Blogs 4 Brownback

May 24, 2007

Science: The New Inquisition

Filed under: Democratic Idiocy,Faith,Internet,Science,Weirdos and Hippies — Sisyphus @ 4:26 am

If there’s one thing I’ve learned in the last few days, it’s that science has acquired the status of an unofficial pillar of government in our society.  Woe betide the man who questions the foundations of this pillar! 

 Make no mistake about it, scientists have an agenda.  Your tax dollars feed them, clothe them, and send them on expeditions to “the Moon” (in actuality, for all we know, Monte Carlo and Bangkok).  Scientists have a vested interest in maintaining the cash flow that sustains their lifestyle. 

 When I rejected one of the more fatuous claims of modern science (the Helioleftist assertion that the Earth is not stable, despite all empirical knowledge to the contrary), the response was overwhelming. Scientists, and their disciples the atheists, secular humanists, and Darwinists, rushed to the attack. Here is a very small sample of the barrage I sustained for questioning their beliefs:

“Why are you so judgmental?”

“Were you one of the few at Jonestown that made it through the Kool-Aid ordeal? You know, it didn’t kill you. Just fried your logic skills.”

“You remind me of the insane mother from the movie “Carrie”.” (Whatever that means; it sounded negative to me.)

“Are you Stephen Cobert? Seriously”

“You are obviously completely ignorant, living in a medival fantasy world. You poor fool.”

“Surely only a parody site could come up with such an astounding compendium of rubbish, with Sisyphus so completely misunderstanding every point made by others and lurching from one inanity to another.”

“People like you Sisyphus should not be allowed to vote.”

It got even worse in a later post, in which I questioned the right of NASA to keep siphoning our money out of our pockets, given that it’s not even clear they’ve achieved a single one of their boasts regarding extraplanetary exploration. Calls to suicide and veiled death threats were received from members of the scientific community. They are a cult, and a very dangerous one at that.

The scientists can’t prove their ideology is correct, so they’re trying to silence me just as the Church was forced to take action to silence Galileo. The difference is that Galileo was a homosexual fraud who was trying to destroy Christianity in Europe with his outrageous blasphemies, while I speak the Truth for neither financial renumeration nor ulterior motive. I wish only to expose the malice, corruption, and deceit that underlies modern pseudoscience. For that, I am persecuted.

I write this as a warning to those among you willing to listen to me. We face a powerful, cunning, malicious opponent who will stop at nothing to maintain power and influence. We must be as innocent and doves and as wise as serpents in dealing with them.

275 Comments »

  1. But isn’t Science responsible for giving you this forum? Without quantum mechanics, for example, the internet, your computer, and even electricity would not exist. Your soapbox would then literally be a soapbox, from which you could proclaim to the world your immunity from reason.

    Comment by Rob — May 24, 2007 @ 6:44 am | Reply

  2. What is abundantly clear is that “science” has devolved into a cult where rigorous adherence to doctrine is rigidly enforced and where open minded enquiry has no place. As Sisyphus has shown through his recent experience, anyone who dares to question the ideological dogma is shouted down, ridiculed, insulted, greeted with death threats, and ostricized from polite company. The thugs have traded in their jackboots for lab coats.

    Since “science” is no more than a cult, why do we permit the government to waste so much money on it? Does this not constitute “establishment of a state religion”? A false, pernicious religion at that.

    When our founding fathers created a Christian nation by passing the Constitution in 1776, this is not what they had in mind.

    Comment by Carey Meiers — May 24, 2007 @ 7:20 am | Reply

  3. Excellent post. I find it amusing how furious the ‘open-minded’, ‘nonjudgemental’ liberals get when you dare question any of their (un)Holy tenants. Questioning authority and conventional wisdom is only OK if it’s a leftist doing it, I guess.

    Comment by Donatello — May 24, 2007 @ 7:58 am | Reply

  4. Those are excellent points, Carey and Donatello. I can’t wait for some of these “enlightened” secular atheists to “refute” them with childish taunts, ad hominems, and appeals to the non-existent authority of their pathetic pseudosciences.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 8:18 am | Reply

  5. “Open-minded enquiry”, though, does not mean you can throw away perfectly good data and observation. Come up with some theory that fits the data and makes a prediction, test that prediction. “Open minded enquiry” does not mean you can pick and choose the data to support a pre-conceived conclusion. Question the tenants all you want, a scientific theory should be rigorous enough to withstand. If not, it is discarded. This is why you cannot call science a religion.

    Comment by Rob — May 24, 2007 @ 8:18 am | Reply

  6. The thing you folks keep forgetting is that science is not “conventional wisdom”. Science is objective observation confirmed by independent testing of the hypothesis. You can argue as if it were mere opinion but the fact remains that scientific principles can be verified time and time again. This will always put the lie to your obfuscation.

    Comment by Tattler — May 24, 2007 @ 8:19 am | Reply

  7. “When our founding fathers created a Christian nation by passing the Constitution in 1776, this is not what they had in mind.”

    Sisyphus, is this statement factually correct?

    Comment by Rob — May 24, 2007 @ 8:23 am | Reply

  8. Question the tenants all you want, a scientific theory should be rigorous enough to withstand.

    I am not a landlord, so I don’t have any tenants to question. But if I was, it’s clear that they would be in agreement because I wouldn’t rent to heathens.

    Not sure what this has to do with the greater point…

    Comment by Carey Meiers — May 24, 2007 @ 8:44 am | Reply

  9. “Scientists have an agenda”

    Yes, it’s the pursuit of knowledge so that we are better able to understand the universe. Why would you think that this could be a bad thing?

    Sisyphus, these responses to your entries may have been rude and insulting but there are many others (probably in the hundreds) who provided a variety of different counter arguments to your assertions. All very reasonable and well argued. Many of these, myself included, received no response from you or were subjected to name calling. I know that there were hundreds of responses and you can’t possible respond to each one but you actually responded to very few except with a litany of “The bible says this and everything else is pure poppycock”.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 24, 2007 @ 8:52 am | Reply

  10. Wait… Galileo was homosexual?

    I thought he had children…

    Please clear this up for me. You’re obviously a very intelligent person and I could benefit from your insight. I also left a question in the heliocentric post.

    Comment by Andy — May 24, 2007 @ 8:53 am | Reply

  11. “But isn’t Science responsible for giving you this forum? Without quantum mechanics, for example, the internet, your computer, and even electricity would not exist. Your soapbox would then literally be a soapbox, from which you could proclaim to the world your immunity from reason.”

    The tools of the Devil may be used against him.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 8:54 am | Reply

  12. Question the tenants all you want, a scientific theory should be rigorous enough to withstand. If not, it is discarded. This is why you cannot call science a religion.”

    Its method constitutes a false idolatry; worship of data is every bit as reprehensible as worship of a golden calf.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 8:55 am | Reply

  13. “Sisyphus, is this statement factually correct?”

    Well, the date’s slightly off, but otherwise, yes, it’s correct.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 8:56 am | Reply

  14. “I know that there were hundreds of responses and you can’t possible respond to each one but you actually responded to very few except with a litany of “The bible says this and everything else is pure poppycock”.”

    Unfortunately, hoverfrog, I am only human. The tendency to judge others by the company they keep exists within me, too. The deluge of abuse I’ve received makes it difficult for me to find either the time or the inclination to research specific alternatives to each of the civil, rational retorts I’ve received. I apologize. All I can ask you to do is keep posting them; I, or one of my associates, will eventually find the time from fending off invective to respond accordingly.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 8:59 am | Reply

  15. “I am not a landlord, so I don’t have any tenants to question. But if I was, it’s clear that they would be in agreement because I wouldn’t rent to heathens.”

    Sorry, merely cut and pasted from Donatello. I guess that means my argument is moot.

    “The tools of the Devil may be used against him.”

    What on Earth do you mean by this? You are trying to use the fact that science works to prove that science doesn’t work? Or perhaps that investigating basic properties of matter is the work of the Devil? Are these views that Senator Brownback shares?

    Comment by Rob — May 24, 2007 @ 8:59 am | Reply

  16. […] like Galileo. Or something. […]

    Pingback by The Poor Man Institute » I honestly can’t figure out why scientists don’t vote Republican — May 24, 2007 @ 9:08 am | Reply

  17. “What on Earth do you mean by this? You are trying to use the fact that science works to prove that science doesn’t work?”

    Some forms of science work. They may be used to keep the other forms from sprouting up. Ultimately, we should abandon almost all science and move back to simpler ways, but that may take time to organize and effectuate.

    “Or perhaps that investigating basic properties of matter is the work of the Devil?”

    It is indeed. Get thee behind me, Satan!

    “Are these views that Senator Brownback shares?”

    Off-camera, I believe so, yes.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 9:08 am | Reply

  18. “Off-camera, I believe so, yes.”

    Why wouldn’t he share them on camera? Do you really want a candidate who does not truly express where he stands?

    Comment by Rob — May 24, 2007 @ 9:12 am | Reply

  19. …this is satire, right?

    Comment by r€nato — May 24, 2007 @ 9:28 am | Reply

  20. Why wouldn’t he share them on camera? Do you really want a candidate who does not truly express where he stands?

    Were you not paying attention when the helioleftists opened fire on Sisyphus for simply posting a rational sober look at the stationary Earth theory? Can you imagine the firestorm if Sen. Brownback did the same?

    The sad fact is that politics is a dirty business, and in order to win sometimes the candidate has to be a bit cagey about his objectives. And I have no problem with that, as long as its in the service of the right and the just.

    Comment by Carey Meiers — May 24, 2007 @ 9:35 am | Reply

  21. And what if the majority are misled by these cagey strategies, and wind up electing a man whose views do not reflect those of the majority?

    Comment by Rob — May 24, 2007 @ 9:40 am | Reply

  22. And what if the majority are misled by these cagey strategies, and wind up electing a man whose views do not reflect those of the majority?

    Don’t be silly. That could never happen in America.

    Comment by Carey Meiers — May 24, 2007 @ 9:47 am | Reply

  23. Sisyphus:

    Seriously. I’m really confused. Can you please help me? I don’t understand how Galileo could be homo, but have kids. I mean… he had kids out of wed-lock, so obviously he was a heathen, but I’m uncertain why you think he was queer.

    I’m also still very confused about some biblical things, as I stated in my question on the other post. The Bible mentions that the Earth is on a foundation, that there is a firmament and windows in the sky, and that there are (or at least *were*) unicorns and satyrs.

    This is all very confusing to me, but it seems you really have a handle on it, and I’d really like your guidance. Which parts of the Bible are meant to be literal and which parts are incorrect because of interpretation and/or translation?

    Comment by Andy — May 24, 2007 @ 9:52 am | Reply

  24. “Don’t be silly. That could never happen in America.”

    So now you don’t want Brownback elected?

    Comment by Rob — May 24, 2007 @ 9:57 am | Reply

  25. Question the tenants (sic) all you want, a scientific theory should be rigorous enough to withstand. If not, it is discarded. This is why you cannot call science a religion.

    If science is so powerful, why can’t it prove that G-d doesn’t exist? Seriously, science used to tell us that trephining (drilling holes in) peoples’ skulls released evil spirits to cure people. They got it wrong. Why is it so hard to believe that perhaps heliocentrism is wrong too?

    For all the of the lefty cheetocracy and so-called “scientists” to get so worked up about this shows that they are just as dogmatic as any of the true creative thinkers that they’ve ever shouted down as such.

    Hypocrisy, thy name is “bleeding-heart scientist”.

    Comment by Hieronymus — May 24, 2007 @ 10:20 am | Reply

  26. “And what if the majority are misled by these cagey strategies, and wind up electing a man whose views do not reflect those of the majority?”

    Thankfully that didn’t happen; Americans were smart enough to see through Kerrey’s ridiculous facade.

    Comment by Donatello — May 24, 2007 @ 10:25 am | Reply

  27. “Why wouldn’t he share them on camera? Do you really want a candidate who does not truly express where he stands?”

    I feel that actions speak louder than words.

    “…this is satire, right?”

    No.

    “Don’t be silly. That could never happen in America.”

    Even if it did, it would be in their best interest to elect Brownback no matter how they felt personally on the issue of Copernicanism.

    “Seriously. I’m really confused. Can you please help me? I don’t understand how Galileo could be homo, but have kids. I mean… he had kids out of wed-lock, so obviously he was a heathen, but I’m uncertain why you think he was queer.”

    Who says those were his children? His wife was probably an adulteress.

    “I’m also still very confused about some biblical things, as I stated in my question on the other post. The Bible mentions that the Earth is on a foundation, that there is a firmament and windows in the sky, and that there are (or at least *were*) unicorns and satyrs.”

    Then it is so.

    “This is all very confusing to me, but it seems you really have a handle on it, and I’d really like your guidance. Which parts of the Bible are meant to be literal and which parts are incorrect because of interpretation and/or translation?”

    All of it is to be taken quite literally. To do otherwise is to tempt Hellfire.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 10:31 am | Reply

  28. “If science is so powerful, why can’t it prove that G-d doesn’t exist?”
    Can you prove that the tooth fairy or Santa doesn’t exist? How about space men or leprechauns?

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 24, 2007 @ 10:31 am | Reply

  29. Great points, Hieronymus and Donatello!

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 10:32 am | Reply

  30. And having seen through “the ridiculous facade” of one politician, they were completely taken in by “the ridiculous facade” of another.” America — the carnival freak-show on the edge of town.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 10:34 am | Reply

  31. Can you prove that the tooth fairy or Santa doesn’t exist?

    Those are obviously fictions brought about to help keep our children innocent, unlike MTV or the satanic rock groups and misogynistic rap groups that people like Al Sharpton and homosexuals like David Geffen try to foist on our malleable young people. I don’t need to prove that they don’t exist – that’s *obvious*, and the type of argument I would expect from the “reality-based community”.

    The Bible is the inerrant word of G-d. That you would equate our Lord and Saviour with creations of the Hallmark company says a lot about your moral fiber.

    Comment by Hieronymus — May 24, 2007 @ 10:36 am | Reply

  32. “moral fiber” … it’s not just for breakfast any more …

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 10:38 am | Reply

  33. I wish that were true, RL Page. You liberals could really use a diet rich in moral fiber, instead of the empty calories of your secularist lifestyles.

    Comment by Donatello — May 24, 2007 @ 10:41 am | Reply

  34. Can you prove that the tooth fairy or Santa doesn’t exist? How about space men or leprechauns?”

    Spacemen can’t exist if there’s no space. The rest of them are Pagan myths.

    “America — the carnival freak-show on the edge of town.”

    Why do you hate America?

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 10:44 am | Reply

  35. Good morning, Donatello. If I had any idea what you’re babbling about, I would certainly respond to it. However, what can we do with empty metaphors like “moral fiber” and “the empty calories of … secularist lifestyles?” Let me know when you come up with something meaningful.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 10:44 am | Reply

  36. I write this as a warning to those among you willing to listen to me. We face a powerful, cunning, malicious opponent who will stop at nothing to maintain power and influence. We must be as innocent and doves and as wise as serpents in dealing with them.

    This is precisely why I’m so valuable to you, Sisyphus, if you’d just see it. You are getting very very close to unlocking the secrets of the ‘Science’ conspiracy. Ever since George Washington ordered Frenchified Benjamin Franklin burned at the stake for his heretical, ‘scientific’ investigations, we liberals have gone on an offensive against truth, the Bible, real history. Because I’m so homosexually attracted to you, I’m willing to tell you of this conspiracy, yet you scoff at my comments, question my intent.

    Is that very Christian? To hurt my feelings like that? to close your ears to the wicked secrets I tell you about? What’s more important, Sisyphus: that I may make you uncomfortable when I tell you I want to lube you up with soy, or that you learn the Truth of the vast conspiracy against your beliefs? Hmm?

    So, sure, I’m a sodomite, a catamite and a gomorrahmite. But doesn’t also mean I know what I speak of when I tell you that liberal leaders worship Ba’al, smoke fetal tissue, dump gay-causing soy into public water supplies?

    Yeah, Sisyphus: things that make you go HMMMM!

    Comment by HTML Mencken — May 24, 2007 @ 10:51 am | Reply

  37. Back off, Mencken, I saw Sissy first.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 10:52 am | Reply

  38. “Thankfully that didn’t happen; Americans were smart enough to see through Kerrey’s ridiculous facade.”

    Bob Kerrey?

    “Even if it did, it would be in their best interest to elect Brownback no matter how they felt personally on the issue of Copernicanism.”

    Gee, then why bother having elections?

    I must say, you’re deluding yourselves if you think you represent the majority. You have a lot of proselytizing to do before election day if you expect the views espoused on this blog to be shared publicly or privately by any elected official. Even Jo Ann Davis accepts (not believes that space exists.

    I’m still holding out hope that this is satire. If it is, you are clever foxes.

    Comment by Rob — May 24, 2007 @ 10:55 am | Reply

  39. What do you mean you want the US to control Mexico? I thought you wanted our countries to unite.

    US and Mexico unite!

    Comment by Brownback supporter — May 24, 2007 @ 10:59 am | Reply

  40. “Let me know when you come up with something meaningful.”

    And yet, “moral fiber . . . it’s not just for breakfast anymore” is a profound insight into the human condition?

    Hypocrisy, thy name is liberal.

    Comment by Donatello — May 24, 2007 @ 10:59 am | Reply

  41. “Ever since George Washington ordered Frenchified Benjamin Franklin burned at the stake for his heretical, ’scientific’ investigations”

    I don’t remember this.

    “Because I’m so homosexually attracted to you, I’m willing to tell you of this conspiracy, yet you scoff at my comments, question my intent.”

    Please go away, now. Go to a church, and pray.

    “Gee, then why bother having elections?”

    This is still a democracy. Voting based on ignorance is every American’s God-given right.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 11:00 am | Reply

  42. Oh, please. I met Psycheout months ago. Blogs4Brownback and S,N! have had a long dialogue. It was I who first told my liberal brethren about Sisyphus’s discovery of the Heliocentric conspiracy.

    Ask Sisyphus who first told him about the relationship between soy products and homosexuality.

    So, there.

    Comment by HTML Mencken — May 24, 2007 @ 11:00 am | Reply

  43. “What do you mean you want the US to control Mexico? I thought you wanted our countries to unite.”

    Yes. Unite under the American flag.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 11:01 am | Reply

  44. But doesn’t also mean I know what I speak of when I tell you that liberal leaders worship Ba’al, smoke fetal tissue, dump gay-causing soy into public water supplies?

    Yes, yes, we understand that you try to deflect attention from important ideas by mocking them. I’ve seen your pathetic website, where you ineffectually lob your satirical bombs at important conservative voices. The only people whose attention is drawn away from the substantive issues that Sisyphus raises are people who can’t (or don’t want to) think for themselves. Those are the only people you pot-smoking liberals can ever attract. You’re all like “We hate bush! Pass the bong! What were we talking about again?”

    Plus, you’re not even funny.

    Comment by Hieronymus — May 24, 2007 @ 11:01 am | Reply

  45. I don’t remember this.

    Of course you don’t remember it. Who has ultimate editorial control over all history books written in this country? Howard Zinn. Yeah.

    I’m trying to get you through the looking glass here, Sisyphus.

    Comment by HTML Mencken — May 24, 2007 @ 11:03 am | Reply

  46. Listen, Mencken, if you think I’m going to be cock-blocked by a FREAKIN’ HIPPIE, you better think again. Why don’t you go suck-up to your buddy Goldstein; he’s getting pretty lonely on that dying blog of his. [Getting jilted by Malkin, I guess, really did him in,]

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 11:12 am | Reply

  47. Tattler, I am afraid you have been misled by the satan-tists. You write: “Science is objective observation confirmed by independent testing of the hypothesis.” But these scientists are not out in the world exploring it where we can see them. They are shut up in laboratories doing “controlled experiments.” Who controls these experiments? Satan controls them. Laboratory experiments, as I patiently explained in a comment under the heliocentrism post, are occult seances.

    Experimental science grew out of alchemy, which the Christian church rightly outlawed. When the Church suffered schism and division, this sinister group of sodomites, masons, astrologers, and spell-casters took advantage of its temporary weakness to re-brand themselves as the “Enlightenment.” They claimed they had made a “break” with their alchemical past but they are still doing the same thing.

    How are these “scientists” selected today? Through an arduous educational process designed to weed out Christians. Then they toil in sulfurous “labs” under cruel lab bosses, suffering torment and humiliation. How does that make them “independent”?

    And we let them recruit in our schools. Every time you hear someone call for “more science” in the schools, ask yourself what they really want.

    Comment by Praying hands — May 24, 2007 @ 11:28 am | Reply

  48. ” … ask yourself what they really want … ” Don’t be naive. You know what they want — mandatory homosexuality and universal health care. Deal with it, “godbag.”

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 11:32 am | Reply

  49. Sisyphus, I’ve been lurking here for a while, and I’m sorry if I missed it, but I have to say I’m a little disturbed that you have links to three lefty “comedy” (and I use the term loosely) sites. I hate to think that an unsuspecting conservative thinker might click on one of those sites thinking it might have fun Jeff Foxworthy jokes or links to Larry the Cable Guy videos, only to be exposed to curse words, people taking the Lord’s name in vain and inane posts mocking the people and ideas that we hold dear.

    If it was substantive analysis that invited intellectual discussion about the best (conservative!) way to move this country forward, I would be all for it, but what is your motivation for driving any traffic their way? All they do is disrupt this board (cf HTML Mencken) and try to sidetrack your important work in trying to get Senator Brownback elected to his rightful place as leader of this country.

    Comment by Hieronymus — May 24, 2007 @ 11:32 am | Reply

  50. Sisyphus, I’ve been lurking here for a while, and I’m sorry if I missed it, but I have to say I’m a little disturbed that you have links to three lefty “comedy” (and I use the term loosely) sites. I hate to think that an unsuspecting conservative thinker might click on one of those sites thinking it might have fun Jeff Foxworthy jokes or links to Larry the Cable Guy videos, only to be exposed to curse words, people taking the Lord’s name in vain and inane posts mocking the people and ideas that we hold dear.”

    Psyche Out did that. He’s my partner on this site, so I don’t like to mess with his contributions. I see your point, though. When I get in touch with him again, I’ll try and prevail on him to change it.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 11:38 am | Reply

  51. Yesterday I suggested that this blog be moderated more heavily, to remove disgusting trash like most of HTML Mencken and R.L. Page’s posts. Now I’m starting to think I may have been wrong. Maybe if more Americans are exposed to the true deviancy of the Left, we’ll be spared further fiascoes like last fall’s election. How could anyone vote for a liberal after seeing how they really think?

    Comment by Donatello — May 24, 2007 @ 11:40 am | Reply

  52. What do we want ? MODERATION ! When do we want it ? NOW !

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 11:45 am | Reply

  53. I appreciate your loyalty to your partner. It’s what’s separates us from the democrats/socialists, who would in the finest Donner-party tradition eat their own if it meant the survival of their dying ideology.

    Still, if you had to link to the “other side”, I’d rather see links to moderate Democrats who understand the danger we in the west face. People like Joe Lieberman or Time magazines Joe Klein.

    Comment by Hieronymus — May 24, 2007 @ 11:45 am | Reply

  54. “What do we want ? MODERATION ! When do we want it ? NOW !”

    Another “meaningful” statement from the fine minds on the Left.

    Comment by Donatello — May 24, 2007 @ 11:48 am | Reply

  55. Hold on there, Hieronymus — Senator Lieberman ? You trust a man who wilfully rejects the Son of GOD ? Perhaps Sissy can give us the Brownback position on Jews who will burn in hell per omnia saecula saeculorum.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 11:49 am | Reply

  56. “Yesterday I suggested that this blog be moderated more heavily, to remove disgusting trash like most of HTML Mencken and R.L. Page’s posts. Now I’m starting to think I may have been wrong. Maybe if more Americans are exposed to the true deviancy of the Left, we’ll be spared further fiascoes like last fall’s election. How could anyone vote for a liberal after seeing how they really think?”

    That’s why I’m very hesitant to start doing it.

    “Still, if you had to link to the “other side”, I’d rather see links to moderate Democrats who understand the danger we in the west face. People like Joe Lieberman or Time magazines Joe Klein.”

    No way. I’m not out to recruit for the Democrat party. I want people to see the fringe loons in all their glory, not the moderates who might manage to sucker some of them into voting for a Closet Commie like Hillary Clinton.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 11:50 am | Reply

  57. Donatello, you have a point. Sometimes shining a light into the darkest corners of the political cellar (where the liberals reside) is more productive than just locking the cellar door so the vermin are trapped within.

    Comment by Hieronymus — May 24, 2007 @ 11:53 am | Reply

  58. “Donatello, you have a point.” … Now put a hat on it and get on with your bad self.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 11:55 am | Reply

  59. No way. I’m not out to recruit for the Democrat party. I want people to see the fringe loons in all their glory, not the moderates who might manage to sucker some of them into voting for a Closet Commie like Hillary Clinton.

    I guess I understand your argument against linking to the websites I suggested. Still, the “arguments” the authors purport to make on the websites you *do* link to are so circular that I can see people who aren’t critical thinkers sucked into thinking they have a point, when in reality all they have is a Big Lie.

    Comment by Hieronymus — May 24, 2007 @ 12:02 pm | Reply

  60. I think what is so disgusting about today’s scientists, is that they have completely abandoned the Scientific Method.

    Today it’s all about “Trust us”, and they refuse to allow any alternative hypothesis which question their faith. Such as Intelligent Design, which firmly questions the ridiculous notions of Evolution.

    Comment by Harry — May 24, 2007 @ 12:05 pm | Reply

  61. I agree, Hieronymous. When we speak the Truth, the secular mockers accuse us of “parody.” By the same token the mockers’ “parodies” reveal the bitter truth about them.

    Comment by Praying hands — May 24, 2007 @ 12:12 pm | Reply

  62. Exactly, Harry. Don’t expect them to confess to their own hypcrisy, though.

    Comment by Donatello — May 24, 2007 @ 12:13 pm | Reply

  63. So, back to the post at hand. Sisyphus, did you find the death threats credible? Have you reported them to the authorities? I know we generally laugh off e-mail threats and such, but I often wonder if we do that at our peril. Remember when liberals were whooping it up when Tony Snow announced that his cancer had recurred? They would tut-tut the person who harmed you and then dance on your grave.

    Comment by Hieronymus — May 24, 2007 @ 12:18 pm | Reply

  64. Scientists are extremely cowardly, dishonet people, I’ve learned.

    I can’t understand why so many Americans are dumb enough to trust them. Education reform should be a top priority of the Brownback administration.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 12:19 pm | Reply

  65. “So, back to the post at hand. Sisyphus, did you find the death threats credible? Have you reported them to the authorities? I know we generally laugh off e-mail threats and such, but I often wonder if we do that at our peril. Remember when liberals were whooping it up when Tony Snow announced that his cancer had recurred? They would tut-tut the person who harmed you and then dance on your grave.”

    That’s a good point. But luckily for me, I think my anonymity is fairly secure. I don’t want to discuss it, but I don’t think anyone can find me. I take care not to post on other blogs, for example, because that might give my IP address away.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 12:21 pm | Reply

  66. If you have the “courage of your convictions,” why hide ? If you “speak the truth,” what do you have to fear ?

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 12:36 pm | Reply

  67. “If you have the “courage of your convictions,” why hide ? If you “speak the truth,” what do you have to fear ?”

    This, from the same people who always get their knickers in a bunch whenever someone questions why they post so uncivilly with pseudonyms.

    Is there anything you people can’t be hypocritical about? I remember what happened to poor Josh Trevino when he was getting the threats from that crazy woman. I wouldn’t wish that on Sisyphus, or anyone, for that matter.

    Comment by Hieronymus — May 24, 2007 @ 12:40 pm | Reply

  68. Is it just me, or has R.L. Page gone completely incoherent? I guess those liberal brains don’t react well to being challenged.

    Comment by Donatello — May 24, 2007 @ 12:41 pm | Reply

  69. Correction: it was ‘poor Jeff Goldstein’ who pretended to be “getting the threats from that crazy woman.” Little Josh Trevino was merely embarassed by a photograph.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 12:50 pm | Reply

  70. Thank you, R.L. Page. First fact you’ve posted all day. I appreciate the correction.

    Comment by Hieronymus — May 24, 2007 @ 12:53 pm | Reply

  71. Except, of course, for the “pretended to be” part. You liberals are devious – you can’t even correct someone without inserting some piece of lefty propaganda. Is it not pretty much a known fact that she was terrorizing him? I believe she admitted as much. That you gloss that over so easily is a further reminder of what your side is capable of forgiving.

    Comment by Hieronymus — May 24, 2007 @ 12:55 pm | Reply

  72. Well, no, it is a ‘known allegation’ that poor little Jeffy ‘felt threatened.’ The facts, however, do not support his whining & bed-wetting. Of course, there is the theory that he is merely trying to profit from his new-found victim status. Considering the continual begging that goes on at PW, that theory may be plausible.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 12:59 pm | Reply

  73. Sisyphus,

    Thank goodness for you and the rest of the gang here, there’s a place of refuge for you to hide should the Helioleftists, Roundearthimentalists, Gravitationalists, Relativitians and assorted other secular loonies ever hunt you down. Remarkably enough, I only heard about it today in that atheistic mouthpiece, the New York Times. But, assuming they’re not satirizing your godly pursuit here on B4B, here’s the article:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/arts/24crea.html?ex=1180670400&en=5856f2432a6c1d2e&ei=5070

    Thank *** the good and the godly have a cool $27 million to fight the ravaging onslaught of post-Enlightenment reason.

    Comment by Everett Volk — May 24, 2007 @ 1:17 pm | Reply

  74. Man’s unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence proves to be true has never ceased to amaze me.Anyway,thanks for the good laugh.

    PS:where can I book a nice place in hell?You see,I believe in Galileo’s ideas so I guess I’ll spend an eternity there!

    Comment by Nick Sotiropoulos — May 24, 2007 @ 1:23 pm | Reply

  75. Sisyphus —

    Have you ever considered seeking professional medical care? Seriously, I do not mean this as a snark or a put-down. My experiences with my wife (currently not working because she is on disability with an emotional disorder) and my cousin (institutionalized three times for mental illness) have exposed me to many “theories” similar to yours; they are invariably symptoms of a deeper underlying problem.

    Get help before it’s too late. Really. Here’s a good place to start your research:

    http://www.nimh.nih.gov/

    Comment by David in NYC — May 24, 2007 @ 1:43 pm | Reply

  76. Scientists are extremely cowardly, dishonet people, I’ve learned.

    I can’t understand why so many Americans are dumb enough to trust them.

    Fortunately, there’s good news on that front. See http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4893
    and http://www.cuttingedge.org/ce1084.html

    While the plague that is Sciencism has infected America disproportionately compared to other countries, the tide is turning and the scientists are leaving America in favor of heathen places like Shanghai, China, Bangalore, India, and Hsinchu, Taiwan. Fewer and fewer Americans are electing to become scientists and as a result the number of American scientists is shrinking and increasingly filled by foreigners.

    Comment by Carey Meiers — May 24, 2007 @ 2:16 pm | Reply

  77. Fewer and fewer Americans are electing to become scientists and as a result the number of American scientists is shrinking and increasingly filled by foreigners.
    Well, as long as they stay in their home countries, who cares? Some of them are probably here illegally anyway. I’m not sad to see a purge of scientists. It’s this millennium’s version of the Crusades, far as I’m concerned. The scientists keep saying they are reasonable, but if they listened to reason they wouldn’t ignore all the evidence of intelligent design.

    Comment by Hieronymus — May 24, 2007 @ 2:50 pm | Reply

  78. “All of it is to be taken quite literally. To do otherwise is to tempt Hellfire.”

    Sisyphus,

    OK, I’ll bite. Please answer the following scriptural challenge. I will be happy to post your completed response, verbatim, as a front-page post my blog:

    Tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that you tell me exactly what happened on the day that the most important Christian doctrine was born.

    Believers should eagerly take up this challenge, since without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.” (I Corinthians 15:14-15)

    The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul’s tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

    Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture–it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?

    (And I’ll save you some googling: the original source of this challenge is here, and I have personally attempted it as well.)

    See you in hell.

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 24, 2007 @ 3:02 pm | Reply

  79. Shrinking scientists ? It’s Satanic I tell ya.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 3:02 pm | Reply

  80. Clearly this ‘science’ is a threat to good Christians and our beloved country. We all need to turn our back on it and return to simpler times…bloodletting anyone?

    Yours in Christ (non-pink)…

    Comment by Brother Jebb — May 24, 2007 @ 3:03 pm | Reply

  81. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/

    David is a promoter of the DEVIL SCIENCE!!!

    BURN HIM!!!11!

    Comment by Brother Jebb — May 24, 2007 @ 3:04 pm | Reply

  82. No fair using the ’empty tomb’ scene at the end of the so-called ‘Gospel of Mark;’ it is an obvious later interpolation.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 3:09 pm | Reply

  83. And one more thing:

    Right on, Brother Jebb: — burn the bitches.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 3:09 pm | Reply

  84. Thank you for the link, Everett. It’s nice to know some museums are focusing on actual science, instead of toeing the Darwinist party line.

    I’m going to work on Ironwolf’s chronology, now. Please excuse me for a bit.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 3:22 pm | Reply

  85. Take your time, Sissypus; you’re really going to be rolling the rock uphill on that one.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 3:27 pm | Reply

  86. Okay, here’s the chronology. I summarized Matthew 28, then got the other passages from http://www.bible.com.

    and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul’s tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8.

    Sunday, dawn (the Christian Sabbath)- Mary and Mary Magdalene go see the tomb. There was, or had been, an earthquake. An angel came down, rolled back the stone, told them what happened, and they ran off and bumped into Jesus. They went and told his brothers, and the guards went and told the priests. (Matthew 28)

    1When the Jewish Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. 2Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”

    4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. (angel)

    6″Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’ ”

    8Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

    ((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))
    (Mark 16)

    1On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. 2They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. [Presumably, one of the men is Jesus- Sisyphus.] 5In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6He is not here[dead; He was one of the guys talkig to them]; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7’The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” 8Then they remembered his words.

    9When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. 11But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. 12Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.

    On the Road to Emmaus
    13Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles[a] from Jerusalem. 14They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16but they were kept from recognizing him. [This part doesn’t matter; it’s consistent with Matthew 28, because they’d already seen Him in the tomb, standing there with the angel.]
    (Luke 24)

    For brevity’s sake, I’m going to skip posting John 20-21. It seems like your main grievances with the text are saying who found the strips of burial cloth in the tomb, and when Jesus came to talk to Mary and Mary Magdalene. Well, I think those two problems are easily resolved. Simon Peter was the first to analyze the strips. Jesus was the guy standing there when the angel talked to Mary and Mary Magdalene. Am I missing something? It’s a lot of reading and quoting to expect me to do to prove whatever your point is for you.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 3:40 pm | Reply

  87. “Take your time, Sissypus; you’re really going to be rolling the rock uphill on that one.”

    You’re right. That was boring. I gave up when I saw they were all pretty much the same. I don’t know what impossibly huge difference he’s referring to. If there is one, I missed it.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 3:42 pm | Reply

  88. Yes, you missed it.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 3:45 pm | Reply

  89. And… we have another loser Bible literalist!

    Thanks for playing, Sisyphus.

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 24, 2007 @ 3:49 pm | Reply

  90. Those synoptic Gospels just ain’t quite so synoptic, are they ? The greatest story ever sold, indeed.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 3:52 pm | Reply

  91. By the way: … “pretty much the same” and “inerrant” are not exactly synonymous.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 3:54 pm | Reply

  92. With a name like “Ironwolf” I really don’t think he should be so pouty and moody.

    Comment by DPS — May 24, 2007 @ 3:55 pm | Reply

  93. “With a name like “Ironwolf” I really don’t think he should be so pouty and moody.”

    Wow… Intelligent discourse indeed.

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 24, 2007 @ 3:57 pm | Reply

  94. “Can you prove that the tooth fairy or Santa doesn’t exist?

    Those are obviously fictions brought about to help keep our children innocent, unlike MTV or the satanic rock groups and misogynistic rap groups that people like Al Sharpton and homosexuals like David Geffen try to foist on our malleable young people. I don’t need to prove that they don’t exist – that’s *obvious*, and the type of argument I would expect from the “reality-based community”.

    The Bible is the inerrant word of G-d. That you would equate our Lord and Saviour with creations of the Hallmark company says a lot about your moral fiber.”

    Where is your proof? Santa and the tooth fairy are real. If you don’t believe in Santa then you won’t get any presents at Christmas

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 24, 2007 @ 4:01 pm | Reply

  95. Ironwolf, Ironwolf, Ironwolf:

    Less sulking. More refuting. Hop to it! Sisyphus has been working, and you’ve been a). cutting and pasting b). sulking and c). not posting Sisyphus’ response on your blog, which is a pretty poor showing, I’d say.

    Seriously, though: are you a parody?

    Comment by DPS — May 24, 2007 @ 4:03 pm | Reply

  96. Oh, now hoverfrog’s back at it.

    That’s it. I’m going to go have a nap.

    Comment by DPS — May 24, 2007 @ 4:04 pm | Reply

  97. Sissypus failed the challenge. Why post it anywhere?

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 4:06 pm | Reply

  98. Yes, well, good for you for cribbing someone else’s work to make a point that you think means something.
    Have you ever seen those cop shows where they talk to a bunch of witnesses, and each of them remembers something slightly different? So what if the gospels don’t completely agree on the time, or exactly which women were present when. That you think those irrelevant details are important in the face of the miracle that was the Risen Christ makes me even more skeptical of scientists.

    These type of unimportant observations around the edges are supposed to somehow disprove the Easter miracle by association? Right.

    Comment by Hieronymus — May 24, 2007 @ 4:07 pm | Reply

  99. And, Sisyphus… “That was boring?” How dare you profane holy scripture?! You should be on fire to search the scriptures, “to see whether these things be true.” (Acts 17:11) I wonder if Brownback also fails to walk the talk the way you do?

    Talk about tempting hellfire… for shame.

    DPS, I did not say I would post any gob of text Sisyphus spat out– I said I would post his “completed response.” Obviously, because he did not complete the challenge, and “gave up” by his own admission, his response is not complete. Would you like to take up the challenge yourself?

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 24, 2007 @ 4:09 pm | Reply

  100. “Thanks for playing, Sisyphus.”

    Let’s try again. What contradiction am I supposed to deal with, here? Can you spell it out for me, instead of expecting me to waste 2 or 3 hours poring over text that supposedly takes a 60-minute “moment” to read?

    You’re not being a very good sport, here, Ironwolf.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 4:09 pm | Reply

  101. “Have you ever seen those cop shows where they talk to a bunch of witnesses, and each of them remembers something slightly different?”

    Hieronymus, we’re not talking about a cop show. We’re talking about your precious “inspired” Bible, of which Sisyphus believes every word should be taken literally.

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 24, 2007 @ 4:11 pm | Reply

  102. “And, Sisyphus… “That was boring?” How dare you profane holy scripture?! You should be on fire to search the scriptures, “to see whether these things be true.” (Acts 17:11)”

    The Scripture’s not boring, but your challenge is. I thought the texts were almost identical; poring over them for differences is dull, dull, dull. Possibly sinful, as well. I may have to go to confession over this.

    “I wonder if Brownback also fails to walk the talk the way you do?”

    Ooh, big words coming from a blasphemous atheist who prowls the Gospels looking for loopholes through which to laugh at God.

    “DPS, I did not say I would post any gob of text Sisyphus spat out– I said I would post his “completed response.”

    Since the texts are so similar, pretty much the only repeated response is to post the entirety of all the texts, one after another. I’m not in the business of synthesizing the Word of God. Why don’t you give us all a succinct description of your problem with the chronology? Why is it our job to guess at it for you?

    As I say, you’re being a very poor sport here, Ironwolf.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 4:13 pm | Reply

  103. Sisyphus,

    The terms are the challenge were clear– go back and read them again. Produce a straightforward chronology of the Easter story and omit not a single biblical detail.

    Either that or renounce your statement that all of the Bible must be taken literally.

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 24, 2007 @ 4:13 pm | Reply

  104. “I may have to go to confession over this.”

    Oh, man… that’s rich.😀

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 24, 2007 @ 4:15 pm | Reply

  105. “Hieronymus, we’re not talking about a cop show. We’re talking about your precious “inspired” Bible, of which Sisyphus believes every word should be taken literally.”

    I’m just not seeing the contradictions you’re crowing over here, Ironwolf. If you can’t point them out to us, I’m going to assume they only exist in your head. There seems to be quite a lot of negativity floating around in there, so I’m sure you could easily misplace a few coherent passages of the Bible amidst all the blasphemy and Helioleftism and sin.

    Try to tell us your problem. Don’t make us play a game where we have to guess why you’re so unhappy.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 4:15 pm | Reply

  106. Who died and made you king of telling people what they have to do?

    Comment by Hieronymus — May 24, 2007 @ 4:16 pm | Reply

  107. “The terms are the challenge were clear– go back and read them again. Produce a straightforward chronology of the Easter story and omit not a single biblical detail.”

    I refuse. It’s annoying and blasphemous, just like you.

    “Either that or renounce your statement that all of the Bible must be taken literally.”

    No. I reject your false dichotomy, and your utter dishonesty and lack of sportsmanship.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 4:16 pm | Reply

  108. “Who died and made you king of telling people what they have to do?”

    Exactly.

    I guess Ironwolf has decided the Bible is false because it fails to proclaim him God.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 4:18 pm | Reply

  109. It seems to me that if I had in my possession texts written/inspired by the Creator of the Universe himself, I would not find it boring to read them, study them, memorize them … It has always amused me that the non-Xtians I have met are much more familiar with Xtian texts than the Xtians are. I guess it is easier to thump the Bible than to read it.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 4:18 pm | Reply

  110. “Ooh, big words coming from a blasphemous atheist who prowls the Gospels looking for loopholes through which to laugh at God.”

    So much for thoughtful, intelligent discourse. Why is that research foolish if he finds them?

    Your indoctrination must be deep and thorough if you are willing to dismiss basic human curiosity in favor of contradictory doctrine so happily.

    Comment by Rob — May 24, 2007 @ 4:18 pm | Reply

  111. By the way … since when do fundamentalist Xtians “go to confession.” That’s a Roman Catholic sacrament; and everyone knows that the Roman church is “the whore of Babylon.”

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 4:20 pm | Reply

  112. I love it, guys. You can’t answer the challenge so you descend into ad hominem. Well, I’m not biting on that one.

    False dichotomoy? OK, what’s the third option?

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 24, 2007 @ 4:20 pm | Reply

  113. So, you want biblical contradictions ? Knock yourself out —

    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/flaws.html

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 4:22 pm | Reply

  114. Why is that research foolish if he finds them?
    I’ve seen no evidence of that yet. All I’ve seen is a hubristic liberal trying to piggyback on the work of some other secular heathen without actually saying anything worthwhile.

    Why doesn’t he just make his point, instead of demanding that other people jump through a bunch of hoops that he thinks will somehow disprove a Divine Creator?

    Comment by Hieronymus — May 24, 2007 @ 4:23 pm | Reply

  115. Hieronymous, the point has been made … by Sissypuss and his failure to reconcile the conflicting legends of the death and alleged resurrection of the itinerant Hebrew preacher (and reputed wonder-worker) known as Jesus.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 4:25 pm | Reply

  116. Hieronymous,

    All the challenge is intended to disprove is biblical literalism. And you still haven’t answered it.

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 24, 2007 @ 4:26 pm | Reply

  117. “It seems to me that if I had in my possession texts written/inspired by the Creator of the Universe himself, I would not find it boring to read them, study them, memorize them …”

    Big difference between that and poking holes i them.

    “It has always amused me that the non-Xtians I have met are much more familiar with Xtian texts than the Xtians are.”

    So far, your god, Ironwolf, has yet to cite any familiarity with the Bible whatsoever.

    “I guess it is easier to thump the Bible than to read it.”

    Just as it’s easier to assume the world is round and moving because you heard that in school, rather than to actually question the idea and move beyond it.

    “By the way … since when do fundamentalist Xtians “go to confession.” That’s a Roman Catholic sacrament; and everyone knows that the Roman church is “the whore of Babylon.”

    “Where did you get the idea I wasn’t Catholic?
    I love it, guys. You can’t answer the challenge so you descend into ad hominem. Well, I’m not biting on that one.”

    Fine. If you’re not going to tell us the secret of your problem with the Bible we don’t have a whole lot to discuss here. Go be annoying somewhere else.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 4:27 pm | Reply

  118. “So, you want biblical contradictions ? Knock yourself out –”

    Thanks. That’s marginally more useful than throwing the entire Bible at someone and telling them to find contradictions after a “moment’s perusal.” Still not the same as offering some of your own, though.

    You guys are the self-described Biblical scholars. Why won’t you give us specific passages, and tell us what your problem is with them? What are you afraid of?

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 4:31 pm | Reply

  119. Stop playing dumb, Sissypus. It’s been explained to you. The challenge was to reconcile the myriad contradictions in the tale of the death & life of the legendary Jesus. If there are no contradictions, the claim of inerrancy is more credible; if there are many contradictions … not so much.

    And knock off the bait & switch routine. You talk like a fundy, not a Catholic.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 4:33 pm | Reply

  120. Sisyphus,

    My problem is not with the Bible… it is a fine piece of ancient literature. My problem is with people like you who insist that it is not only divine in origin, but, get this… completely inerrant and to be taken literally in every word!

    It only takes a feather like that challenge to knock the wind out of that misbegotten conception. And you still haven’t answered it.

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 24, 2007 @ 4:33 pm | Reply

  121. “All the challenge is intended to disprove is biblical literalism. And you still haven’t answered it.”

    No one has time to grovel and obey your orders, Master. Some of us have better things to do, like watch the sunset or stare off into space.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 4:34 pm | Reply

  122. [NB: As I have written elsewhere, these days “satire is redundant.” But jumpin’Jeezusonahotrock, dude, if you’re going to do this thing, remember, good satire requires a consistent tone.]

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 4:35 pm | Reply

  123. “My problem is not with the Bible… it is a fine piece of ancient literature.”

    Atheist.

    “My problem is with people like you who insist that it is not only divine in origin, but, get this… completely inerrant and to be taken literally in every word!”

    And so it is.

    “It only takes a feather like that challenge to knock the wind out of that misbegotten conception. And you still haven’t answered it.”

    Nor will I. I haven’t got the time to find your problems in the Bible for you. Do it yourself.

    Talking to you is about as much fun as getting punched in the groin. Are you this pleasant in real life? I’d imagine you’ve sustained many a near-fatal beating. Oh, well. Small price to pay for being Lord God Almighty, I suppose.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 4:36 pm | Reply

  124. See what I mean ? ” … stare off into space …. ” ? Don’t you remember recently insisting that “space” does not exist ? Get it together, man.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 4:37 pm | Reply

  125. “You guys are the self-described Biblical scholars. Why won’t you give us specific passages, and tell us what your problem is with them? What are you afraid of?”

    Sisyphus,

    I don’t describe myself as a biblical scholar. I am an ex-Christian and I did study the Bible for many years in church and personal bible study.

    I gave you five accounts of a single story in the Bible (specific passages), and asked you to construct a chronology from them. It’s not even an exhaustive list of “biblical contradictions”. Completing this should be easy if is true that every word the Bible says can be taken literally… why do you have a problem doing that?

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 24, 2007 @ 4:38 pm | Reply

  126. I think, Ironwolf, the problem here is that Sissypuss hasn’t read ‘the Bible’ very much.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 4:39 pm | Reply

  127. “Atheist.”

    Ad hominem.

    “Talking to you is about as much fun as getting punched in the groin.”

    So this is about fun, then?

    “I’d imagine you’ve sustained many a near-fatal beating.”

    Ad hominem approaching ad baculum.

    You, my friend, are a fine example of Christian attitude. And I don’t mean that as a compliment.

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 24, 2007 @ 4:42 pm | Reply

  128. R.L.Page,

    Yes, I know. The most vocal ones are often the most ignorant.

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 24, 2007 @ 4:45 pm | Reply

  129. This is still going on?!? For crying out loud…

    R.L. Page: What is your deal? As far as I can tell, you think there’s some kind of parody going on, in which case I don’t really get why you’re shadowboxing. And if you don’t think there’s a parody going on, why are you making meta-observations in brackets? I think you might be possessed. Also, “staring into space” doesn’t refer to “outer space,” it means an area unoccupied by objects.

    Ironwolf (if that really is your name): it is intellectually disingenuous for you not to present the contradictions you identify, rather than lurking around hoping to trip Sisyphus up. I’m sure he would be happy to respond to your points if you would present some points. If he hasn’t had it with you by now, that is.

    Comment by DPS — May 24, 2007 @ 4:55 pm | Reply

  130. No point in discussing a book with someone who hasn’t read it.

    And, DPS ? You don’t understand what I’m doing or why I’m doing it ? Damn, I’m shocked.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 5:01 pm | Reply

  131. DPS,

    Ironwolf is just an online name I have used for many years. The link from my name at the bottom of my comments leads to my blog, which also contains my real name. Unlike the proprietors of this questionable establishment, I do not hide behind pseudonyms.

    Like R.L.Page, I’m also not convinced this site isn’t a parody. If it is a parody, then I am happy to interact in the little bit of Internet street theatre going on here. If it is not a parody, then there are some important misconceptions asserted here that need to be corrected. Am I being too humorless for a satirical blog? Too bad. This satire is so smooth and sensationalistic that a lot of people will take it seriously.

    The “points” I raised were simple for anyone not bomb-grade stupid: Without a risen Christ, Christianity is nothing. Many Christians don’t need the bible to be “inerrant” to believe in Jesus, and fine for them— it’s simply a matter of faith. But when someone comes along who claims that the Bible is perfect in every word and without contradiction, then they have a big problem. Their typical way of shooting down contradictions is one at a time, and most individual contradictions can be answered by some sort of tortured logic. This is a sort of divide-and-conquer approach. But the Easter challenge is about understanding a critical story of the bible in its full context. This simple exercise reveals a mass of contradictions that cannot be teased apart and answered individually.

    If there is a third option between succeeding at this challenge or renouncing biblical literalism, I have yet to hear it, and so far the proprietor feels that ad hominem is a sufficient response.

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 24, 2007 @ 5:14 pm | Reply

  132. Show us how each of those passages you quote differs in the original Aramaic and Hebrew. G-d set down his word long before the King James version of the Bible.

    Do it now, or admit that you have no idea what you are talking about. [This demanding things of others is fun!]

    Comment by Hieronymus — May 24, 2007 @ 5:24 pm | Reply

  133. ” … the original Aramaic … ” ? Well, that settles it. There are no existing biblical texts in Aramaic. (Some Aramaic words do survive in the Greek texts of the N.T., but not many.) Tells you all you need to know about these folks … they claim a book they are unfamiliar with is the “inerrant word of God.”

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 5:33 pm | Reply

  134. That was my point. I have no doubt that as G-d lay down his word in the earliest times that there were none of the minor inconsistencies that unbelievers keep trying to point out in the modern-day versions. I obviously can’t speak for Sisyphus on this, and we may well disagree on the point, but any inconsistencies between the Gospels are merely proof of man’s imperfect nature (in translation), and indeed say nothing to impeach the perfection that is our Lord.

    Comment by Hieronymus — May 24, 2007 @ 5:37 pm | Reply

  135. Hieronymus,

    You have repeatedly asserted that I have made demands here. I have in fact only presented challenges. One may or may not choose to rise to a challenge. Clearly, you and Sisyphus have not risen to the challenge. That is your choice.

    The challenge does not specify a version of the Bible, so you are welcome to use any version you choose. If you understand them, then you’re welcome to use the Greek and Aramaic. The New Testament texts are not written in Hebrew.

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 24, 2007 @ 5:38 pm | Reply

  136. Well, since you do not read Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic … and despite your belief that the REAL ‘word of God’ is in the texts in those languages, you haven’t bothered to learn them … what you have is a belief that you cannot support in any objective way.

    You lose; but thanks for playing.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 5:39 pm | Reply

  137. “but any inconsistencies between the Gospels”

    Hieronymus,

    OK, so you are not a biblical literalist. Thanks for admitting that.

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 24, 2007 @ 5:39 pm | Reply

  138. My straightforward request is merely that you tell me exactly what happened on the day that the most important Christian doctrine was born.

    And so if I ask you what happened *exactly* every day that Darwin wrote “The Origin of Species”, or the day that Einstein came up with his crazy theories, and if I can find biographers who wrote different things then we can agree than neither evolution or whatever it was the Einstein figured out are wrong?

    Good to know.

    And for the record:
    Produce a straightforward chronology of the Easter story and omit not a single biblical detail.

    Either that or renounce your statement that all of the Bible must be taken literally.

    Sounds an awful lot like a demand.

    Comment by Hieronymus — May 24, 2007 @ 5:43 pm | Reply

  139. Ironwolf,
    I have no doubt, as I said, that any inconsistencies were introduced by man, and that in the original texts no such inconsistencies existed. If that makes me not a biblical literalist, then so be it. I believe that the Lord has given man his two greatest gifts: His Son, who died so that we might be redeemed, and free will, such that we can choose to live in His Grace. That man at some points throughout history may have inaccurately translated His Word in a way that barely matters does not detract from the power of his Word, or the essential Truth of His Light.

    Take that how you will, but if you think you’ve made some sort of point, congratulations.

    Comment by Hieronymus — May 24, 2007 @ 5:48 pm | Reply

  140. Ironwolf:

    Since you’re not up for pointing out your contradictions, I’m assuming that you expect Sisyphus in attempting to harmonize the resurrection narratives to encounter apparent contradictions of sequence, or to run up against a scenario in which one thing occurs in one Gospel and its opposite in another.

    Although I’m groping in the dark, am I with you so far?

    Comment by DPS — May 24, 2007 @ 5:48 pm | Reply

  141. Your analaogy doesn’t wash. A day in the life of a mortal man … one of the God’s creatures … is inconsequential compared to the biography of the god himself [i.e. Jesus]. And any book written by a man, detailing the life of another man, could not be expected to be inerrant [e.g. without contradiction.] However, a book purportedly written by the God himself about his own experiences as a man would naturally be held to a higher standard. But, sadly, no … the bible falls short.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 5:50 pm | Reply

  142. And, I should ask: are you proposing an equivalence between Darwin & Jesus ? between Einstein & Jesus ? Are all three to be considered ‘divine?’

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 5:51 pm | Reply

  143. Hieronymus,

    Your straw-man argument about Darwin and Einstein does not work, because what happened on the day they came up with their theories is not advanced as evidence for the validity of their theories.

    And, as I have said before, I can’t think of a reasonable option other than:
    1) Putting your brain where your mouth is and supporting biblical literalism by harmonizing a critical set of scriptures that are advanced as evidence of something extraordinary or
    2) Publicly letting go of the idea that every word of the Bible is to be taken literally.

    This was called a “false dichotomy” by Sisyphus. I am open to third options. Please… advance one.

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 24, 2007 @ 5:54 pm | Reply

  144. All I’m saying is that, for me – and me alone, I can’t speak for anyone else – man’s inability to accurately translate the original texts from their original language over many centuries, often likely working from a translation of a translation, says nothing about their essential Truth. I believe that in their original form the Gospels did reconcile perfectly, and if the worst of the differences introduced by man’s imperfection over all that time is where Jesus was when they first found him, or which women were present, then it is a testament to how wonderful the Creator truly is.

    Show me where one of the Gospels it says that Jesus Christ did not die for our sins, and in another that he did, and then perhaps you’d have a challenge worthy of response.

    Comment by Hieronymus — May 24, 2007 @ 5:58 pm | Reply

  145. Hieronymus,

    You are welcome to state your belief in “inerrant original texts” as an article of faith. But then you have no more authority to interpret the divine will of the corrupted, passed-down texts than anyone else. And you cannot support your faith to others with evidence of divine inspiration that history has blotted out.

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 24, 2007 @ 5:59 pm | Reply

  146. “Although I’m groping in the dark, am I with you so far?”

    DPS,

    Why not try the challenge for yourself? I think I’ve made it pretty clear what I expect you to find.

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 24, 2007 @ 6:01 pm | Reply

  147. Ironwolf,
    It’s obvious you haven’t actually studied the original manuscripts versus the text we see today. If you did, you would know that the differences are only grammatical.

    The message continues to be the same.

    Comment by Do your research — May 24, 2007 @ 6:03 pm | Reply

  148. Again, this nitpicking around the edges of ridiculously unimportant inconsistencies does not require me to cede any sort of authority. Besides which, I claim none. Where it is important, I believe the Gospels agree, and those of us who try every day to walk in His Grace don’t need to explain ourselves to you. Especially as you mock our G-d and try to get our children to stray from His path. At least those children that you all haven’t tried to abort.

    Comment by Hieronymus — May 24, 2007 @ 6:05 pm | Reply

  149. I will just take that as a ‘yes’. That will be quicker.

    Now, what is it that prevents an event from happening both first and second, or that keeps an object from being simultaneously in New York and Paris?

    Comment by DPS — May 24, 2007 @ 6:07 pm | Reply

  150. It’s kind of like watching a man drown.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 6:07 pm | Reply

  151. Glub, glub, Hieronymous.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 6:07 pm | Reply

  152. “Again, this nitpicking around the edges of ridiculously unimportant inconsistencies”

    Hieronymus,

    Methinks thou dost protest too much. If the gospels were consistent, you and your ilk would trumpet it from the rooftops. As it is, you belittle gross inconsistencies as “ridiculously unimportant.” You admit that you personally get to decide what is important and unimportant in the gospels, and so you undermine any divine authority you say they have by replacing it with your own authority.

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 24, 2007 @ 6:12 pm | Reply

  153. “At least those children that you all haven’t tried to abort.”

    Oh, and ad hominem.

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 24, 2007 @ 6:13 pm | Reply

  154. Here’s a fun new topic: can a civilized mind seriously consider a religion based on a sado-masochistic instance of human sacrifice ? … Discuss.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 6:14 pm | Reply

  155. “Now, what is it that prevents an event from happening both first and second, or that keeps an object from being simultaneously in New York and Paris?”

    DPS,

    Um… Do you have any modern examples at hand of such phenomena?

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 24, 2007 @ 6:15 pm | Reply

  156. You won’t shake my faith with your semantic games, Ironwolf. If 3 of the Gospels say that the women arrived at dawn or in the early morning and the 4th says “while still dark”, how does that disprove the Resurrection story (in fact, depending on the writer’s location, they could all be true)? Likewise all of the stupid “inconsistencies” that your link purported to show. On the larger story they agree, which is all I’m concerned with. I hardly base my faith on a foundation of exactly what time the women showed up at the cave in which Jesus was entombed.

    As for R.L. Page’s comments, well, there’s really no point in responding to them, as they lack any substance at all.

    Comment by Hieronymus — May 24, 2007 @ 6:18 pm | Reply

  157. Apologies for the unclosed tag, Sisyphus, as well as for sidetracking your important post. I’ll stop now.

    Comment by Hieronymus — May 24, 2007 @ 6:19 pm | Reply

  158. Hieronymus,

    Again, you attempt the divide-and-conquer strategy of answering one contradiction and asserting that it stands for all. Why not do the whole challenge? Or is it simply all right with you that you worship based on a corrupt text that even your God couldn’t keep intact for us?

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 24, 2007 @ 6:22 pm | Reply

  159. OK, what is it that decrees that everything that has ever happened or may ever happen has happened at least once in modernity?

    I have the sneaking suspicion that your answer to this question strongly resembles your answer to the previous question. I don’t know whether you’re going to leave your answers entirely implicit, however.

    Comment by DPS — May 24, 2007 @ 6:22 pm | Reply

  160. If you’re looking for a “lack [of] substance,” look no farther than the ‘legend of Jesus.’

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 6:24 pm | Reply

  161. R.L. Page:

    Stop please. That tickles.

    Comment by DPS — May 24, 2007 @ 6:29 pm | Reply

  162. DPS,

    OK, so you tacitly admit that there are no examples of such phenomena in modernity.

    When did I ever say that something “decrees that everything that has ever happened or may ever happen has happened at least once in modernity”?

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 24, 2007 @ 6:31 pm | Reply

  163. “When our founding fathers created a Christian nation by passing the Constitution in 1776, this is not what they had in mind.”

    I don’t think Benjamin Franklin would agree with that statement. (Or would you say he was gay as well?)

    By the way, what Christian nation? Where does the constitution say anything about a Christian nation?
    It does say something about a free country for people of all religions.

    Just how far would you want to go to reverse mankind’s discoveries: would you abolish relativity, airplanes, combustion engines, computers, electricity, medicine, paper, bread, the wheel, clothing, bow and arrow and the use of fire?
    Isn’t all of that evil science?

    If we would give up every discovery ever made we wouldn’t even be cavemen, at least they had invented clothing, stone tools and fire…

    Comment by Skeptic — May 24, 2007 @ 6:31 pm | Reply

  164. To ban or not to ban? That is the question.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 6:34 pm | Reply

  165. Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
    The slings and arrows of outrageous logic,
    Or to take arms against a sea of science,
    And by banning end them?

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 24, 2007 @ 6:37 pm | Reply

  166. OK, let’s just get it over with. As long as one believes in an omnipotent supernatural being who created the universe, there’s no good reason to feel that violations of the laws of nature are out of place. His house, his rules. This is the ‘omnipotent’ and ‘supernatural’ part of ‘omnipotent supernatural being.’ Consequently, there is literally *no* contradiction that one could find in the Gospel narratives that cannot be reconciled with an omnipotent supernatural being. In other threads, we have already determined that Herod was in fact a fox (although possibly an acaudate, disguised fox), that Jesus was a vine in addition to being a man and God, and that the Earth is the center of the universe, almost certainly flat, and that it may well once have been piloted around by God like an immense hover-car. I see no problem with any of this, although it has angered a surprising number of people.

    Anyway, in order really to win this argument, one first has to get the opponent to agree to a non-omnipotent God, or one has to argue him or her out of a theist position. And that’s hard work.

    Comment by DPS — May 24, 2007 @ 6:38 pm | Reply

  167. Ben Franklin wasn’t gay ? Damn, another illusion shattered.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 6:38 pm | Reply

  168. “there is literally *no* contradiction that one could find in the Gospel narratives that cannot be reconciled with an omnipotent supernatural being”

    DPS,

    But then, there is literally no contradiction that one could find to show that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn’t the true God. It doesn’t even need to be consistent with reality as we experience it now, according to your criteria. In fact, if you throw out the Law of non-contradiction, then all religions might as well be literally true.

    Wow, you seem to not think very highly of your religion.

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 24, 2007 @ 6:45 pm | Reply

  169. Now we’re getting somewhere. Yes, each of the currently dominant religions among human beings (Judaism and its two bastard children, Islam and Xtianity … Hinduism & Buddhism … ) are, of course, equally true.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 6:49 pm | Reply

  170. Hmmm…. must be something in the air. Check this out:

    http://www.y-zine.com/body_count.htm?gclid=COiQ7oyNqIwCFRoDhgod_ik3KA

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 6:54 pm | Reply

  171. “To ban or not to ban? That is the question.”

    Great job avoiding the question, how far are you willing to go to rid the world of technology?
    Would you ban the wheel, or maybe even the use of fire, what about agriculture?
    Or would you stop at the Amish level of technology?

    Comment by Skeptic — May 24, 2007 @ 6:58 pm | Reply

  172. R.L. Page:

    I already asked you to stop. Bad touch. I’m not Ben Franklin, and I am *not* into that.

    Ironwolf:

    You didn’t need to make Sisyphus do busywork that if that was your point. All you needed to do was to say that the dead don’t return to life and that therefore the basic premise of Christianity is invalid. That would have saved time, and Sisyphus could have responded to that with his usual aplomb.

    And you know perfectly well that the history of Christianity does not rest on scientific demonstrability. It rests on authority, and always has. The authority of the text, apostolic authority, the authority of interpretation in the Spirit. Depending of course on your sect. (This is ignoring, of course, what all of the miserable heretics do). Either you are granted to believe in your authority or you are not. I do not think anyone has been granted to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and I think there’s a reason for that.

    Somewhat relatedly, it’s time for dinner. No doubt I’ll look in tomorrow.

    R.L. Page: please, please try to control yourself while I’m gone.

    Comment by DPS — May 24, 2007 @ 7:02 pm | Reply

  173. Wrong, buddy. Christianity rests, at last (like all other religious concepts, from the Egyptians & Sumerians forward) on faith. The only authority ‘the text’ has is the power of the society to insist it is authoritative, and cajole & coerce others into believing it.

    Your book is, half-literally, a paper tiger.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 7:16 pm | Reply

  174. Control myself? Nah, the fun today has all been in controlling you.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 7:16 pm | Reply

  175. DPS,

    OK, so you admit that harmonizing the Easter story is “busywork.” I presume you would say the same about harmonizing any other parts of the Bible. Interesting, coming from someone who still appears to assert that the Bible is perfect and inerrant… as long as you also grant that there is nothing wrong with accepting gross contradictions… as long as they are part of your religion.

    You don’t like the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Then pick a different religion. Islam, perhaps? They seem to feel they have been “granted to believe” all the authority they need, and they even say they correct the errors of Christianity. Why not grant them their contradictions? Do you allow that they are just as much a “true religion” as Christianity? You wouldn’t want to limit your all-powerful God to creating only one “true religion,” would you?

    For an encore, I’m sure he’d be happy to make a rock so big he can’t lift it.

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 24, 2007 @ 7:30 pm | Reply

  176. […] I truly ventured into the heart of darkness when, while browsing a recent posting there called Science: The New Inquisition, I came across this statement by one of their main authors: Andy: This is all very confusing to me, […]

    Pingback by Ironwolf » Blog Archive » Arguing with Biblical Literalists — May 24, 2007 @ 8:27 pm | Reply

  177. I’ve always liked this one:

    Can an omnipotent, omniscient god create himself in such a way that it is impossible to believe in his existence?

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 24, 2007 @ 8:36 pm | Reply

  178. This is so funny! Has anyone turned a blog into a book? It would become an instant bestseller.

    Comment by Mitchbert — May 24, 2007 @ 8:39 pm | Reply

  179. “For an encore, I’m sure he’d be happy to make a rock so big he can’t lift it.”

    God could do this very easily. He can probably temporarily abridge his own power of omnipotence, thereby making a rock He couldn’t lift.

    Logic problems like this are rather silly, though. I remember a syllogism from college that had all the moonbats in a tizzy:

    -God is love.
    -Love is a feeling.
    -Therefore, God is a feeling.

    What would be more appropriate, and less blasphemous, would be something like,

    -Man is prone to fall for presumptuous logic-traps.
    -Stupid word-games like that last syllogism and the “God can’t design a rock so big He can’t lift it” idea are presumptuous logic traps.
    -Man is prone to fall for stupid word-games like that last syllogism and the God can’t design a rock so big He can’t lift it” idea.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 25, 2007 @ 4:41 am | Reply

  180. “This is so funny! Has anyone turned a blog into a book? It would become an instant bestseller.”

    We’re all working on it, comment by comment.

    Sometimes, arguing with these people feels like it’s as much work as writing a book, anyway.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 25, 2007 @ 4:42 am | Reply

  181. Ban them all. I come here for intelligent discussion, not to argue with radical lefties.

    Comment by Harry — May 25, 2007 @ 7:21 am | Reply

  182. “Ban them all. I come here for intelligent discussion, not to argue with radical lefties.”

    In a sense, we need them, though. They help show the world how dishonest and unhinged the Left really is.

    I’ll play it by ear. But if they keep getting out of hand, some selective bannings may be in order.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 25, 2007 @ 7:25 am | Reply

  183. If Syphilis represents more than a fraction of a percentage of the US then I’m very glad I live in Europe. Does the average American encounter such lunatics in everyday life? Or is such delusional drivel only seen in secure mental health units and on teh internets? I’d alert Tim Berners-Lee to these pages if I didn’t think they would break his heart..

    Comment by Karen Eliot — May 25, 2007 @ 8:38 am | Reply

  184. — All men are mortal.

    — Jesus was a man.

    — Jesus was mortal.

    An amusing variation on the hoary old Socrates riff from Philosophy 101. And, if I understand you, Sissypuss, (and I will be surprised if I do, or if anyone could) your point is that the human mind (presumedly created by your God) is to be used as little as possible ?

    But I do think the “ban them all” idea is worth considering.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 25, 2007 @ 9:35 am | Reply

  185. Note to Ms. Eliot: Yes, unfortunately, we are lumbered with our “Fascist Third” … that is to say, about one/third of our population (perhaps a bit more) are ‘bat-shit crazy.’ If the world was a carnival, America would be the freak-show. Please accept my apology on behalf of my more lucid brethren.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 25, 2007 @ 10:52 am | Reply

  186. “Does the average American encounter such lunatics in everyday life? Or is such delusional drivel only seen in secure mental health units and on teh internets? I’d alert Tim Berners-Lee to these pages if I didn’t think they would break his heart..”

    I don’t know that person. Is he an America-hating atheist blasphemer like most of the Europeans I’ve encountered?

    “An amusing variation on the hoary old Socrates riff from Philosophy 101. And, if I understand you, Sissypuss, (and I will be surprised if I do, or if anyone could) your point is that the human mind (presumedly created by your God) is to be used as little as possible ?”

    It should be used in accordance with the will of God, as set forth in the Holy Bible.

    “But I do think the “ban them all” idea is worth considering.”

    You certainly seem to.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 25, 2007 @ 11:10 am | Reply

  187. ‘The Holy (so-called) Bible’ expresses the will of ‘God’ ? Really? And how do we know that ? (if I may ask).

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 25, 2007 @ 11:34 am | Reply

  188. Because the Bible says so, duh!

    Comment by Skeptic — May 25, 2007 @ 11:58 am | Reply

  189. LIBERALS BELONG BEHIND BARS LIBERALS ARE EVIOL SCUMBAHZ ALL LEFTIES SHOULD GHO TO PRUISON

    VOTRE BROWNABCK! VOET BROWNBACK! VOTE BROWNABCK!!

    Comment by Jack Fremont — May 25, 2007 @ 12:13 pm | Reply

  190. These atheists and bigots are awfully smug. Don’t they know how many God-fearing Christians gave their lives so that they would have the freedom to spit on their graves and their beliefs like this?

    I think jail is too good for the likes of them. Hopefully, President Brownback will make them atone for the disrespect they’ve shown the Christian soldiers who helped make this country great.

    Comment by Marcia P. — May 25, 2007 @ 12:20 pm | Reply

  191. “Hopefully, President Brownback will make them atone…”

    I rather think that President Giuliani will mandate in-school cross-dressing.

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 25, 2007 @ 12:39 pm | Reply

  192. Actually, I think blogs like this provide a needed social outlet for the fascist third’s more lurid domination fantasies. Much like violent video games.

    Calling Jack Thompson

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 25, 2007 @ 12:42 pm | Reply

  193. ” … lurid domination fantasies … ” … “mandat[ory] cross-dressing … ”

    Sissypuss, you might want to get your banning stick out … this thread seems to be taking a very kinky turn.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 25, 2007 @ 12:56 pm | Reply

  194. “These atheists and bigots are awfully smug. Don’t they know how many God-fearing Christians gave their lives so that they would have the freedom to spit on their graves and their beliefs like this?”

    It is pretty reprehensible, isn’t it?

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 25, 2007 @ 12:59 pm | Reply

  195. “Don’t they know how many God-fearing Christians gave their lives…”

    I am proud of every American who gives their life for American ideals, which include:

    Pluralism
    Freedom of religion
    Separation of church and state
    Freedom of thought and speech

    “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” — Voltaire

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 25, 2007 @ 1:09 pm | Reply

  196. It has always been interesting to me — this idea that the greatest thing one can do is to die for something or another. It would seem obvious that it would be much more challenging to live and work for your ‘something or another.’

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 25, 2007 @ 1:14 pm | Reply

  197. There are things worse than death. And I think dying for an important cause may be worth it, if the alternative of living in a world where that cause fails would be worse than death. These cases are rare, but they do happen, and every individual’s conscience must be the arbiter.

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 25, 2007 @ 1:23 pm | Reply

  198. “There are things worse than death. And I think dying for an important cause may be worth it, if the alternative of living in a world where that cause fails would be worse than death. These cases are rare, but they do happen, and every individual’s conscience must be the arbiter.”

    I agree.

    Have you ever been to Normandy? Rows of crosses as far as the eye can see of dead Americans. They died so we could have this discussion. Presumably, if America had knuckled under the Nazis would have come for the non-Teutonics among us by now.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 25, 2007 @ 1:29 pm | Reply

  199. “Rows of crosses as far as the eye can see of dead Americans.”

    Actually, they were dead Christian Americans. I’m pretty sure there were some Jews and other belief-minorities there too.

    “Presumably, if America had knuckled under the Nazis”

    Despite our differences, I want to make it clear that I have nothing good to say about fascists, including and especially the Nazis. Had I been alive in that era, even as an atheist, I would have fought them.

    Comment by Ironwolf — May 25, 2007 @ 1:39 pm | Reply

  200. “Actually, they were dead Christian Americans. I’m pretty sure there were some Jews and other belief-minorities there too.”

    True, but nowhere near as many.

    “Despite our differences, I want to make it clear that I have nothing good to say about fascists, including and especially the Nazis. Had I been alive in that era, even as an atheist, I would have fought them.”

    Nobody likes those guys.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 25, 2007 @ 1:44 pm | Reply

  201. And yet, you are living in a nation that has adopted the corporatism first espoused in the 20th century by Benito Mussolini. It took half a century, but the U.S. finally lost the second world war.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 25, 2007 @ 2:00 pm | Reply

  202. Disagreeing with your point of view isn’t persecution, Sisyphus. If you were imprisoned, tortured, or executed for your beliefs, I’d agree that you were being persecuted. Debate–even if it gets heated or one party mocks the other–isn’t even remotely close to persecution.

    And no one’s trying to silence you (at least, I’m not). If anything, I want you to keep posting; you’re making Brownback and his supporters look even worse to moderates and liberals.

    Comment by The Skepticist — May 25, 2007 @ 2:08 pm | Reply

  203. Oh, and ditto what hoverfrog said in comment #9.

    Comment by The Skepticist — May 25, 2007 @ 2:15 pm | Reply

  204. The Right Wing considers even mere disagreement to be persecution. They have truly perfected ‘playing the victim’ at every turn.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 25, 2007 @ 2:18 pm | Reply

  205. Quoth Sisyphus: “They help show the world how dishonest and unhinged the Left really is.”

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    Comment by The Skepticist — May 25, 2007 @ 2:39 pm | Reply

  206. I thought the founding fathers were Deists, not true Christians

    Comment by Andrew — May 26, 2007 @ 5:04 am | Reply

  207. “I thought the founding fathers were Deists, not true Christians”

    Only that Frenchified pervert, Benjamin Franklin.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 26, 2007 @ 5:40 am | Reply

  208. “And no one’s trying to silence you (at least, I’m not). If anything, I want you to keep posting; you’re making Brownback and his supporters look even worse to moderates and liberals.”

    I beg to differ. If you read through some of the comments, you can see Brownback has gained a lot of votes since this blog began. Once he wins the primary (after Rudy McRomney implodes), he’s sure to win the election!

    Take that, moonbats!

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 26, 2007 @ 5:42 am | Reply

  209. Just sickening.

    Comment by Real American — May 26, 2007 @ 10:47 am | Reply

  210. …appeals to the non-existent authority of their pathetic pseudosciences.

    much like your appeals to the non-existent authority of the infallible word of jeebus. at least one can be argued from a rational viewpoint with FACTS and such. I’ll give you a hint, it’s not your viewpoint.

    Comment by Planet B — May 26, 2007 @ 7:38 pm | Reply

  211. Planet B is obviously a science fiction reference of some kind. He lives in an imaginary world of science fiction, too. Regale us all with your exciting tales of spherical bodies racing around the gaseous stars in the void, Plan B writer! We could all use a good laugh.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 26, 2007 @ 7:52 pm | Reply

  212. Planet B:

    I don’t trust people who write in fancy, slanty letters. If you’re going to comment on an American blog, you should use American letters, like the rest of us.

    PS there’s a typo in your spelling of “Jesus”. You’re welcome!

    Comment by DPS — May 26, 2007 @ 10:25 pm | Reply

  213. Hi all,

    This blog is pure gold. *

    I’m new here, and I know I’ve come across this debate after it’s probably gone a little stale. However, I noticed that in the original link from Ironwolf, there is actually a comprehensive breakdown of all the discrepancies that Dan Barker himself identified in the resurrection accounts.

    I would copy and paste them here for convenience, but it’s probably a copyright violation. Anyway, just a FYI Sisyphus, scroll halfway down the page on the original link http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php and you can see a full list of the inconsistencies for your easy perusal and (hopefully) response.

    * For the excessively literal amongst you, I’d like to point out that this blog is not in fact MADE of gold, that is simply a figure of speech meaning ‘highly entertaining’.

    Comment by Mr Agnostic — May 26, 2007 @ 11:07 pm | Reply

  214. Let’s see: Fundamentalist Christians want to imprison those who don’t think like them, those are “in power” right now, because they (the Fundies) feel they are being persecuted, yet those who they would like to imprison are making no calls whatsoever for the Fundies’ imprisonment. One-sided much? You’re free to believe what you want, let everyone else believe what they want. No need to imprison anyone.

    Comment by Beth — May 27, 2007 @ 12:37 am | Reply

  215. I’m curious – are atheists allowed to support Sam Brownback? Or if he finds out any are his supporters, what does he do? What’s the Brownback policy on that?

    Comment by Mike — May 27, 2007 @ 1:57 pm | Reply

  216. Mike @ 215:

    The Senator doesn’t need or want the atheist vote, and he wouldn’t ask for it. Now I guess in theory an atheist could support him, but in theory a rat could support the Orkin man, too.

    I hope that after he becomes president he sets up a “Believe or Leave” program: if they won’t attest to their belief in God Almighty, they’ll have to leave the country. They belong in France or Cuba or North Korea anyway. We’ll be better off without them.

    Comment by DPS — May 27, 2007 @ 5:02 pm | Reply

  217. I think that sounds like a very sensible program, DPS.

    If someone doesn’t like the idea of living in a Christian country, they should leave. There are plenty of countries that aren’t Christian for them to go live in.

    Comment by Marcia P. — May 27, 2007 @ 5:52 pm | Reply

  218. Ah, at last I’ve found a home.

    Comment by Fred Farkle — May 28, 2007 @ 2:57 am | Reply

  219. “Have you ever been to Normandy? Rows of crosses as far as the eye can see of dead Americans.”

    Of course, say nothing of all of the hundreds of thousands of non-americans. All of those who were involved in the war before the US decided to get involved.

    Oh, right. One of those deadly sins was removed from the new version of the bible, wasn’t it. Vanity. Never be so vain as to believe yours is the only correct view.

    Comment by Curiouser and Curiouser — May 28, 2007 @ 5:59 pm | Reply

  220. What are you Brownback supporters going to do when it’s President Obama or Clinton? Don’t fool yourselves. This guy was hired to provide the entertainment! Besides, after eight years of George-dumb-as-a-rock-Bush, the country has learned its lesson about clowns who pander to the religious right. You won’t see it again for a long time.

    Comment by ALyingScientist — May 29, 2007 @ 5:12 am | Reply

  221. “Oh, right. One of those deadly sins was removed from the new version of the bible, wasn’t it. Vanity. Never be so vain as to believe yours is the only correct view.”

    Not too many of them are buried at Normandy, you moron. A couple Brits, and a bunch of dead Germans. That’s about it.

    Why do you hate America?

    “What are you Brownback supporters going to do when it’s President Obama or Clinton?”

    This will never happen.

    “Besides, after eight years of George-dumb-as-a-rock-Bush, the country has learned its lesson about clowns who pander to the religious right. You won’t see it again for a long time.”

    George Bush saved our country from terrorism. Brownback will make it a Christian nation again.

    The American people adore Bush, polls notwithstanding. Brownback will continue his legacy.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 29, 2007 @ 5:37 am | Reply

  222. “George Bush saved our country from terrorism. Brownback will make it a Christian nation again.”

    The last time I looked, it took more than 3% of the vote to win anything. You’re pissing in the wind…

    “The American people adore Bush, polls notwithstanding.”

    And your information comes from where? Your tin-foil hat’s overheating.

    Comment by ALyingScientist — May 29, 2007 @ 5:57 am | Reply

  223. “The American people adore Bush, polls notwithstanding.” Once again you choose to ignore the evidence in front of you. In this case the polls are a measure of public opinion. If the American people adored him then surely this would be reflected in public opinion? Or doesn’t it work like that in Brownbackland?

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 29, 2007 @ 6:01 am | Reply

  224. Well, it’s off to work. Gotta make up some more lies to discredit the flat-earth, geocentric, creationist truth. It’s hard work, but somebody’s got to do it. Besides, I was never very good at art or music, so figuring out how to get bad science through the peer-review process is my only creative outlet. What shall I concoct today?

    Comment by ALyingScientist — May 29, 2007 @ 6:16 am | Reply

  225. You could try classifying life forms. Make sure to point out that bat’s aren’t birds and that snakes don’t live off mud. That’ll really annoy this lot.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 29, 2007 @ 6:29 am | Reply

  226. These scientists think they’re so smart. They don’t realize that all their intelligence comes from God, and all their ideas come from the Devil. It is a very dangerous mixture, but they don’t seem to want to realize that.

    Comment by Marcia P. — May 29, 2007 @ 9:22 am | Reply

  227. “These scientists think they’re so smart. They don’t realize that all their intelligence comes from God, and all their ideas come from the Devil.”

    How could God have messed up so badly as to create people capable of independent thought and reasoning ability? Didn’t He know that the Devil would turn it against him? Hmm. Not as smart as He thinks He is….

    Comment by ALyingScientist — May 29, 2007 @ 10:03 am | Reply

  228. Maybe this god created people who were stupid and not capable of independent thought and Santa (sorry Satan) added these evil and unnatural properties? Wait, that would be against god’s will wouldn’t it? Or wouldn’t an omniscient deity be capable o forseeing it and thereby prevent it.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 29, 2007 @ 10:22 am | Reply

  229. ALyingScientist:

    How are we supposed to believe anything you say? Are you supposed to be some kind of paradox?

    hoverfrog:

    Look, if you want to wage the War on Christmas, go to some other blog.

    Comment by DPS — May 29, 2007 @ 11:35 am | Reply

  230. “How are we supposed to believe anything you say? Are you supposed to be some kind of paradox?”

    You’re not! I assumed from the utterly ridiculous, over-the-top premise of this thread that it was never intended to be a serious challenge to anything, much less the validity of the scientific approach to understanding the natural world. It’s a parody, intended to draw in people stupid enough to take the bait.

    DPS, you don’t truly believe that the earth is flat and at the center of the universe, as suggested by a literal reading of the Bible…do you? Well, do you??!!

    Comment by ALyingScientist — May 29, 2007 @ 12:25 pm | Reply

  231. um… i believe the word you wanted was “remuneration.” “renumeration is not a word.”

    also, i’m not calling you a hypocrite, but you didn’t make any argument other than scientists are bad people. isn’t that an ad hominem attack?

    Comment by somedude — May 29, 2007 @ 4:39 pm | Reply

  232. Regarding parody: so now I’m supposed to believe a self-professed “lying scientist” over what Sisyphus has said clearly and repeatedly? There’s no parody here. Only the searing heat of the Lord’s truth. Perhaps if you think the word of God needs to be parodied, you should go start your own parody website. May God have mercy on you if you do.

    I do not see why you suggest that I am a paradox, and I wonder if you assumed I had confused “paradox” and “parody,” in which case, thanks for your patronage!

    Regarding the Earth: I think it’s obvious that all of the sensible people here are in agreement that we inhabit a geocentric universe, and it also seems pretty clear that we live on a flat Earth. In fact, I’m going to go take a stroll right now, and I’m pretty confident that I won’t slide off the Earth, which looks pretty bad for your “spherical Earth” theory. I’ll let you know how it goes, though.

    Comment by DPS — May 29, 2007 @ 4:46 pm | Reply

  233. Idiot…..

    Comment by ALyingScientist — May 29, 2007 @ 9:44 pm | Reply

  234. Nope. Didn’t slide off.

    So sorry.😦

    Comment by DPS — May 29, 2007 @ 11:55 pm | Reply

  235. Has anyone ever fallen off the edge of the world? If it is flat and finite then it must have an edge. If it has an edge then some idiot must have fallen off it. Perhaps someone (maybe a scientist) who went too close to the edge so that they could look over. Also where are the photos? If I saw the edge of the world I’d certainly take a picture. Then I’d show it to everyone.

    Actually, if there was an edge then I’d fly over it or climb down it and have a look at those pillars that are supposed to be holding it up. Thinking about it are there creatures living on the underside of the earth? Wait! Isn’t that where satan lives and all the souls of scientists, atheists and the wealthy go? So, in theory, it would be possible to travel there and recover a deceased relative. Or at least visit, have some cake and take photos.

    I suppose this is more evidence of a conspiracy by “Evil Scientists” to discredit the faithful?

    This just gets better and better.

    I’m off to shoot some elves now in my war against Santa and all things Christmassy.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 30, 2007 @ 5:37 am | Reply

  236. On the original tack of the blog; it is human nature to acquire, or attempt to acquire. Everyone does it, theologist, scientist, everyone.
    I do not believe that most scientists would endorse the extremist beliefs of a few (such as Richard Dawkins). The scientific method itself is not at fault, but it’s usage may well be extremely controversial.
    Whilst I think about it; being British (and even if I wasn’t), I am appalled at the manner in which you down-play out contribution to the conflicts around the world. Leaving aside the horrendous toll of WWII, to this day our servicemen stand with yours, in countries you deign to liberate.

    Lambast science if you must – but do not impugne our dead.

    Comment by Dialethia — May 30, 2007 @ 3:40 pm | Reply

  237. “Has anyone ever fallen off the edge of the world? If it is flat and finite then it must have an edge. If it has an edge then some idiot must have fallen off it. Perhaps someone (maybe a scientist) who went too close to the edge so that they could look over. Also where are the photos? If I saw the edge of the world I’d certainly take a picture. Then I’d show it to everyone.”

    If the edge is in Antactica, few would get close enough to photograph/fall off of it.

    “Actually, if there was an edge then I’d fly over it or climb down it and have a look at those pillars that are supposed to be holding it up. Thinking about it are there creatures living on the underside of the earth? Wait! Isn’t that where satan lives and all the souls of scientists, atheists and the wealthy go? So, in theory, it would be possible to travel there and recover a deceased relative. Or at least visit, have some cake and take photos.”

    I’m sure the demons are on the lookout for that sort of thing. You’d never get out of there alive.

    “I’m off to shoot some elves now in my war against Santa and all things Christmassy.”

    Try http://www.balloon-juice.com, there’s a commenter I’ve read over there who’d love to hear about it.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 30, 2007 @ 4:23 pm | Reply

  238. “Lambast science if you must – but do not impugne our dead.”
    Apologies. My understanding was that the death toll the British suffered at the Normandy landings was comparatively small- 51 at Utah, a few others at Juno, Sword, etc. Certainly not as much as they suffered in the Dieppe raids of 1942, which made the Normandy landings possible. (Also temporarily disregarding horrendous death tolls in other operations elsewhere, like North Africa, Anzio, and the abortive 1943 effort to liberate Greece, among many other examples.) I apologize if this is factually inaccurate. Many more Americans died during the specific operation known as Operation Overlord, I have been led to believe. (Also, during Exercise Tiger, which is best not discussed at all.)

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 30, 2007 @ 4:31 pm | Reply

  239. Does your flat earth has only one edge?

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 30, 2007 @ 4:54 pm | Reply

  240. “Why do you hate America?”

    1) What makes you believe that I do?
    2) When did I say those words.
    3) I do not like the United States of America. I like America. It happens to be the continent I live on. In fact, it happens to be the whole bloomin’ western hemishphere. You know, with a north and a south part? Or have you failed in your basic geography skills to read the names of countries versus names of continents.
    4) Not liking is not the same as hating.
    5) Why do you think that the United States of America is the only christian country? I seem to recall hearing something about a place where that Pope guy lives.

    Comment by Curiouser and Curiouser — May 30, 2007 @ 5:28 pm | Reply

  241. “Does your flat earth has only one edge?”

    How many edges does a disc have? Think about a disc whose circumference is Antarctica, and whose center is the North Pole. Tell me why it’s impossible, because the more I think about it, the more I’m inclined to believe it.

    “I do not like the United States of America.”

    Why do you hate America?

    “Why do you think that the United States of America is the only christian country? I seem to recall hearing something about a place where that Pope guy lives.”

    Okay, Vatican City, too. But the rest of Europe is Marxified and Islamicized, and you know it, too.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 30, 2007 @ 7:01 pm | Reply

  242. It is possible (although difficult) to cross the antarctic as it is possible to cross the arctic. If the Earth were a disk (like the Discworld from Terry Pratchett’s novels) you could not walk towards one edge and emerge on the opposite edge.

    It is possible to travel from South America to the antarctic, across the south pole and then to Australia. Are you suggesting that people who have done this have actually travelled around the circumference of your flat earth circle?

    However I am well aware that you won’t accept this so instead I will pose biblical evidence that you’re assumption is incorrect. Revelations 7.1 states A”nd after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.” Therefore the Earth must be square.

    There are other references: Isaiah 11:10-12 for example.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 31, 2007 @ 4:04 am | Reply

  243. “Apologies. My understanding was that the death toll the British suffered at the Normandy landings was comparatively small- 51 at Utah, a few others at Juno, Sword, etc. Certainly not as much as they suffered in the Dieppe raids of 1942, which made the Normandy landings possible. (Also temporarily disregarding horrendous death tolls in other operations elsewhere, like North Africa, Anzio, and the abortive 1943 effort to liberate Greece, among many other examples.) I apologize if this is factually inaccurate. Many more Americans died during the specific operation known as Operation Overlord, I have been led to believe. (Also, during Exercise Tiger, which is best not discussed at all.)”

    That’s because the Americans were stupid, or at least had no regard for casualties.

    The British were smart enough to land with amphibious tanks and use minesweeping tanks, while the Americans just sent wave after wave of canon fodder!

    Now excuse me as I’m going to fly over the atlantic and see the curvature of the Earth for myself (as I’ve seen it a couple of times before).

    Comment by Skeptic — May 31, 2007 @ 9:13 am | Reply

  244. “It is possible to travel from South America to the antarctic, across the south pole and then to Australia. Are you suggesting that people who have done this have actually travelled around the circumference of your flat earth circle?”

    Yes. Or they’re lying, if they say otherwise.

    “Therefore the Earth must be square.”

    If so, then all 4 corners are in Antarctica. It would change very little.

    “That’s because the Americans were stupid, or at least had no regard for casualties.”

    During Exercise Tiger?

    “The British were smart enough to land with amphibious tanks and use minesweeping tanks, while the Americans just sent wave after wave of canon fodder!”

    The only really heavy casualties were at Omaha beach, defended by the 352nd Division of the Wehrmacht. The rest of the German Army on the beaches were mostly conscripts eager to surrender. All in all, it went pretty well, considering how it could’ve gone.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 31, 2007 @ 9:18 am | Reply

  245. Seriously…this blog…terrifies me. I mean it. What’s wrong with you people writing these articles? How can you justify these hypocritical extremist views and still claim to be the moral right? Enjoy adding to the stereotype decent christians like myself get ladled on us.

    If you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go hope this is a joke site and, if not, weep for the future

    Comment by A horror-struck viewer — May 31, 2007 @ 9:31 am | Reply

  246. This is one hilarious parody site, Sisyphus. Keep up the good work!

    Comment by Aagcobb — May 31, 2007 @ 11:49 am | Reply

  247. “How many edges does a disc have? Think about a disc whose circumference is Antarctica, and whose center is the North Pole. Tell me why it’s impossible, because the more I think about it, the more I’m inclined to believe it.”

    OK, Sisyphus and DPS, I’m picturing your discworld. Now, explain to me why the seasons are inverted in the southern hemisphere relative to the northern hemisphere (er, I mean hemidisc). Or is this just another Heliocentrist lie? I know, all those millions of South Americans and Australians don’t really celebrate Christmas in the summer.

    Comment by ALyingScientist — June 1, 2007 @ 5:22 am | Reply

  248. “Now, explain to me why the seasons are inverted in the southern hemisphere relative to the northern hemisphere (er, I mean hemidisc).”

    The Sun moves at an angle relative to the disc. Its rays are somewhat diffracted and distorted by the water in the ether, casting them somewhat off-course at varying times of the year.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 1, 2007 @ 5:24 am | Reply

  249. Do you get ether fishes swimming about?

    Why doesn’t the ether put out the sun? Maybe the sun is too hot? In which case the ether would turn to steam or possibly explode. Wouldn’t we be able to see the bubbles of boiling ether around the sun?

    What stops the ether from falling down onto our heads and getting us all wet?

    Is the underside of the flat earth swimming in ether or floating above it? Is hell a very damp place?

    “The Sun moves at an angle relative to the disc. Its rays are somewhat diffracted and distorted by the water in the ether, casting them somewhat off-course at varying times of the year.”

    You’ll believe in defraction but you won’t accept it as a reason that the sky is blue? Doesn’t this seem strnage to you?

    When I was a child I asked my mother why the sky was blue. She told me that the angels painted it that colour. Even as a pre-school child this didn’t make sense. Can you explain why the sky is blue please.

    Comment by hoverfrog — June 1, 2007 @ 5:37 am | Reply

  250. “The Sun moves at an angle relative to the disc. Its rays are somewhat diffracted and distorted by the water in the ether, casting them somewhat off-course at varying times of the year.”

    I don’t understand. In your model, the Southern hemisphere is going to be a ring just inside the antarctic edge. How, exactly does this work?

    Comment by ALyingScientist — June 1, 2007 @ 6:14 am | Reply

  251. “The Sun moves at an angle relative to the disc. Its rays are somewhat diffracted and distorted by the water in the ether, casting them somewhat off-course at varying times of the year.”

    Yeah, I could see that. That explains a lot. Thanks!

    Comment by DPS — June 1, 2007 @ 8:05 am | Reply

  252. DPS, You’re still an idiot!

    Comment by ALyingScientist — June 1, 2007 @ 12:40 pm | Reply

  253. This article made me so mad I wanted to scream. How is it that we live in the year 2007 and we can still have people who believe in everything that is backwards from what is reality.

    1) Science is NOT an ideology. It is not a belief structure, whether you believe in science or not it does not matter, it does not change. Think of this, if you don’t believe in gravity (which was really first thought of by Galileo) does it stop acting on you?

    Will computers, electricity or lights go dark? No.

    Did your God create all of these things that we use today from the keyboard you use to the soap you use to wash? No. It was made possible through science.

    To shun science and hundreds and hundreds of years of recorded history is nonsense. You must have blinders on to miss everything you see everyday.

    How are you sure that God exists, do you have proof? We, the science community have proof that we went to the moon or sent a lander to Mars. We have proof that electricity exists and works because of discoveries made by us, humans without a divine influence coming down and saying this is how this works.

    2) How are you sure your God is the true God? What about other religions that have been around BEFORE the biblical stories were even written? How can you accept a book written by COMMITTEE as a solid history of the earth. Think about life 2000 years ago for a second, if you went there and turned on a flashlight, or played a song from your iPod they would say you were bewitched or maybe even call you a God because they wouldn’t understand it. How can you accept these stories knowing they have little experience in science or observation?

    3) The Bible is fiction, written by several people and assembled by a committee of government leaders who used the book as a form as control. You can do this you can’t do that, this was to take away free will. Think about AA, they are a Christian based organization and release all responsibility to God, when they should be looking at themselves and lack of willpower.

    I will not torment you any longer but just think about the world you live in, look at the monitor you are typing into and think, thank god for science, it allows me to share my opinion.

    Jaded as it is.

    Comment by A educated fellow — June 1, 2007 @ 4:04 pm | Reply

  254. “Do you get ether fishes swimming about?”

    I doubt God put any up there. If he had, we might have whales and sharks falling on us out of the sky. That wouldn’t be a very good thing.

    “Why doesn’t the ether put out the sun? Maybe the sun is too hot? In which case the ether would turn to steam or possibly explode. Wouldn’t we be able to see the bubbles of boiling ether around the sun?”

    No. Either it’s too far away, or the ripples in the rest of the ether distort it. Anyway, you should know that staring at the Sun is not healthy for your eyes. Anyone who did it long enough to glimpse the steam would’ve had their eyes burned out.

    “What stops the ether from falling down onto our heads and getting us all wet?”

    Possibly, that’s where rain comes from.

    “Is the underside of the flat earth swimming in ether or floating above it? Is hell a very damp place?”

    I think the water stays out of Hell, probably. But there might be a level or two underwater, for really awful people like pirates. It’s hard to say.

    “You’ll believe in defraction but you won’t accept it as a reason that the sky is blue? Doesn’t this seem strnage to you?”

    No.

    “When I was a child I asked my mother why the sky was blue. She told me that the angels painted it that colour. Even as a pre-school child this didn’t make sense. Can you explain why the sky is blue please.”

    Because it’s full of water.

    “I don’t understand. In your model, the Southern hemisphere is going to be a ring just inside the antarctic edge. How, exactly does this work?”

    It’s half the ring, I think. The Equator is equidistant from the circumference and the North Pole. But since the planet is about a million miles in circumference, by the time the Sun gets to one side of the planet it’s too far away for the other side to see it anymore.

    “This article made me so mad I wanted to scream. How is it that we live in the year 2007 and we can still have people who believe in everything that is backwards from what is reality.”

    Treefrogs dominate the education system. Anything is possible.

    “1) Science is NOT an ideology.”

    Yes it is.

    “It is not a belief structure, whether you believe in science or not it does not matter, it does not change.”

    Yes it does.

    “Think of this, if you don’t believe in gravity (which was really first thought of by Galileo) does it stop acting on you?”

    Beats me. I never tried.

    “Will computers, electricity or lights go dark? No.”

    Sometimes they do.

    “Did your God create all of these things that we use today from the keyboard you use to the soap you use to wash? No. It was made possible through science.”

    God made it possible. Science made up some explanations and guessed its way to the right answers for the wrong reasons.

    “To shun science and hundreds and hundreds of years of recorded history is nonsense. You must have blinders on to miss everything you see everyday.”

    I feel the same way about you, if you substitute the word “religion” for “science”.

    “How are you sure that God exists, do you have proof?”

    Yes. It’s called the Bible.

    “We, the science community have proof that we went to the moon or sent a lander to Mars.”

    Rubbish. You’re all in the employ of the boondoggling leftards. Why should anyone trust you?

    “We have proof that electricity exists and works because of discoveries made by us, humans without a divine influence coming down and saying this is how this works.”

    God doesn’t work that way, He usually inspires without being seen.

    “2) How are you sure your God is the true God?”

    The Bible.

    “What about other religions that have been around BEFORE the biblical stories were even written?”

    Pagan lunacy.

    “How can you accept a book written by COMMITTEE as a solid history of the earth.”

    God wrote it through the mouths of multiple authors.

    “Think about life 2000 years ago for a second, if you went there and turned on a flashlight, or played a song from your iPod they would say you were bewitched or maybe even call you a God because they wouldn’t understand it.”

    They’d be right, too. How could I get a flashlight or an iPod or my own body back there, without using time travel? Time travel is anathema to God. If He didn’t kill me before I made it back to 7 A.D., the people back then would be right to do so.

    “How can you accept these stories knowing they have little experience in science or observation?”

    I regard your precious pseudosciences as drivel, with forged results, atheistic secularist explanations, and an underlying theme or Copernican Darwinist Marxism. I don’t want my children learning it, and I don’t want my tax dollars financing it. Luckily for me, President Brownback will be with me on this one.

    “3) The Bible is fiction, written by several people and assembled by a committee of government leaders who used the book as a form as control.”

    Your blasphemies do not make it so.

    “You can do this you can’t do that, this was to take away free will.”

    Complete rot. Atheistic nonsense.

    “Think about AA, they are a Christian based organization and release all responsibility to God, when they should be looking at themselves and lack of willpower.”

    What have a bunch of alcoholics got to do with this? Are you drunk?

    “I will not torment you any longer but just think about the world you live in, look at the monitor you are typing into and think, thank god for science, it allows me to share my opinion.”

    Please go sober up somewhere. Do come again. Be sure to vote Brownback!

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 1, 2007 @ 4:20 pm | Reply

  255. “It’s half the ring, I think. The Equator is equidistant from the circumference and the North Pole. But since the planet is about a million miles in circumference, by the time the Sun gets to one side of the planet it’s too far away for the other side to see it anymore.”

    That’s an explanation for why the seasons are inverted from northern to southern hemisphere? Come on, you can do better than that.

    “Be sure to vote Brownback!”

    Oh, yes! You’re doing wonders for Brownback’s support. It’s just skyrocketed from 3% all the way to 2%. You must be very proud!

    Fundamental Christianity– a belief system for the ages….the dark ages.

    Sisyphus, keep rollin’ that boulder dude!

    Comment by ALyingScientist — June 1, 2007 @ 4:32 pm | Reply

  256. “That’s an explanation for why the seasons are inverted from northern to southern hemisphere? Come on, you can do better than that.”

    I don’t have the ability to draw charts on this blog. I’m sorry if I can’t explain it with words alone. It’s complicated, and you need a map to see the system.

    “Oh, yes! You’re doing wonders for Brownback’s support. It’s just skyrocketed from 3% all the way to 2%. You must be very proud!”

    Moonbat polls give moonbat answers. The only poll that matters is in November 2008.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 1, 2007 @ 4:36 pm | Reply

  257. “I don’t have the ability to draw charts on this blog. I’m sorry if I can’t explain it with words alone. It’s complicated, and you need a map to see the system.”

    Right…..

    “Moonbat polls give moonbat answers. The only poll that matters is in November 2008.”

    I can’t wait!

    Comment by ALyingScientist — June 1, 2007 @ 5:10 pm | Reply

  258. “I don’t have the ability to draw charts on this blog. I’m sorry if I can’t explain it with words alone. It’s complicated, and you need a map to see the system.”

    Come on Sisyphus! DPS needs you to maintain the illusion. You’re her flat earth hero! Don’t wuss out on us now. Pull yourself together and make up some crap!

    Comment by ALyingScientist — June 1, 2007 @ 7:34 pm | Reply

  259. ALyingScientist @ 258:

    What’s wrong with what Sisyphus said? It all seems pretty clear and plausible to me. If you think there are flaws in his model of the universe, it would help me if you could lay out for me what you think those flaws are. More detail is better so I can picture what you’re talking about, but not so much detail that I get confused.

    Comment by DPS — June 1, 2007 @ 8:04 pm | Reply

  260. “What’s wrong with what Sisyphus said? It all seems pretty clear and plausible to me. If you think there are flaws in his model of the universe, it would help me if you could lay out for me what you think those flaws are. More detail is better so I can picture what you’re talking about, but not so much detail that I get confused.”

    Flaws in his model?? He hasn’t explained it. It’s very interesting to me that you claim to understand it. Perhaps you would like to explain how you can have inverted seasons in the northern and southern hemispheres on a disc-shaped planet with the south pole on the periphery, the equater at about midpoint in the disc and the north pole at the center. Think about it!! It’s not possible!!

    This is the real problem with people who reject science. They don’t know enough to understand what it is that they reject. If it doesn’t fit with their worldview (ie. biblical), it is rejected out of hand, without thought, without any understanding.

    Comment by ALyingScientist — June 1, 2007 @ 8:29 pm | Reply

  261. “Perhaps you would like to explain how you can have inverted seasons in the northern and southern hemispheres on a disc-shaped planet with the south pole on the periphery, the equater at about midpoint in the disc and the north pole at the center. Think about it!! It’s not possible!!”

    This doesn’t really explain anything, so it’s not what I was hoping for.

    I wonder if the problem isn’t that you’re making an unwarranted assumption about the relationship between the movement of the Sun around the Earth and the effects that we think of as “seasonal”—temperature variations, precipitation, etc. They may seem related, but of course need not actually be related. This is an excellent example of how preconceived scientific prejudices about how the world works can harm understanding rather than advance it.

    Comment by DPS — June 1, 2007 @ 9:55 pm | Reply

  262. more dissembling…

    Comment by ALyingScientist — June 2, 2007 @ 4:45 am | Reply

  263. I wonder if the problem isn’t that you’re making an unwarranted assumption about the relationship between the movement of the Sun around the Earth and the effects that we think of as “seasonal”—temperature variations, precipitation, etc. They may seem related, but of course need not actually be related. This is an excellent example of how preconceived scientific prejudices about how the world works can harm understanding rather than advance it.”

    That’s a good point. Other factors besides sunlight could influence the seasons. The temperature of the water in the ether, for example, probably varies a lot. I’m sure some of that comes down on us.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 2, 2007 @ 5:43 am | Reply

  264. “I wonder if the problem isn’t that you’re making an unwarranted assumption about the relationship between the movement of the Sun around the Earth and the effects that we think of as “seasonal”—temperature variations, precipitation, etc. They may seem related, but of course need not actually be related. This is an excellent example of how preconceived scientific prejudices about how the world works can harm understanding rather than advance it.”

    We really don’t have seasons, eh? OK, now I know this isn’t serious.

    Comment by ALyingScientist — June 2, 2007 @ 10:38 am | Reply

  265. “We really don’t have seasons, eh? OK, now I know this isn’t serious.”

    We really do have seasons, but we don’t really understand what causes them.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 2, 2007 @ 10:45 am | Reply

  266. You may not, but we do!

    Comment by ALyingScientist — June 2, 2007 @ 10:53 am | Reply

  267. Why does ALyingScientist have such a hard time admitting that he can’t prove his theory about the relationship between the Sun and the seasons?

    Comment by DPS — June 2, 2007 @ 5:13 pm | Reply

  268. Wasn’t my theory. It was Sisyphus who had some airy fairy non-explanation of how the seasons shange on a flat earth. I have no theory, only fact. Too bad the truth isn’t consistent with a literal reading of the Bible. I wonder what else the inerrant word of God got wrong. Let’s see, the age of the earth perhaps? Creation…definitely. Pretty much every attempt to define some element of the natural world the authors of the Bible got wrong! The real question is, what did they get right?

    Richard Dawkins rules!

    Comment by ALyingScientist — June 2, 2007 @ 7:36 pm | Reply

  269. “I have no theory, only fact.”

    Whatever. Show me that the phenomenon of seasonality and the phenomenon of the Sun’s revolution around the Earth stand in a causal relationship with each other. Even better, prove to me that the seasons don’t cause the behavior of the Sun! Ha! Ha! How you like *them* apples? Maybe winter causes the Sun to cool. Didn’t think of that, did you, Mr. ScienceLiar or whatever? I tell you what: spring made the Sun pretty hot today where I am.

    I know it hurts that you can’t disprove any of the things I’m saying. So just go ahead, have a good cry, let it all out (it’s OK; we can de-gay you later) and then worship the Lord your God. You can thank me when you’re not in H-E-double hockeysticks.

    Comment by DPS — June 3, 2007 @ 11:34 pm | Reply

  270. “Maybe winter causes the Sun to cool. Didn’t think of that, did you, Mr. ScienceLiar or whatever? I tell you what: spring made the Sun pretty hot today where I am.”

    Oh, you got me there. You are so clever!

    “I know it hurts that you can’t disprove any of the things I’m saying. So just go ahead, have a good cry, let it all out (it’s OK; we can de-gay you later) and then worship the Lord your God. You can thank me when you’re not in H-E-double hockeysticks.”

    Yes, I’m all broken up over the fact that evidence means nothing to you. It’s nothing but inconvenient information that needs to be swept under the rug so it can’t impinge on your outdated worldview. Really, get over the heaven and hell thing. It’s the ultimate in regressive, archaic thinking. As I wrote before, cling to it if you must, but don’t try to foist it upon others. We really have no interest in it.

    I’m done here. Going to find someone capable of rational thought.

    Enjoy your anti-science mental masturbation….

    Comment by ALyingScientist — June 4, 2007 @ 5:42 am | Reply

  271. http://www.rationalwiki.com/index.php?title=Blogs_4_Brownback
    (an overview of the best B4B moments on rationalwiki)

    Comment by Skeptic — June 4, 2007 @ 10:40 am | Reply

  272. Absolutely spot on. As a true Christian, and as a logical educated man, I completely agree with all your words. We must stand firm and let these moonbats, hippies and “self-professed” enlightened scientist fight amongst themselves.

    “But isn’t Science responsible for giving you this forum? Without quantum mechanics, for example, the internet, your computer, and even electricity would not exist.” – correction – these things work because God let them work. God gives us everything and he can take it away should he please. God votes for Brownback!

    Comment by thrush — June 15, 2007 @ 8:53 am | Reply

  273. Glad to see you understand these things, thrush.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 15, 2007 @ 9:06 am | Reply

  274. […] to show others the correct way of thinking, I attempted to convey my doubts to others. I called the false teachings of modern pseudoscience into question at every […]

    Pingback by The World is Flat « Blogs 4 Brownback — June 16, 2007 @ 5:23 am | Reply

  275. Peculiarity of the Heliocentric Mind

    Empedocles, an ancient heliocentrist, called also Leonardo Acragas, studied for a while with the Pythagoreans. All men, he believed were once gods, but had forfeited their heavenly place by some impurity or violence; and he was certain that he felt in his own soul intimations of a prenatal divinity:

    “From what glory, from what immeasurable bliss, have I now sunk to roam with mortals on this earth!” Convinced of his divine origin, he put golden sandals upon his feet, clothed his body with purple robes, and crowned his head with laurel; he was, as he modestly explained to his countrymen, a favorite of Apollo; only to his friends did he confess that he was a god. He claimed supernatural powers, performed magic rites, and sought by incantations to wrest from the other world the secrets of human destiny.

    He offered to cure diseases by the enchantment of his words, and cured so many that the populace half believed his claims, He was people’s hero; he led a popular revolution against a narrow aristocracy and condemned rich men. In his last years he became more distinctly a preacher and prophet, absorbed in the theory of reincarnation, and imploring his fellow men to purge away the guilt that had exiled them from heaven. With the assorted wisdom of Buddha, Pythagoras, and Schopenhauer he warned the human race to abstain from marriage, procreation and beans.

    Plutarch writes that, the heliocentric hypotheis of Aristarchus of Samos was proved (apodeiknumi) by a certain Seleukos of Seleukia (Seleucos prins opinion d’affermer la terre veritablement autour des poles se mouuoir non le ciel – Rabelais, Pantagruel, Book V, ch. 25 (1552). The Greek verb ‘apodeiknumi’ used by Plutarch is cognate with the theological concept of dogma. Statements of speculative philosophy (‘knowledge of good and evil’) were termed by Latin writers decreta, scita, placita, axiomata, enunciata, effata. Cicero replaced all these terms by one: dogmata. Inquisition was not an invention of Catholic Church; already Plato wanted to defend his dogmas with the help of such an institution. Two German adjectives ‘apodiktisch’ and unfehlbar’ (infallible) are synonymous.

    The great difference between the Greek conception of nature and later ones is that the Greeks thought of the universe as analogous to a city-state, so that for them natural laws, like human laws, were not laws of things, descriptions of how in fact they behave, but laws for things. When we speak of a falling body “obeying” the law of gravitation, we are unconsciously echoing Greek thought; for obedience implies the possibility of disobedience. To the Greeks this was no dead metaphor; consequently, their problem was not the relation of Mind to Matter, but of Substance to Form, how matter became “educated” enough, so to speak, to conform to law.

    A mosaic found in the Vatican grottoes under St. Peter’s basilica, on the vaulted ceiling of the tomb of the Julii depicts Christ as the sun-god (sol invictus) riding in his chariot and is dated to the 3rd century A.D. The same sun god (Sol Invictus) is depicted on the reverse of a Roman coin from the 3rd century. The inscription reads SOLI INVICTO. Rome was the empire of Sol Invictus or Kosmokrator (Ruler of the Cosmos) and as such was “destined to rule the whole world” (Virgil). When Rome succumbed to Jesus it did not embrace him as a Jewish teacher but as Logos of the Gospel of John which was the philosophical counterpart of the ancient sun gods revered under various names: Shiva, Tammuz, Baal, Horus, Adonis, Helios, Mithra, Wotan. Copernicus justifies standstill of the sun with his divine character; he defines Him as “All-Seeing Being, Reason of the World and God who being seated on the royal throne rules the family of stars.”
    The Roman Stoics referred to their sun god as Reason of the World (Logos) and exactly the same meaning has the Teutonic Wotan whose name is derived from Sanskrit vid, to know. The website Wotan – the Sun God (http://www.artgemeinschaft.org/ewotsun.htm) sums up the pagan solar theology of Copernicus as follows: “The universe, as a whole, is a spiritually living being – the ultimately supreme God, if you will…The center of our solar system is, of course, the sun. What modern man often overlooks is the fact that the sun is more than the physical center; it is also the spiritual center. From the earliest times, man has recognized the various sources and centers of this spiritual energy from the sun, and has expressed this recognition in a process of deification of the natural features of the world and its surroundings. Wotan represents the Teutonic attempt to deify and understand this primary source of spiritual energy…For a Christian, the sun represents a stern but protective Father who will save his worshippers if they will only accept him and his ways…Of all the peoples of the world, the Teutons are alone in having experienced the miraculous and sublime process of evolutionary change that has enabled them to see the sun’s energy as alive, evolving, and creative. Unfortunately for humanity, Wotan’s people lacked the courage of their convictions; they opted for easy road, and accepted Christianity. Now, after centuries of betrayal, hypocrisy and revealed falsehood, his people are rejecting the Judeo-Christian lie and turning to their inner spiritual selves for truth and understanding – and they are finding Wotan. There can be no more impressive demonstration of the creative power of Wotan than this. We stand on the threshold of a new era, and what we see before us is the universe. As we carry the banner of our Sun’s spiritual energy to the farthest galaxies, we can take pride in the knowledge that we are the bringers of the seed of evolution, creativity, honor, and dignity.”
    Newton’s Natural Philosophy matches what Varro in his Antiquities referred to as Natural Theology and that explains the puzzle of his identifying gravity with the spiritual body of Jesus Christ. Varro divided forty-one books of his Antiquities into ‘human matters’ and ‘divine matters’ and his treatment of ‘human matters’ before ‘divine matters’ was inspired by disputes of philosophers who derived their gods from fire (Heraclitus) or from number (Pythagoras) or from atoms (Epicurus). Varro’s materialistic philosophy is behind Paul’s teaching: “Howbeit, that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.” (1 Cor. 15:46). “Von extatischen Erlebnissen erfüllt, habe Copernicus geglaubt, dass er die Gottheit und ihre gleichsam physische Natur auf wissenschaftlichen Wege enthülle.”
    Roman Pytel

    Comment by Roman Pytel — June 26, 2007 @ 3:36 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: