song of Solomon, the OT prophets, Job, Jonah, and the entirety of the NT with the exception of the synoptic Gospels and Acts).

    As far as proving Jesus’s non-existence, first of all I never claimed such a thing and second, you know as well as I do that one can’t prove a negative. On the contrary, considering that the world’s biggest religion is based on the man’s teachings, it would be rather odd if he hadn’t existed. (Lest you succumb to the temptation to gloat, the same goes for Buddha and Muhammad.)

    Granted that many biblical accounts are corroborated by other sources. However, events such as an entire army being swallowed by the sea, the walls of a city being destroyed by sound, the sun halting in its course, a despotic ruler slaughtering every baby in his kingdom, or the sky going black for hours in the middle of the day are extraordinary enough that one would expect other contemporary chroniclers to have remarked on them. Yet, nothing.

    Relying on the Bible as an article of faith is fine. Relying on it as history: not so much.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena Irene Athena

    Kevin, first it’s some tommy-rot about gayness being caused, not by a gene, but by birth control pills in the drinking water. What are you on about now? For which particular branch of Christianity do you claim to speak?

    I must admit, you pwnd me in the last words of Jesus’ contest, by quoting Jesus’ POST-resurrection words. I am not one to underestimate your cleverness. Speaking of resurrection, who the heck is mrs. menopause, and why do she and her ilk keep bringing this corpse of a thread back to life?

    And to Dr. Dreadful, about that comment, “you can’t prove a negative,” the non-existence of extra-Biblical primary sources MIGHT be considered a negative, might it not? Just sayin’.

    (Good to say hi to you again!)

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Irene, I haven’t read any of or have much interest in the new atheist work, hence my unfamiliarity with the term, but it gives me the impression that it is about as substantial as Tony Blair’s “New Labour” label, which was mostly bullshit.

    As to negatives, not only is next to impossible to prove one, fortunately it isn’t necessary either. It is up to those making particular assertions to back them up and make the case, not up to others to disprove them.

    Personally, despite not minding either way as to whether a deity exists, having read, but not understood why I should, the article you linked to, I am a bit more concerned by the notion of serving a “Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge”, which sounds pretty tyrannical to me.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Y’know, this article might have worried me…but yesterday I saw this article from Discovery.com showing that 99% of estrogen pollution comes not from the birth control pills…

    …but from poop.

    Untreated animal manure is the real culprit, said Amber Wise, Kacie O’Brien and Tracey Woodruff in the American Chemical Society’s Environmental Science and Technology journal.

    So I think this particular debate is over.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Good job, Glenn. Very interesting info.

  • Kevin

    Jordan,

    Merry Christmas to you!

    I’ll try and be a little more specific, to reduce the confusion.

    1) “WE” I refer to is those that read this thread but never comment.
    2) When you withdrew your comment about ‘condescending’ you apparently assumed in error.
    3) No, I didn’t say ‘proof’ in my comments on the 2000 year-old history book. I said “evidence”, which was present in the tens of thousands of people Jesus interacted with in the 3 years he was present in human form. Evidence in the form of multiplying the loaves, controlling the weather, knowing where to fish, curing lepers, restoring sight, curing the paralyzed, forgiving sins, raising Lazarus from the dead, rising from the dead Himself, and loads of other evidence.
    4)What does your assumption that you have an association with a ‘madman’ mean?
    5)I pointed out the difference between T-B (in 1979),and the online dictionaries you read relative to the word “torture”. You didn’t believe it although you have never read a print edition of T-B.
    6)You never seem to read the previous comment you made to me.
    7)You say you ‘don’t recall’ saying ‘made-up’. Have you read your previous comments?
    8)You’ve left out many things: a)Your belief in God, b)your belief in the Bible, c)whether you were really honest about apologizing earlier, d)there’s more if you want…

    I’m always open to reasonable discourse. Just stop ‘beating around the bush’ and say what you mean.

    I hope you have a good day!

  • Kevin

    Dread,

    The Bible is a history book about what happened in the late BC years all the way up to 33AD.

    Jesus was God who took human form. And the major religion of Catholicism is based on the man’s teachings AND God’s teachings who was one in the same person.

    The Bible is in fact historical. Maybe you just didn’t like the wording that was used in many of the books you quoted.

    You’re right about all Biblical accounts being corroborated by other sources. Does your concept of God limit your thinking? Who’s to say some of those events were not local? Who’s to say some of those events were not recorded by other chroniclers who just didn’t believe there was a God?

    Relying on the Bible as an article of faith IS fine. But not believing history is not believing many people’s account of what actually happened.

  • Kevin

    Irene,

    There is no gene that causes gayness. Have you ever checked your local lake for estrogen content?

    My religion is Catholicism.

    Jesus’ words after He was raised were still Jesus’ words.

    I have no idea who Mrs. Menopause is.

    You forget that Roman writings during Jesus’ time are considered extra-Biblical sources, where you’ll find accounts that Jesus did in fact live around 30AD.

  • Kevin

    Chris–If a deity existed, I’d be very concerned if I were you.

  • Kevin

    Glen,

    I know that cows don’t take birth control pills with estrogen, and many possible child-bearing women do. And most cow waste doesn’t end up in treatment facilities.

    I’m wondering how Discovery actually knows where the found estrogen comes from.

    I guess the ‘debate’ better begin again…

  • Jordan Richardson

    “WE” I refer to is those that read this thread but never comment.

    Fair enough, although how you propose to speak for them is beyond me.

    When you withdrew your comment about ‘condescending’ you apparently assumed in error.

    Yes. That’s what I said. I said I was wrong. Is there a reason to continue dragging this out or would you prefer I recant my faith-based assertion and side with the facts again?

    No, I didn’t say ‘proof’ in my comments on the 2000 year-old history book. I said “evidence”, which was present in the tens of thousands of people Jesus interacted with in the 3 years he was present in human form. Evidence in the form of multiplying the loaves, controlling the weather, knowing where to fish, curing lepers, restoring sight, curing the paralyzed, forgiving sins, raising Lazarus from the dead, rising from the dead Himself, and loads of other evidence.

    I’ll repeat myself: “The ‘2000 year old history book,’ of which I have the good sense not to debate with a madman, doesn’t supply “proof” of the existence of a deity. It supposes it into existence instantaneously and never looks back.”

    What does your assumption that you have an association with a ‘madman’ mean?

    It means I think you’re nuts.

    I pointed out the difference between T-B (in 1979),and the online dictionaries you read relative to the word “torture”. You didn’t believe it although you have never read a print edition of T-B.

    I don’t think you understand: I don’t care. I didn’t fail to believe your assertion; I said it was irrelevant.

    You never seem to read the previous comment you made to me.

    You continue to repeat this idea, but when pressed for proof you don’t come up with anything. You simply repeat the idea again, mentioning over and over again that I’m not reading something without telling me why you think that.

    This, to me, continues the idea that you’re simply arguing for the sake of it. You’re perpetuating a spin cycle to impress, perhaps, the “we” you think are following along at home. Hopefully “we” know what to do when “we” hear the chimes…

    You say you ‘don’t recall’ saying ‘made-up’. Have you read your previous comments?

    I didn’t ever say you made anything up, Kevin. I’ve just now read back through each of my comments on this thread and haven’t said anything of the sort. If you think I have, please point it out.

    You’ve left out many things: a)Your belief in God, b)your belief in the Bible, c)whether you were really honest about apologizing earlier, d)there’s more if you want…

    I didn’t leave any of that stuff out if you didn’t ask, Kevin. But in the spirit of that statement, I also apparently left out what my favourite movie is, what my favourite colour is, what my hair is doing right now, and what kind of soup my wife has just made me.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Just so I’m not accused of any omission:

    a. Not sure about my belief in God. There’s a good amount of doubt and uncertainty there. One thing I am sure about, however, is my increasingly level of discomfort about religion. I would say it’s fair to suggest that I currently despise it.

    b. Well, I’ve been to seminary and have been raised in the Christian church so my belief in the Bible has gone through stages based on the level of education. The more I’ve learned about it and read it, the more I’ve come to understand that it is a document of faith like no other. It is a remarkable book and an ugly one, just like the humans behind it.

    c. I was sincere in my apology before, yes.

    d. Okay.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    The Bible is a history book about what happened in the late BC years all the way up to 33AD.

    Where’s the history in Psalms, Proverbs, Corinthians, Revelation…?

    The Bible is in fact historical.

    So is the Declaration of Independence. That doesn’t make it a history book.

    Does your concept of God limit your thinking?

    Probably, though I hope not to a crippling extent. I have to say that yours clearly does.

    Who’s to say some of those events were not local? Who’s to say some of those events were not recorded by other chroniclers who just didn’t believe there was a God?

    Like I said, if the sky went dark in the middle of the day when no eclipse was predicted, and especially if it went dark for several hours when the longest possible eclipse is only a few minutes, it would be the sort of thing that people would want to record.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    If a deity existed, I’d be very concerned if I were you.

    Only if the deity happens to be the insecure type that subjects you to eternal torture for not believing in him.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Kevin,

    If a deity existed, I’d be very concerned if I were you.

    If a deity existed, you image it would be a macho asshole? That is hilarious!

    You imagine a deity has intelligence of a meathead. And would act like the most idiot mode of being for a HUMAN!

    How can you imagine a superior being would act like the stupidest human being??? Your deity is so insecure it requires praise and worship? Sounds like a deity whose mother deity didn’t love him enough. Perhaps he was made fun of in deity school and has some sort of complex.

    If a deity existed it would laugh its ass off at you.

    (Then again your deity did make the human race. *looks around at the sorry state of the world* Maybe you are right; he’s probably an imbecile.)

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    DrD owes me a beer. Okay, you were first. I guess I owe YOU a beer.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Kevin’s macho deity: “Damn you Chris for not believing in me. Huh? What do you mean you were a good guy and tried to do good. Fuck that! Where was your ‘I believe’ t-Shirt? Have you NO sense of what matters to a deity?”

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Cindy, this is exactly what I mean – although it’s almost certainly not what Kevin means – by one’s concept of God limiting one’s thinking.

    Kevin seems to be utterly incapable of conceiving that the nature of a deity – even a hypothetical deity – could differ in any way from the one described in the doctrine he, personally, subscribes to.

    Oh, and as it happens I have a beer right now. Let’s imagine that you bought it for me and we’re even. :-)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Q: Does your concept of God limit your thinking?

    A: Probably, though I hope not to a crippling extent. I have to say that yours clearly does.

    Think on this, though. Does it limit thinking if it comes at the culmination of thought rather than as the starting premise?

  • Kevin

    Jordan, Time to stay on track.

    a)even the president speaks for millions, although not for so many now
    b)there’s no “dragging out”; you brought it up again
    c)you ‘assume’ I am a ‘madman'; have you ever even met me?
    d)you are the one who said ‘it doesn’t supply PROOF of a deity'; I never said that–I said it provides info with evidence that is more than just belief that you defined
    e)just answer the question so we all know; “did you read the previous comment made to you by me?”
    f)you did say “made up”, Jordan; you tell me–what did I make up?
    g)I was careful to ask specific questions, Jordan; I didn’t ask you what your favorite movie or color was; my questions were listed
    h)what if there IS a God and you despise religion?
    i)what if the seminary you went to wasn’t the correct one?; Didn’t God instruct the apostles to start his Church?; Did God tell his apostles to start 14,250 churches?, there’s at least that many and they can’t all be right

    Please get back when you can, and have a Holy Christmas!

  • Kevin

    Dread,

    The history is in all the books you mention. When’s the last time you read them?

    The Declaration is a history book as well. It seems your definition of ‘history book’ is quite limited.

    How do you base my concept of God limiting my thinking?

    Like I said, if people didn’t realize that an eclipse was from God why would they record it? And if they did, are you in a position to obtain those documents, or are you just speaking ‘off the cuff’?

  • Kevin

    Dread,

    Didn’t anyone ever tell you? Hell is a million times worse than the accurate definition of torture.

  • Kevin

    Cindy,

    I guess nobody ever told you that God is of no particular gender. Jesus Christ was a male and God, but only because women were second class citizens at that backward time.

  • Kevin

    Roger,

    You’ll have to tell me exactly HOW believing in God limits my thinking.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    The history is in all the books you mention. When’s the last time you read them?

    I asked you where in those books it was. Care to cite chapter and verse?

    Unless you’re implying that my memory is faulty, I’m not sure what relevance the timeframe has. From my recollection, however, the Psalms are prayers; the Proverbs are moral lessons; Corinthians 1 and 2 are letters; and Revelation documents a vision of the end of time.

    The Declaration is a history book as well. It seems your definition of ‘history book’ is quite limited.

    Either that or yours is extravagantly broad.

    How do you base my concept of God limiting my thinking?

    Because your notion of the generic word deity, and how such a being would respond to Christopher Rose’s scepticism, is identical to the Catholic God. You seem unable even to conceive that a God could, even hypothetically, have a different nature.

    Like I said, if people didn’t realize that an eclipse was from God why would they record it?

    Are you seriously suggesting that it was a prerequisite in the BC period that something had to be from God in order to be recorded? How, then, was a Babylonian merchant supposed to remember how much he had paid for the consignment of sheepskins he’d bought last month?

    And if they did, are you in a position to obtain those documents, or are you just speaking ‘off the cuff’?

    My whole point is that there are no such documents.

    Didn’t anyone ever tell you? Hell is a million times worse than the accurate definition of torture.

    Which is not making your God look any less insecure, petty and vindictive…

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go and consult my geography book for somewhere to have lunch.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    I guess nobody ever told you that God is of no particular gender. Jesus Christ was a male and God, but only because women were second class citizens at that backward time.

    And 2000 years later, the Catholic Church still resists the idea of women priests because…?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Dreadful, not to piss on your parade because I’m more than happy to have Kevin in your good hands, but in all fairness, the Declaration of the Independence would count as a historical source. In fact, my intro to history of Western Civilization, college level, consisted of reading the sources along with “the textbook.”

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Roger, I’m not disputing that either the Bible or the Declaration of Independence are historical sources. They were not, however, written as history books.

    Almost any document, from an old holiday postcard to Dickens’s Pickwick Papers to Winthrop’s Model of Christian Charity to the Magna Carta, can tell you something about history. That doesn’t make them histories in and of themselves, which is what Kevin is claiming of the Bible.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Fair point. Kevin, though, is not alone. The Jewish people, for example, view the Old Testament as a narrative telling of God’s intervention in shaping the history of Israel. Whether it measures up to what we consider history and our criteria is another matter. But if history, loosely speaking, is a narrative, then the Old Testament to the Jews who believe is history. The critical difference is, their spiritual history admits of the supernatural – namely their God as the chief agent, whereas ours does not. I would, however, make a break here and say that the New Testament doesn’t have that kind of status: it’s not concerned with the salvation of a people but with individuals.

    But perhaps Ruvy should be most qualified to address the Jewish point of view.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    I guess nobody ever told you that God is of no particular gender.

    You mean if someone told me that I should believe them? How would they know? For that mater, how do you know?

    No one had to tell me Kevin. Men have designed the society we have. Men have been in control for thousands of years. It is pretty clear that god would have to be either a man or a genderless being. And a genderless being would have wiped out most male humans as a favor to the rest of the life forms on the planet by now. That leaves god as a male.

    Besides, didn’t Jesus say god was his father? Who knows maybe god had a sex change operation and if the bible were written now, he be jesus’ mother.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Oh forgot my last point.

    If god were a female she would have to be the devil to create this world like it is. Can’t have god being a devil, can we?

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Now that I think of it, this world is like a hamster cage in some kid’s room that no one ever takes care of because they are too busy playing nintendo. Therefore, god is most likely a kid. (chances are he could be a drunk or just an altogether irresponsible or mean adult, but I think a kid seems most reasonable.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Kid god to mom god: “I think I will go try creating another of those world’s that we got at a discount because they were returned.”

    10,000 years later, here we are sitting in a jar full of universe’s on a dresser…

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    The apostrophe poltergeist got me, twice…

  • Jordan Richardson

    Jordan, Time to stay on track

    I’m only answering your questions, Kevin. It’s your show, so don’t blame me if you think we’re “off track.”

    even the president speaks for millions, although not for so many now

    Not sure what this is in reference to.

    there’s no “dragging out”; you brought it up again

    Wrong. You pressed me about the sincerity of my apology. I apologized and withdrew my comments in #114. You brought them up again in #122. I apologized AGAIN in #125. You brought it up again in #134, twice actually.

    you ‘assume’ I am a ‘madman'; have you ever even met me?

    No, that’s why it’s an assumption. Based on your behaviour in these comments and your odd obsessions with dictionaries and irrelevant details, my assumption has some significance and even some evidence. It can and may be wrong, however, because I can’t prove it. As such, it’s a faith-based assertion.

    you are the one who said ‘it doesn’t supply PROOF of a deity'; I never said that

    I didn’t say YOU said that, Kevin.

    I said it provides info with evidence that is more than just belief that you defined

    I know what you said. It still doesn’t prove the existence of a deity, however. If it did, you wouldn’t need faith to believe in God. It would be a foregone conclusion.

    “did you read the previous comment made to you by me?”

    Yes. I’ve answered every bit of it, whether you like it or not.

    you did say “made up”, Jordan; you tell me–what did I make up?

    I didn’t say that, Kevin. It doesn’t appear in any of my posts to you, so I can’t answer to something that hasn’t happened. If you (or “we”) can show me where this statement occurred, maybe I can help you out. If you can only repeat your incorrect claims, however, I’m going to have no choice but to ignore you.

    I was careful to ask specific questions, Jordan; I didn’t ask you what your favorite movie or color was; my questions were listed

    I don’t know what this has to do with anything. I answered your listed questions and didn’t answer questions you didn’t ask.

    what if there IS a God and you despise religion?

    I don’t know, what if there is? Do you think a deity would “appreciate” my hedging my bets by hoping I’ve picked the right religion more than an honest, intellectual existence spent serving others? If a deity is all about picking the right team, I’m not interesting in a life of servitude to such an arrogant thing.

    what if the seminary you went to wasn’t the correct one?

    The correct one in terms of what? I’m convinced it wasn’t the place for me, which is why I left. But it was an educational experience.

    there’s at least that many and they can’t all be right

    It seems absurd that just ONE of the millions of potential ways to hold faith can be “right” before an all-knowing, all-seeing, loving, compassionate God. This notion is an invention of human religion, Kevin, and why I despise it. We’ve created a bureaucracy between us and whatever MAY be out there and now we’re climbing over one each other, often violently, trying to prove or assert our human rightness. This, to me, is obscene. Religion really does poison everything.

  • Father Mackenzie

    Not Kevin causing strife again … tut, tut Kev.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena Irene Athena

    Kevin. Are you positively CERTAIN you’re a Catholic? where did #151 come from? “God is of no particular gender.”

    So why did Jesus (who did NOT consider women second class citizens, for example, Mary Magdalene was the first person to whom he appeared after he came out of the grave.)

    Now, if God were not male, why would Jesus have instructed his followers to pray: “Our FATHER, which is in Heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
    Give us this day, our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory. Amen.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena Irene Athena

    And please hold off on the “you mean he has a penis” comments I imagine some might be wanting to ask. There is more to gender than “parts.” There is a SPIRITUAL aspect to being male, and a SPIRITUAL aspect to being female. Some of the Eastern religions have retained this ancient truth.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena Irene Athena

    Kevin, Handel’s Messiah, (in the Hallelujah Chorus)

    For to us a child is born, to us a son is given,
    And the government will be on his shoulders.
    And he will be called
    Wonderful Counselor,
    Mighty God,
    EVERLASTING FATHER,
    Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6

    This is prophetic of Jesus, who is of the same everlasting substance as the God the Father:

    If you are a Catholic, Kevin,
    We believe in one God, the FATHER, the Almighty
    maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
    the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light,
    true God from true God, begotten, not made,
    ONE IN BEING WITH THE FATHER.”

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena Irene Athena

    I’m arguing with your claim that you are Catholic, Kevin. I’m not interested in arguing about religion with you. I just have concerns that we may all be thinking you are one thing, when in fact, you are another.

    I’m not a Catholic, but I do know what Catholics believe.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Irene – “forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors”.

    Huh, since when did that get in there?

  • Ruvy

    Irene,

    It’s always fun, watching you Christians distort our books to attempt to arrive at your “truths”. It is one of the things that really pisses me off about Christianity. In the Tana”kh, HASHEM is referred to with both male and female genders – but the key point is that Hebrew (like Aramaic and most other Semitic languages) has only two genders – male and female. Male is the overwhelming gender because it is the DEFAULT gender of the language.

    Now let’s try an honest translation of the Tana”kh.

    For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us, and the dominion shall rest on his shoulder; the Wondrous Advisor, Mighty G-d, Eternal Father, called his name sar shalom (Prince of Peace); [Isaiah 9:5].

    The term “prince of peace” refers to King Hezekiah of Judah. Sorry Irene, no cigar….

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Chris @ #169:

    It’s a modern translation of the “forgive us our trespasses” line.

  • Kevin

    All–This is too good to be true! I’ll be gone for a couple days, but I’ll be baaaack…..

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    [dramatic chords]

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena irene athena

    Dr. Dreadful, yes, and [lots] of them.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena irene athena

    ZingZing and Handyguy suspected that you were here to pull Liberal Leg, Kevin.

    Or, perhaps you’re playing Ugly Christian to reinforce the meme that all Christians are hellfire and brimstone gay-hating morons, because the Christian Right is an obstacle to gay marriage.

    From October 2009, upthread.
    73 handyguy The “Kevin” in the comments section argues and writes like an 11-year-old. [Actually, that is somewhat unfair — to most 11-year-olds.] Could all us liberals be falling for some kind of hoax here?
    74 ZingZing tis a possibility.
    76 Keven Zing–why do you make that assumption? Oh, I’m sorry. You’ve made so many before, why not a few more
    77 ZingZing what assumption? that there’s a possibility this is a joke?

  • Kevin

    Dread,

    Certainly you must realize tht history is a “story or record of important events that happened to a person or nation”. I think that Corinthians, Psalms, Proverbs, and Revelations are just tips of the iceberg. Can you refute the definition, or say that they don’t contain info on important events?

  • Kevin

    Dread,

    Please don’t be so one sided in your thoughts. God decided that women had certain superior qualities and so did men.

    Did you forget that the most important saint is a woman? Or maybe you forgot it was a woman who saw him first after being raised.

  • Kevin

    Jordan,

    Your ability to change the subject astounds me. I asked many questions. You answered few of them. Go back and check the links.

    Your comments on religion are very off-base. None of the events you describe are God’s doing. They are all man’s.

  • Kevin

    Father Mackenzie,`

    Are you a Catholic priest? Tut, tut, I thought not…

  • Kevin

    Dread,

    The Bible is a history book of it’s time.

    You probably need to check the accuracy of your statements again.

  • Kevin

    Irene,

    Of course God had to be a gender when living on this earth. But in heaven, He likely has no gender. Or do you know something differently?

  • Kevin

    Irene,

    Do you really understand the Creed?!? And where did you ever get that last phrase on the Our Father???

  • Kevin

    Irene,

    I’m afraid you don’t know what Catholics believe. If you did, you’d be one.

    If you really want the truth, it can be given to you…

  • Kevin

    Ruvy,

    I see you’re distorting Christianity again. How unfortunate…

  • Kevin

    Irene,

    I’m afraid the ‘liberal leg’ has been off long before I got on this thread. Didn’t anyone ever tell you that ‘liberal’ and Catholic don’t mix?

    Has gay marriage ever been something that was a given, knowing, of course, that no children can come of it…

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Kevin –

    I’m afraid you don’t know what Catholics believe. If you did, you’d be one.

    If you knew history, you wouldn’t be a Catholic, and here’s why in a nutshell:

    (1) In his Histories, Herodotus (the first of Western Civilization’s great historians) noted how the priests of Baal would have chaste women remain at the temple just in case Baal wanted to show up and ‘take his pleasure’…in other words, using them as his ‘wives’. You well know that part of becoming a nun is a ‘marriage’ to Christ.

    (2) In the ‘Babylonia’ entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia (see newadvent.com), it states that Baal was part of a ‘Trinity’. Note that this is in the original Catholic Encyclopedia (which had the imprimatur of an archbishop), but not in the New Catholic Encyclopedia.

    (3) Catholics correctly believe that the Hebrews did not worship a trinity before the advent of Christ…but what they don’t realize is that every ancient nation and culture from the Indus to the western Mediterranean worshiped a trinity of one sort or another (as part of their respective pantheons)

    …except for the Hebrews.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Kevin, I haven’t missed a single question you’ve asked. You’re simply deflecting your own evasiveness on to me. There are no links to check, either.

    Also, religious is man’s creation as I’ve said extensively now.

    The rest of your commentary to other posters here is as absurd and vile as is to be expected from someone as deluded, arrogant and deceitful as you. Have fun.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    He won’t leave you alone, Jordan, and you know it.

  • Kevin

    Glenn,

    Certainly, you can do a better job with history than that.

    Herodotus was only around from 484 to 425 BC. He knew nothing of Catholicism, since Catholicism was first started in 33AD.

    There are no Catholic priests of ‘Baal’. A clover leaf is a part of a ‘trinity’, but that has nothing to do with God.

    You know Christ was the God because no one was ever able to rise from the dead, before or after.

    Very conclusive evidence that no one can argue with…

  • Kevin

    Jordan,

    Remember, never talk about one of my questions. It might alert someone that what you’re saying could be wrong. Heaven forbid…

  • Kevin

    Roger,

    Easy way for me to leave Jordan alone. For him to say anything I’ve said is right…

  • Jordan Richardson

    I know that, Roger. This isn’t about theology for Kevin; it’s about dick-waving.

  • El Bicho

    Kevin, do yourself and your a religion a favor and shut up. You do both a disservice because you are unaware of your ignorance

  • Kevin

    Jordan,

    Ahhhh; I guess you didn’t check out #134 either with a bunch of questions I had. You need not respond. It’s tough when you’re caught in a red-handed lie.

    Hey, have a good Christmas and a Holy New Year!! We hope for a 180o turnaround. It’s happened many times before. If it does, we’ll be very good friends in heaven!

  • Kevin

    Bicho,

    Why does my ‘ignorance’ tell me I’m doing the right thing?!?

    I hope you have a Holy Christmas, Bicho! You will, won’t you???

  • zingzing

    194: read 139, mr. red-hands.

    195: ignorance would tell you you’re “doing the right thing,” but it would be wrong.

  • Kevin

    Zing,

    Wow, you must be reading only things you want to read also! #139 did not answer ANY questions I asked in #134.

    Better luck next time!

    Sure, ‘ignorance’ could be wrong about me saying “I was doing the right thing”. But then I thought, what if ‘ignorance’ was just incorrect and just someone’s conjecture?

  • zingzing

    139 was a direct response. maybe it wasn’t the “answer” you wanted to hear, but like it or not, it’s what you get. to be fair, you only asked two questions in 134, and they are both answered directly by jordan in 139. if you don’t see that, i don’t know what to tell you.

    “then I thought, what if ‘ignorance’ was just incorrect and just someone’s conjecture?”

    fair enough, but you certainly do have a strange, fucked up view of reality and history. if it’s not ignorance, it’s insanity.

  • Kevin

    Zing,

    No, #139 was not a response to any question I asked him.

    Now I can’t believe you’re making other ‘assumptions’ about my view of reality and history.

    Who died and made you the ‘purveyor’ of what someone’s view of reality and history should be?!?

    Have you smoked a joint lately? Maybe you shouldn’t answer that…

  • zingzing

    alright, kevin. see things how you want to see them… but 139 is most certainly a point-by-point response to 134. what do you see in 139? (i’m really curious, because it looks to me like jordan copy and pasted your numbered points and responded to each in turn. he then used 140 to make sure his answer to you was complete.)

    “Who died and made you the ‘purveyor’ of what someone’s view of reality and history should be?!?”

    i only have my view. and in my view, your view is strange and fucked up. fair enough?

    “Have you smoked a joint lately? Maybe you shouldn’t answer that…”

    good for you on making assumptions. and no, i haven’t. don’t like that stuff these days.

  • Kevin

    Zing,

    Sorry. No point by point. You need to look at question #’s 3-8 again.

    I guess having your view is OK. Should we talk next on what my opinion of your view is?

    Ah, no. No assumptions were made. You ‘assumed I made an assumption. I simply asked a question.

    But from your answer, am I to think that just because ‘you don’t like the stuff these days’, that you didn’t like the stuff in earlier days? Did you ever try it?

    A question again-for those hard of understanding…

  • zingzing

    jordan responds to 3-8 as well as the rest of them. do you not see that? you must admit he responds to your points. but what about his responses fail to satisfy you?

    “Did you ever try it?”

    that and nearly everything else under the sun.

    “Should we talk next on what my opinion of your view is?”

    pretty sure i can figure that out, but have a whack at it if it’ll make you feel good.

  • Jordan Richardson

    #139 did not answer ANY questions I asked in #134.

    These are not the droids you are looking for.

    For the record, Kevin, you only asked me TWO questions in #134. And I answered both of them:

    Q: What does your assumption that you have an association with a ‘madman’ mean?

    A: It means I think you’re nuts.

    Q: Have you read your previous comments?

    A: I’ve just now read back through each of my comments on this thread and haven’t said anything of the sort.

    Both questions were answered specifically, Kevin. Keep on going with the provocative twisting and turning, though. “We” are probably impressed.

    If you can point out ONE specific question I didn’t answer in #134, I’ll answer it.

    If all you can manage is more vague nonsense, you continue to do your faith a disservice by appearing as a shrill cartoon version of an arrogant, toothy apologetics student trying out his new bike. You’re the Bugs Bunny of your faith, Kevin, only you’re not entertaining and that’s not a carrot between your lips.

  • El Bicho

    I will not sit idly by and watch Bugs Bunny besmirched. Where do the spoiled brats run off to again?

  • Ruvy

    I can’t believe that over 200 comments have been wasted on this article. Kevin, you messed this article on pollution by trying to smear gays, and really screwed up in the comment thread with the same effort. That’s the bottom line here. All the rest is just bullshit. But you really ought to shut your trap about religion – ESPECIALLY YOUR OWN! You really do Catholics a disservice with your ignorance.

  • Kevin

    Jordan,

    It’s too bad you can’t spot and answer a question. In #134 and #148 many questions abound. But you give an incoherent response only to the two you see question marks behind?

    Anybody ever tell you to stop thinking ‘inside’ the box?

  • Kevin

    Ruvy,

    Still have the mindset that you’re still a schoolkid with something taken away from you? Keep thinking like that, and tell us how far you go…

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Kevin, I think most of us would be grateful if you started thinking inside the box…

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Kevin @ #177:

    My comment was in response to your theory that the reason Jesus was male was that women were second-class citizens in his day. Your implication was that this is no longer the case and that were Christ to appear on Earth today, it would be just as likely to be in female form as in male.

    Therefore, I repeat…

    “And 2000 years later, the Catholic Church still resists the idea of women priests because…?”

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Kevin,

    I do not and never have disputed with you that the Bible contains much historical information and is one of the most important historical sources we possess for that time period.

    But the distinction I am trying to make – which you don’t wish to acknowledge – is as follows:

    Churchill’s History of the English-Speaking Peoples is a history book. Its subject and primary focus is the story of the Anglosphere over the past couple of millennia.

    The Bible, by that measure, is no more a history book than the Yellow Pages is a geography book.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Kevin, you keep moving the goalposts to avoid having to deal with the real content of your beliefs. At first you point out that I didn’t “answer ANY” of the questions you asked in #134. When confronted with proof that I did, you now suggest you’re less than satisfied with the coherence of the answers and that I didn’t answer each question posed by you to me in this thread. Interesting.

    Fine. Let’s review. The next question you ask after the ones from #134 is:

    have you ever even met me?

    My answer is in comment #163:

    No, that’s why it’s an assumption.

    Your next question is:

    did you read the previous comment made to you by me?

    My answer is also in #163:

    Yes.

    Your next question is:

    what did I make up?

    My answer is also in #163:

    I didn’t say that, Kevin. It doesn’t appear in any of my posts to you, so I can’t answer to something that hasn’t happened. If you (or “we”) can show me where this statement occurred, maybe I can help you out.

    (Still waiting on that proof, by the way.)

    Your next question to me is:

    what if there IS a God and you despise religion?

    My answer is also in #163:

    I don’t know, what if there is? Do you think a deity would “appreciate” my hedging my bets by hoping I’ve picked the right religion more than an honest, intellectual existence spent serving others? If a deity is all about picking the right team, I’m not interesting in a life of servitude to such an arrogant thing.

    (You’ll notice in that particular answer some questions I posed to you. I’m still waiting on answers for those as well, but because I’m feeling the holiday spirit at the moment I’m okay with obliging your little game.)

    Your next question is:

    what if the seminary you went to wasn’t the correct one?

    My answer is in #163:

    The correct one in terms of what? I’m convinced it wasn’t the place for me, which is why I left. But it was an educational experience.

    (You’ll notice in that answer a request for some elaboration, which you didn’t answer. I answered to the best of my ability anyway, which I count as quite generous.)

    Those are the questions you’ve directed to me in this thread in the comments you’ve noted, Kevin. I can’t answer questions not put to me. I’ve also answered several of your statements and claims, but because you’re talking about questions specifically I find it only proper to recall them. A simple trip up the thread will confirm this if you doubt my account.

    A challenge: spot ONE question I’ve avoided and put it to me. I’ll recant on the spot and all of the personalities in your head (the ever-fascinating “we” awaiting me 180o turn to the cloth) can burn me at the stake.

  • Jordan Richardson

    In fact, Mr. Roeten, I’ll do you one better than that.

    Find a question put to me by you that I haven’t answered in this thread and I’ll tell all of your friends at Nolan Chart that you were right and I was wrong.

    Incidentally, perhaps when all of this ugliness wears off you can share some of your wisdom from such Roeten-penned Nolan Chart gems as:

    “Atheists Beware–A Bona Fide Reason for God”

    “Race does NOT need to be Discussed”

    “Oil Spill in Gulf could be Positive after All”

    “Genocide Happening with Democrat Vote”

    “Obama Health Care Equals Euthanasia”

    “Black Spot of the Crusades Actually Very Bright”

    And many more!

  • Kevin

    Jordan,

    Have you ever heard of answering a question other than just spouting what you want said?

    And what are your questions on ANY of the posts at Nolan Chart? I’d be more than happy to answer them.

    It’s too bad I never got any prompts from Blogcritics when you originally wrote those questions.

    Why don’t you try again without any feeble answers?

  • Kevin

    Dread,

    I see you’re reading ‘implications’ that you assume I made in a post.

    The Church still resists the idea of women priests because of several factors, most likely:

    1) all of the apostles that Jesus had were male
    2) God knew that the Word coming from a male mouth would most likely be believed more than from a female’s mouth.
    3) God likely had other ideas in mind by selecting only male priests. Unfortunately, I am not privy yet to most of those reasons.

    By no means are men any better than women. There are just things women are better at than men, and vice-versa. It seems God is much better at knowing a sex’s strong points and weak points.

    Churchill’s “History…” is not a history book in any school I know of. It probably contains some good info however.

    Unlike the Bible, it was not divinely revealed though…

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Kevin, it’s several months since I posted any comment on this thread, so I’m not sure what implications I was drawing, nor do I particularly care any more.

    It is true, though, that many other churches get along quite happily with female clergy.

    Churchill’s “History…” is not a history book in any school I know of.

    I’m sorry, I didn’t realize a book had to be a designated textbook in order to qualify. Silly me.

    Unlike the Bible, it was not divinely revealed though…

    How do you know?

  • Kevin

    Dread,

    #209 & #210. “Why no women priests?”. Easy to find out what implications you were drawing if you simply go back a few posts. Your memory can’t be that closed.

    Our church gets along quite well with any women serving in the church. Just not clergy. You never did say why Christ never assigned a woman to be a priest.

    Different jobs for different people.

    A book does not have to be a designated textbook to be labeled a history book. But it’s got to include necessary info. Not all books do. Churchill’s doesn’t have all the necessary info either.

    The Bible has all the necessary info for that time period. Unfortunately it is religious, and the erroneous ‘separation of church and state’ forces it NOT to be used in schools.

    Christ only was here to establish one Church. If He was God, which He was, it would have to be divinely inspired.

    How do you know it’s not if Christ WAS God?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    A book does not have to be a designated textbook to be labeled a history book. But it’s got to include necessary info. Not all books do. Churchill’s doesn’t have all the necessary info either.

    And what “necessary info” would that be? Churchill’s book is entitled A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, and that’s exactly what it is. I dread to think what “necessary info” you imagine is missing from it.

    The Bible has all the necessary info for that time period.

    OK. Using only the Bible as a source, please tell me the name of the Egyptian Pharaoh at the time of the Exodus, and the dates of the beginning and end of his reign.

    the erroneous ‘separation of church and state’

    No, the First Amendment decree that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” means exactly that, as inconvenient as that may be for you.

    But of course, inconvenient facts don’t worry you, do they, Kevin? Not when you can simply ignore them or flat-out deny them.

    If He was God, which He was, it would have to be divinely inspired.

    Circular reasoning. You’re basically saying, “I believe the Bible was divinely inspired because I believe it was divinely inspired”.

    You’re simply making a statement of faith. You can’t actually prove that it is any more than you can prove Churchill (or indeed any other book) isn’t.

  • Kevin

    Dread,

    Bottom line, no school district has decided to use Churchill’s book as a classroom study guide. It likely leaves out huge swaths of data necessary for a complete vision of what happened during that time. Since you are familiar with Churchill’s book, you likely know what is missing. According to your definition of a ‘history book’, discussion of any date before present would make it exactly that.

    If you are familiar with the Bible, you would know that the word ‘Pharaoh’ is not a personal name, but a title common to all the kings of Egypt. However, the name “Raamses” is used once in the Bible and is the pharaoh’s name. They didn’t use many dates back in the time Exodus was written, but you probably knew that. From the Bible, Raamses tenure was likely before 2000 BC. But you knew that too, didn’t you?

    No, you have the wrong interpretation of the 1st. Your statement merely points out that Congress shall make no national religious law. This Amendment protects all religions practiced in the States. It does not protect citizens from religion.

    I find it interesting how you never said that anyone of those pictures were from Greenland, or that you never would give a date involved. If they were from Greenland, they were likely from the 10 or so days that the southern coast is actually free from ice and frozen tundra, basking in maybe 50o weather?

    I don’t believe I ever used the term ‘circular reasoning’ or ever assumed what you did. I’m saying that if Christ was God, and He was, then the religion he started and the Bible he inspired was divinely inspired, and contains no errors.

    If you don’t actually believe He’s God, then you’ll scream for proof until the cows come home.

    I think you’re actually a closet Christian, or maybe even a Catholic-in-waiting!

  • zingzing

    “I find it interesting how you never said that anyone of those pictures were from Greenland, or that you never would give a date involved.”

    fantastic. he doesn’t need to say it’s greenland, kevin. it’s implied. and it’s obviously a picture from around 1500, given the airport.

    “If they were from Greenland, they were likely from the 10 or so days that the southern coast is actually free from ice and frozen tundra, basking in maybe 50o weather?”

    and in those 10 days, they built an airport and a town just for the hell of it, then they took their hairdryers to the surrounding hillsides and melted off all the extra snow.

    “They didn’t use many dates back in the time Exodus was written, but you probably knew that. From the Bible, Raamses tenure was likely before 2000 BC. But you knew that too, didn’t you?”

    i’m betting he did, as it’s the damn point. and there were two raamses who reigned in the 1200s. your “history” is very, very fuzzy, kevin. maybe you should read some other books.

    “I don’t believe I ever used the term ‘circular reasoning’…”

    you’re insane.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Bottom line, no school district has decided to use Churchill’s book as a classroom study guide […]
    It likely leaves out huge swaths of data necessary for a complete vision of what happened during that time.

    Kevin, you’re fixating on Churchill’s book as if it were something other than an example of a history book, which it is and the Bible and the Declaration of Independence aren’t (even though they are historical documents). I could just as easily have mentioned Spielvogel’s Western Civilization, which is another example of a history book and which is used as a classroom text (I studied from it myself).

    If you are familiar with the Bible, you would know that the word ‘Pharaoh’ is not a personal name, but a title common to all the kings of Egypt.

    Yes, I know that, Kevin. That’s why I asked you if you could tell me the name of the specific Pharaoh who reigned during the time of the Exodus. As I expected, you couldn’t, as we shall see.

    However, the name “Raamses” is used once in the Bible and is the pharaoh’s name.

    The mention of the name is in reference to a city, not a person. And although Exodus tells us that the city of Ra-amses was built in honor of the Pharaoh, we cannot assume from this that it was named after him. It could just as easily have been one of his ancestors – or his name could have been the other city that was built for him, Pi-Thom. (Ex. 1:9-11).

    They didn’t use many dates back in the time Exodus was written, but you probably knew that.

    Exactly.

    Now, let’s compare your ability to identify the Pharaoh of the Exodus using only the Bible to my ability to identify, say, the King of the Franks at the time of their conquest of Italy and the dates of his reign using only Spielvogel’s Western Civilization. Turns out I can quite easily determine that the ruler in question was Charlemagne and that he reigned from 768 to 814.

    No book can contain everything about its subject – and by the way, you’re holding Churchill to a far higher standard in that regard than the Bible… hypocrisy much? – but Spielvogel can at least give me reliable data about Charlemagne, which is more than the author of Exodus can about Pharaoh Whateverhisnamewas.

    Your statement merely points out that Congress shall make no national religious law. This Amendment protects all religions practiced in the States. It does not protect citizens from religion.

    What the First Amendment does is to protect religion from the government (and vice versa). How is that not separation of church and state? Jefferson and Madison, among many others wiser than we, certainly interpreted it that way.

    I find it interesting how you never said that anyone of those pictures were from Greenland, or that you never would give a date involved.

    What, the big red airplane in the middle of the picture with “Air Greenland” written on the side didn’t give you a clue?

    As was pointed out to you several times, you can quite easily check for yourself. You just don’t want to, because you know you’d be shown up as wrong.

    If they were from Greenland, they were likely from the 10 or so days that the southern coast is actually free from ice and frozen tundra, basking in maybe 50o weather?

    The photo on my previous comment is of the town of Kangerlussuaq, which is on the west coast of Greenland, just north of the Arctic Circle. Average daytime temperatures there are above freezing from mid-April to mid-September, and can get into the 60s in high summer.

    Significant areas of Greenland are ice-free: again, you can easily verify this for yourself.

    I’m saying that if Christ was God, and He was, then the religion he started and the Bible he inspired was divinely inspired, and contains no errors.

    How do you know about Christ, and that he was God?

    If you don’t actually believe He’s God, then you’ll scream for proof until the cows come home.

    I said nothing about my own religious beliefs. This in any case is not about that. It’s about your claim that your knowledge is fact-based, when in fact it is faith-based.

    Not saying there’s anything wrong with that, just that you shouldn’t make extravagant and unwarranted claims about historical accuracy.

    I think you’re actually a closet Christian, or maybe even a Catholic-in-waiting!

    Isn’t that simply what Christians/Catholics believe about all non-Christians/non-Catholics?

  • Kevin

    Dread,

    How could I be ‘fixating’ on Churchill’s book when YOU were the one that brought it up, and YOU were the one who called it a ‘history’ book. I just said it did not contain enough historical facts to be called a ‘history’ book.Then YOU brought it up again! Who’s fixating?!?

    If Churchill’s book was a ‘history’ book, why doesn’t anybody remember it? Same thing with Spielvogel.

    I talked about Raamses, but you thought it was only a city. The pharoah was also named that. Any evidence to the contrary? The ruler in question was NOT Charlemagne. I’m not even sure why you brought that up. I know Martin Luther joined the Friars in 1505. That the Peasant Rebellion in Germany was in 1524. That the 1st session of the Council of Trent opened in 1545. That the Turks attacked Malta in 1565. That Pope Clement started his reign in 1592. What of it? It doesn’t pertain to the history that I’m after. But Churchill’s book does it likely contain other historical facts of that time. Just admit you erred, or can you do that?

    It’s also not correct to hyphenate the cities of Raamses and Pithom. And there are errors in [Ex. 1 9-11] you mentioned. Oh wait, you’re getting that from some other bible version. Not a Catholic Bible–you know, the one they started writing in 167 AD, and still is printed today. The bible version you have was like written in 1517 AD, but probably much later. You know, they made so many unwarranted changes to those bible versions.

    Nothing here was assumed.

    Does Spielvogel or Churchill ever identify Raamsees (as the Pharaoh) or anything else that might have happened during the time of Exodus. I thought not. I’m not holding anything to a ‘standard’. You still haven’t told me what info in Churchill’s book qualifies it as a ‘history’ book.

    Now you’re interpreting what the 1st does! And you’ve interpreted what you think it does. Clue–just read it! You’ll have to show me where you’ve interpreted what Jefferson and Madison think. This is getting better all the time!

    A big red airplane in a picture tells me nothing. A few things it left out: 1) if the airplane is from Greenland, it flies to other places, right? 2) Kaangerlussuak is on the southern coast, right? 3) the average temperature in Kanngerlussak year-around was (0) in the daytime and (-10) at night. Yea, probably a lot of ice around, most of the year. Core samples reveal a 9o warmer temperature in Greenland back when Eric the Red was there (in the Medieval Warm Period). But CO2 never caused the MWP–but what did?? Wait, wait…areas of present Greenland were ice free for how many days???

    I know about Christ same as you. You know, the One who multiplied the loaves, cured the blind, instantaneously repaired a severed ear, cured many with leprosy, controlled the weather, raised from the dead, ascended to heaven, all that kind of stuff. I don’t recall anyone in history that did all those things–and said He WAS God. Do you?

    I made no claim to my belief that it was fact-based. However, one could say that, especially with the thousands of witnesses who saw Jesus’ miracles. That makes His record replete with historical accuracy. We all believe that a carbon molecule is the building block of thousands of other molecules. Nobody has actually seen a carbon molecule. We still believe it to be accurate though, and fact-based.

    Actually, my belief that you may be a closet-Christian is NOT what Christians believe about all non-Christians/non-Catholics. Maybe you’re special. You seem to know a lot about Christianity. You seem to have a well above-average IQ, and you know your way around the internet. You argue pretty well, even though the last post was pretty lame.

    Bottom line, you know where I’ve posted before. Those sites have allowed me to incorporate links. Links especially about GW, and my last article that they wouldn’t let me post in BlogCritics, that was posted on numerous other sites. Either you have not accessed those columns, not because you couldn’t, but because you didn’t want to. Or, you have accessed them, read the articles, and accessed the links, but didn’t say anything because you couldn’t disprove anything that was said.

    You tell me…

    We both have reams of data. Some of it is incorrect because of the conflicting information. You tell me–which data is more plausible?

  • Boeke

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    There are many many well known long term gay relationships, and I think it was Don Bachardy (or maybe Gore Vidal) who, when asked the secret to a longterm relationship said: “no sex!” Same as for a hetero relationship.

  • Kevin

    [Edited]

    Guess what? No sex is a good way to stop the human species in its tracks. Of course, that would theoretically work for hetero-relationships also.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    If Churchill’s book was a ‘history’ book, why doesn’t anybody remember it? Same thing with Spielvogel.

    What the heck are you talking about? Do you personally remember events related in the Bible? Or do you think nobody remembers the Churchill and Spielvogel books just because you’ve never heard of them?

    I talked about Raamses, but you thought it was only a city. The pharoah was also named that.

    The Bible never states the Pharaoh’s name. It’s often assumed that it was Raamses because of the name of the city, but the rulers of that name that we know about didn’t live at the period of the Exodus.

    Any evidence to the contrary?

    Mine isn’t the burden of proof, Kevin.

    You still haven’t told me what info in Churchill’s book qualifies it as a ‘history’ book.

    Perhaps the fact that it has the word “history” in the title?

    You’ll have to show me where you’ve interpreted what Jefferson and Madison think.

    You do set yourself up for it, don’t you, Kev?

    Jefferson, to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802: “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

    Madison, writing to Robert Walsh in 1819: “The Civil Govt, tho’ bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.”

    Kaangerlussuak is on the southern coast, right?

    No, as I said, it’s on the west coast. Just look it up on Google Maps (although the town is still marked for some reason by its original Danish name of Sondre Stromfjord). Set it to Satellite View, and you’ll even be able to see the greenness for yourself.

    I made no claim to my belief that it was fact-based. However, one could say that, especially with the thousands of witnesses who saw Jesus’ miracles. That makes His record replete with historical accuracy.

    The only place where makes the original claim that Jesus was God is made is the New Testament. The only place where the presence of all these eyewitnesses is recorded is also the New Testament.

    Imagine a prosecuting attorney cross-examining a pair of accused bank robbers:

    Attorney: Did you rob the bank?
    Robber 1: No.
    Attorney: Prove it!
    Robber 1 (pointing to Robber 2): Ask him!

    Do you see the problem with your reasoning?

    You may believe that the New Testament account is true. But without corroboration from other contemporary sources, you don’t have proof.

    Actually, my belief that you may be a closet-Christian is NOT what Christians believe about all non-Christians/non-Catholics.

    Christians believe that any non-Christian can be converted and “saved”, right? That’s what I meant.

    Maybe you’re special. You seem to know a lot about Christianity.

    And Luis Alvarez knew a lot about dinosaurs. That didn’t make him a Tyrannosaurus rex.

    Bottom line, you know where I’ve posted before. Those sites have allowed me to incorporate links. Links especially about GW, and my last article that they wouldn’t let me post in BlogCritics, that was posted on numerous other sites.

    You can’t assume that Blogcritics lets you post links in the same way as you could on other sites. It’s my understanding that the editor who reviewed your submission told you exactly what you needed to do to format them properly, yet you still didn’t do so.

    You couldn’t be deliberately submitting unpublishable articles to Blogritics so that you can claim you’re being censored when they’re declined, could you? Perish the thought…

    Or, you have accessed them, read the articles, and accessed the links, but didn’t say anything because you couldn’t disprove anything that was said.

    I have read one or two of your articles on NolanChart (and your subsequent responses to commenters), and found them to be as replete with fallacy, nonsense, foolishness and blatant dishonesty as your contributions here.

    I don’t have the energy or time to chase you all over the internet, however, so I choose to restrict myself to confronting you here, when the mood takes me.

  • Kevin

    Dread,

    Hey, get your head in the game. I never said “I personally remembered…”. I said nobody remembers the Churchill or Speilvogel books because they don’t contain enough history that the school system would even consider them history books.

    The Bible never states that Raamses was not the Pharoah’s name either. Your burden of proof, because you insist that it was not.

    Get real, Dread. A lot of books have the word Compendium in the title, but they would not necessarily be considered ‘compendiums’.

    ‘Supposition’ is something you always set yourself up for Dread. Jefferson wrote one letter to the Danbury Baptists. Thus theorizing that it may be good to set up a ‘wall’. What exactly did he mean by ‘wall’? Didn’t it sound like he opposed a national religion, but was all for religion guiding all American people? Then Madison wrote one letter to someone, and it was supposed to be the law of the land?? His opinion that the devotion of the people has been increased by the separation of Church and state? How do you know he wasn’t talking directly about what they had just come from—a national religion controlling laws in a country??

    Kaangerlussuak IS on the West coast. But it’s on the southern half of Greenland. Check the maps more carefully.

    Read my words from a very recent post. You never commented: “A big red airplane in a picture tells me nothing. A few things it left out: 1) if the airplane is from Greenland, it flies to other places, right? 2) Kaangerlussuak is on the southern coast, right? 3) the average temperature in Kanngerlussak year-around was (0) in the daytime and (-10) at night. Yea, probably a lot of ice around, most of the year. Core samples reveal a 9o warmer temperature in Greenland back when Eric the Red was there (in the Medieval Warm Period). But CO2 never caused the MWP–but what did?? Wait, wait…areas of present Greenland were ice free for how many days???”

    The New Testament is half the Bible. He didn’t live a human life until the New Testament. All those witnesses to Jesus Christ telling He was God IS in the New Testament. What, exactly, is your point?? You brought up another non-relevant analogy again. There were thousands of other contemporary sources, including Roman documents saying that Christ did walk the earth at that time, and that He was crucified. The proof exists alright. One has to be h-ll-bent on actually trying to come up with alleged proof that Christ didn’t actually exist. I wouldn’t put you in that category.

    Just remember, Christ gave they way to be saved. Many Christians believe that His death was the only thing that ‘saved’ us. Not true. One must be in a state of grace after having gone to confession to ensure that they are saved. We are attempting to convince you of that.

    Another meaningless analogy–if you want to call it that. But you’ve got to know about Christianity in order to live it. I don’t believe dinosaurs had a specific moral purpose for living, or to live.

    I have never assumed anything about ‘Blogcritics’. I guess the editor that told you about me submitting was wrong, because my second attempt was successful at incorporating links. They just didn’t like my content, so they wouldn’t publish. In post #223, a portion of my post was edited out. You wouldn’t have had anything to do with that, would you? You’re one of two comment editors, right?

    I wish I was submitting unpublishable articles to Blogcritics, but I never include anything that would be considered unpublishable. But they never tell me what is wrong in the first place.

    Did you ever access one of my links on NolanChart–ever? Did you ever go to any other website and access any of my links? We know you can get my e-mail from what I’ve sent into BlogCritics numerous times. We know you can access info from all of their posts. What is keeping you from doing that? No, I think you know they will have info that you just don’t want to believe. How unfortunate…

    I like your admission that you can get the info I provide, but you just don’t want to. How telling. Hey Dread, how’s your mood now?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    I said nobody remembers the Churchill or Speilvogel books because they don’t contain enough history that the school system would even consider them history books.

    You really are unbelievable. I told you that Spielvogel was an assigned textbook in one of my college history classes.

    The Bible never states that Raamses was not the Pharoah’s name either. Your burden of proof, because you insist that it was not.

    No, the burden of proof is yours. If you had asserted that the name of the person who led the Israelites out of Egypt was Moses, and I had said that it was not, then the burden would have been on me, because Exodus says that it was Moses and I would have needed to come up with evidence that it was in fact someone else.

    Exodus does not say what the name of the pharaoh was. You’re just assuming.

    And what were the dates of this pharaoh’s reign, by the way? You never did answer that with the help of your trusty history book…

    ‘Supposition’ is something you always set yourself up for Dread. Jefferson wrote one letter to the Danbury Baptists. Thus theorizing that it may be good to set up a ‘wall’. What exactly did he mean by ‘wall’? Didn’t it sound like he opposed a national religion, but was all for religion guiding all American people? Then Madison wrote one letter to someone, and it was supposed to be the law of the land?? His opinion that the devotion of the people has been increased by the separation of Church and state? How do you know he wasn’t talking directly about what they had just come from—a national religion controlling laws in a country??

    Jefferson and Madison may have taken it as read that religious devotion was beneficial to the people. They just didn’t want it having anything to do with government.

    And considering they both had a hand in writing it, I think they might have known a bit about the intent of the law.

    What’s your interpretation, then? What do you think the role of religion in public life should be, according to your interpretation of the First Amendment?

    Kaangerlussuak IS on the West coast. But it’s on the southern half of Greenland. Check the maps more carefully.

    Incredible. Absolutely incredible. I’ve never seen anyone go to such extremes of denial to avoid having to concede that they were wrong about a simple point (about there being bits of Greenland that are green).

    Since the rules have apparently now changed from “there’s nothing green in Greenland” to “there’s nothing green in northern Greenland“, here’s Thule Air Force Base in north-western Greenland, 700 miles above the Arctic Circle and one of the most northerly human settlements in the world. Blow me if there isn’t a lot of green there – and very little ice (unless they moved those icebergs in the distance out of the way so they could get a better photo).

    if the airplane is from Greenland, it flies to other places, right?

    Yes. But that is an Airbus A330, which is not designed to take off and land on ice. It needs a paved runway.

    There were thousands of other contemporary sources, including Roman documents saying that Christ did walk the earth at that time, and that He was crucified.

    Thousands? I know of a few, but most of them, like the gospels themselves, were written long after Christ’s death. And the provenance of several of them is suspect. Which ones did you have in mind?

    In post #223, a portion of my post was edited out. You wouldn’t have had anything to do with that, would you? You’re one of two comment editors, right?

    Yes, I am, but I never edit a conversation I’m involved in. I suggest you review the comments policy to determine whether there was anything you wrote in #223 which might have warranted an edit.

    I never include anything that would be considered unpublishable. But they never tell me what is wrong in the first place.

    Kevin, as an editor I get CCed on the e-mails sent to writers, so I know that Mr Sobel did advise you what needed to be done in order to render your article publishable. And remember that different websites have different editorial policies and standards, so what might be acceptable at NolanChart isn’t necessarily going to be so at Blogcritics.

    Did you ever access one of my links on NolanChart–ever?

    I just told you that I did. But your links don’t prove what you think they do. Your recent global warming articles, for example, make much of the effect of solar activity on Earth’s climate, which is well-known. They do precisely nothing to explain what is causing the current warming.

    Do you seriously think that climate scientists ignore the sun as a factor in climate? Yes, of course you do: you really are that dense.

    Hey Dread, how’s your mood now?

    Amused.

  • Kevin

    Dread,

    Your whole diatribe has been quite amusing! I think you are more unbelievable. We first started talking about Churchill’s book. Read my statement again, because you evidently glossed right over it: “Hey, get your head in the game. I never said “I personally remembered…”. I said nobody remembers the Churchill or Speilvogel books because they don’t contain enough history that the school system would even consider them history books.”

    It was the typical thing to do, to name the Pharoah after a great city or event back then. You knew that, didn’t you? You also just ‘assumed’ that I was ‘assuming’. It gets worse from here, doesn’t it Dread? And why would a history book of Jesus Christ give the dates of some obscure pharoah’s reign? Tag–it’s really your burden of proof.

    Now you know by one line of written words what Jefferson and Madison thought? It’s amazing if they both had a hand in writing the law, why there was nothing ever written in the law concerning separation of Church and state. I already told you how religion and state was connected in a prior post. You remember that, don’t you?

    Yes, you are incredible! A coast on the southern part of Greenland, and you refuse to call it anything but the west coast. Who’s in denial? The main point is (which you seemed to forget several times) is that: the average temperature in Kanngerlussuak year-around was (0o) in the daytime and (-10o) at night. Yea, probably a lot of ice around, most of the year. Core samples reveal a 9o warmer temperature in Greenland back when Eric the Red was there (in the Medieval Warm Period). Greenland is now like a frozen tundra.

    Wow, is this a major point of denial, or what?

    You even say the rules have changed, but whatever might be green in Greenland is only green for a few days at best. It changed because of the Medieval Warm Period–which had nothing to do with CO2, and everything to do with natural changes. How locked into a thinking ‘mode’ does one have to be to totally ignore facts?

    Sorry, but the plane you had pictured was no Airbus 330. What was your point again?

    Every witness to a resurrected Christ WAS a contemporary source. Few wrote the gospels except for the ones you are familiar with. Suspect prevenence?? You’ll have to let me know which ones were suspect and why to have that statement fly.

    There is nothing in #223 that should have been edited out. But you’re one of the Comment Editors. Surely you know why it happened, and what some of those alleged malicious words were. I wonder why you won’t tell me what they were?

    Like I said, you’re privy to those written conversations. I’m not. So surely you can tell me what I wrote that was so bad it all had to be deleted.

    No, you told me you accessed the column. Not that you actually accessed the link. You, of all people, know words mean things.Just what did Mr. Sobel advise me to do that I would not?? You tell me–what’s OK at NolanChart that’s not OK at BlogCritics? Do you really know?

    I told you what has caused past warming and past cooling. You would not listen. If you think we are in a warming trend right now, your sources are more limited than I thought.

    When did I ever say that “climate scientists ignore the sun as a factor in climate”?

    Think before you say.

    Just how long do you think you will stay amused?