Maazel/BRSO Bruckner Cycle - A Review
pgaron
from the Washington Post:
pgaron
M forever
Haas' edition of the 8th is not a "discredited pastiche". There are
some problems with it, but many great Bruckner conductors have chosen
it, and there are good reasons for that choice. One can make an
equally good case for choosing Nowak's edition, but Haas' version is
definitely not "discredited" even though the man was, after the war.
mark
As one who grew up on the Haas version of No 8, it frosts my balls to
see people taking shots at it. It that's a pastiche, then let's have
more of them.
Thornhill
Estren also says that only "some" conductors still favor Haas. I feel
like it's most, or at least many.
Recent recordings by Haitink, Nezet-Seguin, and Blomstedt, among
others, used Haas. And I heard Rattle conduct the Haas version two
years ago.
Bob Harper
I trust it will not surprise you, and hope it will not offend you, that
I am in total agreement with both of you. The extra bars in the slow
movement of the Haas Edition seem absolutely right, 'scholarship' be d----d.
Bob Harper
dw
The 8th, and Haas's work in general, has been attacked quite heavily
in academia, for example by Korstvedt. Whether one feels Haas's
edition of the 8th succeeds aesthetically is obviously a personal
decision. To my ears he completely ruins the slow movement, but YMMV.
David
dw
The Bruckner discography at http://www.abruckner.com/discography/symphony8incminor/
tells a different story.
I count 133 recorded performances of Haas (136 if one includes the
Furtwangler/Haas version), versus 157 of Nowak/1890.
However this is arguably unfair since it counts performances from
before the Nowak edition was published in 1953. If one counts only
performances since 1953 then Nowak is ahead 157-128.
What's more, more than half of those Haas performances come from just
five conductors: Asahina, Blomstedt, Haitink, Karajan and Wand. The
Nowak discography is less dominated by a few big names.
What does the future hold? Looking only at recorded performances
since 1990, Nowak is ahead 84-61. However, again the list of Haas
performances in this era are dominated by Asahina, Blomstedt, Haitink
and Wand.
On the theory that the Haas edition has remained popular mainly on the
basis of a small and dwindling band of conductors who championed it, I
tried counting performances since 1990, but excluding conductors who I
could determine were born before 1930. This shows 23 Haas
performances versus 65 Nowak performances.
It's clear that the sizeable majority of younger conductors prefer
Nowak.
Bob Harper
> It's clear that the sizeable majority of younger conductors prefer
> Nowak.
Do they *prefer* it, or are they intimidated by the prospect of academic
scribblers criticizing them for refusing to kowtow to the latest
'scholarship'? Imagine the sort of sniffs what would greet Beecham's, or
Szell's, or Jochum's Haydn these days to get a sense of what I mean. But
is anyone making recordings of Haydn symphonies today that convey the
greatness of that music as well as they do?
Bob Harper
John Wiser
[snip]
in message >
> Do they *prefer* it, or are they intimidated by the prospect of academic
> scribblers criticizing them for refusing to kowtow to the latest
> 'scholarship'? Imagine the sort of sniffs what would greet Beecham's, or
> Szell's, or Jochum's Haydn these days to get a sense of what I mean. But
> is anyone making recordings of Haydn symphonies today that convey the
> greatness of that music as well as they do?
>
Nobody here seems to be aware that Nowak's Bruckner is largely based
on HAAS. I'm sure that most Bruckner conductors well aware of this.
It's not a matter of performance materials, either, because both are readily
available.
There not much wrong with Szell's Haydn or Jochum's outside of a certain
aobriety, but Beecham's are painted hussies with all the authenticity
of one of his or Harty's Handel arrangements. That doesn't prevent them
from being quite a lot of fun so long as one keeps one's perspective.
The answer to your question is yes, perhaps not this week but not too
terribly
far in the past, Solomons, Hogwood, Pinnock, Harnoncourt, Adam Fischer
for starters. And then there are the pitifully few recordings of David Blum,
made for Vanguard more than forty years ago, which blew everybody away,
and prominently figured in the movement towards smaller orchestras for music
of this period. I have no doubt other winners will be along.
JDW
Thornhill
> On Feb 27, 9:07 pm, Thornhill <seth.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 2:18 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 27, 2:24 pm, pgaron <pga...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > A brief review of the new Maazel/BRSO Bruckner symphony recordings
> > > > from the Washington Post:
>
> > > >http://tinyurl.com/6chexy2
>
> > > > pgaron
>
> > > Haas' edition of the 8th is not a "discredited pastiche". There are
> > > some problems with it, but many great Bruckner conductors have chosen
> > > it, and there are good reasons for that choice. One can make an
> > > equally good case for choosing Nowak's edition, but Haas' version is
> > > definitely not "discredited" even though the man was, after the war.
>
> > Estren also says that only "some" conductors still favor Haas. I feel
> > like it's most, or at least many.
>
> > Recent recordings by Haitink, Nezet-Seguin, and Blomstedt, among
> > others, used Haas. And I heard Rattle conduct the Haas version two
> > years ago.
>
> tells a different story.
>
> I count 133 recorded performances of Haas (136 if one includes the
> Furtwangler/Haas version), versus 157 of Nowak/1890.
>
> However this is arguably unfair since it counts performances from
> before the Nowak edition was published in 1953. If one counts only
> performances since 1953 then Nowak is ahead 157-128.
>
> What's more, more than half of those Haas performances come from just
> five conductors: Asahina, Blomstedt, Haitink, Karajan and Wand. The
> Nowak discography is less dominated by a few big names.
>
> What does the future hold? Looking only at recorded performances
> since 1990, Nowak is ahead 84-61. However, again the list of Haas
> performances in this era are dominated by Asahina, Blomstedt, Haitink
> and Wand.
>
> On the theory that the Haas edition has remained popular mainly on the
> basis of a small and dwindling band of conductors who championed it, I
> tried counting performances since 1990, but excluding conductors who I
> could determine were born before 1930. This shows 23 Haas
> performances versus 65 Nowak performances.
>
> It's clear that the sizeable majority of younger conductors prefer
> Nowak.
I'm no expert on editions of the 8th, so I'm willing to concede to
whatever someone else says on this, but the numbers you cite are
dubious at best.
Most of the recordings are not commercial releases, but ones recorded
for radio and then later released to limited distribution or by pirate
labels like Antec Music. As a result, a few conductors dominate both
the Nowak (1890) and Hass lists. For instance, on the Nowak list,
there are 16 unique recordings by Celibidacheb released 40 different
times! And there are 14 unique versions by Maazel.
The lists for both editions also contains tons of duplications as a
result of the same live recording being released by different labels.
So let's look at just commercial recordings made in the last 20 years,
and not count conductors who made multiple recordings.
For Haas I count:
Takashi
Barenboim
Blomstedt
Boulez
Dohnanyi
Gielen
Haitink
Nagano
Nezet-Seguin
Thielemann
Wand
Nowak:
Chailly
Janowski
Lopez-Cobos
Maazel
Sinopoli
Sieghart
Skrowaczewski
Solti
Stenz
Welser-Moest
That shows a much more even split, with dead, young and old in both
camps.
Unless someone is going to audit concert programs from around the
world to see which version orchestras are playing, I don't see how
anyone can claim which version is the more widely performed.
dw
The fact that some conductors are still using Haas would seem to argue
against your "intimidation" theory.
In my opinion, a conductor should decide which edition to use on the
basis of musical, rather than scholarly, criteria. If someone likes
Haas's cut-and-paste slow movement, then he should perform it: this
holds even if it turns out that Haas created his edition by ripping up
and reassembling irreplaceable manuscripts while performing fascist
salutes.
David
mark
>
> The 8th, and Haas's work in general, has been attacked quite heavily
> in academia, for example by Korstvedt. Whether one feels Haas's
> edition of the 8th succeeds aesthetically is obviously a personal
> decision. To my ears he completely ruins the slow movement, but YMMV.
>
Maybe it depends on the performers.
The Haas third movement in Karajan's hands is a highlight of his
various performances. I often find myself wishing the movement
wouldn't end.
wkasimer
> Imagine the sort of sniffs what would greet Beecham's, or
> Szell's, or Jochum's Haydn these days to get a sense of what I mean. But
> is anyone making recordings of Haydn symphonies today that convey the
> greatness of that music as well as they do?
Norrington and Minkowski, just to mention two that have recorded the
London symphonies in the past couple of years, but I really don't care
much for the Haydn of either Beecham or Szell.
Bill
pianomaven
It doesn't, Mark.
TD
mark
> > The Haas third movement in Karajan's hands is a highlight of his
> > various performances. I often find myself wishing the movement
> > wouldn't end.
>
> It doesn't, Mark.
>
If only that were true.
pianomaven
Careful, Mark. If you listen to too much Bruckner you risk getting
close to God.
Remember the story of Icarus.
TD
John Wiser
news:9902afc4-ced6-424d...@k15g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
And she has poor personal hygiene.
JDW
dw
I guess this just shows that there's no accounting for taste. I can't
bear to listen to even a minute of Karajan's late VPO/DG recording, in
any movement. I've never tried any of his other recordings.
David
M forever
I don't think that has anything to do with your "ears" but more with
your silly prejudices expressed graphically by your contribution "even
if it turns out that Haas created his edition by ripping up and
reassembling irreplaceable manuscripts while performing fascist
salutes". Haas' unfortunate political activities are well known and he
paid the price for them, but that does not have anything to do with
the substance of his work. Nor did he "rip up" any of Bruckner's
manuscripts. Even if his insertion of some bars which he had
apparently "postulated" from Bruckner's earlier version and some
sketches for the revision is editorially questionable, his opinion
that Bruckner cut the work too heavily in his revision is not entirely
unfounded, and all the material he restored to the slow movement is
Bruckner's own and makes formal sense. It is good that we have both
versions so one can clearly see the differences and conductors can
choose, and there are as good musical reasons for why some continue to
prefer Haas' version as for why some decide to use Nowak's.
M forever
And why can't you "bear to listen even a minute" to it?
Bob Harper
Hear, hear. The 'fascist salute' crack was especially offensive.
Bob Harper
mark
> > The Haas third movement in Karajan's hands is a highlight of his
> > various performances. I often find myself wishing the movement
> > wouldn't end.
>
> I guess this just shows that there's no accounting for taste. I can't
> bear to listen to even a minute of Karajan's late VPO/DG recording, in
> any movement. I've never tried any of his other recordings.
>
My taste is impeccable, if I may be so modest. I make no apologies for
finding much, much pleasure in Karajan's Bruckner. Neither do I feel
intimidated by those who try to project some knowledge and
appreciation of Bruckner that is superior to mine based on the fact
that they haven't even listened to the recordings under discussion.
You should try Karajan's Berlin 8th on DG. Or don't. It doesn't matter
to me. But I would take your criticism of Karajan's Bruckner more
seriously if you had at least listened to some of it.
mark
Au contraire - Bruckner's music shows us that we have no need of god.
Indeed, I can't imagine god coming up with anything better.
Bruckner shows us just how capable man is of creating beauty, of
revealing the depth of the human experience without uttering a word,
of earning our admiration without threatening us with damnation, and
of giving us a sense of eternity here and now - and he does it all
without telling us that we're going to have to wait until we're dead
for our reward.
dw
Ummm -- because I don't like the way it sounds. Is that an adequate
answer?
David
dw
If you actually read what I wrote, you'll see that you are agreeing
with everything I said. What "silly prejudices" have I expressed?
All I've done is expressed my own aesthetic reaction to his edition,
which evidently differs from yours.
David
dw
Where have I said anything about Karajan's Bruckner, other than that I
strongly dislike one of his recordings? How on earth does that equal
"try[ing] to project some knowledge and appreciation of Bruckner that
is superior to mine based on the fact that they haven't even listened
to the recordings under discussion"?
David
dw
What criticism? All I said was that I didn't like one of his
recordings, and that "there's no accounting for tastes". In other
words, my taste doesn't extend to that particular recording. No doubt
the loss is mine.
David
dw
It wasn't a "crack". It was a way of making the point that, in my
opinion, the personality of Haas and the way in which he created his
edition have absolutely no connection with that edition's aesthetic
qualities. Evidently the point was not made very successfully, for
which I apologize.
David
Steve de Mena
When I was younger I felt the slow movement of the 8th was too long
(compared to, say, the 7th's).
It was a real turning point in my musical life when the 8th's 3rd
movement finally "clicked" for me, and now I find myself appreciating
it immensely in compelling performances.
Steve
pianomaven
So, he is an utter failure.
TD
Bob Harper
No, but I can imagine him looking at Mark in disbelief.
Bob Harper
pianomaven
Well, yes, Bob. That Bruckner as composer should create a sense in his
listener that man has created everything beautiful in life would be
anathema to him. I realize that it is hard for Mark to accept God, but
Bruckner without God is a contradiction in terms.
TD
mark
I think we all know that Bruckner was a devout Catholic, and that he
felt he was inspired by god in writing his music. But if you come from
the perspective that there is no god, then you realize that Bruckner's
music is the product of a fortunate delusion.
As far as Bruckner looking at me in disbelief, the time for that
happening passed before I was born (though I like to think of myself
as one of those cherubs in Böhler's famous silhouette).
M forever
Dunno about "adequate", but obviously you can give whatever answer you
want to give (or not). It's not very informative though. What's wrong
with the way it sounds?
M forever
I don't think you had any kind of "aesthetic reaction" to the edition.
I don't think you even understand what exactly Haas did. You just want
to project a strong "opinion", but obviously, your grasp of the basic
facts is very, very weak. Maybe you read something on Wikipedia, or in
a CD booklet, without actually understanding exactly what Haas did or
didn't do. Your blablaing about how he ruined the slow movement or
whatever and about him tearing up manuscripts clearly shows that.
dw
Please spare me your psychoanalysis.
I would ask you to go back once again and read what I actually wrote,
but I've already done that once and you persist in ignoring what I
actually wrote.
So I will lead you by the hand.
I wrote that "[t]o my ears he completely ruins the slow movement, but
YMMV". This means that I don't like the way that the build-up to the
climax of that movement is interrupted by the interpolation of
material from the 1887 version. That's an aesthetic, not a moral or
scholarly, reaction. The "to my ears" and "YMMV" make this pretty
darn explicit.
My point about him tearing up manuscripts was a hypothetical. I said
that, _even if_ he had been tearing up manuscripts when making his
edition, that would not have any bearing on its quality as a work of
art. If you don't understand the English words "if" or "hypothetical"
then I suggest you look them up in a dictionary. Or Wikipedia or a CD
booklet. Whatever.
David
Kip Williams
Indeed, it's a little sad that people can look at the amazing universe
we live in and conclude that it must have been done by some supernatural
entity on a cosmic whim. The story of the million natural processes that
combined in unlikely yet inevitable ways to make it all must be replaced
with a single myth in order to fit into some craniums.
That might not be all bad, but then this myth is too often used as a
club to beat people into conformity with, and tragedy ensues.
Kip W
Bob Harper
A more clueless understanding of Creation is difficult to imagine.
Whim?! You've got to be kidding (alas, you aren't, which makes it that
much sadder.)
Bob Harper
mark
Why go there, Bob? Kip has facts on his side, you have a Biblical
myth. I don't see how you can hope to win this argument in a forum
populated by "thinking people who see the world as it is, not as the
religionists here wish to see it."
Gerard
Why? Kip just points to the facts (and does not talk about "creation" at all, as
far as I see).
The way religion has been used to suppress people has been discussed here
hundreds of times.
So why is it "clueless" now? And why do you have difficulties to imagine now?
mark
> On Mar 1, 9:20 am, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > A more clueless understanding of Creation is difficult to imagine.
> > Whim?! You've got to be kidding (alas, you aren't, which makes it that
> > much sadder.)
>
Not that you're at all interested, Bob, but here's an article from
today's Independent on who life may have got going on Earth, complete
with the scientific evidence to back it up. I know it's not as
reliable as some 3,000-year-old text derived from the folklore of a
bunch of goatherds who never traveled more than 15 miles from their
huts, and who believed diseases were caused by evil spirits, but
still:
"We're all aliens... how humans began life in outer space
The mystery of how the building blocks of biology came to be on Earth
may finally have been solved
By Steve Connor
Tuesday, 1 March 2011
As scientific mysteries go, this is the big one. How did life on Earth
begin? Not how did life evolve, but how did it start in the first
place? What was the initial spark that lit the fire of evolution?
Charles Darwin solved the mystery of life's wondrous diversity with
his theory of natural selection. But even he was flummoxed by the
ultimate mystery of mysteries: what led to the origin of life itself?
In trying to answer the problem, scientists have turned to the stars,
or at least the "builders' rubble" of meteorites and comets left over
from the formation of our solar system some five billion years ago.
These space rocks, they believe, could help to explain why life began
here on Earth.
In fact, a growing body of evidence is now pointing to deep space as
the possible source of the raw materials that formed the building
blocks of life. The latest study, which focused on a class of
meteorites that fell on to the Antarctic ice sheet, also suggests that
life's origins may have been extraterrestrial.
An analysis of the meteorites has revealed that these rocks can be
induced, under high pressures and temperatures, to emit nitrogen-
containing ammonia, a vital ingredient for the first self-replicating
molecules that eventually led to DNA, the molecule at the heart of all
life.
"These particular meteorites have been preserved in the ice and are
found pristine – that is, they show less terrestrial contamination,"
said Professor Sandra Pizzarello of Arizona State University, who led
the meteorite study published in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences.
"What is important is the finding of abundant ammonia. Nitrogen is an
indispensable ingredient for the formation of the biopolymers, such as
DNA, RNA and proteins, on which life depends, and any theory that
tries to explain life's origin has to account for a supply of 'usable'
nitrogen," Professor Pizzarello said. "Therefore, its direct delivery
as ammonia and in relatively large amounts from the nearby asteroids
could have found a 'prebiotic venue' on the early Earth."
Tests have also shown that the nitrogen in the ammonia released by the
meteorite is composed of unusual isotopes, indicating an
extraterrestial origin rather than contamination from a terrestrial
source.
Professor Pizzarello and her colleagues believe that similar
meteorites falling to Earth about 4 billion years ago could have
produced a constant and replenishable supply of ammonia, and hence
nitrogen, which was so necessary for the formation of the first self-
replicating molecules.
Previous studies of fossilised microbes in ancient rocks have shown
that primitive life must have existed at least 3.5 billion years ago.
Yet little is known of the time before that when life originated,
except that it must have been very inhospitable."
M forever
It's actually very easy to imagine. In fact, you don't need to imagine
anything here. Just go to any of the countless creation myths invented
by people who didn't know the most basic facts about the world they
lived in, its shape and size, its relationship to other celestial
bodies, who didn't know the most basic facts about how this world
actually works, but they felt the strong need to find explanations for
all these things, so they took perhaps inspired, but completely
clueless guesses. About father beings in the sky which created the
universe out of nothing in 7 days and put people and animals on it and
so on. Very childish, very clueless, but it was the best thing people
could come up with 3000 years ago.
And these explanation attempts did serve these kinds of primitive
tribal societies very well. They have no place in a modern civilized
society though except for on the shelf along with all the other myths
and fairy tales people have come up with over the past millenia.
Wherever these myths are still religious doctrine, all the other
elements of primitive tribal thinking are still active, too.
Kip Williams
> On 3/1/11 8:36 AM, Kip Williams wrote:
>> mark wrote:
>>> On Mar 1, 6:06 am, pianomaven<1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Well, yes, Bob. That Bruckner as composer should create a sense in his
>>>> listener that man has created everything beautiful in life would be
>>>> anathema to him. I realize that it is hard for Mark to accept God, but
>>>> Bruckner without God is a contradiction in terms.
>>>
>>> I think we all know that Bruckner was a devout Catholic, and that he
>>> felt he was inspired by god in writing his music. But if you come from
>>> the perspective that there is no god, then you realize that Bruckner's
>>> music is the product of a fortunate delusion.
>>
>> Indeed, it's a little sad that people can look at the amazing universe
>> we live in and conclude that it must have been done by some supernatural
>> entity on a cosmic whim. The story of the million natural processes that
>> combined in unlikely yet inevitable ways to make it all must be replaced
>> with a single myth in order to fit into some craniums.
>>
>> That might not be all bad, but then this myth is too often used as a
>> club to beat people into conformity with, and tragedy ensues.
>
> Whim?! You've got to be kidding (alas, you aren't, which makes it that
> much sadder.)
Wow, is that all it takes to refute somebody? Wait, let me do it too!
"No, YOU are wrong!"
Damn, why have I been bothering with "facts" all this time?
Kip W
M forever
Sounds great Mark, but you may have overlooked the fact that the world
is only 6000 years old. So what is all this nonsensical talk about
"billions" of years? How do scientist "know" life has been here "for
3.5 billion years"? Where they there? I don't think so.
Besides, maybe it is true that those "life stones" contain the
building blocks for life, but who says those "life stones" must have
come from outer space as meteorites? Maybe God put them there in order
to make life spring from them. Just like he put the dinosaur fossils
in the ground and made them look like they were really old, just to
test people's faith in the bible.
M forever
It's not all that easy. You don't just say "no, YOU are wrong". That
would sound childish. No, what you say is something like, "you are
obviously totally clueless" - and since that is obvious, you don't
have to explain why - and also something like "you've got to be
kidding" in order to make sure that you don't have to provide any
facts to back up your argument because what the other guy says is so
totally silly to begin with that there are no facts to hold against
that.
That's how "real grown ups" like Harper argue their points.
Rhetorically brilliant and watertight argumentation.
Gerard
>
> It's not all that easy. You don't just say "no, YOU are wrong". That
> would sound childish. No, what you say is something like, "you are
> obviously totally clueless"
Or: "you are an idiot!"
>
> - and since that is obvious, you don't
> have to explain why - and also something like "you've got to be
> kidding" in order to make sure that you don't have to provide any
> facts to back up your argument because what the other guy says is so
> totally silly to begin with that there are no facts to hold against
> that.
> That's how "real grown ups" like Harper argue their points.
> Rhetorically brilliant and watertight argumentation.
Not different from Misery forever.
Bob Harper
(snip)
> Damn, why have I been bothering with "facts" all this time?
>
>
> Kip W
I am in complete agreement with the quotation marks you put around the
word 'facts'. A Freudian slip on your part?
Bob Harper
Kip Williams
> On 3/1/11 11:15 AM, Kip Williams wrote:
> (snip)
>> Damn, why have I been bothering with "facts" all this time?
>
> word 'facts'. A Freudian slip on your part?
No, just visual emphasis for the benefit of people who seem unable to
see facts.
Kip W
mark
And what facts would you submit to support the Biblical story of
creation that would trump the scientific "facts" Kip might offer? And
by facts, I'm talking about the dictionary definition of facts, as in:
"something that actually exists; reality; truth; something known to
exist or to have happened; a piece of information presented as having
OBJECTIVE reality"
I await your providing an objective "fact" to support your theory of
creation, Bob.
Frank Berger
As usual, you lose the religion argument, because when discussing it you
lose your ability to reason. Which is ironic, of course. Kip implied
religious people believe God created the universe on a whim. Maybe some
religion somewhere believes that, but none of the ones I'm the least
familiar with. I wonder if either you or Kip have slightest idea what the
Judiasm, Christianity and I assume Islam each aver about the reason for
creation. If you do, then you'll see why Kip's comment was ignorant. Kip
will probably call this nit-picking.
One final thing, Mark. When you refuse to capitalize "God," it's akin to
Republicans deliberately calling the Democratic party the "Democrat" party.
It's a (deliberate?) show of contempt.
Kip Williams
> mark wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 9:20 am, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On 3/1/11 8:36 AM, Kip Williams wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> mark wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 1, 6:06 am, pianomaven<1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Well, yes, Bob. That Bruckner as composer should create a sense
>>>>>> in his listener that man has created everything beautiful in life
>>>>>> would be anathema to him. I realize that it is hard for Mark to
>>>>>> accept God, but Bruckner without God is a contradiction in terms.
>>>
>>>>> I think we all know that Bruckner was a devout Catholic, and that
>>>>> he felt he was inspired by god in writing his music. But if you
>>>>> come from the perspective that there is no god, then you realize
>>>>> that Bruckner's music is the product of a fortunate delusion.
>>>
>>>> Indeed, it's a little sad that people can look at the amazing
>>>> universe we live in and conclude that it must have been done by
>>>> some supernatural entity on a cosmic whim. The story of the million
>>>> natural processes that combined in unlikely yet inevitable ways to
>>>> make it all must be replaced with a single myth in order to fit
>>>> into some craniums.
>>>
>>>> That might not be all bad, but then this myth is too often used as a
>>>> club to beat people into conformity with, and tragedy ensues.
>>>
>>> Whim?! You've got to be kidding (alas, you aren't, which makes it
>>> that much sadder.)
>>>
>> myth. I don't see how you can hope to win this argument in a forum
>> populated by "thinking people who see the world as it is, not as the
>> religionists here wish to see it."
>
> As usual, you lose the religion argument, because when discussing it you
> lose your ability to reason. Which is ironic, of course. Kip implied
> religious people believe God created the universe on a whim. Maybe some
> religion somewhere believes that, but none of the ones I'm the least
> familiar with. I wonder if either you or Kip have slightest idea what
> the Judiasm, Christianity and I assume Islam each aver about the reason
> for creation. If you do, then you'll see why Kip's comment was ignorant.
> Kip will probably call this nit-picking.
No, it's amazing that you can divine what's in the mind of the Almighty,
when it's never been revealed, even to the holiest figures of
Christianity! "Whim" explained it as well as anything, before your
startling revelation, which will surely stun organized religion, came
along. I stand corrected, and eagerly await you sharing your knowledge
with the rest of the world.
Kip W
mark
>
> > Why go there, Bob? Kip has facts on his side, you have a Biblical
> > myth. I don't see how you can hope to win this argument in a forum
> > populated by "thinking people who see the world as it is, not as the
> > religionists here wish to see it."
>
> As usual, you lose the religion argument, because when discussing it you
> lose your ability to reason. Which is ironic, of course.
By definition, one cannot win an argument for religion by appealing to
reason. Surely you know that. Any attempt to give a reasoned defense
or explanation for religion eventually runs aground on the shoals of
objective truth. You can present no objective defense for religion.
You can offer only opinion.
>Kip implied
> religious people believe God created the universe on a whim. Maybe some
> religion somewhere believes that, but none of the ones I'm the least
> familiar with. I wonder if either you or Kip have slightest idea what the
> Judiasm, Christianity and I assume Islam each aver about the reason for
> creation.
It's quaint to entertain thoughts that there is a reason for creation,
just as quaint as it is to think that there is a reason for a random
tree falling in the forest. In both instances, one can show to a
pretty high level of confidence about how the thing occurred. But why?
There is no why. That's an answer religionists are loathe to even
consider.
If you do, then you'll see why Kip's comment was ignorant. Kip
> will probably call this nit-picking.
>
> One final thing, Mark. When you refuse to capitalize "God," it's akin to
> Republicans deliberately calling the Democratic party the "Democrat" party.
> It's a (deliberate?) show of contempt.
There's a difference: I can prove that Democrats and Republicans
exist. No one can prove than any one of the millions of gods that man
has created for himself exist. I don't see that the word "god" needs
to be capitalized, as god is nothing more than an idea born of the
childish ignorance of our species. So, while people who call
themselves Ds or Rs may well take offense at pot shots taken at them,
there's no god around to take offense when a lower case letter is used
in the word god.
BTW, Frank - do you use a capital G when talking about Anubis or
Apollo? Last time I looked they were Gods as well.
As far as contempt, I can think of few other creations of man's mind
as loathsome as the Gods of the holy books. They deserve our contempt,
both in the abstract and in the concrete. just as much as we should
show contempt for the concept of slavery. Yes, it's a deliberate show
of contempt on my part. Not for the believers, but for the rotten and
stupid idea that we call "god."
And why should that bother you? I show deep contempt for conservative
philosophies here all the time. Am I out of line in doing so? Of
course not. Your feigned umbrage is reserved exclusively for religious
ideas. Well, I'm sorry, but religion needs to grow up and face the
fact that it needs to deal on the level playing field that is know as
the marketplace of ideas. That means no special carve outs or
dispensations from logic and reason for religion. You want to play in
today's world, you better offer something more than the barbaric ideas
of our forebears, clothed in cloying piety masquerading as knowledge.
Hope that clarifies things.
Bob Harper
Given that you have, a priori, ruled out any explanation of the
existence of the universe that involves a Creator, that would seem to be
inutile.
As a counter to your (and others') insistence on excessive literalism,
you might take a look at this:
http://www.rtforum.org/study/lesson2.html
Bob Harper
O
<17e50609-a917-4c83...@d26g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
mark <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Kip implied
> > religious people believe God created the universe on a whim. Maybe some
> > religion somewhere believes that, but none of the ones I'm the least
> > familiar with. I wonder if either you or Kip have slightest idea what the
> > Judiasm, Christianity and I assume Islam each aver about the reason for
> > creation.
>
> It's quaint to entertain thoughts that there is a reason for creation,
As quaint as entertaining thoughts that creation was completely
pointless.
> just as quaint as it is to think that there is a reason for a random
> tree falling in the forest.
One could see religion in randomness, as randomness is remarkably
precise over the long run. (Which is what casinos bank on. Perhaps God
is my slot machine?)
> In both instances, one can show to a
> pretty high level of confidence about how the thing occurred.
Only if you limit yourself to the provable. While I don't subscribe to
the creationists idea of "intelligent design," there is a whole lot of
seeming design to the universe that seems to go far beyond what
"survival of the fittest" gives us. I'm no anti-Darwinian. I just
think there's additional forces at work.
> But why?
> There is no why. That's an answer religionists are loathe to even
> consider.
Why what? The tree fell? Why there has to be a reason?
>
> If you do, then you'll see why Kip's comment was ignorant. Kip
> > will probably call this nit-picking.
> >
> > One final thing, Mark. When you refuse to capitalize "God," it's akin to
> > Republicans deliberately calling the Democratic party the "Democrat" party.
> > It's a (deliberate?) show of contempt.
>
> There's a difference: I can prove that Democrats and Republicans
> exist. No one can prove than any one of the millions of gods that man
> has created for himself exist. I don't see that the word "god" needs
> to be capitalized, as god is nothing more than an idea born of the
> childish ignorance of our species. So, while people who call
> themselves Ds or Rs may well take offense at pot shots taken at them,
> there's no god around to take offense when a lower case letter is used
> in the word god.
But there are people around here who hold beliefs that are offended by
it. There's nothing that says that people have to have a
scientifically rational reason to be offended (if there were, no one
would ever by offended by anything). The respect is for people's
beliefs, much like if you were in a Buddhist Temple as a sightseer,
you'd be careful not to do anything to be disrespectful.
>
> BTW, Frank - do you use a capital G when talking about Anubis or
> Apollo? Last time I looked they were Gods as well.
Convention is to disallow the capital G from discarded, obsolete gods.
>
> As far as contempt, I can think of few other creations of man's mind
> as loathsome as the Gods of the holy books. They deserve our contempt,
> both in the abstract and in the concrete. just as much as we should
> show contempt for the concept of slavery. Yes, it's a deliberate show
> of contempt on my part. Not for the believers, but for the rotten and
> stupid idea that we call "god."
Well, why not then show respect for the believers? No one here is
proselytizing. It appears you're just trying to provoke to make your
point, a point we're already aware of.
>
> And why should that bother you? I show deep contempt for conservative
> philosophies here all the time. Am I out of line in doing so? Of
> course not. Your feigned umbrage is reserved exclusively for religious
> ideas. Well, I'm sorry, but religion needs to grow up and face the
> fact that it needs to deal on the level playing field that is know as
> the marketplace of ideas. That means no special carve outs or
> dispensations from logic and reason for religion. You want to play in
> today's world, you better offer something more than the barbaric ideas
> of our forebears, clothed in cloying piety masquerading as knowledge.
Today's world boasts death threats to those who make cartoons about
Mohammed. Around here though, people should be respected, even if you
disagree with your ideas.
-Owen
Kip Williams
> In article
> <17e50609-a917-4c83...@d26g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> mark<markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Kip implied
>>> religious people believe God created the universe on a whim. Maybe some
>>> religion somewhere believes that, but none of the ones I'm the least
>>> familiar with. I wonder if either you or Kip have slightest idea what the
>>> Judiasm, Christianity and I assume Islam each aver about the reason for
>>> creation.
>>
>> It's quaint to entertain thoughts that there is a reason for creation,
>
> As quaint as entertaining thoughts that creation was completely
> pointless.
"Point" is beside the point. It begs the question that there must be
some being who wanted things this way. This is apparently due to a
comforting belief that Man is the special snowflake, made in the image
of the creator of all things. I still think the universe is spectacular
enough without imagining a name signed down in the corner of the canvas.
(A name we know with exactitude because crazed desert nomads wrote it
down a long time ago.)
Kip W
Kip Williams
> As a counter to your (and others') insistence on excessive literalism,
> you might take a look at this:
>
> http://www.rtforum.org/study/lesson2.html
It would take a year just to look up all the jargon used here. What an
elaborate edifice can be built upon a foundation of solid mist. Do any
of these people write in English, or does that give away the trick of
the thing?
Kip W
Frank Berger
This has nothing to do with me divining what is in the mind of the Almighty,
or even what I personally believe. It's about the *teachings* of the
religions. Let me repeat. It has nothing to do with what is true. The
religions have dogma. That dogma is *not* that God created the universe on
a whim. So your comment that God created the universe on a whim is silly.
As for what God's reason for creating the universe is, according to the
various theologies, I doubt you're interested, but you can look it up easily
enough, if you are.
mark
>
> > It's quaint to entertain thoughts that there is a reason for creation,
>
> As quaint as entertaining thoughts that creation was completely
> pointless.
Creation was apparently fine with - AFAWK - no sentient, rational
beings around to contemplate the "point" of creation for the first
13.4 billion years of its existence. It would seem more than a bit
self aggrandizing for humans to aver that creation waited around until
that last 200,000 or so years of its existence to reveal the "why" to
humans and no one else. Oh, and the god of creation thinks you're
special as well.
>While I don't subscribe to
> the creationists idea of "intelligent design," there is a whole lot of
> seeming design to the universe that seems to go far beyond what
> "survival of the fittest" gives us. I'm no anti-Darwinian. I just
> think there's additional forces at work.
Your paragraph above shows that you don't have a good understanding of
what Darwin wrote. The phrase didn't originate with Darwin, though he
included it in the 5th edition of his "On the Origins of Species."
Check out Wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
it's enough to set you straight.
BTW - "seeming design" isn't necessarily actual design. Many people
mistake a shadow for a mugger. Only the ignorant mistake a mugger for
a shadow.
>
> > But why?
> > There is no why. That's an answer religionists are loathe to even
> > consider.
>
> Why what? The tree fell? Why there has to be a reason?
Exactly. So why does there have to be a reason for creation?
>
> > There's a difference: I can prove that Democrats and Republicans
> > exist. No one can prove than any one of the millions of gods that man
> > has created for himself exist. I don't see that the word "god" needs
> > to be capitalized, as god is nothing more than an idea born of the
> > childish ignorance of our species. So, while people who call
> > themselves Ds or Rs may well take offense at pot shots taken at them,
> > there's no god around to take offense when a lower case letter is used
> > in the word god.
>
> But there are people around here who hold beliefs that are offended by
> it. There's nothing that says that people have to have a
> scientifically rational reason to be offended (if there were, no one
> would ever by offended by anything).
So if a person really really believes that the NY Giants won this
year's Super Bowl, I should just smile and agree so as not to offend
them. I'd be willing to do that, I suppose, but doing so says that I'm
treating the person as a crazy uncle.
> The respect is for people's
> beliefs, much like if you were in a Buddhist Temple as a sightseer,
> you'd be careful not to do anything to be disrespectful.
Excuse me, but I think in the USA we're asked to respect people's
right to believe, not to respect people's beliefs per se. I can
respect your right to hold conservative beliefs. Does that mean that I
must also respect those beliefs? How so? If I believe that the Rs
plans to cut regulatory agencies will lead to unnecessary deaths, am I
supposed to respect those plans? Don't think so.
> > BTW, Frank - do you use a capital G when talking about Anubis or
> > Apollo? Last time I looked they were Gods as well.
>
> Convention is to disallow the capital G from discarded, obsolete gods.
Thank you! I put Yahweh and Jesus in the category of obsolete and
discarded gods. Roughly 65% of the world's population doesn't believe
in the gods Yahweh and Jesus, so I'd say they're obsolete and pretty
much discarded.
O
<k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> O wrote:
> > In article
> > <17e50609-a917-4c83...@d26g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> > mark<markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Kip implied
> >>> religious people believe God created the universe on a whim. Maybe some
> >>> religion somewhere believes that, but none of the ones I'm the least
> >>> familiar with. I wonder if either you or Kip have slightest idea what the
> >>> Judiasm, Christianity and I assume Islam each aver about the reason for
> >>> creation.
> >>
> >> It's quaint to entertain thoughts that there is a reason for creation,
> >
> > As quaint as entertaining thoughts that creation was completely
> > pointless.
>
> "Point" is beside the point. It begs the question that there must be
> some being who wanted things this way. This is apparently due to a
> comforting belief that Man is the special snowflake, made in the image
> of the creator of all things.
I don't necessarily think that Man is the special snowflake, nor the
clam, as Mark Twain might put it, but that doesn't mean that this here
universe doesn't have some interesting coincidences which make the
mystery of the spark of life rather remarkable.
> I still think the universe is spectacular
> enough without imagining a name signed down in the corner of the canvas.
> (A name we know with exactitude because crazed desert nomads wrote it
> down a long time ago.)
There's a distinction between religious, agnostic, and atheist. One
can believe in an creating force without believing in the Bible.
-Owen
M forever
> Only if you limit yourself to the provable. While I don't subscribe to
> the creationists idea of "intelligent design," there is a whole lot of
> seeming design to the universe that seems to go far beyond what
> "survival of the fittest" gives us. I'm no anti-Darwinian. I just
> think there's additional forces at work.
Oh, really? Well, uh, "survival of the fittest" is only a small part
of the scientific edifice, and it has nothing to do with the "design
of the universe", dummy.
So, yes, there are additional forces at work. No scientist doubts
that. That's why there are so many more scientific fields of study
than "just" evolution. The point is that scientists do not only have
to come up with convincing and provable explanation models in their
own fields, these models also all have to fit together. Physics,
chemistry, biology, geology etcetcetc, all that has to fit together,
and it increasingly does so. Even your religion has a part in that
bigger picture. It falls in the general fields of cultural
anthropology, cultural history, psychology etc and can be filed away
as part of our mental development and cultural heritage. It has played
a very important part in our development. Nobody denies that.
So you hit the nail on the head this time. There really *is* a lot
more to the "design of the universe" than just "survival"of the
fittest, dummy.
I think you just made the silliest post of the month. And nicely
framed in a lot of pseudo-intellectual BS.
O
<ed5058ef-fdc8-4aeb...@o14g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
mark <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> BTW - "seeming design" isn't necessarily actual design. Many people
> mistake a shadow for a mugger. Only the ignorant mistake a mugger for
> a shadow.
That expression works both ways.
>
> >
> > > But why?
> > > There is no why. That's an answer religionists are loathe to even
> > > consider.
> >
> > Why what? The tree fell? Why there has to be a reason?
>
> Exactly. So why does there have to be a reason for creation?
Was there a creation? Who lit the fuse of the Big Bang? Most of
science is observation, and models based on observation. Observation
shows how things work, but not why they work.
>
>
> >
> > > There's a difference: I can prove that Democrats and Republicans
> > > exist. No one can prove than any one of the millions of gods that man
> > > has created for himself exist. I don't see that the word "god" needs
> > > to be capitalized, as god is nothing more than an idea born of the
> > > childish ignorance of our species. So, while people who call
> > > themselves Ds or Rs may well take offense at pot shots taken at them,
> > > there's no god around to take offense when a lower case letter is used
> > > in the word god.
> >
> > But there are people around here who hold beliefs that are offended by
> > it. There's nothing that says that people have to have a
> > scientifically rational reason to be offended (if there were, no one
> > would ever by offended by anything).
>
> So if a person really really believes that the NY Giants won this
> year's Super Bowl, I should just smile and agree so as not to offend
> them. I'd be willing to do that, I suppose, but doing so says that I'm
> treating the person as a crazy uncle.
I think you should be more open that reasonable people can have
opinions even such that you vehemently reject.
>
> > The respect is for people's
> > beliefs, much like if you were in a Buddhist Temple as a sightseer,
> > you'd be careful not to do anything to be disrespectful.
>
> Excuse me, but I think in the USA we're asked to respect people's
> right to believe, not to respect people's beliefs per se. I can
> respect your right to hold conservative beliefs. Does that mean that I
> must also respect those beliefs? How so? If I believe that the Rs
> plans to cut regulatory agencies will lead to unnecessary deaths, am I
> supposed to respect those plans? Don't think so.
If I believe that abortion is murder, should I respect your opinion
that it isn't? You're giving the same motivation as abortion clinic
bombers. Reasonable people can disagree on intense subjects, but still
should respect other's beliefs.
>
> > > BTW, Frank - do you use a capital G when talking about Anubis or
> > > Apollo? Last time I looked they were Gods as well.
> >
> > Convention is to disallow the capital G from discarded, obsolete gods.
>
> Thank you! I put Yahweh and Jesus in the category of obsolete and
> discarded gods. Roughly 65% of the world's population doesn't believe
> in the gods Yahweh and Jesus, so I'd say they're obsolete and pretty
> much discarded.
Less than 1% of the world's population believes in Apollo or Anubis.
When you get down to that point, then you can play the capital game.
Otherwise, I think the NY Times manual of style would say you're wrong.
-Owen
M forever
> On 3/1/11 4:18 PM, mark wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 3:43 pm, Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 3/1/11 11:15 AM, Kip Williams wrote:
> >> (snip)
>
> >>> Damn, why have I been bothering with "facts" all this time?
>
> >>> Kip W
>
> >> I am in complete agreement with the quotation marks you put around the
> >> word 'facts'. A Freudian slip on your part?
>
> >> Bob Harper
>
> > And what facts would you submit to support the Biblical story of
> > creation that would trump the scientific "facts" Kip might offer? And
> > by facts, I'm talking about the dictionary definition of facts, as in:
> > "something that actually exists; reality; truth; something known to
> > exist or to have happened; a piece of information presented as having
> > OBJECTIVE reality"
>
> > I await your providing an objective "fact" to support your theory of
> > creation, Bob.
>
> Given that you have, a priori, ruled out any explanation of the
> existence of the universe that involves a Creator, that would seem to be
> inutile.
"Inutile" - nice choice of word. You could just have said "useless".
"Inutile" doesn't make your statement any more "intelligent". A lot of
people are actually initially open to the idea of a creator. I think
most of us started with that belief or idea. But many of us have long
since moved past that childishness.
Of course, if you could actually provide any facts to support your
theory, that wouldn't be "inutile" at all. Then those facts could be
examined. But that's not what you and other religionists even want.
In the meantime, it would be good if you could at least provide some
proof for why *your* religion's creation theory should be any more
true than any other given religion's.
> As a counter to your (and others') insistence on excessive literalism,
> you might take a look at this:
As a counter to your (and others') insistence on excessive literalism,
one doesn't need to take a look at all this inflated theological
nonsense. One needs to take away the power from institutions like your
church to force their reading, literal or not - and ever changing
anyway - on people. Fortunately, we have come a long way in this task
to free ourselves from this oppression of mind and soul.
mark
>
> > Exactly. So why does there have to be a reason for creation?
>
> Was there a creation? Who lit the fuse of the Big Bang?
Why do you imagine a "who" was involved with the Big Bang? Ever heard
of an infinite regression, because that's what you're talking about -
ie: who lit the fuse to the Big Bang? Well, who created the god that
lit the fuse, and who created the god who created the god who lit the
fuse, and on it goes to infinity.
>Most of
> science is observation, and models based on observation. Observation
> shows how things work, but not why they work.
The how and the why can be interrelated. Put two elements together and
they do X. The reason they do X is Y.
The real strength of the scientific method lies in its predictive
power. Did NASA need to observe men walking on the moon before they
could send them there? Don't think so. Did NASA use scientific
principles to predict and model what they would need to do to land men
on the moon? Bingo.
I have to say, Owen, that you're offering the same tired and ill-
formed arguments that one finds at ID sites like Answers in Genesis.
> I think you should be more open that reasonable people can have
> opinions even such that you vehemently reject.
People are entitled to their opinions. Just don't try to tell me that
your opinions are fact-based if they aren't. That goes for religion
and politics for sure. I would be more willing to accept your opinion
if you can provide some facts to back it up. Until then, it's an
opinion without a foundation outside of one's own imagination. We
accept such things from children. I just expect better from adults.
So, when Bob uses the phrase "more clueless understanding of Creation
is difficult to imagine" in responding to Kip's post, he needs to be
challenged to produce a less-clueless understanding. "Because I said
so" loses it's power as a response by the time most of reach age 10.
Do you think that we should just let Bob's assertions go unchallenged?
Are such responses so powerful that we have no rejoinder worthy of
offering? I'm asking, Owen. What do you imagine Kip's response should
be when Bob offers a response that is based entirely on religious
myth? A response that calls the scientific answer for how the universe
came into being to be "clueless?"
> If I believe that abortion is murder, should I respect your opinion
> that it isn't? You're giving the same motivation as abortion clinic
> bombers. Reasonable people can disagree on intense subjects, but still
> should respect other's beliefs.
Well, you're wrong. You don't need to respect my opinion on abortion
and I don't need to respect your opinion either. But what we do need
to do is to respect the law of the land, and to not appoint ourselves
as judge, jury and executioner when it comes to abortion.
And I am in no way "giving the same motivation as abortion clinic
bombers." That particular "motivation" arises from the abortion clinic
bomber's belief that he is above the law of the land, a belief based
on his lack of respect for the law of the land, coupled with an
elitist belief that he is "doing god's work." You're really out of
bounds on this one, drawing a huge false analogy that, frankly, I'm
surprised to see coming from you.
> > > > BTW, Frank - do you use a capital G when talking about Anubis or
> > > > Apollo? Last time I looked they were Gods as well.
>
> > > Convention is to disallow the capital G from discarded, obsolete gods.
>
> > Thank you! I put Yahweh and Jesus in the category of obsolete and
> > discarded gods. Roughly 65% of the world's population doesn't believe
> > in the gods Yahweh and Jesus, so I'd say they're obsolete and pretty
> > much discarded.
>
> Less than 1% of the world's population believes in Apollo or Anubis.
According to Wikipedia, Jews account for .002% of the world's
population, and within that .002% exists a subset that falls into the
category of non-believers. Why do they get a special dispensation for
using an upper-case G when they write about their god? Under 1%, you
know!
> When you get down to that point, then you can play the capital game.
> Otherwise, I think the NY Times manual of style would say you're wrong.
Isn't the point that that 1% of believers in Anubis can offer the same
level of "proof" for their gods as can the average Xian or Jew for
theirs, especially if they don't limit themselves to "provable"
things? The Constitution guarantees religious freedom for ALL
religions, whether their believers account for 70% of the population
or a measly 1%. Ergo, if you're going to respect the Constitution,
shouldn't you be advocating for the capital G on the word "god" for
every god out there, NYT Style Guide be damned?
Gerard
You could use one of these instead:
*facts*
_facts_
/facts/
mark
>
> Less than 1% of the world's population believes in Apollo or Anubis.
> When you get down to that point, then you can play the capital game.
> Otherwise, I think the NY Times manual of style would say you're wrong.
>
Don't know if you saw it, but the high court in England just ruled
that "there is no place in the law for Christianity." (here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8353496/Foster-parent-ban-no-place-in-the-law-for-Christianity-High-Court-rules.html
).
The case involved a virulently homophobic Xian couple that wished to
adopt: "Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson made the remarks
when ruling on the case of a Christian couple who were told that they
could not be foster carers because of their view that homosexuality is
wrong.
"The judges underlined that, in the case of fostering arrangements at
least, the right of homosexuals to equality “should take precedence”
over the right of Christians to manifest their beliefs and moral
values.
"In a ruling with potentially wide-ranging implications, the judges
said Britain was a “largely secular”, multi-cultural country in which
the laws of the realm “do not include Christianity”.
"Speaking personally, Canon Dr Chris Sugden, the executive secretary
of Anglican Mainstream, said the judges were wrong to say religion was
a matter of private individuals’ beliefs.
“They are treating religion like Richard Dawkins does, as if Christian
faith was on a parallel with Melanesian frog worship,” he said.
“The judgment asserts that there is no hierarchy of rights, but itself
implies there is one in which the right to practise one’s religion is
subordinated to the secular assumptions about equality.”
Well, I believe that Canon Dr Chris Sugden said openly what the Xians
and most others believe: that it is wrong to put the "Christian faith
on a parallel with Melanesian frog worship.” In the good Doctor's
world, there is a HIERARCHY of rights, with religion sitting at the
top of that hierarchy...but not just ANY religion! Why, it's the Xian
religion, of course!
But why is it wrong to put the Christian faith was on a parallel with
Melanesian frog worship? There's as much objective proof for Xian
beliefs as there are for the beliefs of Melanesian frog worshipers.
Any religion can make up any "proof" they want if they don't limit
themselves to the provable.
Methinks the good doctor doth protest too much...but he does say what
goes unspoken here, ie: that certain religions (translation - MY
religion) worship "real" gods while every other religion worships
pretend gods.
Frank Berger
mark wrote:
> On Mar 1, 5:13 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Why go there, Bob? Kip has facts on his side, you have a Biblical
>>> myth. I don't see how you can hope to win this argument in a forum
>>> populated by "thinking people who see the world as it is, not as the
>>> religionists here wish to see it."
>>
>> As usual, you lose the religion argument, because when discussing it
>> you lose your ability to reason. Which is ironic, of course.
>
> By definition, one cannot win an argument for religion by appealing to
> reason. Surely you know that. Any attempt to give a reasoned defense
> or explanation for religion eventually runs aground on the shoals of
> objective truth. You can present no objective defense for religion.
> You can offer only opinion.
>
We've been over this and over this. You have an unbelievable blind spot.
We ARE NOT talking about whether belief in religion is rational or true.
>> Kip implied
>> religious people believe God created the universe on a whim. Maybe
>> some religion somewhere believes that, but none of the ones I'm the
>> least familiar with. I wonder if either you or Kip have slightest
>> idea what the Judiasm, Christianity and I assume Islam each aver
>> about the reason for creation.
>
> It's quaint to entertain thoughts that there is a reason for creation,
> just as quaint as it is to think that there is a reason for a random
> tree falling in the forest. In both instances, one can show to a
> pretty high level of confidence about how the thing occurred. But why?
> There is no why. That's an answer religionists are loathe to even
> consider.
Again, it's not about whether there *is* a reason for creation. It's about
Kip's implicit mischaracterization of what religious people believe. Can't
you see that? No one believed God created the universe on a whim. Not Kip
nor you - you don't believe in God in the first place. So who was he
talking about? No one.
>
> If you do, then you'll see why Kip's comment was ignorant. Kip
>> will probably call this nit-picking.
>>
>> One final thing, Mark. When you refuse to capitalize "God," it's
>> akin to Republicans deliberately calling the Democratic party the
>> "Democrat" party. It's a (deliberate?) show of contempt.
>
> There's a difference: I can prove that Democrats and Republicans
> exist. No one can prove than any one of the millions of gods that man
> has created for himself exist. I don't see that the word "god" needs
> to be capitalized, as god is nothing more than an idea born of the
> childish ignorance of our species. So, while people who call
> themselves Ds or Rs may well take offense at pot shots taken at them,
> there's no god around to take offense when a lower case letter is used
> in the word god.
>
I wasn't concerned with God being offended.
> BTW, Frank - do you use a capital G when talking about Anubis or
> Apollo? Last time I looked they were Gods as well.
Of course, they are proper nouns.
>
> As far as contempt, I can think of few other creations of man's mind
> as loathsome as the Gods of the holy books. They deserve our contempt,
> both in the abstract and in the concrete. just as much as we should
> show contempt for the concept of slavery. Yes, it's a deliberate show
> of contempt on my part. Not for the believers, but for the rotten and
> stupid idea that we call "god."
>
> And why should that bother you? I show deep contempt for conservative
> philosophies here all the time. Am I out of line in doing so? Of
> course not. Your feigned umbrage is reserved exclusively for religious
> ideas.
No it isn't. I've called for civil discussion here many times in political
discussions and been ridiculed for it.
>Well, I'm sorry, but religion needs to grow up and face the
> fact that it needs to deal on the level playing field that is know as
> the marketplace of ideas. That means no special carve outs or
> dispensations from logic and reason for religion. You want to play in
> today's world, you better offer something more than the barbaric ideas
> of our forebears, clothed in cloying piety masquerading as knowledge.
>
> Hope that clarifies things.
It clarifies that you can't distinguish contempt for concents and contempt
for people.
Frank Berger
It's unbelievable that intelligent folks like you and Mark simply can not
distinguish between a discussion of what is or is not true, and a discussion
*about* what a religion's theology holds.
Frank Berger
> is difficult to imagine" in responding to Kip's post, he needs to be
> challenged to produce a less-clueless understanding.
Not if what he was referring to was Kip's mischaracterization of what
religions say about Creation.
Frank Berger
> On Mar 1, 11:01 pm, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Less than 1% of the world's population believes in Apollo or Anubis.
>> When you get down to that point, then you can play the capital game.
>> Otherwise, I think the NY Times manual of style would say you're
>> wrong.
>>
>
> Don't know if you saw it, but the high court in England just ruled
> that "there is no place in the law for Christianity." (here:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8353496/Foster-parent-ban-no-place-in-the-law-for-Christianity-High-Court-rules.html
> ).
>
> The case involved a virulently homophobic Xian couple that wished to
The story simply says the couple believes homosexuality is "wrong." Do you
really think it's fair to characterize that as "virulently homophobic?
Do *you* think they should be barred from being foster parents?
pianomaven
> >> Well, yes, Bob. That Bruckner as composer should create a sense in his
> >> listener that man has created everything beautiful in life would be
> >> anathema to him. I realize that it is hard for Mark to accept God, but
> >> Bruckner without God is a contradiction in terms.
>
> > I think we all know that Bruckner was a devout Catholic, and that he
> > felt he was inspired by god in writing his music. But if you come from
> > the perspective that there is no god, then you realize that Bruckner's
> > music is the product of a fortunate delusion.
>
> Indeed, it's a little sad that people can look at the amazing universe
> we live in and conclude that it must have been done by some supernatural
> entity on a cosmic whim.
I don't think that 2000 years of Christianity and a few more years of
Judaism can be appropriately described as "sad".
People will believe what they believe. It isn't either sad or happy.
It's just a belief.
TD
pianomaven
> On Mar 1, 9:20 am, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3/1/11 8:36 AM, Kip Williams wrote:
>
> > > mark wrote:
> > >> On Mar 1, 6:06 am, pianomaven<1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> Well, yes, Bob. That Bruckner as composer should create a sense in his
> > >>> listener that man has created everything beautiful in life would be
> > >>> anathema to him. I realize that it is hard for Mark to accept God, but
> > >>> Bruckner without God is a contradiction in terms.
>
> > >> I think we all know that Bruckner was a devout Catholic, and that he
> > >> felt he was inspired by god in writing his music. But if you come from
> > >> the perspective that there is no god, then you realize that Bruckner's
> > >> music is the product of a fortunate delusion.
>
> > > Indeed, it's a little sad that people can look at the amazing universe
> > > we live in and conclude that it must have been done by some supernatural
> > > combined in unlikely yet inevitable ways to make it all must be replaced
> > > with a single myth in order to fit into some craniums.
>
> > > That might not be all bad, but then this myth is too often used as a
> > > club to beat people into conformity with, and tragedy ensues.
>
>
> > A more clueless understanding of Creation is difficult to imagine.
> > Whim?! You've got to be kidding (alas, you aren't, which makes it that
> > much sadder.)
>
>
> Why go there, Bob? Kip has facts on his side, you have a Biblical
> myth. I don't see how you can hope to win this argument in a forum
> populated by "thinking people who see the world as it is, not as the
> religionists here wish to see it."
It might, however, include thinking people who respect the beliefs of
others while holding their own beliefs.
TD
John Wiser
news:q7mdnQ13Z_ughfPQ...@supernews.com...
What is the point of discussing the content of an entirely bogus subject?
JDW
Bob Harper
Your inability to understand does not invalidate the ideas elucidated.
Bob Harper
Kip Williams
> Almighty, or even what I personally believe. It's about the *teachings*
> of the religions. Let me repeat. It has nothing to do with what is true.
You got that right.
> The religions have dogma. That dogma is *not* that God created the
> universe on a whim. So your comment that God created the universe on a
> whim is silly. As for what God's reason for creating the universe is,
> according to the various theologies, I doubt you're interested, but you
> can look it up easily enough, if you are.
My comment is no sillier than that stunning edifice of speculation built
upon hallucination. Killing over it doesn't make it less silly. I see
nothing in the Bible about motives ascribed to the inscrutable and
capricious deity described in it, and anything after that is guesswork
and hunches piled upon more of the same. It's clouds all the way down.
Kip W
Kip Williams
> In article<Cqkbp.3584$Ej3....@newsfe08.iad>, Kip Williams
> <k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> O wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <17e50609-a917-4c83...@d26g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>>> mark<markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Kip implied
>>>>> religious people believe God created the universe on a whim. Maybe some
>>>>> religion somewhere believes that, but none of the ones I'm the least
>>>>> familiar with. I wonder if either you or Kip have slightest idea what the
>>>>> Judiasm, Christianity and I assume Islam each aver about the reason for
>>>>> creation.
>>>>
>>>> It's quaint to entertain thoughts that there is a reason for creation,
>>>
>>> As quaint as entertaining thoughts that creation was completely
>>> pointless.
>>
>> "Point" is beside the point. It begs the question that there must be
>> some being who wanted things this way. This is apparently due to a
>> comforting belief that Man is the special snowflake, made in the image
>> of the creator of all things.
>
> I don't necessarily think that Man is the special snowflake, nor the
> clam, as Mark Twain might put it, but that doesn't mean that this here
> universe doesn't have some interesting coincidences which make the
> mystery of the spark of life rather remarkable.
Remarkable, yes. Inevitably created by a supernatural being with a
beard, no. Most people who think it has to have been probably don't
understand just how long it took, despite repeated exposures to the
story of the hummingbird (or butterfly, whatever) and the vast mountain
of diamond that its wing brushes once every googazillion years.
>> I still think the universe is spectacular
>> enough without imagining a name signed down in the corner of the canvas.
>> (A name we know with exactitude because crazed desert nomads wrote it
>> down a long time ago.)
>
> There's a distinction between religious, agnostic, and atheist. One
> can believe in an creating force without believing in the Bible.
Yes.
Kip W
Kip Williams
> Kip Williams wrote:
>> O wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <17e50609-a917-4c83...@d26g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>>> mark<markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Kip implied
>>>>> religious people believe God created the universe on a whim. Maybe
>>>>> some religion somewhere believes that, but none of the ones
>>>>> I'm the least familiar with. I wonder if either you or Kip have
>>>>> slightest idea what the Judiasm, Christianity and I assume Islam
>>>>> each aver about the reason for creation.
>>>>
>>>> It's quaint to entertain thoughts that there is a reason for
>>>> creation,
>>>
>>> As quaint as entertaining thoughts that creation was completely
>>> pointless.
>>
>> "Point" is beside the point. It begs the question that there must be
>> some being who wanted things this way. This is apparently due to a
>> comforting belief that Man is the special snowflake, made in the image
>> of the creator of all things. I still think the universe is
>> spectacular enough without imagining a name signed down in the corner
>> of the canvas. (A name we know with exactitude because crazed desert
>> nomads wrote it down a long time ago.)
>
> not distinguish between a discussion of what is or is not true, and a
> discussion *about* what a religion's theology holds.
So this week we're not defending the fairy tale, just the particulars of
the version of the fairy tale.
Where in the Bible is God's "purpose" explicated in any way that makes
it anything but a cosmic whim? Is it that word that has you bristling?
Kip W
Kip Williams
Mischaracterization how? Creation is supposed to be vast, infinite,
incomprehensible. Yet we're supposed to be special? I see we have
dominion over the animals. Is that the special part?
Where does it say God created this because it was vastly vital and
important? How do you get that from the words of Genesis? It looks like
he created the universe because he could, and was pleased with the
result. Anything more than that is reading into a text that's already
kind of tricky and self-contradictory anyway.
Kip W
Kip Williams
> Again, it's not about whether there *is* a reason for creation. It's
> about Kip's implicit mischaracterization of what religious people
> believe. Can't you see that? No one believed God created the universe on
> a whim. Not Kip nor you - you don't believe in God in the first place.
> So who was he talking about? No one.
If there's no reason for creation, how does that differ from a whim?
What is the basis for the huffiness you display here? Isn't God so far
above us that his very lightest whim hath more gravitas than our most
important conviction or something like that?
Kip W
Kip Williams
> On 3/1/11 9:20 PM, Kip Williams wrote:
>> Bob Harper wrote:
>>> As a counter to your (and others') insistence on excessive literalism,
>>> you might take a look at this:
>>>
>>> http://www.rtforum.org/study/lesson2.html
>>
>> It would take a year just to look up all the jargon used here. What an
>> elaborate edifice can be built upon a foundation of solid mist. Do any
>> of these people write in English, or does that give away the trick of
>> the thing?
>
Well, the pismatudes of snaffbragology would clearly assert that the
habners of the blavely woogmas outweigh your feeble protestations, so I
remain glermsy.
Kip W
Frank Berger
From you own perspective, that is correct. I'm glad you finally see that
your comment was silly.
Kip Williams
If you are agreeing that my comment is, at most, as silly as the
religion that prompted it, then we have no further disagreement.
Kip W
Frank Berger
That's what this conversation was about until it was hijacled. Speaking for
myself, I have never, ever "defended the fairy tale." I occasionaly share
my understanding about what traditional Judaism says about this or that, and
even less often discuss my own personall beliefs.
>
> Where in the Bible is God's "purpose" explicated in any way that makes
> it anything but a cosmic whim? Is it that word that has you bristling?
>
>
> Kip W
Judaism's teachings include a lot more than the Bible.. One explanation I've
heard is that the universe was created so man could function in it. Man was
created in order to be able to exercise the choice betwen good and evil.
Another, not mutually exclusive explanation is so that God could exercise
his attribute of kindness. Christianity will no doubt bring Jesus into its
explantion. Again, for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter
what's true. Only that theologies exist and within each there is a richness
and consistency of ideas that can not be appreciated unless studied a
little.
Frank Berger
> Frank Berger wrote:
>>> So, when Bob uses the phrase "more clueless understanding of
>>> Creation is difficult to imagine" in responding to Kip's post, he
>>> needs to be challenged to produce a less-clueless understanding.
>>
>> Not if what he was referring to was Kip's mischaracterization of what
>> religions say about Creation.
>
> Mischaracterization how?
I've explained it several times already. Religions *do not* hold that God
created the universe on a whim. That's what you said.
>Creation is supposed to be vast, infinite,
> incomprehensible. Yet we're supposed to be special? I see we have
> dominion over the animals. Is that the special part?
>
> Where does it say God created this because it was vastly vital and
> important? How do you get that from the words of Genesis?
You don't. In Judaism, knowledge of the OT text alone is like having a
kindergarten education. The OT is the written law, the Talmud, among other
things, is the oral elucidation and clarification of the written law. The
oral law was literally that - oral and not written down - passed down by
generations of rabbis - until written down around 200-400 AD. One simple
example. The OT has a commandment that goes something like, "You will
slaughter animals in the manner I have shown you." Well, the kosher manner
of slaughtering is not given in the OT. It's given in the Talmud.
Frank Berger
> Frank Berger wrote:
>
>> Again, it's not about whether there *is* a reason for creation. It's
>> about Kip's implicit mischaracterization of what religious people
>> believe. Can't you see that? No one believed God created the
>> universe on a whim. Not Kip nor you - you don't believe in God in
>> the first place. So who was he talking about? No one.
>
> If there's no reason for creation, how does that differ from a whim?
Huh? I didn't say there was no reason. See my other posts.
> What is the basis for the huffiness you display here?
I'm trying to keep the discussion focused, that's all.
> Isn't God so far
> above us that his very lightest whim hath more gravitas than our most
> important conviction or something like that?
>
Why do you insist on attributing behavior (whim) to God, when you don't
believe in Him? The religions have theologies that include the nature of
God as they each see Him. Whimsy is not one of the thirteen attributes of
God formulated by Maimonides. I'm guessing that most other religions don't
see God as whimsical, though some may, I suppose.
>
> Kip W
Frank Berger
I'm glad we agree that your comment was silly. That was my *only* point. I
don't care what you believe about religion.
John Wiser
OTOH, your entire belief system is *deeply* silly.
JDW
mark
>
> Judaism's teachings include a lot more than the Bible.. One explanation I've
> heard is that the universe was created so man could function in it. Man was
> created in order to be able to exercise the choice betwen good and evil.
> Another, not mutually exclusive explanation is so that God could exercise
> his attribute of kindness.
Or perhaps the evolution of man is the Universe's attempt to become
self-aware. It is sort of mind boggling to consider that we may well
be the only entities in the universe who realize that there is a
Universe.
Gerard
> Kip Williams wrote:
> > Frank Berger wrote:
> > > Kip Williams wrote:
> >
> > > > My comment is no sillier than that stunning edifice of
> > > > speculation built upon hallucination.
> > >
> > > From you own perspective, that is correct. I'm glad you finally
> > > see that your comment was silly.
> >
> > If you are agreeing that my comment is, at most, as silly as the
> > religion that prompted it, then we have no further disagreement.
> >
> >
> > Kip W
>
> I'm glad we agree that your comment was silly. That was my *only*
> point.
Ha! Your only point. And you missed it!
ivanmaxim
>
> - Show quoted text -
The great thing about science is that its true whether you believe it
or not! Wagner fan
Kip Williams
> Kip Williams wrote:
>> Frank Berger wrote:
>>> Kip Williams wrote:
>>
>>>> My comment is no sillier than that stunning edifice of speculation
>>>> built upon hallucination.
>>>
>>> From you own perspective, that is correct. I'm glad you finally see
>>> that your comment was silly.
>>
>> If you are agreeing that my comment is, at most, as silly as the
>> religion that prompted it, then we have no further disagreement.
>
> I don't care what you believe about religion.
In your haste to agree, though, you've agreed about religion as well.
Thought you were just swallowing a camel, and got a gnat along with it.
Kip W
M forever
The same goes for the whole giant body of scientific evidence which
clearly disproves the biblical creation stories, and your inability to
understand any of that.
BTW, nor does simply pointing to a text with a lot of theological
mumbo-jumbo prove that you even understand the theological concept
yourself. You just behind in the shadow of something which is bigger
than yourself. Small people like you always need to do that.
Kip Williams
> Kip Williams wrote:
>> So this week we're not defending the fairy tale, just the particulars
>> of the version of the fairy tale.
>
> That's what this conversation was about until it was hijacled. Speaking
You don't understand how conversations work? You signed on to the
"hijacle" when you started arguing over something you can't seem to find
any logical basis to disagree with.
> for myself, I have never, ever "defended the fairy tale." I occasionaly
> share my understanding about what traditional Judaism says about this or
> that, and even less often discuss my own personall beliefs.
And only occasionally do you see fit to argue endlessly over whether a
sudden decision to create a species is a whim or something much, much
more grave and pompous-sounding.
>> Where in the Bible is God's "purpose" explicated in any way that makes
>> it anything but a cosmic whim? Is it that word that has you bristling?
>
> Judaism's teachings include a lot more than the Bible.. One explanation
I said -in the Bible-. Isn't that batch of fanciful verbiage enough for
you without dragging in centuries of additional speculation?
> I've heard is that the universe was created so man could function in it.
> Man was created in order to be able to exercise the choice betwen good
> and evil. Another, not mutually exclusive explanation is so that God
> could exercise his attribute of kindness. Christianity will no doubt
> bring Jesus into its explantion. Again, for the purposes of this
> discussion, it doesn't matter what's true. Only that theologies exist
> and within each there is a richness and consistency of ideas that can
> not be appreciated unless studied a little.
That's all add-on stuff, after the fiction (as it were). You only get
that consistency by calling anybody heretical who doesn't toe the party
line. What about all that crazy stuff they threw out, where Young Jesus
smites people for laughing?
I think you'll find that the Church of the SubGenius can't be
appreciated unless it's studied a little. Does this make it valid in any
way?
Kip W
Kip Williams
> Kip Williams wrote:
>> Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> So, when Bob uses the phrase "more clueless understanding of
>>>> Creation is difficult to imagine" in responding to Kip's post, he
>>>> needs to be challenged to produce a less-clueless understanding.
>>>
>>> Not if what he was referring to was Kip's mischaracterization of what
>>> religions say about Creation.
>>
>> Mischaracterization how?
>
> I've explained it several times already. Religions *do not* hold that
> God created the universe on a whim. That's what you said.
And you haven't offered a shred of even gibberish to defend that. They
don't use the word, but I see nothing about any other motive except in
the extrabiblical scribble-scrabble of the doctrinaire minutiae jugglers.
You're arguing over a distinction that makes no difference. So I'll
adopt your tactics:
Yes, they do!
Kip W
Kip Williams
> Kip Williams wrote:
>> Frank Berger wrote:
>>
>>> Again, it's not about whether there *is* a reason for creation. It's
>>> about Kip's implicit mischaracterization of what religious people
>>> believe. Can't you see that? No one believed God created the
>>> universe on a whim. Not Kip nor you - you don't believe in God in
>>> the first place. So who was he talking about? No one.
>>
>> If there's no reason for creation, how does that differ from a whim?
>
> Huh? I didn't say there was no reason. See my other posts.
I've already seen and pointed out that you've never offered one that has
any textual basis in scripture.
>> What is the basis for the huffiness you display here?
>
> I'm trying to keep the discussion focused, that's all.
On your hurt feelings?
>> Isn't God so far
>> above us that his very lightest whim hath more gravitas than our most
>> important conviction or something like that?
>
> Why do you insist on attributing behavior (whim) to God, when you don't
> believe in Him? The religions have theologies that include the nature of
> God as they each see Him. Whimsy is not one of the thirteen attributes
> of God formulated by Maimonides. I'm guessing that most other religions
> don't see God as whimsical, though some may, I suppose.
The thirteen attributes of God formulated by Maimonides! Well, that
settles it! That's right from some old book, so I guess it's just as
good as being in the Bible.
Kip W
M forever
> On Mar 1, 11:01 pm, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Less than 1% of the world's population believes in Apollo or Anubis.
> > When you get down to that point, then you can play the capital game.
> > Otherwise, I think the NY Times manual of style would say you're wrong.
>
> Don't know if you saw it, but the high court in England just ruled
> that "there is no place in the law for Christianity." (here:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8353496/Foster-pa...
> ).
>
> The case involved a virulently homophobic Xian couple that wished to
> adopt: "Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson made the remarks
> when ruling on the case of a Christian couple who were told that they
> could not be foster carers because of their view that homosexuality is
> wrong.
>
> "The judges underlined that, in the case of fostering arrangements at
> least, the right of homosexuals to equality “should take precedence”
> over the right of Christians to manifest their beliefs and moral
> values.
>
> "In a ruling with potentially wide-ranging implications, the judges
> said Britain was a “largely secular”, multi-cultural country in which
> the laws of the realm “do not include Christianity”.
>
> "Speaking personally, Canon Dr Chris Sugden, the executive secretary
> of Anglican Mainstream, said the judges were wrong to say religion was
> a matter of private individuals’ beliefs.
>
> “They are treating religion like Richard Dawkins does, as if Christian
> faith was on a parallel with Melanesian frog worship,” he said.
>
> “The judgment asserts that there is no hierarchy of rights, but itself
> implies there is one in which the right to practise one’s religion is
> subordinated to the secular assumptions about equality.”
>
> Well, I believe that Canon Dr Chris Sugden said openly what the Xians
> and most others believe: that it is wrong to put the "Christian faith
> on a parallel with Melanesian frog worship.” In the good Doctor's
> world, there is a HIERARCHY of rights, with religion sitting at the
> top of that hierarchy...but not just ANY religion! Why, it's the Xian
> religion, of course!
>
> But why is it wrong to put the Christian faith was on a parallel with
> Melanesian frog worship? There's as much objective proof for Xian
> beliefs as there are for the beliefs of Melanesian frog worshipers.
> Any religion can make up any "proof" they want if they don't limit
> themselves to the provable.
>
> Methinks the good doctor doth protest too much...but he does say what
> goes unspoken here, ie: that certain religions (translation - MY
> religion) worship "real" gods while every other religion worships
> pretend gods.
I googled "Melanesian frog worship" but apparently there is no such
religion although I did find indications that some people in India
worship frogs because they can "miraculously" change the color of
their skin (which is pretty cool, really).
That phrase has a lot of post-colonial chauvinist undertones: "we
aren't like the primitive natives in Melanesia who practice primitive
idol worship". While idol worshiping is exactly what Christianity
really is itself.
Kip Williams
> BTW, nor does simply pointing to a text with a lot of theological
> mumbo-jumbo prove that you even understand the theological concept
> yourself. You just behind in the shadow of something which is bigger
> than yourself. Small people like you always need to do that.
Orwell called it bafflegab.
Kip W
Frank Berger
I personally feel that the existence of God or truth of any particular
religion can't be proved. It's not science. It's not scientific. It's
faith. It non-rationsl. I've never, ever held otherwise. Others may
disagree. If that's what you mean by our "agreeing on religion," you are
correct. It wasn't some sort of accidental slip. As, I've said, I've never
believed otherwise.
Frank Berger
> Frank Berger wrote:
>> Kip Williams wrote:
>
>>> So this week we're not defending the fairy tale, just the
>>> particulars of the version of the fairy tale.
>>
>> That's what this conversation was about until it was hijacled.
>> Speaking
>
> You don't understand how conversations work? You signed on to the
> "hijacle" when you started arguing over something you can't seem to
> find any logical basis to disagree with.
>
>> for myself, I have never, ever "defended the fairy tale." I
>> occasionaly share my understanding about what traditional Judaism
>> says about this or that, and even less often discuss my own
>> personall beliefs.
>
> And only occasionally do you see fit to argue endlessly
every time you rely you are contributing equally to the endless discussion.
>over whether a sudden decision to create a species is a whim or something
>much, much
> more grave and pompous-sounding.
>
I was simply pointing out your apparent ignorance of what organized religion
*says.* You followed that by admitting the "whim" comment was silly and
even asked what organized relgion does say. Now you are turning hostile. I
don't get your behavior.
>>> Where in the Bible is God's "purpose" explicated in any way that
>>> makes it anything but a cosmic whim? Is it that word that has you
>>> bristling?
>>
>> Judaism's teachings include a lot more than the Bible.. One
>> explanation
>
> I said -in the Bible-. Isn't that batch of fanciful verbiage enough
> for you without dragging in centuries of additional speculation?
>
I was simplu trying to communicate what Judiasm *says* and explained that
it's a lot more complicated than what's in the Bible, and you won't accept
that.
>> I've heard is that the universe was created so man could function in
>> it. Man was created in order to be able to exercise the choice
>> betwen good and evil. Another, not mutually exclusive explanation is
>> so that God could exercise his attribute of kindness. Christianity
>> will no doubt bring Jesus into its explantion. Again, for the
>> purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter what's true. Only
>> that theologies exist and within each there is a richness and
>> consistency of ideas that can not be appreciated unless studied a
>> little.
>
> That's all add-on stuff, after the fiction (as it were). You only get
> that consistency by calling anybody heretical who doesn't toe the
> party line. What about all that crazy stuff they threw out, where
> Young Jesus smites people for laughing?
I don't know what you're arguing about. I explain what Judaism says and you
disagree. I know you disagree. I'm not trying to convince you of anything,
just educate you *about* what Judaism says. You simply, *can't* respond to
the comment that the Talmud is important in Judaism, by claiming the Talmud
has less validity or truth or whatever than the Bible. What you believe is
irrelevant to the point (as is what I personally believe). If you took a
comparative religions class, would you argue at every opportunity with the
professor that what this or that religion holds is untrue? No. That would
be besides the point of taking the class. That's you're doing here.
By the way, most of Judaism was fully developed blong efore Christianity
arose. Judaism didn't "throw out" New Testament stuff. It ignored it as
irrelevaent to Judaism.
>
> I think you'll find that the Church of the SubGenius can't be
> appreciated unless it's studied a little. Does this make it valid in
> any way?
>
An irrelevant question. If you explained to me the tenets of the Church of
the SubGenius, I would not likely believe some of them. But unless you were
prostelytizing, it wouldn't even occur to me to voice disagreement.
>
> Kip W
Frank Berger
> Frank Berger wrote:
>> Kip Williams wrote:
>>> Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>> So, when Bob uses the phrase "more clueless understanding of
>>>>> Creation is difficult to imagine" in responding to Kip's post, he
>>>>> needs to be challenged to produce a less-clueless understanding.
>>>>
>>>> Not if what he was referring to was Kip's mischaracterization of
>>>> what religions say about Creation.
>>>
>>> Mischaracterization how?
>>
>> I've explained it several times already. Religions *do not* hold that
>> God created the universe on a whim. That's what you said.
>
> And you haven't offered a shred of even gibberish to defend that. They
> don't use the word, but I see nothing about any other motive except in
> the extrabiblical scribble-scrabble of the doctrinaire minutiae
> jugglers.
I don't know what other religions say about God's reason for creating man
and the universe. I know something about what Judaism says. The sources
are indeed non-biblical. I can't help that. I don't see why you would
reject the extra-biblical stuff as a source to explain what Judaism
believes. That doesn't make a sense. And again. it's not about what is
true. It's about doctrine. You can reject any and all of it as untrue
myth, but you can't reject the importance of the extra-biblical material to
Judaism. Perhaps you just don't know enough about Judaism. Judaism holds
that God gave the written law (bible) and oral law (Talmud) to Moses at
Mount Sinai. The oral provided an understanding of the written law. The
Mesorah, or tradition, has been passed down ever since. That's what
traditional Judaism *is*. The oral law is not some more modern addition
invented by rabbis for some scurrilous purposes. Although some anti-semites
believe that.
Frank Berger
> Frank Berger wrote:
>> Kip Williams wrote:
>>> Frank Berger wrote:
>>>
>>>> Again, it's not about whether there *is* a reason for creation.
>>>> It's about Kip's implicit mischaracterization of what religious
>>>> people believe. Can't you see that? No one believed God created the
>>>> universe on a whim. Not Kip nor you - you don't believe in God in
>>>> the first place. So who was he talking about? No one.
>>>
>>> If there's no reason for creation, how does that differ from a whim?
>>
>> Huh? I didn't say there was no reason. See my other posts.
>
> I've already seen and pointed out that you've never offered one that
> has any textual basis in scripture.
Sigh. Scripture is defines as holy texts, not the just the bible. The
Talmud *is* scripture in Judaism.
>
>>> What is the basis for the huffiness you display here?
>>
>> I'm trying to keep the discussion focused, that's all.
>
> On your hurt feelings?
>
>>> Isn't God so far
>>> above us that his very lightest whim hath more gravitas than our
>>> most important conviction or something like that?
>>
>> Why do you insist on attributing behavior (whim) to God, when you
>> don't believe in Him? The religions have theologies that include the
>> nature of God as they each see Him. Whimsy is not one of the
>> thirteen attributes of God formulated by Maimonides. I'm guessing
>> that most other religions don't see God as whimsical, though some
>> may, I suppose.
>
> The thirteen attributes of God formulated by Maimonides! Well, that
> settles it! That's right from some old book, so I guess it's just as
> good as being in the Bible.
>
>
> Kip W
More or less. That's what I've been saying.