Something I don't understand

     A lot of christians act as if you should believe their particular interpretation of the bible as evidence "because it's true." These same christians will dismiss all other beliefs as mere legends. Quite frankly, I find nothing to suggest to me that the bible is evidence -- leave alone any religious groups interpretation of it. Seriously, there are only two ways someone could find their claims convincing. One is if he was ready to believe anything they said without question. The other is if he already subscribed to that particular interpretation. There is reason why christians are seen as calling on people to turn off their brains.

What is the purpose?

     If a first person knows that a second person does not accept a particular text as a valid reference, why would the first person continue to quote that text? In principle, this could occur with any subject. In practice I only see it with christians quoting the bible. Now, I have come up with some possibilities.

     Too stupid to think of anything else to say. It is possible that someone might continue using the same failed tactic because he can't think of anything else. Such a person is not a useful advocate for any position.

     Can't really say what he'd like. This condition suggests an indirect warning. He is repeating what is already considered invalid to ensure a rejection. He is forced to create the illusion of advocating an abhorrent position.

     Puppet on a string. The first person isn't acting of his own power at all. Of course the same question can then be applied to the puppet-master.

     Seeking an emotional response. Such a person is being dishonest in any debate. In internet forums, he is considered a troll.

     Playing to a different audience. This would often be mixed with number 4. He is not really trying to convince the person to whom he is nominally speaking. Instead, he is putting on a show for people who agree with him.

     So, can anyone think of any other possibilities? Or have I got them all?

Suppose the bible was written by an evil spirit (repost)

     Suppose the bible was written by an evil spirit who loves suffering (our suffering, not his own) but who has no power over anyone who has not agreed to submit to him. On this idea, when we die, we become free spirits in a spiritual realm unless we have enslaved ourselves.
     It's amazing how much of what we see fits the notion. The biblical god's commands to slaughter outsiders certainly fits a being who loves suffering. A current desire for fresh victims also fits the notion well. Consider: Biblical followers tell you that their god is good. They also give varied excuses why your conscience is not a good measure when it says his actions are not.
     It is expected that such a wicked being would want to people to submit to him sight unseen. If we make a good / evil determination first, we are likely not to submit. What is particularly interesting is that it explains satanism as well. Satanism appears to be a fake opposition designed to send people running scared into the biblical spirit's clutches.

Addendum:

     The Jesus tale does not defeat the possiblity. There may have been a Jesus who was only a pawn in this game. Furthermore, some of the grand claims may well have come later.

What do people mean when they an idea is ridiculous?

     Well, a good definition for the term would be an idea that would prevent anyone holding it from functioning in society. And, in this, I am not talking about ideas so shunned by society that one must feign disbelief in order to function. Perhaps a better definition would be an idea that one would confirm to be false in one's day-to-day operations. In this definition, the notion that mice eat cats would be ridiculous (for anyone with experience with the two animals.)
     In my observations, when people call an idea ridiculous, they normally do so unfairly. It is generally an idea that they wish to dismiss without thinking about it. Simply put, people don't like to consider worldviews other than their own.

Suppose you were travelling to another realm.

     In preparation for your travels, you need to select a land to make your home. There are representative from various possibilities seeking to persuade you to choose their land.
     Caelum is ruled by a king. This king is surrounded by many people who sing his praises at all times. The representatives of Caelum explain that their king is so good that it is unlawful to criticize the king's actions in any way or to give the slightest suggestion that he is less than perfect. It is because of his incredible sense of justice that he straps such people to devices of horrendous pain for eons. After all, the punishment must fit the worth of the one offended; and the king's worth was great, indeed.
     Regalia is also ruled by a king. But people people complain about some of his actions. No one is punished for making complaints. Instead, subjects have the ability to present a case before the king as to why an action should be changed. Sometimes, the king changes his policies based on the presentations.
     In Plurima, all policies are decided by straight majority vote. There are, of course, some unhappy people who lost a recent election in which the majority ruled that that group would have to surrender 3/4 of their wages to suit the comfort of said majority. But you can't please everyone; and the will of the people must be respected.
     Liberia also has elections to decide policies. However, there are constraints such that no policy may single out a group for harm. Sometimes it can take years before the validity of a policy can be determined, during which time it is placed on hold.
     So, what land would you make your home? What land would you most want to avoid? Are there other possibilities that I should have considered?

I leave it to my readers to make their own decisions. I expect this to be deleted.

Dani' El said...
http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg2/gregvella/avatar2_14.gif

Pvb,
If you can return to a respectful conversation I would be glad to see it.
But to come to my blog and spew accusations and blasphemy is disrespectful.
I would never do the same on your blog or anywhere else.

Shalom,
Dani' El

November 15, 2008 5:18 PM


Pvblivs said...
     "But to come to my blog and spew accusations and blasphemy is disrespectful."
     Pot meet kettle. This blog consists largely of accusations against residents of California (e.g. "Evangelists driven out of Catro - San Francisco," "Sodomites terrorize a church," "Extreme wickedness in San Fransodom.") No, I was respectful and Daniel decided to start quoting bible verses starting with "but he answered him nothing." That is, of course, highly disrepectful. The blasphemy charge is, of course, complete nonsense. Blasphemy consists of "misuse" of the name of the hebrew god, consisting of four hebrew letters. I do not know this name. I probably couldn't pronounce it. And I don't have the means to type it. Simply put, I couldn't commit blasphemy if I wanted to.
     My analysis is sincere. I really believe that all the bible-verse quoting really was Daniel's human spirit doing what he could to warn against evil spirits that have trapped and constrained him.

November 15, 2008 5:56 PM

UPDATE:

Dani' El said...
Pvb,
This started when you started making demands, commanding that I do this or that to satisfy you.
Even demanding that I stop quoting scripure on my own blog.

You then wrote-
"Certainly Jesus, if he was anything like the bible describes was a grand deceiver. But now I see that the biblical god is a cruel master indeed."

That's blasphemy and you are showing yourself to be a troll.

If you decide to change your ways I would be glad to see it, but until then I will be ignoring anything you write that is libelous or blashpemous.
If necessary I will start to moderate comments.

Is that your goal?

And Calif is my home and I am well within my rights to criticize her.
And I am sent by God to warn of judgment, I do not obey your commands.

November 15, 2008 6:10 PM


Pvblivs said...
     "Ah, not that is a testable claim. If you move a few mountains, it will surely make the headlines. I am also sure that you will impress quite a few non-christians with such a feat. On the other hand, if the headlines say nothing of that over the next few days, I will have to assume that your attempt to move mountains was a failure."
     Is that a demand? I would say no. It is a challenge. It's a way of saying "talk is cheap" in response to a previous claim that he had faith to move mountains.
     You will also not find a deman that he stop quoting the bible from me. The closest you will find is that I said that he need not do so any more as it could not accomplish anything more and a separate declaration that I would ignore any further bible passages.
     My criticism was of a double-standard, not of making accusations themselves. If I were going to criticize making accusations, I would have done so when the accusations started. It is when he turned around and said that I should not be making accusations even though he does so himself that I criticized the hypocrisy.
     Since my goal was asked, I shall state it. It is my goal (metaphorically) to hold up a large mirror so that the writer of the blog can see himself as he is.
     Now, some people who are paying attention may note that I have, in the past, defended Daniel against accusations that I thought were unjust. They may wonder if I regret doing that, given the repayment. I do not. I did that for the sake of integrity and for what is right. If appropriate, I would do it again. I always seek to do that which is right. But that means that no being can be above criticism, even when the blog writer calls such criticism "blasphemy."

November 15, 2008 6:41 PM

Christianity must be a trap.

     In a comment on his blog Daniel claimed that he had faith that can move mountains. Now, it is entirely unsurprising when christians pass this bit of fiction between themselves. It's something like a secret handshake. But his blog is (supposedly) directed at non-christians in an attempt to be convincing. Now, many non-christians dismiss extraordinary claims out of hand. I do not. I don't accept them without evidence either. What I do is examine claims and test them. Daniel's not stupid. He knows this.
     Making a bold claim like that and then retreating to bible verses to excuse not answering challenges is a very foolish way to try to convince people that your claims are true. It took me while, but I had an insight. He's not trying to convince people that his claims are true. The spirit of christianity forces him to maintain a pretense. He has been somehow trapped and is giving an indirect warning to any who might examine. I have to conclude that he unable to say directly what he would like.

"9 Then he [Herod] questioned with him [Jesus] in many words; but he answered him nothing."

     The above quote is a cop-out. If it is historically accurate, it suggests that Jesus was not who he pretended to be. If not, it was probably added as a cop-out. It makes for a standard excuse for someone trying to evade people calling his bluff. I have to say that anyone who pulls that stunt (evading challenges with that quote) automatically loses any credibility he may have had.

Let's see a show of hands.

     Who here has no false beliefs?

     Put your hands down! Everyone has some false beliefs. Now, what got me thinking on this was the fact that I saw a comment on someone's blog outlining (his description, at any rate) paranoid schizophrenia. But, if you eliminate all the "sometimes associated with" items, you are left with the rational response to a (possibly false) belief that a secretive group was trying to eliminate one's self. But, we know secretive groups exist and blend seamlessly in with society. Although unlikely, it is possible to be a target of a secret group. And that could even be the result of some unfortunate chance.
     There seems to be a trend to label as "crazy" anyone who holds disapproved beliefs. My own thought is that this is a symptom of people not wanting to hear dissent against their core beliefs. It is a way to discount alternate perspectives. While there really is such a thing as madness, it entails a worldview that is incoherent, not simply incorrect. It would be a set of beliefs that produce inconsistencies on a regular basis, leaving the individual unable to act.

So, what happens when 2009 goes by and SF and LA still stand?

     There's one guy on Blogger (of whom I'm aware) who is predicting that San Francisco and Los Angeles will be destroyed supernaturally next year. Of course, I don't think it will happen. I have asked if he will admit he is a false prophet (according to his own faith, if it doesn't happen. Others have asked more complicated variants before I. He is very evasive. But I did get this out of him. He refuses to consider the possibility that his god lied to him. So what happens when the deadline approaches? If his prediction comes to pass, of course, he will feel vindicated. But if (much more likely) it does not, he may be cause for concern. Perhaps he will try to bring about the destruction himself. Perhaps he will be able to concede that he has been living a lie. Perhaps he will go someplace else and set a different time or fall back on "no one knows the day or hour." Or perhaps he will snap completely. I really don't know.

     Updated for error.

Political wish list

     Okay the elections are over; and happily McCain lost. With a little luck the Republican party will start considering the needs of the entire country rather than just the demands of its base.

      Now, for some things that I would like to see (but I'm not holding my breath.)

I would like to see Congress have to face a vote of confidence on a regular basis. I do not mean the current election system where people say "they should throw all of Congress out except for my Congressman." I would like to a nationwide vote on whether Congress is doing a good job, and if the vote is "no," removing everyone.

I would like to see a system that did not effectively lock into two parties (which I often think are in cahoots.) Let's face it, people vote for the two major parties to avoid having the election go to the other party. It is not safe to vote for a different preference. A different system that allowed one to indicate one's true preference without throwing the election to the worst choice would be better. I like the idea of a ranked system. Everyone ranks candidates in order of preference. The candidate with the most votes of lowest rank is discharged, then it repeats with the effective ranks of remaining candidates until only one is left.