…and this is a 
I am astounded. Usually AiG simply refers to me as "the Professor" or "the atheist", but in their latest screed they actually mention me by name…and they even spell it correctly! Of course, they get everything else wrong.
A well-known University of Minnesota-Morris professor who has a history of hate speech against creationists—especially Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum1—inadvertently admitted recently that we were not wrong. This was kind of a blessing in disguise and also reveals much about his character. Professor Paul (P.Z.) Myers said:
First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless place where most things wouldn't mind killing you if you let them. No one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder spree, and all that is stopping you is your self-interest (it is very destructive to your personal bliss to knock down your social support system) and the self-interest of others, who would try to stop you. There is nothing 'out there' that imposes morality on you, other than local, temporary conditions, a lot of social enculturation, and probably a bit of genetic hardwiring that you've inherited from ancestors who lived under similar conditions.
Myers admits there is no morality or anying that imposes it either (i.e., God) in his worldview. This means that from his own worldview, there is no such thing as right and wrong. Accordingly, this means that there must be nothing wrong with teaching the truth of creation as revealed in the Bible. Ironically, perhaps, it also means that there is nothing wrong in showing the problems with false religions like humanism and evolution.
They still couldn't bear to actually link to the article in question; here it is.
Their article still goes awry at the very first sentence. I am definitely not saying that they were not wrong, and there was nothing inadvertent about my post. Seriously, I don't sneeze and a grammatically correct blog entry pops out accidentally, or something. I actually have to invest a microsecond or three in thinking.
It gets worse in the sentence right after they quote me. There is morality in my 'worldview'; don't confuse the fact that I state baldly that there is no external non-human intelligent agent that imposes morality on me with an absence of moral thought. I derive my sense of what is right and wrong from intrinsic properties such as empathy and other social impulses, and from acculturation in a stable, successful society that has expectations of parents to introduce their children to what constitutes reasonable behavior. I also derive it rationally from what I can see as a robust strategy for long term security and happiness within my culture — that is, robbing banks has a very poor long term return on the effort.
So, I do believe in right and wrong. It's just not handed down from a magical sky-lawyer.
Oh, but wait…I just noticed. This isn't a serious article from AiG, it's a comedy routine. That phrase, "the truth of creation as revealed in the Bible", should have tipped me off. There is no truth in the Bible!
Never mind, just laugh. Well, laugh weakly. It's still not a very good routine, but at least the clowns at AiG are trying out some new material.
Comments
Posted by: DanN
|
October 13, 2009 3:58 PM
Amazing how they're always quoting, but not citing sources or linking to them.
And they want to be taken seriously as "scientists?"
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 13, 2009 3:59 PM
Somewhere out there in the Æther, the winged Cherub of logic just got crapped on by a seagull
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
October 13, 2009 4:04 PM
But see, grounding it in reality is what's wrong and what makes it not count at all.
Grounding it in fiction, only that makes it important.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: ezzie83
|
October 13, 2009 4:06 PM
As a lawyer, I wholly endorse the idea that we should worship the magical sky-lawyer. Fear my creative contract construction!
Posted by: Paul
|
October 13, 2009 4:07 PM
It's been 2400 years (give or take a few) and they still can't wrap their heads around the Euthyphro dilemma. You can hardly expect them to wrap their heads around a 2 month old blog post.
Posted by: kopd
|
October 13, 2009 4:08 PM
Grounding it in fiction, only that makes it important.
It's sad but there's truth to that. If you told people you get your morality from the Flying Spaghetti Monster, they'd prefer that over "intrinsic properties such as empathy and other social impulses," etc., evil humanistic stuff.
Posted by: sendaianonymous.wordpress.com
|
October 13, 2009 4:09 PM
Haha, no. This is some serious category conflating.
There's right and wrong.
And there's also right and incorrect.
Posted by: butterflyfishhm
|
October 13, 2009 4:09 PM
Wow. At least one fallacy per sentence that's not PZ's. Impressive.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 13, 2009 4:10 PM
Oh yeah, hate speech. Kinda like this:
"And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God..." (Deuteronomy 13: 5)
"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;" (Deuteronomy 13: 6)
"Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people." (Deuteronomy 13:8-9)
"Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword." (Deuteronomy 13:15)
Posted by: martijn
|
October 13, 2009 4:16 PM
Typical creationists, they like quoting passages out of context and presenting them as 'proof' of what they want you to believe. Pretty much sums up what the've done with the bibel as well though :)
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
October 13, 2009 4:19 PM
Oh, how well I remember how the faithful would twist their logic into pretty balloon shapes to dazzle their peers and bolster and affirm their beliefs. It usually ends in prayer and smugness. Trust me, they can entertain themselves doing this all day long.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
October 13, 2009 4:20 PM
Seeing as how those words aren't understood by either them or most of their religious leaders, it's somewhat understandable that they prefer the fiction.
The bigger problem is that they have to demonize the "other" who does understand the issues, in order to keep in line with the fictions that they do believe.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Your Name's Not Bruce?
|
October 13, 2009 4:22 PM
I think I see the answer missed by Answers in Genesis in the last sentence of your post, PZ; Noah's ark was a clown car!
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 13, 2009 4:23 PM
PZ is a meanie. Therefore god exists.
Posted by: Paranoid Budgie
|
October 13, 2009 4:24 PM
Ah AiG has geared up it's mining equipment down in the ye olde quote mine again I see...I can't believe as a kid I read that wretched magazine they put out...
Posted by: SplendidMonkey
|
October 13, 2009 4:26 PM
Gesundheit!
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 13, 2009 4:31 PM
Answers in Genesis...heh.
These morons have completely lost their sense of irony.
Posted by: gmv
|
October 13, 2009 4:33 PM
As Darwin said:
Or as William Provine said:
That about sums it up.
Posted by: Zifnab
|
October 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Nothing is better than ice cream. And leftovers for dinner is better than nothing for dinner. Therefore, leftovers are better than ice cream!
It's like arguing with an 8-year-old. Their entire screed just boils down to "But you said!" with a childish twist. Who are they hoping to persuade with this other than themselves? It's just a sad and pathetic self-affirmation.
P.Z. Myers, whom we've never listened to before this moment, released a statement saying he rejects moral absolutism. Since we are all left to our own judgments to determine a moral code, I can develop a moral code that supports moral absolutism. Ergo, a lack of moral absolutism proves the existence of moral absolutism! I win!
Circular argument is circular!
Posted by: $ Thelonious 386sx
|
October 13, 2009 4:35 PM
Ironically, perhaps, it also means that there is nothing wrong in showing the problems with false religions like humanism and evolution.
This, ironically, perhaps, from someone who thinks torturing billions of people for eternity is a "good" thing to do.
Posted by: Kel
|
October 13, 2009 4:37 PM
Morality given from God is NOT morality, it's coercion of obedience. I'm still waiting for a theist to adequately explain how God can be a moral authority at the same time as prescribing moral law. The Euthyphro Dilemma needs explanation
Posted by: Bob L
|
October 13, 2009 4:39 PM
"Accordingly, this means that there must be nothing wrong with teaching the truth of creation as revealed in the Bible"
Proof of Biblical accuracy from nihilism. Nothing matters, it is all pointless so let us believe in a fable we know to ridiculousness. AiG is probably reveling more of what they really think here than they want to.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 13, 2009 4:42 PM
Umm...
Do these morons even know how to read?
Posted by: $ Thelonious 386sx
|
October 13, 2009 4:49 PM
Do these morons even know how to read?
They know how to read but they've had their cult slogans repeatedly burned into their thoughts so often that they kinda gloss over things once and a while.
Posted by: The Pint
|
October 13, 2009 4:50 PM
@ Rev. BigDumbChimp #2
"Somewhere out there in the Æther, the winged Cherub of logic just got crapped on by a seagull."
At this point in time, that poor little Cherub's got to be too covered in crap to even get off the ground, wouldn't you say?
Posted by: nigelTheBold
|
October 13, 2009 4:51 PM
"False religions" of humanism and evolution. They are both religions now? Did I not get the memo?
And who is to say they are false ideas, anyway?
That seems like a twofer of idiocy, right there. It's like they ran across a bulk deal on idiocy at Wal*Mart, and just had to stock up. The more you spend, the more you save!
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
October 13, 2009 4:51 PM
Wow, they're positively giddy with their little 'gotcha!' I haven't seen such excitement since the time at the schoolyard when Dorothy asked me what I was eating "under there" and much merriment was to be had when through the vagaries of homophones my response could technically be construed to mean I was having a jockey short sandwich.
Of course, no adult with a fully developed brain would assume such word games reflect reality (whatever the perspective of my playground pettifogger, my PB&J did not automatically become ginch at my gaffe.) Then again, to the minds of those that still seem pissed-off at not having been the ones to invent transubstantiation ("The second miracle is that the first doesn't happen in any real sense!"™), such dipshittery is all that matters.
Nonetheless, there is some amusement to be had in the irony their use of deceit in defending their morality engenders.
Like the guy commenting on the YouTube video "Sell the Vatican" by Sarah Silverman who defends Catholicism by posting increasingly Mein Kampf-esque invective against Jews.
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 13, 2009 4:56 PM
But there's nothing that imposes it in their world view either --hence the elaborate song and dance about how God could have made you obedient like a robot, but instead gave you Free Will, so that you could either choose to obey Him, or choose to disobey. It's ultimately up to you.
At the personal level, all moral systems are going to come down to choice, not obedience --including theistic ones, where you, yourself, willingly and gladly choose to obey. The alternative is a view of reluctantly following orders at the point of a gun, or, perhaps, the robot-world version of automatons.
They really need to think their complaint through some more.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
October 13, 2009 5:08 PM
Ah, more lying for jeezus. As usual they pick out only the few words which they believe supports their ass-backward world view and ignore everything else anyone has to say. If someone not in their camp said something like "I do not eat babies" they would choose to ignore the "not" - after all, lying for jeezus is a virtue, not a sin.
What's that crap about the "hate speech against creationists"? I see the AiG are full of hatred and lies - they are such pathological liars they call their brand of hatred "god's love". Since when does telling godless minions to behave constitute "hate speech"?
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 13, 2009 5:12 PM
hate speech = persecution complex
They love playing that card. Wussies.
Posted by: T_U_T
|
October 13, 2009 5:17 PM
disclaimer : I am not one of them, neither I am part of any another religious delusion, so, please, don't start with friendly fire now, OK ?
Kel:
The problem is, that a half-decent deity has still a third option. It choose things which it wants to be good, and embed them into the laws of physics of the universe so they cease to be something arbitrary, and the deity is free to announce them to the critters it create as bare facts, not as commands that have to be followed under the threat of infinite punishment.
For example deity may decide that making someone vomit is going to be a fundamentally good thing, so, instead of just commanding it under the threat of eternal punishment, the deity invents the whole physics of the world so, that regular vomiting is a necessary but sometimes difficult to achieve part of the digestion of any macroscopic creature. So, if someone in that universe makes his friend vomiting when he needs but can't, he is in fact helping him.
A deity can then command its believers to make their friends vomit when they need without becoming a capricious tyrant.
The entire dilemma is thus false.
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 13, 2009 5:20 PM
Mad Scientist #29 wrote:
They think they're being clever, and using one of "our" weapons against us. Generally speaking, conservative Christians are against hate speech laws. They think atheists are all liberals, and therefore for them. People should be punished -- even thrown in jail -- for thought crimes. (They also think that's 'liberal.')
Most secular humanists, of course, are against such draconian laws (unless the real issue comes down to violence.) Freethinkers who argue against religion are hardly likely to support the claim that nobody should ever offend anyone else, and sacred cows must be respected.
When it comes right down to it, though, the Christians here are in favor of hate crime laws, because the whole God-punishes-you-for-bad-thoughts crap from the NT is nothing more than making emotional reactions a crime, instead of behaviors. Committing adultery in one's heart, etc.
Gee. Maybe they're projecting.
Posted by: T_U_T
|
October 13, 2009 5:22 PM
holy crap. Forgot to proofread. ...It CAN choose things....
....the critters it createD....
the first two typos. I am too ashamed of myself to read the rest of what I wrote :((((. don't have to write and watch movies at the same time.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 13, 2009 5:23 PM
So god is bulimic. Got it.
Posted by: Kel
|
October 13, 2009 5:27 PM
Of course, what you described still doesn't explain the origins of morality - nor is it compatible with the Judeo-Christian construct of God. However noble, the dilemma still stands.Posted by: Sastra
|
October 13, 2009 5:30 PM
T_U_T #31 wrote:
Not really. I think your third option simply makes God totally gratuitous. If I understand it correctly, it chooses the "God says it's Good because it really is (rationally discernible from the world) Good," but adds on that the world got that way "by the will of Good God." This response is a bit like theistic evolution: evolution is sufficient to explain what we once thought God did directly, but maybe God works indirectly through evolution. And maybe the razor slices through this winsome attempt to rescue what's lost, both cases.
Posted by: Marcus J. Ranum
|
October 13, 2009 5:35 PM
Instead of "hate speech" can we get designated as "contempt speech"?? It has a nice ring to it.
Posted by: shonny
|
October 13, 2009 5:45 PM
Without god, no morality?
Guess that explains why the overwhelming majority of inmates in prisons are religious of some sort?? And why pretty well all terrorists believe in god or allah or some of that mob.
And of course quantum leaps in logic are no great deal for the religious.
Posted by: T_U_T
|
October 13, 2009 5:47 PM
DISCLAIMER again, I am not religious, so would you stop treating me like I were, please
I just like playing devils' advocate just for the heck of it.
which avoids the pitfall of the good being above the deity and thus making the deity redundant. But you can read it from the opposite direction as well. The deity decided what is good by fiat, but then made it to be really good on its own.
DUH ! Of course the ultimate way to tell whether is there a god is the evidence of her interaction with the universe ( or the lack of it ). But that is not the point. The point is, that the Euthyphro dilemma is as an argument pretty useless on its own.
Posted by: Marcus J. Ranum
|
October 13, 2009 5:59 PM
Kel writes:
The Euthyphro Dilemma needs explanation
I always loved the way the ancient greeks exploded religion hundreds of years before xtianity was even invented, leaving a mine-field for the faithful to march through ever after. But march, they do - with their fingers jammed firmly in their ears and their eyes screwed shut. How anyone can proceed to "theology" without having first refuted Sextus Empiricus (let alone Hume) is just proof of religion's intellectual impoverishment.
Posted by: Armand K.
|
October 13, 2009 6:01 PM
Oh my! That brand new piece of BEEP from AiG is simply retarded... as usual. It could qualify as pretty good satire but for the small, and somewhat relevant, detail that it's uttered with a straight face.
Posted by: Marcus J. Ranum
|
October 13, 2009 6:17 PM
T_U_T writes:
The deity decided what is good by fiat, but then made it to be really good on its own.
I don't see how that answers the problem, since those things occur in sequence. As you say: first, the diety decided what is pious - then made it so. But the diety's choice to 'make it so' is also arbitrary fiat, leaving what is pious 'that which is loved by the gods', e.g.: compulsion. That's not "really" good, because it could just as easily been something else.
If the gods want you to vomit, and build the universe to justify their wants, then you're still compelled - even if vomiting seems to be a good idea to you, trapped being a meat robot as you are.
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 13, 2009 6:18 PM
T_U_T #39
Not necessarily: I still think your third option places good above the deity, in that it fixes it in the world and the way humans interact with it and each other. Claiming that God made it all that way on purpose to reflect its inviolable nature doesn't negate the fact that, given this defense, 'knowing God's will' has become exactly equivalent to 'discovering what works to do what we humans think is right.'
It's the God of Natural Morality: He can be understood only through the study of nature, as opposed to revelation -- and nature never reveals God's existence, only what God has done. Morality without belief in God works exactly like morality with belief in God. If that is conceded, the Euthyphro has done its work. It's not a disproof of God: it attempts to show that God isn't necessary for morality.
Another way to approach the same problem is to take something which is generally considered Good -- and ask the hypothetical question "what if it was discovered that God considers it wrong?" If this discovery means that this Good thing must be re-evaluated as being deceptive -- we now know it must be harmful in such a way that you and I and every other reasonable person, when they understood the whole picture, would say "yes, that's a bad thing" -- then our understanding of God is being forced to follow nature, and human morality. Good comes before God, because a Good God has to be good by our worldly standards.
The alternative is saying that this "Good" thing would now be wrong no matter what humans wanted, no matter how humans were effected, or what happened in the world. I think the popular "3rd option" is just a stealth version of the second option: the gods love things because these things are good.
Posted by: Kel
|
October 13, 2009 6:20 PM
I realise, just saying that it missed the mark Agreed. Though I heard one recent claim to the problem of evil which may change everything ;)[paraphrasing] There is just so much evil in the world that the only way someone can be optimistic is to believe in a good God. So if atheists want to say I'm deluded for believing in God, I can then say they are deluded for being optimistic.
Sadly this philosophical equivalent to 2girls1cup isn't done by some random crazy, but by a professional philosopher.
Posted by: Fatboy
|
October 13, 2009 6:24 PM
Am I the only one who read this as a kind of admission that teaching creationism is dishonest, and would thus be immoral if only atheists could have morals? If they knew there was nothing wrong with teaching creationism, why even get into an atheist's justification for morality?
(BTW, I usually, well, periodically, post as Fatboy, but ScienceBlogs is using my TypePad login name, not the name I enter in the comment input section.)
Posted by: Foggg
|
October 13, 2009 6:36 PM
T_U_T #31 #39 wrote:
What is this "really good on its own" business?
Your example first chooses the horn that claims vomiting is good only because god wills it, not because vomiting and its resulting survival are good. That result is incidental. God willing anything would be good, and and a capriciously altered command not to vomit would be equally good.
You then surreptitiously assume/take for granted the organism's survival is Good ("really good on it's own") and god's commands happen to further that end, so somehow the divine command alternative is not capricious.
You're actually choosing both horns of the dilemma and then claiming it's useless.
Posted by: Doug Little
|
October 13, 2009 6:37 PM
Fatboy, you can change your screen name in the settings under your typepad login.
Posted by: Bob L
|
October 13, 2009 6:38 PM
Kel @ "Agreed. Though I heard one recent claim to the problem of evil which may change everything ;)"
Oh you mean "there so much evil in this world that it would take the malevolence of something like the god of the Bible to create it, so therefore exists." ?
Posted by: T_U_T
|
October 13, 2009 6:38 PM
you keep forgetting the part of my gedankenexperiment where the gods made the things to be good in the first place ;)
Posted by: Marcus J. Ranum
|
October 13, 2009 6:39 PM
Kel writes:
There is just so much evil in the world that the only way someone can be optimistic is to believe in a good God.
Oh, ouch, that's horrible. Why do theists think that the spectre of nihilism is going to make rational people run around crying and rending their garments? Yes, I understand that for them the idea of losing their illusion of special-ness is painful but that pain is just the feeling of stupid leaving the body.
Personally, I think atheists are deluded for being optimistic (we could argue about what "optimism" is but let's not) - one can adequately answer that we're just meat robots and any sense of optimism or free will are simply learned or predetermined behaviors of the meat. Then, with the "game over" light blinking, we relax and enjoy the ride.
Posted by: Fatboy
|
October 13, 2009 6:47 PM
Thanks Doug. Now, let's see what happens when I hit post...
Posted by: kopd
|
October 13, 2009 6:54 PM
There is just so much evil in the world that the only way someone can be optimistic is to believe in a good God.
"the universe is not obliged to make us comfortable"
I'd rather believe there's $1M in my bank account. That would be optimistic. That doesn't make it true, and it would be a bad idea to start living like it is.
Posted by: Susannah Anderson
|
October 13, 2009 7:03 PM
What is that, Proof # 300 and umpteen?Still not convinced, though.
Posted by: Kel
|
October 13, 2009 7:14 PM
If only. Instead it's more like "there's so much bad things in the world that you have to have faith that there's some good god that is overseeing it in order for you to be happy" What I found the worst about the argument was the false equivalence. "Well you can say I'm deluded, but I can say you are as well. Just because I believe that the entire universe was created so that I have the possibility of eternal life because of salvation through vicarious atonement, you feel optimistic even though one day you're going to die and there's always the possibility of getting a flesh-eating virus..."Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
October 13, 2009 7:31 PM
this is the fundies' standard linguistic ineptitude speaking: when you consider words to be real things/objects, then there can be only one kind of "wrong", since one thing cannot be two different things. so if atheists think there's no "wrong", that goes for all instances in which the word "wrong" would be used. No flip-flopping allowed!They have the same problem with "theory"(scientific explanation vs. wild guess) and "natural" (natural as opposed to artificial, vs. natural as opposed to supernatural), and probably hundreds of other words.
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 13, 2009 7:36 PM
Kel #54 wrote:
Heh; that would only be equivalent if we were optimistic that we would never die, or could never get sick -- which we're not. The apologist here is basically whinging that all things that are hoped for ought to be placed on the same level, with no difference in degree of likelihood. Why we would accept that bit of sophistry?
Well, he hopes we will. Which, by his own reasoning, is just like hoping monkeys will fly out his butt.
Posted by: Kel
|
October 13, 2009 7:42 PM
It's actually a she for the record, not that it matters.For those wanting to hear the argument, check out the podcast Philosophy Bites and the episode I think was called "[person's name] on Evil". After all I may have mischaracterised the argument with my own biases and mental distortions, so don't just take my word for it; check it out for yourselves.
Posted by: Monado
|
October 13, 2009 7:49 PM
"Life is harsh, so it behooves us to be kind to one another and support each other through bad times."
--"You left out Gaawwdd!"
Please, visit Utah soon.
Posted by: big jones
|
October 13, 2009 10:14 PM
Intrinsic properties such as empathy and other social impulses…acculturation in a stable, successful society…a robust strategy for long term security, oh my, such wonderfully articulated BS from one stubborn old mule. What else to expect from a limp life after years of self-inflicted wussification.
Posted by: John Morales
|
October 13, 2009 10:47 PM
big jones, how are those BS? You assert it, but provide no basis, and it's not evident to me.
Care to explain your justification for it?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
October 13, 2009 11:02 PM
Answers in Genesis mentions the name of the devil!
The next step will be a Summoning, with fell incantations chanted by hooded sorcerors over a bleeding sacrifice at the dark of the moon, amongst unspeakable caperings, twisting eldritch fumes from reeking censers, and blood-scribed runes whose angles follow no earthly geometry.
Better kipe a blackboard eraser from your classroom and pack it in your back pocket from now on (or at least before major lunar phases), just in case you wake some evening to find yourself trapped within a pentagram chalked on the floor of the CM basement.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely
|
October 14, 2009 12:10 AM
How about "ridicule speech"?
big jones:
(Not) nice to see you again. Your attempts at world-weary, oh-so-sophisticated sarcasm are not as clever as you think they are.
Poseur.
Posted by: Colin
|
October 14, 2009 2:47 AM
It's been a long while since I visited the AiG site, but, from their analysis of that freshly-mined quote, it almost seems as if they've given up. I doubt even a mildly intelligent fatheist would be fooled by that sophistry, when their analysis directly contradicts the quote itself! Of course, that might say more about my foolish optimism than it does about reality...
Posted by: Matthew Hodson
|
October 14, 2009 3:50 AM
Just a little nit pick about the sentence "There is no truth in the Bible!". There may be some truth in the Bible.
I am not talking about the creation myths, nor the flood myth, exile myth nor Jesus myths. The most reasonable theories about the origins of these ancient texts involve an evolution of sorts from various earlier stories and texts, a mixing of different cultures and a filtering by later cultures. Somehow through this process tiny fragments of what may have been historical writings at one time has survived; I mean some of the city and King names seem to correlate with non-biblical texts and archaeological evidence.
I imagine a Bible could boast "With Real Truth!" on the cover in the same way a soft drink manufacturer could claim "With Real Fruit!" for a drink that contains 1% lemon juice.
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
October 14, 2009 4:34 AM
I imagine a Bible could boast "With Real Truth!" on the cover in the same way a soft drink manufacturer could claim "With Real Fruit!" for a drink that contains 1% lemon juice.
A stopped clock is also right twice a day.