Why do doctors deny evolution?

To JP #996:

“Oh and P.S., SN: So what if people look at pornography? I personally am not bothered at all about other peoples’ sexual mores and behaviors, as long as they aren’t hurting anyone. It’s not my business, and frankly, I don’t care.”

P.S.
Objection. Irrelevant, your honor.
I said nothing about the morality of, or hurtfulness of, or anyone’s caring about, the viewing of pornography.

The matter before the court is whether a positive correlation exists between viewing pornography and believing in evolution.

“Sustained. Proceed.”

Thank you, your honor.

You would agree with me, I hope, that NOT all believers in evolution are atheists, but ALL atheists are believers in evolution.

Nope. I have personally met atheists (non-believers in a Deity) who don't "believe" in evolution.

Anyway, maybe atheists are more likely to be depressed because they have to put up with morons like you, not to mention the general prejudice and mistrust they face in our society, etc.

Your legal "thoughts" don't even merit a response.

Why do I have to do all the work?

Because you brought up "universal constants" in a brain-dead attempt to prove the impossibility of evolution or the necessity of a deity or whatever it is you are trying to prove.

Objection. Irrelevant, your honor.
I said nothing about the morality of, or hurtfulness of, or anyone’s caring about, the viewing of pornography.

The matter before the court is whether a positive correlation exists between viewing pornography and believing in evolution.

Listen, a**hole: nobody here is obligated to engage with you at all. I have personally reached the end of my patience, interest, and amusement, and I literally don't give a sh*t about your idiotic assertions about the relationship you suppose between "being an evolutionist" and looking at pornography.

In any case, you're the one who made a list of moronic assertions in the first place, which means you're obligated to find actual f*cking data to back them up with if you want anybody to even entertain the notion of taking anything you say seriously at all.

So pony up. Or, y'know, just FOADIAF already.

See, in court, if you make an accusation, you must be the one who provides the evidence. So, where is the evidence showing the correlation?

Now, tell me something. Why do you insist on using the tactics associated with false prophets, hypocrites, and the Devil?

What's more, in court, if you bring up irrelevancies about a witness's character rather than deal with the evidence at hand, you will most likely be held in contempt.

Anyway, I’m a bit surprised.

By what? From the perspective of a reasonable person, after you lost the original bet and your first try at a revise, it was game over.

But if you insist:

– divorce,

Apparently not:

Are you a religiously conservative Protestant or someone who lives in area populated by many of them? According to American researchers, you are at higher risk of divorce.

Defining “conservative Protestants” as those who believe the Bible to be literally true, researchers Jennifer Glass (University of Texas) and Philip Levchak (University of Iowa) found that while “most conservatives frown upon divorce, and religious commitment is believed to strengthen marriage,” the states with higher concentrations of such people experienced higher divorce rates.

“[O]ne of the strongest factors predicting divorce rates (per 1000 married couples) is the concentration of conservative or evangelical Protestants in that county,” the researchers explain. Religiously conservative states Alabama and Arkansas have the second and third highest divorce rates in the U.S., while religiously liberal New Jersey and Massachusetts have two of the lowest.

pornography

The evidence indicates otherwise:

A new nationwide study (pdf) of anonymised credit-card receipts from a major online adult entertainment provider finds little variation in consumption between states.

"When it comes to adult entertainment, it seems people are more the same than different," says Benjamin Edelman at Harvard Business School.

However, there are some trends to be seen in the data. Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds.

The problem is that your team is dominated by fundies. And you just can't bet on their moral superiority and hope to win.

@#997 --

That link (to what I can therefore only imagine is a picture of Bristol Palin, maybe?) is busted.

To JP #1002:

“Nope. I have personally met atheists (non-believers in a Deity) who don’t “believe” in evolution.”

What do these atheists believe about how all life came to be the way it is?

“Anyway, maybe atheists are more likely to be depressed because they have to put up with morons like you, not to mention the general prejudice and mistrust they face in our society, etc.”

Objection, your honor. I was talking about correlation, not causation. “Sustained.” Thank you, your honor.

“Your legal “thoughts” don’t even merit a response.”

Perhaps some others here will respond with some substance on the merits.

Me: “Why do I have to do all the work?”
You: “Because you brought up “universal constants” in a brain-dead attempt to prove the impossibility of evolution or the necessity of a deity or whatever it is you are trying to prove.”

So what? That multiple universal constants exist is common knowledge, even though the common person can’t name them all or even name many of them. It’s like the common knowledge that we’ve sent men to the moon, although most people couldn’t give you the names of all or even of many of them.

“Listen, a**hole: nobody here is obligated to engage with you at all. I have personally reached the end of my patience, interest, and amusement, and I literally don’t give a sh*t about your idiotic assertions about the relationship you suppose between “being an evolutionist” and looking at pornography.”

Of course nobody is obligated to engage with me at all.
But you chose to.
And obviously, you shouldn’t have.
Pretty sad.

“In any case, you’re the one who made a list of moronic assertions in the first place, which means you’re obligated to find actual f*cking data to back them up with if you want anybody to even entertain the notion of taking anything you say seriously at all.”

No, I’m not obligated to find…such data. I just said I’d take the bet. In a more perfect and more just world, the independent adjudicator of the bet would find in my favor, I bet.

“FOADIAF already.”

Apparently, the latter part of that stands for Die In A Fire. That almost brings up thoughts of hell. If there’s a hell, surely, you wouldn’t want me to go there. I’ll take comfort in assuming that.

See Noevo, I'd take a bet that you either worship Satan, or at least admire his debate techniques. By your logic, I don't have to prove anything.

Speaking of which, I wonder if there’s a positive correlation between belief in evolution and socialism?

Oh, I think you're going to be disappointed in Acts 4:31-5:11.

See Noevo has provided us with a truly invaluable demonstration of the oft-observed fact that people who believe I and defend incorrect and absurd positions are some combination of ignorant, unintelligent, and dishonest. SN needs to be only ignorant and stupid to hold his incorrect beliefs, but, predictably, he must resort to dishonesty in order to mount a defense. It is interesting that in a desperate attempt to avoid the judgment his belief system demands for simple lying, he instead attempts to use other forms of dishonesty, such as feigned misunderstanding (see his fake misinterpretation of the assertion regarding the bottleneck number of 10,000 humans) and intentional logical errors (e.g. NOT("we just KNOW")="we just don't know"). Of course, the lie is no less there in his heart, and I'm fairly certain it's viewed the same way by his own system of belief. But the important thing is the outstanding demonstration he has provided of the ignorance, lack of intelligence, and dishonesty of people in his position. Insurmountable bias, too, though at least he admits to that.

We really owe him a debt of thanks. I hope there is wide exposure of his writings to intelligent and honest people who are exploring this issue.

^believe in

To ann #1005:

Your post strikes me as inconclusive for at least one reason I can think of:
The false definition of “conservative or evangelical Protestants” as “those who believe the Bible to be literally true.” For instance, you can find people who call themselves Evangelical Protestants over at BioLogos and ALL of them believe in evolution and, consequently, that the Bible is NOT literally true.

Secondly, while the CCF article highlights that “religiously conservative states Alabama and Arkansas have the second and third highest divorce rates in the U.S., at 13 per 1000 people per year while New Jersey and Massachusetts, more liberal states, are two of the lowest at 6 and 7 per 1000 people per year”, it’s not apparent whether the MARRIAGE RATES are similarly lopsided (i.e. more marriages per 1000 pop in Alabama and Arkansas.).

Another outstanding example of how dishonest See Noevo is can be found in the exchange earlier where he found himself being faced with a question he was fearful of answering either honestly or dishonestly, so instead he resorted to an evasion in the guise of a faked misunderstanding of the question put to him. He was asked if he was comfortable with all the species being created in two days, to which he responded, "No, I’m not comfortable with two days for the evolution of photosynthesis".

Again, this is a very important example of the dishonest behavior of people in See Noevo's position. It's great that it's memorialized here for others to see.

To ann #1006:

As with #1005, your post strikes me as inconclusive for a couple reasons:

Again, a definition of “conservative” which is arguable, especially in regards to belief in evolution.
(BTW, I don’t know if he looks at porn, but did you know Conservative George Will is an atheist? Of course, he believes in the E, too.)

Secondly, the study was only of “credit-card receipts from a major online adult entertainment provider”. As far as I’ve heard, the overall consumption of porn is FAR greater than just that which you pay for with a credit card. Lots of free stuff out there.

Thirdly, this only addresses a small subset of consumers. If we want to focus on small groups, don’t forget the producers and marketers of the porn. (I’m betting they are pretty pro-evolution, too.)

OK. As long as SN is going to stay off-topic anyway:

A Catholic may validly disagree even with the Pope on matters of prudential judgment.

But a Catholic who maintains that magisterial teaching is infallible may not disagree with a statement of it. And that's what you're doing when you maintain that it's unjust that you have to pay taxes that the CCC says it's unjust not to pay.

Moreover:

Yes, I do so suggest. More importantly, Paul did MORE than suggest:

The Church emphatically disagrees with you, very consistently, and in no uncertain terms. The Catholic position is that the hungry should be fed. As the First Encyclical of the pope before this one puts it, the Church's love for:

widows and orphans, prisoners, and the sick and needy of every kind, is as essential to her as the ministry of the sacraments and preaching of the Gospel.

I mean, for reals.

wonder if there’s a positive correlation between belief in evolution and loss of a sense of sin and shame?

Doesn't look like it.

To OccamsLaser #1011:

“But the important thing is the outstanding demonstration [See Noevo] has provided of the ignorance, lack of intelligence, and dishonesty of people in his position. Insurmountable bias, too, though at least he admits to that.
I hope there is wide exposure of his writings to intelligent and honest people who are exploring this issue.”

I hope so, too.
OL, please do want to you can to spread my stuff around. Or even just direct other folks to comments of mine on these blogs. I would appreciate it.

Thanks.

To ann #1016:

Me: “A Catholic may validly disagree even with the Pope on matters of prudential judgment.”

You: “But a Catholic who maintains that magisterial teaching is infallible may not disagree with a statement of it. And that’s what you’re doing when you maintain that it’s unjust that you have to pay taxes that the CCC says it’s unjust not to pay.”

Oy vey.
Wrong, as usual.
I do not disagree with the CCC 2436: “It is unjust not to pay the social security contributions required by legitimate authority.”

It is true.

However, my prudential judgment is that it is an incredibly poorly-worded statement, and that it just might be indicative of ungodly influences within the Church.

Regarding ungodly influences in the Church, Jesus said “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves”;

and Paul said “I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and FROM AMONG YOUR OWN selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them”;

and Pope Paul VI said, regarding wrongful understandings and implementations of Vatican II, “From some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.”

and the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, or someone else, once called the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops “The Democrat Party at prayer.”

I smell the “Democrat Party at prayer”/Big Government-loving/Socialism-lite influence here.
But I could be wrong.

And I say CCC 2436 is an incredibly poorly-worded statement for several reasons:

1)As I indicated in #948, it is silent on the matter of when taxation can become UNJUST, making compliance with it unjust. What if the FICA rate DOES go to 30%, 60%? No direction is given on this matter before or after 2436. The statement sticks out like a naked felon in a police lineup.

2)The mention of details of a specific governmental program (i.e. “social security contributions”) violates the timeless nature of the CCC. Maybe the author of 2436 would like the next revision of the CC to include proclamations on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (a.k.a. Food Stamps), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Earned Income Tax Credit, etc. The CCC can grow from the current 800 pages to something more “respectable” like, say, the IRS tax code’s 70,000+ pages.

3)It’s nearly nonsensical, making equivalent versions of the sentiment banal or meaningless. Examples: ‘It is JUST TO pay the social security contributions required by legitimate authority.’; ‘It is unjust TO pay the social security contributions required by IL-legitimate authority.’ In other words, one could practically respond with “Yeah. It kind of goes without saying.”

Lastly, while all the doctrines and teachings of the Church are true and authoritative, some are more important and impactful than others. Some are made weightier by the degree to which they are repeated and emphasized (e.g. the inherent evil of abortion). This CCC 2436 is a light weight.

As far as the rest of your post and the “The Church emphatically disagrees with you, very consistently, and in no uncertain terms. The Catholic position is that the hungry should be fed…” well,

Jesus Christ! Help us and save us. Especially the mentally-challenged.
Earlier you said “If that’s [what I’ve been saying] the Catholic position, there are an awful lot of churches operating heretical soup kitchens out there.”
The Catholic Church, and even the people who operate its soup kitchens, realize as sane people that in this world one works with limited resources (i.e. NOT UN-limited resources). Further they realize that one must think, plan, prioritize, and finally decide how best to use those limited resources.

Accordingly, that Catholic soup kitchen could have a long line of people wanting to get a bowl of chicken noodle. And quite possibly the kitchen might not have enough for all of them. But in that situation, IF the staff could determine who in line was NOT truly sick and needy and who in line was hungry only because they were UNWILLING TO WORK for their own sustenance, then, I’m quite confident the staff would tell THOSE folks to GO TO THE BACK OF THE LINE. Even if the Pope himself was manning the ladle, lady.

Sure as hell.

Whew! That’s enough for now.

Sorry if you think I went on too long in response to your short, snarky response.

"Sure as hell"
If you believe in hell, then you have nothing else to say, because hell is for unbelievers, so you have no choice.

“In any case: howsabout them universal constants, SN?”

Why do I have to do all the work?

*blink*

You haven't done any work. You brought up the subject and had to be put through the wringer to even come up with a single example of what you considered to be a "universal constant," which was a failure made all the more uproarious, given that I had seen it coming from the very start.

You still don't understand that what you imagine you are attacking – which you also don't understand in the slightes – has anything whatever to do with what you "think" you are attacking.

You have conceded the entire playing field.

Even if the Pope himself was manning the ladle, lady.

I do so love S.N.'s inability to conceal his enthusiasm for attempts at snide sexist insults.

However, my prudential judgment is that it is an incredibly poorly-worded statement, and that it just might be indicative of ungodly influences within the Church.

Regarding ungodly influences in the Church, Jesus said “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves”;

and Paul said “I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and FROM AMONG YOUR OWN selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them”;

and Pope Paul VI said, regarding wrongful understandings and implementations of Vatican II, “From some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.”

And you said:

However, the Church has NEVER been in error in its authoritative teaching on faith and morals.

So which is it? Poorly worded, ungodly, false prophecy? Or authoritative teaching on faith and morals?

It can't be both. For example:

And I say CCC 2436 is an incredibly poorly-worded statement for several reasons:

1) As I indicated in #948, it is silent on the matter of when taxation can become UNJUST, making compliance with it unjust. What if the FICA rate DOES go to 30%, 60%? No direction is given on this matter before or after 2436. The statement sticks out like a naked felon in a police lineup.

Then it's not infallible.

2) The mention of details of a specific governmental program (i.e. “social security contributions”) violates the timeless nature of the CCC. Maybe the author of 2436 would like the next revision of the CC to include proclamations on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (a.k.a. Food Stamps), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Earned Income Tax Credit, etc. The CCC can grow from the current 800 pages to something more “respectable” like, say, the IRS tax code’s 70,000+ pages.

Then it's not infallible.

3) It’s nearly nonsensical, making equivalent versions of the sentiment banal or meaningless. Examples: ‘It is JUST TO pay the social security contributions required by legitimate authority.’; ‘It is unjust TO pay the social security contributions required by IL-legitimate authority.’ In other words, one could practically respond with “Yeah. It kind of goes without saying.”

Then it's not infallible.

Maybe this will help:

not fallible; exempt from liability to error, as persons, their judgment, or pronouncements: an infallible principle. Roman Catholic Church. immune from fallacy or liability to error in expounding matters of faith or morals by virtue of the promise made by Christ to the Church.

You are blaspheming.

Accordingly, that Catholic soup kitchen could have a long line of people wanting to get a bowl of chicken noodle. And quite possibly the kitchen might not have enough for all of them. But in that situation, IF the staff could determine who in line was NOT truly sick and needy and who in line was hungry only because they were UNWILLING TO WORK for their own sustenance, then, I’m quite confident the staff would tell THOSE folks to GO TO THE BACK OF THE LINE. Even if the Pope himself was manning the ladle, lady.

In reality, that is not the case. Furthermore:

2435 Recourse to a strike is morally legitimate when it cannot be avoided, or at least when it is necessary to obtain a proportionate benefit.

^^The Church explicitly acknowledges that there are circumstances in which unwillingness to work is morally legitimate.

And still furthermore:

2444 "The Church's love for the poor . . . is a part of her constant tradition." This love is inspired by the Gospel of the Beatitudes, of the poverty of Jesus, and of his concern for the poor.235 Love for the poor is even one of the motives for the duty of working so as to "be able to give to those in need.

^^You have it backwards. Both the obligation to work and the obligation to feed the hungry is on you, not them.

I betcha Ananias and Sapphira were UNWILLING TO WORK and that's the real reason God zapped them.

Lastly, while all the doctrines and teachings of the Church are true and authoritative, some are more important and impactful than others. Some are made weightier by the degree to which they are repeated and emphasized (e.g. the inherent evil of abortion). This CCC 2436 is a light weight.

O RLY?

The obligation to provide unemployment benefits, that is to say, the duty to make suitable grants indispensable for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families, is a duty springing from the fundamental principle of the moral order in this sphere, namely the principle of the common use of goods or, to put it in another and still simpler way, the right to life and subsistence.

^^

S. Pope John Paul II didn't think so. He thought both were about the right to life.

Why do I have to do all the work?

Do my eyes deceive me, or is that UNWILLINGNESS TO WORK?

I must thank See Noevo for supplying another crisp example of how, when he holds a position that he recognizes is incorrect, he is left with no choice but to engage in dishonesty:

It’s nearly nonsensical, making equivalent versions of the sentiment banal or meaningless. Examples: ‘It is JUST TO pay the social security contributions required by legitimate authority.’; ‘It is unjust TO pay the social security contributions required by IL-legitimate authority.’

I note again that See Noevo, likely fearful of emitting a direct lie, instead issues a childishly obvious logical error, while pretending that he is unaware of the underlying fault. It has become apparent that this is one of his go-to (sorry, CS profs!) tactics. I suppose he believes that pretending he doesn't understand logic, and writing a false statement as a result of that faked misunderstanding, somehow is not really lying, but of course, it is.

I suspect that, perhaps due to an intelligence deficit, he doesn't realize that reasonably intelligent people will quickly identify the logical fault, and they will also correctly conclude that it is employed due to dishonesty. Most importantly, they will realize that this dishonesty is necessitated by See Noevo's knowledge that he must resort to dishonesty, because his position cannot be honestly defended. We see that approach with regularity here at RI.

The embarrassing squirming about CCC 2436 only adds to the self-immolation, as it were.

To ann #1022:

Me: “However, my prudential judgment is that it is an incredibly poorly-worded statement, and that it just might be indicative of ungodly influences within the Church. Regarding ungodly influences in the Church, Jesus said “Beware of false prophets…” and Paul said… and Pope Paul VI said…”
Me, also: “However, the Church has NEVER been in error in its authoritative teaching on faith and morals.”

You: “So which is it? Poorly worded, ungodly, false prophecy? Or authoritative teaching on faith and morals?”

Poorly worded, quite-possibly ungodly, and not prophecy at all. AND authoritative teaching on faith and morals.

But skip CCC 2436. Here’s a more extreme and HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE:

1)The Church has always taught that you should be kind, helpful, peace-loving. That’s good teaching, repeated teaching, authoritative teaching.
2)And the Church has always taught that abortion is always gravely wrong and should be opposed. That’s good teaching, repeated teaching, authoritative teaching.
3)But IF the Church included in the Catechism an isolated, solo statement that singled out a specific secular company/governmental organization (similar to the way CCC 2436 does) with something like “It is unjust to confront in a menacing and violent manner customers going into Planned Parenthood abortion clinics established by legitimate authority”, then
4) I would think that something isn’t quite right. Is the statement true? Yes. Should it be followed? Of course. Has it ever been violated by Catholics? Quite possibly never, and most likely never WILL be violated. (So why make the statement?) HOWEVER, the statement has the feel of casting Catholics in a bad light and abortion providers and customers in a good light. It has the FEEL of a sinister straw man argument (e.g. ‘Catholic abortion protesters should stop being menacing and violent.’; 'Did you stop beating your wife, yes or no?'). It has the FEEL of a wrong message (e.g. ‘Catholics, leave the abortion industry alone.’) And so, in my prudential judgment, this hypothetical statement, although true, would be inappropriate for the timeless and normally crystal clear Catechism.

But again, CCC 2436 is true. It is authoritative teaching. It just happens to be perhaps the ONLY statement in the 800-page CCC that I find to be in need of, let’s say, “clarification.” (Also, I imagine quite a bit more clarifying conversation could be spent on the definition of “LEGITIMATE” in “It is unjust not to pay the social security contributions required by legitimate authority.”)

“Maybe this will help: not fallible; exempt from liability to error, as persons, their judgment, or pronouncements: an infallible principle. Roman Catholic Church. immune from fallacy or liability to error in expounding matters of faith or morals by virtue of the promise made by Christ to the Church.”

Maybe you’re have trouble with dictionary.com’s “exempt from liability to error”. This does not mean exempt from misinterpretation by the reader. Nor does it mean exempt from any future non-contradictory clarification by the writer.

“You are blaspheming… You have it backwards.”

You are blowing hard, self-admitted blowhard.

Remember, this is the same See that was genuinely confused that the one he worships has ultimate authority.

"Poorly worded, quite-possibly ungodly, and not prophecy at all. AND authoritative teaching on faith and morals."

This is an example of what we would refer to in my former line of work as rectal defilade.

To ann:

If you’re not a member of the Catholic Church, WHY aren’t you a member of the Catholic Church?

That's a very personal question. I don't mind being asked, but I'd prefer not to answer. (Except to say that I'm not a Catholic, since I said that already.)

If you’re not a member of the Catholic Church, WHY aren’t you a member of the Catholic Church?

Given that you're on public display, one might note that it's just a synthetic cult that has been likened to Brahmanism turned inside-out.

I'm not a member of the Catholic Church because I'm a Lutheran.

@#1013, #1015 --

Sorry, I somehow didn't see ^^those earlier.

The false definition of “conservative or evangelical Protestants” as “those who believe the Bible to be literally true.” For instance, you can find people who call themselves Evangelical Protestants over at BioLogos and ALL of them believe in evolution and, consequently, that the Bible is NOT literally true.

While that may be true, it doesn't invalidate the survey on its own terms -- ie, rightly or wrongly, that's how they defined it; it does correlates with creationism; and the divorce rates are what they are.

However, you're right that marriage rates as well as divorce rates are higher among the religious.

And all of that aside, I actually agree that both are suggestive rather than conclusive. That's just the best I could do. It's annoying, because the conclusive data probably exists somewhere deep in the maws of Gallup or Pew or someplace like that. But I don't have access to it.

However. FWIW, I wasn't just being snarky about the disadvantages of having an evangelical-heavy sample on your side of the equation. They really do make it very, very hard for creationists to win a morals/lifestyle-based competition against anyone. I mean, look at the Duggars.

Thirdly, this only addresses a small subset of consumers. If we want to focus on small groups, don’t forget the producers and marketers of the porn. (I’m betting they are pretty pro-evolution, too.)

This is another hilarious collapse, given that the real data set is the correlation between creationist legislators and S.N.'s level of Legal Smurts.*

I take it as granted that S.N. has run the hell away from the money that the business entities of the Holy See are bleeding from the public purse, just as with his imbecilic posturing over fundamental physics. Cowardice must be its own reward.

* Pleasepleaseplease start babbling about Canon law.

However, you’re right that marriage rates as well as divorce rates are higher among the religious.

If only there were such things as "numerators" and "denominators."

But again, CCC 2436 is true. It is authoritative teaching. It just happens to be perhaps the ONLY statement in the 800-page CCC that I find to be in need of, let’s say, “clarification.”

If that doesn't say thoroughness, I don't know what does.

To ann #1031:

“That’s a very personal question. I don’t mind being asked, but I’d prefer not to answer. (Except to say that I’m not a Catholic, since I said that already.)”

That’s a remarkable response. So much so that I prefer to make some remarks on it:

First, generally when someone avoids answering a question by saying it’s “personal”, it’s because that person knows his/her/its person or identity is known by the questioner and by others who may be listening. And the person is embarrassed or fearful about revealing his/her/its true answer to those who know him/her/it.

But this shouldn’t apply here because you have anonymity. Your “ann” could be a man for all I know. Sure as hell, it’s even possible you’re Caitlin Jenner. I have no idea, because I See No Ann. Yet you use the rationale of ‘No, thanks. That’s personal.’ Remarkable.

Second, our anonymity didn’t stop you from saying things about me that would otherwise be considered “personal.” You offered your conjecture that I might be ‘lacking in courage’ and a “sad hypocrite who can’t respect himself.” Then you advanced to getting personal on an INTERNATIONAL basis, calling me a “shanda fur die goyim.” Wow. I’m a shame before the nations. Talk about publicizing the “personal.” Remarkable.

Third, while you claim to be immensely familiar with Catholic teaching, in fact, with “the whole body of authentic teachings on morals and faith" (#666), and blow hard with citations left and right, you “prefer” not to say what you disagree with or don’t accept. Remarkable.

Fourth, while the Catholic Church would like to have you in its membership, you might have a little difficulty on the “personal” thing. Confessing not your beliefs but rather your very sins to another person in the sacrament instituted by Christ is about as personal as it gets - even if you choose the Anonymous/Behind-the screen option.

Fifth, I’m wondering why a person would demur, when the same person had taunted me with “I’m asking what the hell you meant by that …Don’t be shy.”
So, I guess I’m saying “Don’t be shy”, ann.
Tell me why you aren’t in the Catholic Church.

But it’s your choice, of course.

Maybe you’re like Bartleby the Scrivener, who ‘preferred not to.’

“Ah, Bartleby! Ah, humanity!"

*blinks*

Wow. For someone who has demonstrated severe lack of knowledge in so many fields, someone sure has a lot to say. I hope the rest of you are at least enjoying this. :-)

See Noevo wrote,

generally when someone avoids answering a question by saying it’s “personal”, it’s because that person knows his/her/its person or identity is known by the questioner and by others who may be listening. And the person is embarrassed or fearful about revealing his/her/its true answer to those who know him/her/it.

I'm sure the RI regulars have already spotted it, but the nearly painful degree of projection here is quite revealing. I'm reminded of when See Noevo earlier said he'd "heard" that there was free pornography on the Internet.

The dishonesty about pretending to ignorantly conflate an invocation of privacy with the characterizing of someone else is just more reinforcement of See Noevo's fundamentally dishonest nature, not that more evidence is needed. It is great stuff.

Dear SN,
I just learnt by Occams Laser that you know how to find free pornography on the Internet. Could you please help me?
I'm particularly interested in the 72 virgins in paradise.

I've got 100 quatloos on S.N.'s never actually having read a lick of Herman Melville.

The ongoing attempt at targeted meltdown isn't even interesting at this point.

There is of course a simpler approach. As everyone knows, the Roman Catholic church is, to put it mildly, a hierarchical bureaucracy. Therefore, Baby Torquemada has a certain, ah, issue in terms of his membership card that precedes this desperation:

Tell me why you aren’t in the Catholic Church.

Then again, he's already been reduced to faux juridical posturing over what amounts to a poorly edited version of the Boy Scout Manual.

^ Furthermore, there is the question whether the Seenohamic god is immanent, transcendent, or an undocumented nanny.

The irony is almost too much:

Second, our [sic] anonymity [sic] didn’t stop you from saying things about me [sic] that would otherwise be considered “personal.”

Cf. foreskins and candles. But...

Confessing not your beliefs but rather your very sins to another person [sic] in the sacrament instituted [sic] by Christ [sic] is about as personal as it gets [where's my DSM when I need it?] – even if you choose the Anonymous/Behind-the screen [sic] option.

Are you confident enough to print out your performance here and show it to your priest? What was the last sin that you've committed? Wouldn't diligence require maintaining time series data? C'mon, you're "Behind-the."

How different could it be from being "Peeking-under-the"?

Wow, over 1000 posts, the general thrust of which merely confirms what I learned the hard way at university in the '70s: there is absolutely no point in trying to discuss anything scientific, especially evolution, with a religious fundie of whatever flavour religion they have chosen to believe in.

It is far easier just to pat them on the head and offer them a biscuit.

PS Before SNE asks, as he/she/it/they regard it as important for some inexplicable reason: I am an atheist, but a Methodist atheist (to borrow from the old sectarian-inspired gag).

SeeNoevolution:

The mention of details of a specific governmental program (i.e. “social security contributions”) violates the timeless nature of the CCC.

Perhaps you, yourself, might be misreading the plain wording “social security” as if it were written “Social Security”. The former refers to a general concept of security in a society, not limited to the USA, comprising pensions, relief, general welfare, etc.; the latter names specific US government programs operated by the SSA.
Naturally, you will take the path of xtian arrogance and deny the possibility that you have misread the plain text, if you respond at all...

Well, See Noevo: I'm actually an agnostic/atheist, having arrived that way through Lutheranism (birth to 16), Catholicism (16-19), a brief fling with evangelicalism, Lutheranism again (merely to have my kids baptized because the family expected it), Episcopalianism (22-43) when I finally admitted I didn't believe a bit of that nonsense any more and quit going to church. My kids had stopped years before, which was fine with me, because the only reason I wanted them to go to church was for learning the biblical stories so they would understand art and literature better. If there had been churches for mythology, we would have gone to those, too.

Since I don't believe in Genesis, Adam and Eve, and Original Sin, there is no reason to believe that Jesus died to save mankind from sin. So no belief necessary in psychotic God, his son, and holy ghost.

Most people would be/are shocked to hear I'm an atheist. I don't fit the mold they have in mind. I'm an older woman, polite, volunteer, donate to charities, and don't break the laws of my country. What I do in my bedroom is my own business, along with the person with me. (And same for anyone else in their bedroom, provided all involved are consenting adults).

Evolution is a scientific theory, proven in many testings. Still changing as we learn more about the world and the universe. That's what science does best. Learns, tests, and improves.

For people who want religion, I won't talk them out of their beliefs. What I won't allow them to do is impose THEIR beliefs on MY life and MY family.

Oh and I just saw this post:

See Noevo said:

I’d bet belief in evolution is positively correlated with
– divorce, (got mine while still religious, thank you.)
– extended or perpetual singlehood (i.e. not marrying), Very happily single and in a relationship, thank you).
– sexually-transmitted diseases, (nope, never had one)
– out-of-wedlock births and single mothers, (nope, both children born in wedlock. Most single mothers/out of wedlock mothers I met as a nurse and midwife were quite religious)
– abortion and contraception, (No abortions. Contraceptive use, yes, indeed. Planned family and then sterilization was what my then husband and I did. And before you ask - exhubby is still religious and he got sterilized).
– pornography, (most of that is boring)
– drug addiction, (nope, no drug use)
– depression and dysphoria, (nope. Quite happy and lots of joy and laughter in my life)
– social isolation/disintegration of community, (nope. Not at all. Lots of friends, family, love, activity in the community and work)
– view of Constitution as a “living/fluid” document, (why not? The men who wrote it saw it that way)
– governmental payouts for welfare/unemployment (what do you have against the poor? Do you think they should just die? Your CHURCH certaintly doesn't help them that much)
/disability/food stamps [both sender and receiver] (again - see above. Do you know how many of our MILITARY depend on food stamps because their pay is so lousy? Should my cousin, dying of a genetic disease, not deserve help to live as she can't work? Again, Your church doesn't help these poor. Our Government DOES.)

In fact, See, your comments regarding social programs shows how UNChristian you are. You care nothing for the poor and helpless, unlike what Christ commanded his followers to do. Try quoting Biblical chapter and verse at me...I'll quote them right back. Atheism doesn't mean I haven't read the Bible - probably far more than you ever have.

Perhaps you, yourself, might be misreading the plain wording “social security” as if it were written “Social Security”.

I was going to let it slide. But except that I think you could take out the "Perhaps" and replace the "might" with an "are," I agree.

That’s a remarkable response.

I'm surprised you think so. Where I come from, the right to give it is traditionally held to be too fundamental to individual liberty not to be respected. It's generally regarded as a social offense to ask, in fact.

So much so that I prefer to make some remarks on it:

Your prerogative.

If only there were such things as “numerators” and “denominators.”

There are. But IIRC, there weren't any differences that were notable enough to make going into the inconclusive, off-topic details worthwhile.

If only there were such things as “numerators” and “denominators.”

There are. But IIRC, there weren't really any differences that were notable enough to make going into the inconclusive, off-topic details worthwhile. I mean, most people marry; many divorce; and the religious are likelier than the non-religious to participate in religious ritual. That's not a big surprise.

^^I don't know how that happened.

Sorry, though.

Why would a belief in evolution lead to less interest (or admission of interest) in pornography? The only connection I can see is that the more fundamentalist sex-negative religions are more likely to adhere to pre-scientific beliefs like Creationism. This leads to people suffering horrible guilt for experiencing perfectly normal sexual feelings, and either repressing them, or acting on them and then living in terror of being found out for being a 'sinner'.

How anyone thinks this is something to be proud of is something I don't understand. A few years ago a dear friend of mine, an Irish Catholic, killed herself because she couldn't stand the guilt of having had an abortion. I have little patience for those with medieval beliefs about sin, hell and damnation, and even less for smug self-righteous idiots claiming the moral high ground for their repugnant beliefs.

I’m curious about something.

I had stated to JP “You would agree with me, I hope, that NOT all believers in evolution are atheists, but ALL atheists are believers in evolution.”

JP responded “Nope. I have personally met atheists (non-believers in a Deity) who don’t “believe” in evolution.”

So I asked JP “What do these atheists believe about how all life came to be the way it is?”

JP never answered.

Does anyone else out there know atheists who don’t believe in evolution?

If so, what do these atheists believe about how all life came to be the way it is?

See: They don't "believe" in evolution any more than they believe in the moon existing. They simply know it happened because of the evidence.

Now tell me something, if you believe in Jesus Christ, why do you disdain his teachings?

To ann #1050:

“Where I come from, the right to give it is traditionally held to be too fundamental to individual liberty not to be respected. It’s generally regarded as a social offense to ask, in fact.”

The right to give what? To give an answer to the question “Why aren’t you Catholic?” When you’ve been posting profusely not just about Catholic teaching big and small, but HOW that Catholic teaching supposedly supports YOUR positions and contradicts mine?

It could POSSIBLY be “generally regarded as a social offense to ask”, but NOT in an anonymous internet environment.

[Why, I do declare, Ann-abelle! You must just BLUSH, at so many of the things said at this here unsightly site. My word! With all the foul language and ad hominems and… and… shanda fur die goyim! My dear Ann-abelle, I do declare I’m right surprised you haven’t fainted. Let me get you some sweet tea. And here’s your fan.]

Apparently you need to REALLY read, or really re-read, my #1038.

I’ll give you another chance, anonymous ann:

WHY aren’t you a member of the Catholic Church?

JP never answered.

Maybe that's because it's like talking a brick f*cking wall.

what do these atheists believe about how all life came to be the way it is?

Aliens, maaaaan. Or weird New Agey claptrap. I never said they were smart, or skeptics, or even necessarily materialists. Just atheists. You don't seem to be very skilled when it comes to making philosophical distinctions, or, uh, using words, though.

To Gray Falcon #1056:

“Now tell me something, if you believe in Jesus Christ, why do you disdain his teachings?”

I should hope I love his teachings more than my own life.

That’s why I’d rather die than be anything other than Catholic.

"I should hope I love his teachings more than my own life."

That must be why you only believe the ones that benefit you and not the ones that benefit others.

Curious, See Noevo. Are you a cradle Catholic, or did you become a Catholic as an adult?

Also, you're not making us look very good, and we really don't need that.

Signed,
Another Catholic

To JP #1058:

Me: “what do these atheists believe about how all life came to be the way it is?”

You: “Aliens, maaaaan. Or weird New Agey claptrap.”

Well, how do they believe the aliens came to be, maaaaan?

What would be one example of their “New Agey claptrap” in lieu of evolution?

“I never said they were smart…”

I never did either, and never would.

See, you twist people's words, hold the poor in contempt, and make accusations without proof, all actions Jesus condemned. I suggest you read the Parable of the Two Sons before you come back here: Matthew 21:28-32

I don't understand why anyone would be a member of an organized religion, Catholic or not - since they tell you exactly what to believe and leave no room for individual thought.

I know that's harsh, but at the end of the day, religion has been mostly about societal control and the consolidation of power.

To Delphine #1061:

“Curious, See Noevo. Are you a cradle Catholic, or did you become a Catholic as an adult?”

Why, Delphine! Don’t you think that’s generally regarded as a social offense to ask, especially in an anonymous internet forum?

Apparently you don’t.
And neither do I.

I was a cradle Catholic from 0 to 14; was a nominal Catholic (i.e. go through the motions without really believing) from about 18 to 22; was effectively agnostic or atheistic from about 22 to 33; came back to Christianity at 33; came back to Catholicism fully about 40.

Oh, and began disbelieving in evolution around 46. That was about 13 years ago.

“Also, you’re not making us look very good, and we really don’t need that.”

Please let as many people know as you can. Thanks.

JP never answered.

Oh, the irony. Then again, S.N. is an avid defender of an institutionally corrupt bureaucracy with a penchant for ignoring – or covering up, when that doesn't work – its own failings.

SN said: "WHY aren’t you a member of the Catholic Church?"

Which Catholic Church? The small, splinter group you belong to or the one headquartered in Rome? Even a cursory review shows that there is only a partial overlap between the religious beliefs of the two.

I don’t understand why anyone would be a member of an organized religion, Catholic or not – since they tell you exactly what to believe and leave no room for individual thought.

Well, there is Unitarian Universalism, that just about says you can believe anything.

Then there is my cult at http://www.subgenius.com that doesn't care what you believe, as long as you send in $35 (the price has gone up, but note that it come with a triple your money back guarantee, which you don't get with any of those other religions).

Rev. John
Church of the Old Bull

I think See Noevo is afraid of me. He never comments on things I have to say. I guess he's afraid of intelligent women who became atheists through thought, bible reading, and science reading.

And yes, for a while I was going to become a nun. So I was very educated on Catholic teachings and beliefs. Until I decided that boys were more fun than the Catholic church.

Why aren't I a member of the Catholic Church? Because I decided, one Easter Sunday while sitting in a pew listening to the Gospel, that I didn't believe in this crap any more.

Well, how do they believe the aliens came to be, maaaaan?

F*ck if I know; I was never interested enough to ask.

What would be one example of their “New Agey claptrap” in lieu of evolution?

Like you, some of them prefer "spiritual" explanations to "material" explanations, and they assume that we are actually beings from another plane which are just projecting the material world like a hologram or something.

I guess I might as well lay down some definitions, not so much for your sake, since you're about as receptive to knowledge as a piece of sheet metal, but just for the heck of it, I guess.

"Atheist" implies nothing other than the lack of a belief in a G-d or g-ds. An atheist might very well believe in ghosts, astrology, whatever; I've met plenty that do.

You, like a lot of people, actually, are using "atheist" as shorthand for "monist materialist," which is inaccurate. A monist materialist believes that there is reality is composed of only one substance - matter.

There are also monist idealists, and, well, Zen Buddhists.*

Then there are dualists, who are more wrong than any monist. They believe that there is a world of spirit, or ideal forms, or whatever, and they believe that there is a separate material world, which may or may not interact with the spiritual world. The ghost in the machine, etc. Gnosticism is strictly dualist.

*"Not one, not two."

There are also monist idealists, and, well, Zen Buddhists.*

And.

Why aren’t I a member of the Catholic Church?

Odd. SN likes the Argument-by-Unpopularity in some situations ("many people in the US remain unconvinced by evolution, therefore it must be wrong"), yet it does not seem to apply to the failure of catholicism to convert all of humanity.

Then there are dualists, who are more wrong than any monist.

Don't forget Popper and Eccles and their attempt to be even wronger still by introducing a third World -- "interactionists, and what is more, trialist interactionists!"

There are also monist idealists, and, well, Zen Buddhists.*

And.

Yes, and. And also whatever Bruno Schulz was, with his "extreme monism of substance."

To MI Dawn #1069:

“I think See Noevo is afraid of me.”

I can’t think of any human being I’m *afraid* of.
However, I am *concerned* about many.

For instance, I’m concerned about people who get divorced while they’re religious, who mutilate their bodies with sterilization, who like sex more than church so much that they might be in a sexual relationship outside of marriage right now. And who think that Evolution theory is “proven” (#1048) and that something like Mt. Rushmore could possibly result from weathering (#164).

Except for that last sentence, you sound similar to the woman at the well (cf. John 4). And except that she came to believe.

1074 demonstrates that if there is an internal threat to this country it comes from people who would post something like what's at 1074.

JP @1070 --

A monist materialist believes that there is reality is composed of only one substance – matter.

I see your point, but as a physics-y type I have to point out that you probably mean a very inclusive definition of "matter". We have particles and fields galore, and even the vacuum conceals a riot of physical processes, which apparently conspire somehow to give the vacuum a tiny density of energy even when there's "nothing there".

I suppose a more accurate statement would be that a monist thinks that there are no non-physical, supernatural entities. Is that sensible, do you think?

Incidentally, I long, long ago concluded that I had better things to do that argue with SN.

Picking up a much earlier bit, I remember hearing Finnish and Hungarian classified as "Finno-Magyar" languages, so I guess there is some commonality. Estonian is, too, of course. Are Latvian and Lithuanian both Slavic? You would know better than most!

So, regarding how life came to be the way it is, some atheists believe in one or more of these:

-Aliens
-We are actually beings from another plane which are just projecting the material world like a hologram or something.
-Ghosts
-Astrology
-Monist materialism
-Zen Buddhism
-Interactionism
-Trialist interactionism
-“Whatever”

Sounds like, as far as how life came to be the way it is, the beliefs of atheists are legion.

Are Latvian and Lithuanian both Slavic?

Latvian and Lithuanian comprise the Baltic branch of Indo-European. Theory has it that proto-Baltic diverged from proto-Slavic some 3000-3500 years back.

Finno-Magyar has changed its name to Finno-Ugric. But if you want to be progressive and liberal and inclusive, you should be saying "Uralic", which includes Hungarian and Finnish / Estonian / Saami / Karelian and a scattering of languages like Udmurt and Komi and Samoyedic which the Russian authorities are doing their best to extinguish.

Getting back closer to the subject of the above article by Orac,
nearby is another article about doctors or medicine titled
“The puzzle of chemotherapy resistance” http://scienceblogs.com/weizmann/2015/06/03/the-puzzle-of-chemotherapy-…

I’m a little puzzled that I have the only comment there. Here it is:
“I’m surprised at the title and substance of this article, especially for this website.
I’m puzzled by the eight uses of the word “puzzle”.
There is NO “puzzle.”
You ALREADY KNOW what the answer is: Chemotherapy resistance EVOLVED.
As with all of evolution theory, the rest is just details to be worked out later. I mean to be theorized later.”
.........

@palindrom:

I suppose a more accurate statement would be that a monist thinks that there are no non-physical, supernatural entities. Is that sensible, do you think?

Maybe - "supernatural" is certainly a term which is nonsensical from a monist viewpoint. I'm not entirely sure what is meant by "entities." I don't know nearly as much about physics as you do, but let me think about it for a little while. Zen Buddhists, for example, do posit the "existence" of the Void, so to speak, which is not exactly, I think, what is meant by the term "vacuum." Hmm.

In any case, referring to the zzms that Narad linked to, my late great Zen teacher was asked, in an accusatory sort of way, by a young she-monk with significant scientific training if he really believed that all the Bodhisattvas and so forth were real. He replied: "Sure, they're real... in mythology.

Picking up a much earlier bit, I remember hearing Finnish and Hungarian classified as “Finno-Magyar” languages, so I guess there is some commonality. Estonian is, too, of course. Are Latvian and Lithuanian both Slavic? You would know better than most!

Re: Finnish and Hungarian: they are both considered by quite the majority of linguists to be Uralic languages. "Finno-Ugric" is sometimes used instead of "Uralic." Finnish and Estonian are obviously related. Hungarian has a similar prosody, and about 200 cognates, mostly in the core vocabulary, words for certain numbers, body parts, etc. They certainly seem (Finnish and Hungarian) to be related, although they must have diverged a very long time ago.

Latvian and Lithuanian are Baltic languages - Baltic languages are the closest relatives to the Slavic languages, with Germanic languages coming in at a distant second. There is a postulated "Proto-Balto-Slavic" language, the ancestor language of both Baltic and Slavic languages. There's no mutual intelligibility to speak of, though I could recognize some words here and there on signs in Vilnius. Luckily, it's perfectly easy to get along with Russian there.

^ I see hdb was typing faster than I was.

JP - interesting on the languages, thanks! I bet many of the Lithuanians are not crazy about the fact they're able to speak Russian, however convenient it was for you.

On the monism thing, it occurred to me a while back that I am perfectly happy to say that God exists as an important concept in human culture and thought, which can be thought of as a placeholder for, or symbol embodying, a number of key emotional, ethical, and social needs. Or something like that. It's possible to respect this idea and what it stands for while not believing in some mysterious entity on another plane of existence, or whatever. I'm fortunate enough to know some exceptionally wonderful clergy -- not fundies, I might add -- so I'm loathe to be entirely dismissive of their beliefs, and this works for me.

The theory used to be that Finnish and Hungarian were both more distantly related to Turkish, or even to a larger, more speculative Altaic language phylum. This was particularly popular among Hungarian linguists (as part of their self-image as weird outsiders) but it seems to be in abeyance now. Some might take this development as further evidence that all scientific linguists are poopyheads and therefore Goddidit.

There are still a couple of brave, radical, out-of-the-box thinkers -- "cranks" if you prefer -- who reject the idea of a Finnish / Hungarian connection. This makes for entertaining diatribes:
homepage.univie.ac.at/Johanna.Laakso/am_rev.html

I bet many of the Lithuanians are not crazy about the fact they’re able to speak Russian, however convenient it was for you.

It seemed to be taken more or less in stride, and maybe because I was an obvious weirdo anyway, I did not get any flack for speaking Russian. There's also still a significant Russian population in Vilnius, and most people there, as far as I could tell, are bilingual to a greater or lesser extent.

The theory used to be that Finnish and Hungarian were both more distantly related to Turkish, or even to a larger, more speculative Altaic language phylum. This was particularly popular among Hungarian linguists (as part of their self-image as weird outsiders) but it seems to be in abeyance now.

Yeah, this is what I was referring to when I mentioned that "possibly most" linguists accept the relation between Hungarian and Finnish.

HDB -- I see that the post you linked had a parenthetical note that it was an "International Bad English" version of a review that was to appear auf Deutsch.

Is "International Bad English" a thing, as my daughter would say, or was it just something self-deprecating that the author made up? The English seemed fine to me ...

See Noevo,

Well, how do they believe the aliens came to be, maaaaan?

What kind of an idiot believes in a non-human intelligence with a penchant for genetic engineering? Oh, wait...

On the monism thing, it occurred to me a while back that I am perfectly happy to say that God exists as an important concept in human culture and thought, which can be thought of as a placeholder for, or symbol embodying, a number of key emotional, ethical, and social needs. Or something like that.

I actually do believe that "G-d" is real, but not in anything like the sense that most believers do, I think. In any case, I'm perfectly fine with being weird.

You could also describe pantheists as monists, for the most part, I suppose. I have heard Zen described as "panentheist," for example in this quote by Soyen Shaku:

At the outset, let me state that Buddhism is not atheistic as the term is ordinarily understood. It has certainly a [G-d], the highest reality and truth, through which and in which this universe exists. However, the followers of Buddhism usually avoid the term [G-d], for it savors so much of Christianity, whose spirit is not always exactly in accord with the Buddhist interpretation of religious experience. Again, Buddhism is not pantheistic in the sense that it identifies the universe with [G-d]. On the other hand, the Buddhist [G-d] is absolute and transcendent; this world, being merely its manifestation, is necessarily fragmental and imperfect. To define more exactly the Buddhist notion of the highest being, it may be convenient to borrow the term very happily coined by a modern German scholar, "panentheism," according to which [G-d] is πᾶν καὶ ἕν (all and one) and more than the totality of existence.

I don't find myself entirely in agreement with this statement - the use of the word "being," for example - but it's close.

Really, I believe that this is all one thing, ultimately. It could all be holy or all profane, depending on how you look at it, I guess. I was minutes ago jamming to this Patti Smith cover of Allen Ginsberg.

^Oops, blockquote fail.

Correction to my #1079:
Revised as follows:

“You ALREADY KNOW what the answer is: Chemotherapy resistance EVOLVED, OR is due to
-Aliens
-Us being from another plane from which we are just projecting the material world like a hologram or something.
-Ghosts
-Astrology
-Monist materialism
-Zen Buddhism
-Interactionism
-Trialist interactionism
-“Whatever””

That should do it.

To Krebiozen #1086:

Me to JP: “Well, how do they believe the aliens came to be, maaaaan?”

You: “What kind of an idiot believes in a non-human intelligence with a penchant for genetic engineering? Oh, wait…”

Yes, please wait.
Because I’m not sure I’m following you.
Are you saying these atheists who believe aliens caused life on earth to be the way it is are idiots?
And that even if they do so believe, they aren’t addressing the issue of how the aliens came to be?

If you ARE saying these things, then we may actually have some points of agreement!

Are you saying these things?

Don’t forget Popper and Eccles and their attempt to be even wronger still

The two volumes I inexplicably brought with me on an undergraduate summer in Spain were The Brain and Its Self (which I still have, because unmailed postcards) and a comparably sized hardback on bridge that somehow devolved from the great aunt who brought about my loathing of S.E. Hinton.

See Noevo,

You: “What kind of an idiot believes in a non-human intelligence with a penchant for genetic engineering? Oh, wait…”
Yes, please wait. Because I’m not sure I’m following you. Are you saying these atheists who believe aliens caused life on earth to be the way it is are idiots?

I'm being a little unkind, perhaps, in labeling those that believe, without a shred of evidence, that humans were created out of whole cloth by a non-human intelligence as 'idiots', but essentially, yes.

And that even if they do so believe, they aren’t addressing the issue of how the aliens came to be?

It's usually best to establish something exists before expending energy on figuring out where is came from.

If you ARE saying these things, then we may actually have some points of agreement! Are you saying these things?

I'm saying that I see no functional difference between your belief that God created life, the universe and everything, and the belief of some that life (and whatever) was created by aliens. There is no direct evidence for either, the scientific evidence points elsewhere, and even if this were true it just shifts the real problem elsewhere as you have noted. Where did the aliens come from? Where did God come from?

Sounds like, as far as how life came to be the way it is, the beliefs of atheists are legion.

Given that you're just another rank supernaturalist with the bonus of a veritable barge of comical self-justifications, you're not in much of a position to smirk. In fact, your avowed fearlessness has led to bravely sidestepping the parallels between your favored cosmic role-playing game and Brahmanism.

Of course, if you weren't a rank philosophical ignoramus, your attempt a formulating a list wouldn't have been so embarrassing.

Would you like to provide another indisputable Holy Proof of why ontology itself doesn't represent a needless entity?

I’m a little puzzled that I have the only comment there.

That's because you weren't bright enough to examine the nature of the forum that you were trying to attention-whore in.

I take it that you have not in fact fearlessly sacked it up on this front, which would provide you with far more "engagement," your actual craving.

Speaking of Patti Smith*, here is another good one.** And another.

*I recently found out that Patti Smith's mom was also a JW; I knew we had something major in common.

**I have in fact been called "Johnny" a good deal more than once in my life, mostly by a girl in Moscow who apparently decided that "Jamie," "Janie," and "Johnny" were all close enough.

Sounds like, as far as how life came to be the way it is, the beliefs of atheists are legion.

It is almost as if 'atheism' is not a form of religion, after all.

To Krebiozen #1092:

See Noevo: “And that even if they do so believe, they aren’t addressing the issue of how the aliens came to be?”

Krebiozen: “It’s usually best to establish something exists before expending energy on figuring out where is came from.”

You’ve got a point.
That’s why I question expending energy on figuring out where evolution came from. You know, because we haven’t established evolution exists.

Kreboizen

What kind of an idiot believes in a non-human intelligence with a penchant for genetic engineering? Oh, wait…

So you are calling me an idiot eh. When the Old Ones return and great Cthulu awakens from his slumber and the Mountains of Madness ring to the calls of the Shogoths, may you know the horror of being the last one eaten.

Patti was apparently raised in quite a strong Jehovah's Witness home.

I love Patti. Just came here to say that.

That’s why I question expending energy on figuring out where evolution came from. You know, because we haven’t established evolution exists.

You haven't "established" that "we" exist. Or that any bit of your rambling is an improvement over the parsimonious assertion that the value of pi settles everything.

I eagerly await your fearlessness.

P.S. It's a crying shame that Phildo abandoned this opportunity to put his indubitably well-earned robes to use.

See, I became a Catholic as an adult. Because of a lot of reasons I can't quite explain here. My father was an atheist and my mother isn't sure what she believes, but I was raised to believe in something.

I am not sure what I believe any longer. I don't support a lot of what the Church believes. I am pro-choice, I once faced the decision of having to continue a pregnancy with a T18 baby who would have been born in pain, unable to suckle, a life just to hurt. I got what I prayed for and she died inside me before I had to make that choice.

But I am raising Delphinette as a nominal Catholic. I appreciate the commitment of the schools (at least where we live) to social justice, to living in a global world, and so she will attend JK at a Catholic school come fall.

I asked if you were a cradle Catholic because you remind me of many adults I've met who are more Catholic than the Pope.

Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine...

Dean #1075 says of me, “1074 demonstrates that if there is an internal threat to this country it comes from people who would post something like what’s at 1074.”

I think the following looks like more of threat. (I wonder how many of the judges voting for death believe in evolution?)

“In January 2014 a court in France ruled against starving Lambert to death. But, today, the European Court of Human Rights today issued its decision and, by a vote of 12-5, the Grand Chamber held that a State may take Lambert’s life AGAINST HIS WILL.”
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/06/05/court-rules-disabled-patient-can-be-…

“Doctors said he has minimal consciousness, FEELS PAIN and MOVES HIS EYE but is not able to communicate in any way. It is NOT KNOWN if he is able to understand what happens to and around him.”
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/france-court-ends-life-support-tetraplegic-vin…

I'd bet they're evolutionists.

I love Patti. Just came here to say that.

Oh man, who doesn't?

Patti was apparently raised in quite a strong Jehovah’s Witness home.

Let's just say I have an idea about where the horses came from.

This one I'm not sure of. Though my first inclination is to attribute See Noevo's embarrassing errors to dishonesty, based on the patterns established here so far, this one might be mostly or exclusively due to just being stupid.

He wrote,

So, regarding how life came to be the way it is, some atheists believe in one or more of these:
–Aliens
–We are actually beings from another plane which are just projecting the material world like a hologram or something.
–Ghosts
–Astrology
–Monist materialism
–Zen Buddhism
–Interactionism
–Trialist interactionism
–“Whatever”
Sounds like, as far as how life came to be the way it is, the beliefs of atheists are legion.

Of course, none of the bolded items was offered as an example of what any athiests believe "regarding how life came to be the way it is." See Noevo might just be lying again, but I suspect this example of his misrepresentations has to be chalked up to his just not being very smart.

none of the bolded items was offered as an example of what any athiests believe

"Trialist interactionism" in fact came up as an example of what at least one Catholic believed.

Just when I thought yiu couldn't get any more dishonest sn you triple down and really demonstrate what a horrole person you are. Against his will? When he can't communicate, but according to his wife and some brothers and sisters he had stated he would never want to be kept alive in this way? Truly vile on your part. You simply strengthen my point. Your virulent religion based ignorance is dangerous.

I hope the judges are educated enough to understand that evolution is a fact. That would indicate that they are far more intelligentl certainly far more caring, and monumentally more honest, than you've ever been.

To Delphine #1101:

Nothing “personal”, but I’d like to use you as an exhibit.

Way back in #443 and #541, I and others here began some
extensive back-and-forth on what I’ll call my ‘Can’t tell a book by its cover’. [One excerpt of mine: “…how very different two people can be with the same “label” (e.g. observant Jew, Constitutionalist). As a further example, Nancy Pelosi is a “practicing Catholic”, but she’s not really Catholic, because she supports abortion and abortion rights.”]

Boy, did I catch some flack for that! (To no avail, of course. My position is unchanged.)

Now, in #1061, you tell me “…you’re not making US look very good, and WE really don’t need that. Signed, ANOTHER CATHOLIC”

US? WE? Catholic? I sure hope you don’t think you’re including me in those.

There is no “We” of you and me.
Because in #1101 you say
“I am not sure what I believe any longer. I don’t support a lot of what the Church believes. I am pro-choice…”

Looks like I was right. Can’t tell a “Catholic” by his/her/its cover. Boy, oh boy. Exhibit #1: Delphine.
[Note to readers: Delphine MAY be in ann’s “Catholic” church, but definitely is not in Christ’s Catholic Church.]

“Jesus died for somebody’s sins, but not mine…”

So sang Patti.
And so said Judas Iscariot.

I’d bet they’re evolutionists.

I'd take that bet, but as we already know, you're a welsher.

See Noevo might just be lying again, but I suspect this example of his misrepresentations has to be chalked up to his just not being very smart.

Don't rule out the third possibility of good old-fashioned trolling. Leaving deliberately stupid comments is one way of ensuring a response.
Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from attention-whoring (and vice versa).

Oh, whaddaya know: Patti Smith and I have the same birthday, too.

Don’t rule out the third possibility of good old-fashioned trolling. Leaving deliberately stupid comments is one way of ensuring a response.

That's also possible, though See Noevo's crippling inability to read with comprehension has been repeatedly demonstrated here; the shrimp-article episode still makes me chuckle.

@ #1104

Re: "this example of his misrepresentations has to be chalked up to his just not being very smart."

A quick scan of See Noevo's Disqus comments indicate it to be a run of the mill right-wing troll mired in Dunning-Kruger ... with the attendant smug arrogance that these "too stupid to understand they're stupid" types often display.

https://disqus.com/by/seenoevo/comments/

The clown indicated in one of its Disqus comments that it was banned at BioLogos, no doubt for polluting their comment area with the same inane malarkey as in its comments above.

Note to readers, you're a fucki8g dick. Nothing"personal."

Just in case I don't make it through moderation, you're an a$4shole and big reason why people hate Western Roman Catholics. Do you have kids? Because if you do, they probably think you're an intransigent dick.

Have a little Lennon, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmJvo1HixOw

How would you like to be conscious or semi-conscious, be able to feel pain, and…
be slowly starved and dehydrated to death?

[[Euthansia already was used during the Nazi regime in Germany, for which offenders were convicted at Nuremberg. The European Center for Law and Justice says it was “precisely against this ideology that the European Convention on Human Rights was proclaimed in 1950” …
…The court found that not only can a bureaucracy decide on euthanasia, the victim’s parents lack the right to intervene.
In a statement from Gregor Puppinck of the ECLJ, which argued for the man’s life, the 12-5 vote “held that a state may cause the death of a patient in a minimally conscious state.”

Puppinck said the court “not only held that in Europe, we can again legally induce the death of a disabled patient who did not ask to die, but in addition, it denies that patient the protection of the convention against mistreatment.”

“In 1946, during the Nuremberg trials, physicians who practiced euthanasia of disabled persons were convicted. These convictions founded contemporary medical ethics…
He said that today, the “‘European Court of Human Rights in good health’ revives a fatal practice we hoped to be gone in Europe.”

The judges who dissented scathingly wrote: “In 2010, to mark its 50th anniversary, the court accepted the title of ‘The Conscience of Europe’ when publishing a book with that very title… It is not sufficient to acknowledge, as is done in paragraph 181 of the judgment, that a case ‘concerns complex medical, legal and ethical matters’; it is of the very essence of a conscience … that ethical matters should be allowed to shape and guide the legal reasoning to its proper final destination. That is what conscience is all about. We regret that the court has, with this judgment, forfeited the above-mentioned title.”

The dissent noted Lambert is not dead and can breath on his own and digest food.

“In other words, Vincent Lambert is alive, and being cared for. What, we therefore ask, can justify a state in allowing a doctor … in this not so much to ‘pull the plug’ (Lambert is not on any life-support machine) as to withdraw or discontinue feeding and hydration so as to, in effect, starve Vincent Lambert to death?”

The judges continued: “By no stretch of the imagination can Vincent Lambert be deemed to be in an ‘end-of-life’ situation. Regrettably, he will be in that situation soon, after feeding and hydration are withdrawn or withheld… ]]

http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/human-rights-court-approves-killing-injured-…

You get right back to me when the baby you and your spouse want more than anything has half her fuck!ing heart, you douchebag.

Hey, I have an idea for a game.* As has been plainly admitted, S.N. has an uncontrolled urge to deploy attempted psychological abuse mechanisms more suited to yummy children "look under hoods." **

If you’re not a member of the Catholic Church, WHY aren’t you a member of the Catholic Church?

Moreover, he has already demonstrated that he is assuredly well versed in the epistemology of modality, or something, because "universal constants." So, given that there's certainly at least one rock-solid*** anchor in stellar evolution,
I will adopt the foregoing rhetorical framework, as it is, a priori, a Pure instantiation of loving-kindness.

1. Is it physically possible for human beings to bring about their own extinction before the ἐπιφανείᾳ? If not, WHY?

* All by my lonesome, but it's more likely than not as common as dirt.
** Not too far, of course.
*** Or not, which would be even better.

Only liars, racists, bigotd, and fools believe wnd to be a reliable source for anything sn, so - oh wait, you posted it and you're in the intersection of those groups. Never mind.

World Nut Daily. Waddaya know.

To Delphine #1113, #1114:

Watch your mouth, girl!

You’re not making yourself look very good, and you really don’t need that. Signed, a Catholic.

Speaking of which, I’d like to add one to my #840 list (amended with #879):
Use of obscene language, especially on the internet.

So, the new and improved listing is as follows:

“I’d bet belief in evolution is positively correlated with more than just belief in (AGW agenda) environmental regulations.
I’d bet belief in evolution is positively correlated with
– divorce,
– extended or perpetual singlehood (i.e. not marrying),
– sexually-transmitted diseases,
– out-of-wedlock births and single mothers,
– abortion and contraception,
– pornography,
– drug addiction,
– depression and dysphoria,
– social isolation/disintegration of community,
– view of Constitution as a “living/fluid” document,
– governmental payouts for welfare/unemployment/disability/food stamps [both sender and receiver]
- Population decline
- Use of obscene language, especially on the internet.”

That’s good enough for now.

Thanks for reminding me, Delphine.

The idea that marriage should be forever is useful only to those who want people to be trapped in horrid marriages, especially abusive ones. People who think divorce is necessarily a bad thing mistake the cure for the disease.

As for the notion that STDs and belief in evolution might be linked, consider this:

Research on virginity pledges found that for a select group of young people, pledges did delay the onset of sexual intercourse for an average of 18 months (a goal still far short of the average age of marriage).[4] However, the same study also found that young people who took a pledge were one-third less likely to use contraception when they did become sexually active than their peers who had not pledged.[5] In other words, pledges can cause harm by undermining contraceptive use when the young people who take them become sexually active.
The researchers also found that pledgers have the same rate of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) as their peers who had not pledged. Not only were pledgers less likely to use condoms to prevent STDs, they were less likely to seek medical testing and treatment, thereby increasing the possibility of transmission.[6]
Further research found that, among those young people who have not had vaginal intercourse, pledgers were more likely to have engaged in both oral and anal sex than their non-pledging peers. In fact, among virgins, male and female pledgers were six times more likely to have had oral sex than non-pledgers, and male pledgers were four times more likely to have had anal sex than those who had not pledged.
According to the researchers, in communities where there are a higher proportion of pledgers, overall STD rates were significantly higher than in other settings. Specifically, in communities where more than 20% of young adults had taken virginity pledges, STD rates were 8.9% compared to 5.5% in communities with few pledgers.[7]

here

I suspect people who accept the evidence for evolution do not favor abstinence only sex education.

Use of obscene language

Oh, dear, somebody has gone from whining about being profaned, viz.,

I’ve REALLY got you worked up, haven’t I, daran?

Looks as though the moderator here expunges comments with a third hyperlink, but not those with profanity.

... to pretending to be a lawyer.* And failing very, very badly.

* Again, basically.

This one’s for Delphine.

George will sing for Delphine…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKTFJ9-LFio

.....
P.S.
Good song.

P.P.S.
Regarding that lyric “I could wait forever, I got time”,
unfortunately, not true. Best get it right, while you HAVE time.

See Noevo, tell me, why are you accusing people of what you consider immroral behavior without proof? Are you aware Jesus spoke against that?

The right to give what? To give an answer to the question “Why aren’t you Catholic?”

To give the response I gave. It's nobody's business but mine.

When you’ve been posting profusely not just about Catholic teaching big and small, but HOW that Catholic teaching supposedly supports YOUR positions and contradicts mine?

The social doctrine of the Catholic Church is not really MY position. It's the Catholic Church's. I'm just pointing it out, which it's perfectly possible to do without reference to personal belief, as evidenced by:

(a) my having done it; and
(b) your evidently not having been able to find even a pretext for asking in anything I wrote.

It could POSSIBLY be “generally regarded as a social offense to ask”, but NOT in an anonymous internet environment.

It's an intrinsically rude question, internet or no internet. But, you know. People who are super-touchy about such things probably shouldn't be posting comments to online brawls.

And fwiw, I, personally, was not offended by it. As I said, I don't mind being asked. I was just surprised you thought it remarkable that I chose not to answer. It seemed really pretty self-explanatory to me that to many people, private beliefs are private.

[Why, I do declare, Ann-abelle! You must just BLUSH, at so many of the things said at this here unsightly site. My word! With all the foul language and ad hominems and… and… shanda fur die goyim! My dear Ann-abelle, I do declare I’m right surprised you haven’t fainted. Let me get you some sweet tea. And here’s your fan.]

OK. That's REALLY not how the phrase "shanda fur die goyim" is used, tonally, or any other way. It comes in three basic connotative flavors: resigned, self-mocking, and tongue-in-cheek. I intended the latter two.

Apparently you need to REALLY read, or really re-read, my #1038.

OK.

...

Done. I apologized for the one of those that wasn't justified. And the others are completely in line with what you yourself have been dishing out as well as taking for the whole of the thread. So I still don't see why I'm obligated to answer personal questions that have no bearing on the arguments that I'm making.

I’ll give you another chance, anonymous ann:

WHY aren’t you a member of the Catholic Church?

It's none of your business.

Inside llewelly #1121:

Unfortunately, the SEICUS study, which you fail to credit, makes no mention of belief in evolution.

Neither does this one, from one of the most liberal, pro-abortion organizations around – the Guttmacher Institute. Yet its findings seem OPPOSITE of SEICUS’:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3527903a.html

^ I should further note that S.N.'s overt cowardice is really just a smokescreen with respect to his underlying intemperance.

Concupiscence is right out.

Speaking of which, I’d like to add one to my #840 list (amended with #879):

Would that be the list from which you flee like a startled hare when anyone asks you to put your money where your mouth is?

See Noevo wrote,

Watch your mouth, girl!
You’re not making yourself look very good, and you really don’t need that. Signed, a Catholic.
Speaking of which, I’d like to add one to my #840 list (amended with #879):
Use of obscene language, especially on the internet.

I guess we have to add hypocrite to See Noevo's ever-growing list of negative personality traits. Of course, he uses obscene language, especially on the Internet. No links are necessary, as he will not deny it.

I'm starting to suspect he's not really a Catholic. And, what with the use of pornography and the cursing, he might be an evolutionist, by his own reckoning. Neat.

HDB @1105 -- You're quoting SN, of course, when you use the word "athiest".

I'm sure you'd agree that in order to know how to spell a word, it helps to know its roots. Its entomology, so to speak.

Sure helps in de-bugging the spelling.

See Noevo:

Yet its findings seem OPPOSITE of SEICUS’:

No, the findings are not necessarily the opposite, because being religious does not necessarily imply having an abstinence only education. Being religious also does not necessarily imply rejecting evolution either.

Furthermore - the study you link is a question based survey. Religion will affect how teens answer survey questions.

Palindrom -- that was I, guilty as charged!

--OL

To Gray Falcon #1124:

“See Noevo, tell me, why are you accusing people of what you consider immroral behavior without proof? Are you aware Jesus spoke against that?”

So, you’re saying it WOULD be OK to accuse people WITH proof.

But then the question is which behaviors are what you call “immroral.”

They SHOULD be the same ones Jesus called immoral, including evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander (cf. Mat 15:19). Or Paul’s partial listing of 1 Cor 6:9.

And no, I’m not aware of Jesus speaking against taking action against sinners with proof. I’m aware of Jesus speaking FOR it:
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” [Mat 18:15-17]

And Paul:
“But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber — not even to eat with such a one.
For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?
God judges those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.” [1 Cor 5:11-13]

Watch your mouth, girl!

Truly of a caliber to rival GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY!

Then again, it's not entirely clear what S.N.'s specific expectations of the proper role of "girls'" mouths are.

“Drive out the wicked person from among you.”

Sigh. I already tried, but you just won't take a f*cking hint.

To ann #1125:

“It’s an intrinsically rude question, internet or no internet. But, you know. People who are super-touchy about such things probably shouldn’t be posting comments to online brawls.”

Which is why I’m wondering why you’re posting here.

“And fwiw, I, personally, was not offended by it. As I said, I don’t mind being asked.”

Which is why I'm wondering why in your retort you use the words “generally regarded as a social offense to ask.”

“So I still don’t see why I’m obligated to answer personal questions that have no bearing on the arguments that I’m making.”

If you say so.
And as you’ve said before,
“Hmm. Well. Assuming that SN’s failure to respond means he so lacks the courage of his convictions that he can’t acknowledge them openly, he’s also apparently a sad hypocrite who can’t respect himself…
It’s none of your business.”

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

There's nothing like recycling a comment (#622) verbatim that says Me Think Hard!

Anyway, pretty much everyone knows how that works in practice.

^ I really must apologize for an omission in foregoing comment; given that S.N. had already appointed himself sebastocrator, the only possible result of the chastisement is to imply that he expected to be watching.

Those darn parents!
They’re probably kooky creationists.
Why are creationists against education?

http://www.startribune.com/school-s-sex-store-field-trip-brings-calls-f…

I think somebody earlier asked about the historicity of Exodus.
I don’t know what the Chinese feel about that history, but their minds are probably just occupied with TODAY:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3112207/Thousands-toads-descend…

OK. But that does not change the infallibility of the Church’s teaching.

Given that the Sacrament of Penance only had the sacramento, ah, put in its olive by the Council of Trent, one might wonder about the dating scheme here.

“It’s an intrinsically rude question, internet or no internet. But, you know. People who are super-touchy about such things probably shouldn’t be posting comments to online brawls.”

Which is why I’m wondering why you’re posting here.

No you're not.

“And fwiw, I, personally, was not offended by it. As I said, I don’t mind being asked.”

Which is why I’m wondering why in your retort you use the words “generally regarded as a social offense to ask.”

Again, no you're not. This time, you just clipped the part of my post that could leave you in no doubt that my reason for mentioning it was (and I quote) that "I was just surprised you thought it remarkable that I chose not to answer. It seemed really pretty self-explanatory to me that to many people, private beliefs are private."

“So I still don’t see why I’m obligated to answer personal questions that have no bearing on the arguments that I’m making.”

If you say so.

I'm amenable to a reasonable argument to the contrary. Bring it on.

And as you’ve said before,
“Hmm. Well. Assuming that SN’s failure to respond means he so lacks the courage of his convictions that he can’t acknowledge them openly, he’s also apparently a sad hypocrite who can’t respect himself…

I was laboring under a misapprehension, for which I sincerely apologized as soon as you brought the error to my attention. And it was one.

However. That's not a true analogy. I was asking you to address a question about something you wrote, not just making random demands for personal information because I didn't have a better option on the merits than a Hail Mary pass.

So to speak.

"It’s none of your business.”

If it isn't, bring it on.

I think somebody earlier asked about the historicity of Exodus.
I don’t know what the Chinese feel about that history, but their minds are probably just occupied with TODAY

Uh-oh, panic time has come again.

I presume that randomly offering "extreme unction" hadn't been faring so well on the concupiscence front.

Don’t rule out the third possibility of good old-fashioned trolling.

I have little doubt that he's been around the block more times than your average serotype of the clap.

^ But he has repeatedly backed himself into the position of trying to improvise, at which point the matter becomes something like waiting for an inflamed sebaceous cyst to grow to such proportions that the "need to poke" is amply rewarded with persistence and a needle that has seen better days.

This may very well be ann’s song.
I don’t know. Sure as hell, she’d never say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRv4VQra2kc

And maybe Delphine’s and MI Dawn’s.

^^ Moreover, S.N.'s variance from his usual posting schedule suggests that he's well into his veritas.

To come back to Orac's original question:
"Why do doctors deny evolution?" now I can answer that, for some of them, it's because they fear hell.

This may very well be ann’s song.
I don’t know. Sure as hell, she’d never say. [Random YouLube link]

And maybe Delphine’s and MI Dawn’s.

You stand accused of the sin of intemperance, and you have forfeited recourse to jurisdictional defenses based on foreign law, Torquemadito.

To ann #1142:

“So I still don’t see why I’m obligated to answer personal questions that have no bearing on the arguments that I’m making… I’m amenable to a reasonable argument to the contrary. Bring it on.”

Consider the following:

1)I have revealed that I am a true Catholic (i.e. One who believes in and strives to follow ALL that the Church teaches.).
2)You don’t like what I say and the positions I take.
3)You’d like to show that what I say and the positions I take are wrong.
4)Your tactic to try to show me in the wrong is to cite Catholic teachings which you THINK CONTRADICT what I say and the positions I take.
5)Thus, with your tactic, you are essentially saying that I am wrong BECAUSE the Catholic teachings are right.

Do you think the above is accurate?
If not, why not?

At #1116, Narad provided a link to concordatwatch.eu. I followed some links there, and found a quote① from a cardinal② about RCC doctrine. The gist of the quote was that RCC encourages lying, with two conditions: ⑴ the liar can tell himself that he's not really lying, and ⑵ the lie redounds to the benefit of the church and its hierarchy. It goes under the name "mental reservation."
Perhaps I need to apologize to SN: by lying, he's just being a Good Catholic™. I don't think I will, however: his lying might not be a sin, but it's an excellent example of the distinction between the religious-only concept of sin vs the secular concept of morality, and why the christianities (particularly the RCC) have so little to teach about the latter..
-----------------------------------------------
① Second right-side inset, a couple of screens down.
② Not the North Carolina state bird. If it were, the cardinal would be violating the NC③ state motto④.
③ Yeah, I grew up in NC. What of it.
④Esse quam videre, to be rather than to seem. I adopted it as a personal motto, which is part of the reason I'm not a christianist, after a christianist pulled Pascal's Wager on me.

1) I have revealed asserted that I am a true Catholic

FTFY. I mean, given the other "needs" that you've advanced, I have little doubt that your limited technological skills nonetheless have adapted to "selfies."

Would you like help with the markup? Have you ever seen Twister?

MI Dawn, June 5, 2015:>

I think See Noevo is afraid of me. He never comments on things I have to say. I guess he’s afraid of intelligent women who became atheists through thought, bible reading, and science reading.

Dawn, it's not just women that he's afraid of. I'm a guy who is an atheist through thought, bible reading, and science reading. He's not addressed anything I've posed, either.

Bill, that's a pretty distinctive set of glyphs. Have you spent time in Japan?

You’re quoting SN, of course, when you use the word “athiest”.
It is of course the superlative form of "athier".
But I am informed that a preference for correct spelling is elitest, so no matter.

Then again, I suppose that "I have revealed that I am a true Catholic" might be deliberate spoor, but the prior would seem to be forced into a very tight corner.

Nartad, no. I just took some time to shop the Unicode charts as displayed by the Character Map utility. The circled/parenthesized numbers are in the range U+2460 through U+24FF. Since this site uses UTF-8 encoding, I just copy and paste the raw character into the comment box, rather than trying to remember how to construct an entity from the Unicode coding. I happen to recall that ™ is called out by the ™ entity, so I don't bother shopping for the raw character.

You seem to have found the superscript and subscript unicode digits. what technique do you use?

Nartad? No, Narad. Sorry.

If people like you, and the other evolutionists here, are representative of the state of evolution teaching, it’s not surprising that less than 20% of the “students” fully buy what you’re selling.

Ah, yes, I had nearly forgotten this Bullwinklish appeal to popularity. One might well wonder how the likes of aspirants to wearing a funny hat and a dress such as S.N. would fare against, say, Robert Hunter in terms of a plebiscite over who better understood Luke 17:21.

The State. Of. The. Teaching., skirts.

Then again, the last I checked, S.N. showed no sign of even understanding the question. When TSR 1071 would represent a drastic philosophical upgrade, one can't expect too much.

* I forgot that one of the index cards was the Ur-recipe and the other was the one that I had actually worked out, leaving me with meatball cookery of the first water. And I took a shot at a downward revision of the idiosyncratic timing of the electronic pressure cooker that time forgot. Moreover, I freaking failed to adequately brown the orzo. It's still nutritious, BUT.

See Noevo,

Krebiozen: “It’s usually best to establish something exists before expending energy on figuring out where is came from.” You’ve got a point. That’s why I question expending energy on figuring out where evolution came from. You know, because we haven’t established evolution exists.

1. Evolution is not an entity that either exists or does not exist, like an alien or a deity, it is a process that we can describe, observe and record in detail.

2. Both evolution and speciation have been observed multiple times. Repeatedly denying this is simply ridiculous.

3. Evidence of the existence of aliens and deities is sparse and unconvincing.

BTW

“Jesus died for somebody’s sins, but not mine…” So sang Patti. And so said Judas Iscariot.

I know you're far more familiar with these tales than I, but I don't think Judas said that. According to the bible he hanged himself before Jesus died. Unless you believe, as some do, that the apostles were happy to hang out with Judas after he betrayed Jesus, leading to his death, which seems a little unlikely.

So, the new and improved listing is as follows: [...]

Have you really resorted to claiming that evolution cannot be true because people who believe in it have other attributes that you don't like? That is truly weird.

People who believe your variety of Holy Writ is infallible are more likely to follow its list of prescriptions and proscriptions (in public, at least) than those who do not believe. How extraordinary [/sarcasm].

Based on what I have seen here, I think it's your religion with its bizarre proclamations about sex that drives people to furtive, hypocritical and, ultimately, damaging behavior.

Finally...

5)Thus, with your tactic, you are essentially saying that I am wrong BECAUSE the Catholic teachings are right.

You have a very feeble grasp of logic. If I point out that you fail to follow your own rules, that doesn't mean that I follow your rules or think they are right.

Awwwww....SN thinks I'm a criminal. How sweet of him. But, actually, if you asked my ex, he'd tell you he's happier in his new marriage than he was in our last several years of marriage, and I'm happier in my new relationship than I was. We are still friends, still united parents to our (adult) children. We actually like each other more now. So our divorce was good for both of us and our relationship.

See has become more Catholic than the pope - literally, as the Catholic Church DOES accept evolution. As for the start of life? Well, See, evolution doesn't address that. It only addresses change. So, cats won't give birth to dogs, ducks and crocodiles won't mate. Try reading what evolution really IS and what it says about life. You might learn something.

@Delphine: my condolences on the Trisomy 18 child. As a nurse, I cared for one. It's very tough to care for a baby you know is going to die, and the parents had my every respect. Katydid (as I called her) lived about 1 month. And I had the joy 2 years later of being with the parents as they gave birth to a healthy boy. But if you asked the parents, they would tell you that if the second child was also T18, they would have aborted him. Watching 1 child die in pain was enough!

Oh, and See: I could say this is truth: my new lover is married, I'm one of 3 girlfriends, his wife has a few lovers also. We are all happy, polyamorous, loving people, we all love each other very much and get along wonderfully OR I could say this is truth: I'm in a monagamous relationship with another woman. We are very happy, loving people and we love each other very much. We are thrilled the state allows us to be married and are planning our marriage OR I could say: I'm actually not in a relationship at all and this is all bogus. You'd never know.

The only true thing is that I feel for Delphine and I agree with her that you are a heartless *ss. Until you have been pregnant and given birth (and NOT had your wife do it, YOU), you won't know how it feels to carry a child you KNOW will live in pain and die very soon. I don't blame Delphine a bit.

1) I have revealed that I am a true Catholic (i.e. One who believes in and strives to follow ALL that the Church teaches.)

That's both true and accurate. I believe that you are, and actually never intended to suggest otherwise, with the exception of the stuff I withdrew, which I said while under the erroneous impression that you were a schismatic traditionalist.

But I apologized for that.

2) You don’t like what I say and the positions I take.

It would be more accurate to say I think a lot of it is wrong. I've agreed with some of it.

3) You’d like to show that what I say and the positions I take are wrong.

When I think they're wrong, I strive to show that they are by giving my reasons for thinking so, which is -- as I understand it -- completely in accordance with the generally accepted rules for debate.

I'd like to be right myself, naturally. But when I'm wrong, I admit it.

4) Your tactic to try to show me in the wrong is to cite Catholic teachings which you THINK CONTRADICT what I say and the positions I take.

When that's what I think you're wrong about, yes.

5) Thus, with your tactic, you are essentially saying that I am wrong BECAUSE the Catholic teachings are right.

No. I'm saying you're wrong because the Catholic teachings are demonstrably other than what you say.

Whoa. This thread is still going on?

This may very well be ann’s song.
I don’t know. Sure as hell, she’d never say.

I refer you to your own remarks @#1134 regarding, specifically:

(a) the difference between accusations with and without proof; and

(b) the prohibition on slander (cf. Mat 15:19).

@#1165 --

Is that bad?

To Krebiozen #1161:

“Based on what I have seen here, I think it’s your religion with its bizarre proclamations about sex that drives people to furtive, hypocritical and, ultimately, damaging behavior.”

Except for the use of “bizarre”, I think you may be right.

My hypothesis is that people leave or stay away from the Church primarily, and often entirely, because of its unchanging teaching on matters involving sex (e.g. divorce, fornication, abortion, contraception).

And when you think about it, Jesus and the Apostles focused a lot on sexual sins, too.
Mat 5:28;
Mat 5:32;
Mat 15:19;
Mat 19:9;
Mark 7:21;
Mark 10;11-12;
Luke 16:18;
Rom 1:26-27;
1 Cor 6:9;
Gal 5:19;
Eph 5:3,5;
Col 3:5;
Rev 21:8;
Rev 22:15.

To ann #1164:

Me: “5) Thus, with your tactic, you are essentially saying that I am wrong BECAUSE the Catholic teachings are right.”

You: “No. I’m saying you’re wrong because the Catholic teachings are demonstrably other than what you say.”

No, you’re demonstrably wrong. And I have in fact demonstrated why you’re wrong numerous times above.

HOWEVER, EVEN IF a position of mine which you disagree with contradicted Catholic teaching, why should you care? Why do you spend the time? It would be like you spending time reprimanding me for believing unicorns actually have three horns because my authoritative church of unicornology states they have only one horn. In terms of the real world, my unicorn church and I are BOTH wrong. And in terms of the real world, my Catholic Church and my position could theoretically BOTH be wrong. But in terms of the real world, SO WHAT? Why do you care?

And besides, I have shown, or could show, why my positions make sense, even from a secular perspective.

So, why are you spending time trying to show me why you think I’m wrong?

Out of your basic, average, common-to-garden-variety commitment to the epistemic virtues.

But fwiw, if I hurt your feelings, I'm sorry to have done so.

Wow. Is this ORAC's longest thread? Who reads these?

I'm a Canadian doctor, and I suspect based on other survey data I have seen, that this is largely an American phenomena. Americans generally are far far more religious, more likely to believe in god/heaven/hell etc than do citizens from any other modern industrialized country. And the particular type of Christianity that dominates the culture (evangelical, fundamentalist) is the most inclined to dis-believe science that appears to contradict the Wholly Babble.

American doctors come from that unique cultural background, so it should surprise nobody that they are more inclined to disbelieve Evolution.

As ORAC and others have pointed out several times, doctors are not scientists. I think it would be great if we all had some scientific training, but it is rare. Most doctors have an undergraduate science degree, but that is not DOING science, it is learning some basic principals, and reams of information. Many medical schools now will accept candidates who have undergraduate degrees in the arts.

"And besides, I have shown, or could show, why my positions make sense, even from a secular perspective."

You haven't shown it yet, and if I were a betting person I'd make a big bet that you can't show any position of yours makes sense.

To ann #1166:

Me: “This may very well be ann’s song.
I don’t know. Sure as hell, she’d never say.”

You: “I refer you to your own remarks @#1134 regarding, specifically: (a) the difference between accusations with and without proof; and (b) the prohibition on slander (cf. Mat 15:19).”

Don’t sweat it, ann. No violation.
…….
To ann #1170:

Me: “So, why are you spending time trying to show me why you think I’m wrong?”

You: “Out of your basic, average, common-to-garden-variety commitment to the epistemic virtues.”

Commitment to epistemic virtues? I guess you mean knowing for the sake of knowing. Kind of like “ars gratis artis”. Both garbage.
Knowing just for the hell of it. And in this case, arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Too bad the entire field of epistemology, of which science is one off-shoot, is just so much mental masturbation when it is without Catholic philosophy.
…..

To ann #1171:

“But fwiw, if I hurt your feelings, I’m sorry to have done so.”

Thanks, but don’t worry. You haven’t “hurt my feelings.”

To “hurt my feelings” in the most importance sense, you’d have had to show me where I’m wrong. And such correction usually hurts. But I would recover from the wound and mend my ways, and would be better and stronger for the correction. I’d even thank you. But I’m not going to thank you, because you haven’t shown me I’m wrong.

You also haven’t “hurt my feelings” in the less important, emotional sense. This is because I really don’t care about…well, how should I say this? You haven’t “hurt my feelings”, because what you think about me is not one of my primary concerns. It’s not even a secondary or tertiary or…what are the ones that come after tertiary? Anyway, you haven’t “hurt my feelings”, because you can’t “hurt my feelings.”

But thanks.

See, please stop. You are dragging Christianity through the mud with your idolatrous worship of church hierarchies, and your incessant and deliberate lies. Focus on doing what is right, and don't waste your time condemning others when you have your own sins to worry about.

A certain commenter named “dean” directly above tells me “…I’d make a big bet that you can’t show any position of yours makes sense.”

I believe this is the same person who about a month ago said he was finished responding to me.

Yet, I can’t even count how many times he’s responded to me SINCE then. The man of his word, dean. He’s made close to 2-dozen posts to or about me on this thread alone.

But if my posts and points are so non-sensical, they should appear so to everyone, including dean. They would be so obviously wrong that one would be a fool to spend any time pointing out it out, because it’s obvious. Like that old saying, “It goes without saying” (After which, the sayer invariably starts saying.).

Why O why, dean, are you so obsessed with me, and with tearing at virtually every post I make?
No need to. They’re OBVIOUSLY wrong, right?

So, better you spend your time doing something else, something meaningful.

And what are you hoping to accomplish, See?

obsessed? curious. how can a single person possess the sheer number of reprehensible traits you do? serial lying, asserting things about science that are false, displaying blatant racism and bigotry, yet claiming to be an honest and moral person.

Have you ever done a decent thing in your life?

Don’t sweat it, ann. No violation.

Bullshit. You were transparently and intentionally scratching the itch I declined to help you satisfy in fantasy, out of nothing but sheer, frustrated desire.

Nobody could possibly be blind enough not to see that, including you.

^There should have been a comma before as well as after "in fantasy."

See Noevo,

“Based on what I have seen here, I think it’s your religion with its bizarre proclamations about sex that drives people to furtive, hypocritical and, ultimately, damaging behavior.”
Except for the use of “bizarre”, I think you may be right.

I'm surprised, but suspicious. Do you think it is a good thing that your religion aims to make people ashamed of their own bodies and their sexuality? Is it healthy for people to think that perfectly normal feelings mean there is something wrong with them, or that there is an evil supernatural being trying to seduce them? I can't understand why anyone would think that preventing people from using contraception and protection against STIs is a good thing. What motive do you think God had for creating creatures that sexually reproduce and then constraining their behavior with so many odd rules around reproduction? To be fair, browsing Leviticus, it isn't just around reproduction....

My hypothesis is that people leave or stay away from the Church primarily, and often entirely, because of its unchanging teaching on matters involving sex (e.g. divorce, fornication, abortion, contraception).

Does this mean you would like to see reform? I don't get the impression that you are in favor of divorce, contraception or abortion.

And when you think about it, Jesus and the Apostles focused a lot on sexual sins, too.

Not really. Jesus mentioned sex, or marriage, only a very few times, in the first seven verses you listed. The remainder of those verses are from Paul, who never met Jesus and wasn't really an Apostle.

Jesus didn't mention sexual impropriety, as such, he warned about marrying the wrong woman, 'coveting' a married woman or divorcing for reasons other than adultery. I'm not a theologian, but these look very much like the various complex rules around men's property to me, rather than about sexual morality, much as it does in various developing world cultures today.

As far as I know (I was raised as an Anglican) Jesus didn't mention homosexuality, or abortion or contraception. He didn't mention adultery (the "he who is without sin" tale is thought to be a later forgery), except in those few passages, saying things like, "Whoever divorces his wife apart from adultery and will take another, commits adultery, and whoever will take her who is divorced commits adultery”.

That's thin gruel to feed the current Catholic stance on sex methinks. Why accept the OT on sex but not on diet? Didn't Jesus do away with both?

I'm done with going off-topic, and also with responding to off-topical posts.

My apologies to the people who didn't..

And when you think about it, Jesus and the Apostles focused a lot on sexual sins, too.
...
Rev 21:8;
Rev 22:15.

Because we say so.

To “hurt my feelings” in the most importance sense, you’d have had to show me where I’m wrong. And such correction usually hurts. But I would recover from the wound and mend my ways, and would be better and stronger for the correction.

Given the utter catastrophe that was your posturing about fundamental physics, the record strongly suggests that you would just pretend it never happened.

I wanted to comment several times as I read through this. Definitely have to agree on the U.S. cultural phenomena part. It is sad and a little scary when religion can color so much of our lives. It is also ironic that the most fundamentalist of Christians seem to focus on "if he will not work, do not let him eat" at the expense of social justice, or insistence on abstinence vs birth control, prohibiting abortion and then limiting assistance for the children born to poor, unprepared young people.

To Krebiozen #1180:

Me: “My hypothesis is that people leave or stay away from the Church primarily, and often entirely, because of its unchanging teaching on matters involving sex (e.g. divorce, fornication, abortion, contraception).”

You: “Does this mean you would like to see reform? I don’t get the impression that you are in favor of divorce, contraception or abortion.”

No, I would not like to see reform. But what I think is irrelevant. The Church’s teaching on these things will never change, because they CAN’T.

“Jesus didn’t mention sexual impropriety, as such, he warned about marrying the wrong woman, ‘coveting’ a married woman or divorcing for reasons other than adultery.”

Really? Besides adultery, I see Jesus several times calling out the evil of “fornication.” I assume you know the definition of that. Also, “every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” sounds like that could cover modern day pornography. Don't you think?

“The remainder of those verses are from Paul, who never met Jesus and wasn’t really an Apostle.”

False (cf. Acts 9:4-5) and false (cf. Romans 1:1).

And here’s a “timely” verse from the Apostle Paul:

“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.” [Romans 1:26-28]

“I’m not a theologian, but…”

You don’t have to be.

“As far as I know (I was raised as an Anglican) Jesus didn’t mention homosexuality, or abortion or contraception.”

Ah, the Anglican church, founded upon divorce. Bravo. (Goodbye, old friend, Thomas More.)

There may be no end to the number of things Jesus did NOT specifically mention. For instance, He didn’t mention bestiality, embryonic stem cell research, or Ponzi schemes. I THINK Jesus would be against these things. More importantly, His Church does also.

“That’s thin gruel to feed the current Catholic stance on sex methinks.”

Youthinks? Well maybe when you become pope of your own church you can tell your folks the way it’s going to be. There’s already about 30,000+ such churches. One more won’t matter. The more the “merrier.”

I just took some time to shop the Unicode charts as displayed by the Character Map utility.

I asked because the only place I regularly encounter them is in Japanese engineering papers.

You seem to have found the superscript and subscript unicode digits. what technique do you use?

This one. They suck. Of course, Unicode itself is an incoherent mess, and on top of this, the brilliant SB IT monkeys have removed* <sup> and <sub;gt; – the correct way of doing this – from $allowedtags.

* They're in the stylesheet, so that's not it.

“The remainder of those verses are from Paul, who never met Jesus and wasn’t really an Apostle.”

False (cf. Acts 9:4-5) and false (cf. Romans 1:1).

Way to fail again.

P.S. That's not what "cf." means.

^ Ah, no, I see that I f*cked up there. Haste makes waste.

IMAGINATION EXERCISE!
Getting back closer to the original topic of “Why do doctors deny evolution?”, what if NONE of them did? That is, what if ALL doctors believed in evolution, and so never denied evolution?

Here’s an EXERCISE IN IMAGINATION. This could be fun.

Let’s assume EVERYONE, not just doctors, throughout human history believed in Evolution.

OK. Then, HOW WOULD OUR LIVES BE DIFFERENT TODAY?

Now, here’s a sensible but IMPORTANT RESTRICTION for this imagination exercise:
You can’t compare this hypothetical life to actual life today, because you’d be comparing the hypothetical world to false/nonexistent history.
I’m thinking of a specific example which would violate this restriction, namely, saying “Well, our lives would be different and better in this hypothetical world because we wouldn’t have to write articles about doctors insanely denying evolution and we wouldn’t have these battles in education and elsewhere over the science of evolution!”
WRONG! VIOLATION for false history. There IS NO battle about evolution and there NEVER WAS. In this world, everyone has ALWAYS bought into the big E.

Now, just because everyone believed in evolution doesn’t mean the ancient people understood evolution as well as some people say we do today. Knowledge about the details develops and advances over time, as with many things. But the new developments never contradict the earlier basic truths. (In fact, you could say the same about development of Catholic doctrine.)

For example, even though we all know the Bible isn’t meant to be a biology textbook, that doesn’t prevent it from telling us truths about the physical world, truths which could be developed later in actual biology textbooks.

So, Genesis 1 and 2 would tell us many basic truths about creation by using FIGURATIVE, non-scientific language the ancients could understand.

Let me show you what I mean. The hypothetical Genesis 1 and 2 would include verses like these:

“And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years” [No change. Same as the actual Gen 1:14]

But then…

“And the Lord God formed from the dust of the ground the first creatures over many years, a fourth season.”

“And then the Lord God formed from these creature many different creatures - the birds of the air and the fish of the sea and the beasts of the field – over many more years, a fifth season.”

“Then the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon one of the beasts of the field, and while it slept took two of its ribs and closed up their place with flesh; and the ribs which the LORD God had taken from the beast he made into a man and into a woman.”

“And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." [No change. Same as the actual Gen 1:29-30]

But then…

“And God said, but that’s just for a little side salad or antipasto. You should then eat each other. Thus, animal will eat animal, and man will eat animal, and sometimes, animal will eat man. But don’t forget those nice green plants to start. They help with digestion.”

“The Lord God did this over many years, a sixth season.”

“Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, but not really. For on the seventh day after the sixth season God had not finished his work which he had done, but he rested on that seventh day from all his work which he had done, knowing he had more creating to do for many years to come.”

‘nough said! The first life coming from the earth, becoming animals which were formed into different animals, one of which was formed into Man. All over many many years.

That’s (hypothetical) Scripture! That’s Evolution! And that’s Entertainment!

The ancients would get it. In fact, in this hypothetical world, they DID get it. Gen 1 & 2 creation is about “Evolution”. Oh, they might have used a different word, but the basic truth of Evolution is there.

And flipping to the New Testament, John 14:26 might read “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. And those things he will teach in the future will include more details about Genesis. Nothing to worry about. But you cannot bear them now.”

And the years roll along, and we eventually discover fossils and DNA and mutations and what not. Big deal. It’s just filling in some details about the original Gen 1 & 2 “evolution” story that everyone believed anyway.

OK.

So, in this hypothetical scenario, HOW WOULD OUR LIVES BE DIFFERENT TODAY?

Use your imaginations, and tell me!

Narad, #1187:

Unicode itself is an incoherent mess,

In the 1970's, I worked for a 'puter company. Among other things, I was the representative of our local business unit on our Corporate Codes Committee. We had to deal with 6-bit (48-character and 64-character versions), 7-bit (96-char and 128-char) and 8-bit (96-, 128-, and 256-character versions) Coded Character Sets from all around the world, some even based on ISO646.
The incoherence of Unicode is a mere bagatelle in comparison to that utter chaos.

If doctors accepted that evolution happened, they'd probably be less likely to prescribe antibiotics for everything, reducing issues with antibiotic resistance and preventing a possible global plague.

Now tell me See, why do you think "Do not bear false witness" is a strongly-worded suggestion?

In your silly game, there would be no need for the kind of mythology filling your bible, so no one would have written a bible.
Thus, you would have no need to violate your own rule "You can’t compare this hypothetical life to actual life today, because you’d be comparing the hypothetical world to false/nonexistent history." by bringing it up.

To Gray Falcon #1192:

“If doctors accepted that evolution happened, they’d probably be less likely to prescribe antibiotics for everything, reducing issues with antibiotic resistance and preventing a possible global plague.”

OK. The doctors take action (or refrain from acting) to slowdown or prevent what they believe to be evolution.
I have a feeling, though, that if a global plague DID arrive, everyone and his government bureaucrat brother would be screaming for antibiotics and lots of them. And they they'll get them.
Ho-hum. Looks like it could be pretty bad without or without more evolution.

“Now tell me See, why do you think “Do not bear false witness” is a strongly-worded suggestion?”

We both know it’s not a suggestion but rather a command. But with that silly question, I can only suppose you’re trying to get around to saying I have borne false witness in this thread.

IF that’s the case, I’ll give you one and only one shot. In what one specific case do you think I’ve borne false witness here?

To Bill Price #1193:

“In your silly game, there would be no need for the kind of mythology filling your bible, so no one would have written a bible.”

Sorry, I have to throw the flag, Bill. Violation.

Remember, the ONLY thing different with the hypothetical world is that everyone believes in evolution. (Well, that and a different kind of Genesis 1 & 2, to make more believable the universal and constant belief in evolution.)

Everything else is the same, including the rest of the Bible.

That’s OK. You can try again.

See, do you understand the concept of "antibiotic-resistant bacteria"?

For a specific example of false witness, there's your claiming that scientists believe that each part of the eye developed separately and came together to form a functioning organ.

Here's another example of false witness:

Perhaps similarly, believing in micro evolution but not macro evolution is like believing your skin can get sun-burned but not that your sun burn will lead to an eyeball.

Nobody ever suggested that sunburns would turn into optic organs.

To Gray Falcon #1196:

“See, do you understand the concept of “antibiotic-resistant bacteria”?”

Yes, I do. And I know that many people believe it’s an example of evolution. But in the hypothetical world, everyone will believe it’s an example of evolution. In that world, if doctors are less likely to prescribe antibiotics for everything it would be because they want less possibility of evolution (i.e. bacteria developing antibiotic resistance).

“For a specific example of false witness, there’s your claiming that scientists believe that each part of the eye developed separately and came together to form a functioning organ.”

First, give me the comment # where I said that.

there was a time on earth with zero human beings, call it “through time X”, then, [according to MANY SCIENTISTS] at X plus one second 10,000 NON-human beings became 10,000 human beings.

That's one of the several examples just in this thread alone.

I dunno, is the pretending to have only "heard" about free porn on the Internet another example?

you are essentially saying that I am wrong BECAUSE the Catholic teachings are right.

Could be false witness, but, sadly, I think it's just run-of-the-mill Dunning-Kruger. See Noevo has racked up an impressive number of childish logical errors in this thread, I must say.

I guess if you don't understand logic, you'll reach all manner of erroneous conclusions, which you will wrongly believe to be logically correct. It explains a lot about folks like See Noevo's attachment to wrong positions.

See, <metaG>your original hypothetical was that everyone understood and accepted evolution throughout the existence of H. sap. sap. (You used the word 'believe', but for non-religious matters, like evolution, 'believe' means 'understand and accept'.) Do you wish to change the game, now that people are taking you up on it? I must assume that, since you discuss differences between the bible of this universe and of the hypothetical, that such discussion is on the table.</metaG>
Under the hypothetical, there is no need for a creation myth, either a general myth or a special-creation myth like those myths in Genesis. Since the hypothetical is universal, the uselessness of special creation myths is likewise universal.
Understanding evolution also puts the kibosh on the Noachian and similar flood myths. The tower of babel myth falls to linguistic evolution, also. Without the special creation and the special flood survival of Genesis, all that's left of the Old Testament is the pseudo-history and the "I coulda been a contender" war stories.
The elimination of the special-creation myths eliminates the 'original sin' nonsense of the christianities, thus the sine qua non of the Yeshua myth and the entire new testament's raison d'être.
Without the Yeshua myth to base his religion on, [P|S]aul would have to use some other myth, if he could find one with enough semi-organized followers to take over. It may, or may not, have been possible.
Assuming [P|S]ual had succeeded, it's still not clear whether his religion would have been power-hungry enough for Constantine to filter, unite and co-opt in his quest to overthrow the political power of the Roman priesthoods.
Without the RCC/EOC, the the history of Rome, and its empire, would likely be quite different. In particular, without the RCC, the dark ages probably would not have happened and, with the foundation of evolution, our understanding of reality (science) would have developed much farther, much faster.

Bah. Where did the G come from in my pseudo-html meta tags. Please pretend they aren't there.

@ Occamslaser
I guess that the main logical error of SN relates to Pascal's wager.
Fortunately, he does not bet on the 72 virgins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager#Variations

And another 200 posts, which further illustrate why some of us find organised religion, especially the RCs, so obnoxious and objectionable.

Actually I would use this thread as a teaching aid to demonstrate how NOT to construct an argument (thanks for that, SNE), what exactly is wrong with organised religion in general and X-tianity in particular.

Thinks: is SNE's role really to subvert RC-ism? 'Cos he/she/it/they are doing a great job at it.

Post #173.

Correction: Post #173 is where See outright lied about eye development.

To Murmur #1204:

Please, let’s get back closer to the original topic, the way you did in your #28.

Try the imagination exercise in #1098! The hypothetical is: Everyone has always accepted evolution. Now what? What do you see?

………
P.S.
You say “Actually I would use this thread as a teaching aid to demonstrate how NOT to construct an argument (thanks for that, SNE), what exactly is wrong with organised religion in general and X-tianity in particular. Thinks: is SNE’s role really to subvert RC-ism? ‘Cos he/she/it/they are doing a great job at it.”

I think that’s a good idea. If you know someone who is an educator, please suggest they consider this thread as a teaching aid. All of it.

Correction to #1207:
Try the imagination exercise in #1198.

Correction to the correction:
The Imagination Exercise is in #1190.

See Noevo,

No, I would not like to see reform. But what I think is irrelevant. The Church’s teaching on these things will never change, because they CAN’T.

I find it distressing that anyone holds such a view in the 21st century when the Catholic Church's teachings are causing such terrible suffering. The Church's teachings do change. They are only infallible between changes, it seems.

Really? Besides adultery, I see Jesus several times calling out the evil of “fornication.” I assume you know the definition of that.

I thought I knew what fornication was, i.e. sex out of wedlock, but it seems it's a bit more complex. In Jesus' time, until the 12th century, it was acceptable for a betrothed couple to cohabit and have sex, so presumably this means that Jesus would not consider this 'fornication'. That's very similar to how my contemporaries live - cohabit, have children, marry, or not, later.

Anyway, "several times calling out the evil of 'fornication'"? Sigh. I knew I should have written this down before. I used the Aramaic Bible in Plain English here:
Mat 5:28; "But I am saying to you, everyone who looks at a woman so as to lust for her, immediately commits adultery with her in his heart."
Mat 5:32; "But I am saying to you that everyone who divorces his wife, apart from the report of fornication, he causes her to commit adultery, and whoever takes her who is divorced is committing adultery."
Mat 15:19; “For from the heart proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, murders, fornications, thefts, lying testimonies, blasphemies.”
Mat 19:9; "But I say to you, “Whoever divorces his wife apart from adultery and will take another, commits adultery, and whoever will take her who is divorced commits adultery.”'
Mark 7:21; “For from within the heart of the children of men proceed evil ideas, adultery, fornication, theft, murder.”
Mark 10;11-12; And he said to them, “Every man who divorces his wife and takes another commits adultery. And if a woman divorces her husband and another man shall have her, she commits adultery.”
Luke 16:18;“Whoever divorces his wife and takes another commits adultery, and everyone who takes her who is divorced commits adultery.”

The remaining verses are not the words of Jesus, they are the words of Paul.

I see just three ideas here. The first is that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully commits adultery. the second is that evil comes from our hearts (the only mention of fornication by Jesus in the Bible, I believe), the third is that only divorce on the grounds of adultery is valid, perhaps not even then (depends on whether you believe Luke or the others).

Also, “every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” sounds like that could cover modern day pornography. Don’t you think?

I think that's a large stretch. I still think this sounds more like rules of property ("Are you looking at my bird?"), inheritance, alliance and money than more enlightened modern attitudes to sex. If a man can never look lustfully at a woman, the human race is in big trouble, isn't it? Can a man look at his wife that way? At another man? What about an unmarried woman he might pursue? Also, what about women? Are they allowed to look lustfully at men? Other women? Unmarried women?

“The remainder of those verses are from Paul, who never met Jesus and wasn’t really an Apostle.” False (cf. Acts 9:4-5) and false (cf. Romans 1:1).

That was a vision after Jesus had died and/or ascended to heaven. If you believe an account of someone hallucinating an encounter with Jesus and then claiming apostleship counts as evidence of what Jesus intended then this conversation is pointless (yeah, I know). I'm sure I was taught that there were only twelve apostles, but the Anglican Church would say that, so I'll concede that's semantics.

And here’s a “timely” verse from the Apostle Paul: [...]

Again, I'm not interested in what Paul had to say about Christianity. IMO he took a religion that was about love and forgiveness and turned it into something that spawned the Inquisition.

Ah, the Anglican church, founded upon divorce. Bravo. (Goodbye, old friend, Thomas More.)

Anglicanism is just like Catholicism, but with less paganism, incense, dressing up, statues, rosaries, confession and general theatrics. You might be surprised that Anglicans in the UK are a bit less accepting of cohabitation and homosexuality than Catholics, oddly. I'm no longer an Anglican, but I do think that the ability to divorce is an important freedom, especially for women.

There may be no end to the number of things Jesus did NOT specifically mention.

I would say we can be quite certain of that.

For instance, He didn’t mention bestiality, embryonic stem cell research, or Ponzi schemes.

True, but the Church doesn't appear to have been obsessed with these things, for centuries, and for no discernible reason.

I THINK Jesus would be against these things.

I agree, apart from the stem cell research which I think he would support, thanks to all the suffering that could be ended by it.

More importantly, His Church does also.

There are a lot of people who do not regard the Catholic Church as Jesus' church. Far from it. I think Jesus might well be horrified by what some Catholics have done in his name, assuming he existed and his teachings haven't been completely eroded through editing over time.

“That’s thin gruel to feed the current Catholic stance on sex methinks.”
Youthinks? Well maybe when you become pope of your own church you can tell your folks the way it’s going to be. There’s already about 30,000+ such churches. One more won’t matter. The more the “merrier.”

I'm just expressing my opinion and my curiosity about how people come to believe what they do; I have no interest in starting a religion. I believe I have the right to criticize when I think an existing religion is causing suffering, and not even following its own rules, especially when it causes pain to people I care about.

Note that when I pointed out where See Noevo very clearly lied to us, he refuses to mention anything about it.

When you get down to it, papal infallibility is the act of placing a mortal above the level of God. In other words, it is an act of idolatry. Also, it was not part of church dogma until 1870. So it isn't an essential part of the church, it's a recent development.

Without the RCC/EOC, the the history of Rome, and its empire, would likely be quite different. In particular, without the RCC, the dark ages probably would not have happened

Bit 'o pedantry: we don't call them the dark ages because they were barbaric and unenlightened, we call them the dark ages because they are relatively obscure to historians, compared to other historical eras. The idea that someone just sort of pressed "pause" in Western Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire, and didn't press "play" again until the Renaissance is a common misconception.

I figure the (western) Empire would've fallen for some reason or other with or without the RCC, but it's awfully hard to say, because it didn't happen that way. I mean, the course of history would've turned out differently if I were to go back in time and step on a butterfly, so no RCC? Hard to say. The monasteries actually did some good in terms of "preparing the ground" for the Renaissance, for instance. And they gave us the university.

In any case, historical hypotheticals, I've found, are pointless to entertain within the context of one's own life - "If I'd just done this, if I hadn't done that" - let alone a couple thousand years of European history. Things are the way they because they happened the way they did, period. That's one of the reasons why I find this new "game" of SN's to be perhaps his most sophomoric performance so far.

My post 28 still stands: you have simply further illustrated that point, even if you aren't a doctor.

Cherry picking, appeal to authority, "no true Scotsman", epic goal post shifting, irrelevant questions about religious affiliations of various posters, conflating science with religion (hint: you don't understand either if you do that), ignoring anything that doesn't fit a preconceived narrative...

That’s one of the reasons why I find this new “game” of SN’s to be perhaps his most sophomoric performance so far.

Agreed. That's why I called it 'his game.'

Alternate history is fun, though -- a distant acquaintance of mine just wrote a book imagining that Rome never fell, and telling the story of an encounter between a Roman military expedition to the New World and the native Americans.

More on point, I'm kind of amazed that SN has managed to tie up so many obviously bright people for so long rebutting his drivel.

As for me, there are climate wars to fight - the denialosphere is abuzz and atitter over a recent study that finally came right out and said that there has not actually been a "pause" in global warming over the last decade-and-a-half or so This was pretty much understood in the scientific community, but since it's been the denialist meme of choice for some time now, it's kicked up a frenzy of indignant harrumphing among the usual suspects. Watts came right out and accused a scientists of "prostituting" himself:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/06/the-perversity-of-deniers-and-pause…

Wildly off-topic, I know, but since we're almost up to the "Lyman-alpha" comment (the wavelength of Lyman Alpha is 1216 Angstroms) perhaps I might be indulged.

I still think this sounds more like rules of property (“Are you looking at my bird?”), inheritance, alliance and money than more enlightened modern attitudes to sex.

Since we've (tinw) gone there, I'll point out that it makes sense to look at those passages in light of historical marital/divorce practices at the time. It was quite easy for a Jewish man to divorce his wife if she displeased him, but not the other way around. (He basically just had to say "I divorce you" three times to her in public.) This would essentially ruin her life, because she would be seen as "spoiled," unable to remarry, and would lose her children, property, etc. The whole practice was awfully unjust from the woman's point of view, and very easy for a man to do, which I imagine is what JC was concerned about.

I always took the "lust in [one's] heart" bit to be a caution against thinking about other people as objects to be lusted after and acquired, myself.

More on point, I’m kind of amazed that SN has managed to tie up so many obviously bright people for so long rebutting his drivel.

Well, he's tied up too, at least, I suppose. I'm mainly here for the digressions and side discussions.

Wildly off-topic, I know, but since we’re almost up to the “Lyman-alpha” comment (the wavelength of Lyman Alpha is 1216 Angstroms) perhaps I might be indulged.

I think any notion of "topicality" with regards to this thread because obsolete quite some time ago.

Alternate history is fun, though — a distant acquaintance of mine just wrote a book imagining that Rome never fell, and telling the story of an encounter between a Roman military expedition to the New World and the native Americans.

Oh sure, just for fun, I suppose, although I never really got into the genre myself. (I did enjoy His Dark Materials as a kid, which I suppose has a bit of an "alternate history" thing going on.)

dean @1173

if I were a betting person I’d make a big bet that you can’t show any position of yours makes sense

See Noevo @1176

But if my posts and points are so non-sensical, they should appear so to everyone

I was going to tell dean he won’t find anyone who’s read these comments to take that bet, but you beat me to comments yesterday.
See Noevo @1190

Let’s assume EVERYONE, not just doctors, throughout human history believed in Evolution.

OK. Then, HOW WOULD OUR LIVES BE DIFFERENT TODAY?

Well, for one, we wouldn’t be reading random bible passages posted by someone who’s never attempted learning anything about evolution.

To Krebiozen #1210:

Me: “No, I would not like to see reform. But what I think is irrelevant. The Church’s teaching on these things will never change, because they CAN’T.”

You: “I find it distressing that anyone holds such a view in the 21st century when the Catholic Church’s teachings are causing such terrible suffering.”

How is the Church causing terrible suffering?
If anyone claims they’re suffering at the hands of the Church, I’m quite confident they’ve already sought relief by leaving it. Why would they want to stay in a Church whose constant teaching causes them suffering anyway? Their “suffering” has turned to “joy", outside the Church.

And besides, Jesus said following him would cause distress and worse, even within families:

“Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division;
for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three;
they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." [Luke 12:51-53]

and
“"Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
Beware of men; for they will deliver you up to councils, and flog you in their synagogues,
and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them and the Gentiles.
When they deliver you up, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour;
for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
Brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death;
and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.” [Mat 10:16-22]

“The Church’s teachings do change.”

No. The Church’s teachings, that is, its doctrines and dogmas do not change.

“I thought I knew what fornication was, i.e. sex out of wedlock, but it seems it’s a bit more complex. In Jesus’ time, until the 12th century, it was acceptable for a betrothed couple to cohabit and have sex, so presumably this means that Jesus would not consider this ‘fornication’.”

That’s news to me. I’m not a scholar of first century sexual mores, but I know how to read this:
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit;
and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to SHAME, resolved to divorce her quietly.”
[Mat 1:18-19]

“I agree, apart from the stem cell research which I think he would support, thanks to all the suffering that could be ended by it.”

The Church is OK with ADULT stem cell research, but condemns embryonic stem cell research. You can probably figure out why. And oddly enough, from what I remember reading, the former is the one that has demonstrably helped people. No such luck with the latter.

“There are a lot of people who do not regard the Catholic Church as Jesus’ church.”

I am shocked, shocked I tell you.

Any thoughts on the IMAGINATION EXERCISE in #1190?

To JP #1212:

I think I agree with your words on the so-called Dark Ages. And I appreciate your plug of the RCC (“The monasteries actually did some good in terms of “preparing the ground” for the Renaissance, for instance. And they gave us the university.” [I think the RCC also started the first hospitals, and maybe the first “soup kitchens”.])

“Things are the way they because they happened the way they did, period. That’s one of the reasons why I find this new “game” of SN’s to be perhaps his most sophomoric performance so far.”

But we can easily turn my “sophomoric” hypothetical into reality.
The reality today is that many people, such as yourself, want evolution to be accepted by everyone.
OK. What if you SUCCEEDED in getting everyone to believe in evolution?
With everyone believing in evolution,
HOW WOULD OUR LIVES BE DIFFERENT TODAY?

Nothing “sophomoric” about the question at all.

And I appreciate your plug of the RCC

It wasn't a plug: it's just recognition of historical fact. Universities, hospitals, and prisons as we have them in "Western" society pretty much came out of the structure of cenobitic monasteries.

But we can easily turn my “sophomoric” hypothetical into reality.

Have you invented a time machine?

Nothing “sophomoric” about the question at all.

This is nothing more or less than another example that you have difficulty understanding the meanings of words.

Anyone who seeks definitive life-prescriptions in scripture (in translation, no less) is being waay over-confident about the semiotics of language. What did the words of the passage now rendered in English as "“every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” mean when it was written? Property relations? Eroticism? What of the gendered pronouns, where "one" is then equated to "his"? Are women not "one"? Is it OK, in either case then, for lesbians to look lustfully on each other? Or can they not even do that, as they have no property rights? Is there only one answer, or did the original language reveal and/or paper-over contested meanings about these concepts?

Derrida's writing may seem obscure, but post-structuralism offers a pretty irrefutable kibosh to Biblical literalism, and a strong basis for critique of the politics at work in any attempt at scriptural exegesis. Why would a God who wants His human creations to follow His rules curse those creatures with the imprecision of language? Unless, of course, He is a despicable asshole (not that this is a new revelation or anything...).

Derrida’s writing may seem obscure, but post-structuralism offers a pretty irrefutable kibosh to Biblical literalism

I mean, so does midrash, and the whole long interpretive tradition of Judaism. Biblical literalism is actually a weird and modern (even if anti-modern) phenomenon.

While I prefer to see people engaged in reality I don't really want to be the thought police demanding no one ever think anything other than evolution...but I'll play.

I see a few potential scenarios from a few viewpoints.

1. What I think most likely. Not much will change but we will stop wasting time, resources, and oxygen between those desperate to get religious indoctrination added to the science curriculum and those desperate to keep on specific religions creation stories in appropriate churches and out of the school. It might make the Biblical truth as allegory a bit more popular than the it is the only accurate history and text book one should ever need view of the the bible.

2. My best case scenario. People seeing the interconnectedness of all life on earth may reduce the earth destroying habits and may make our use of resources more equal and having something we all see we have in common might make humans less likely to kill each other over superficial differences as it will be harder for us to dehumanize "the other" in order to kill them.

3. What I think the can't teach evolution crowd fear...either that they will lose their set of privileges and beliefs that allow them to continue to use and abuse other people and the planet in ways that seem contrary to other messages in the Bible. (although I suspect those dedicated to hate and power will still find a way to justify their hate and power grabs as what G-d wants them to do). Secondarily they may fear that people will just be totally immoral even though the historical evolutionary path of humans seems to be toward cooperation so the majority of the group survives each generation to reproduce rather than personal need to kill everyone in your family/group.

Michel Foucault agrees that wasn't a plug for the RCC:

"Is it surprising that prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, hospitals, which all resemble prisons?"
— Discipline and Punish

What is the panopticon, after all, but man's attempt to emulate the disciplinary function of belief in an omniscient and judgmental deity?

@ SN
"What if you SUCCEEDED in getting everyone to believe in evolution?
With everyone believing in evolution,
HOW WOULD OUR LIVES BE DIFFERENT TODAY?"
Well, our lives on earth may not be very different, but because of our belief in evolution, we will go to hell, and because you have failed to save us, no paradise for you. Well, you would have been alone anyway, everyone believing in evolution (or maybe the 72 virgins?).

You also haven’t “hurt my feelings” in the less important, emotional sense. This is because I really don’t care about…

Another example of See Noevo's cowardice and fear of his own thoughts. Can't pretend they don't exist, though.

Get your courage up and say what you mean.

The Church’s teaching on these things will never change, because they CAN’T.

Vatican II.

you’re saying it WOULD be OK to accuse people WITH proof.

False witness. One of many. I wonder if See Noevo is confessing these.

If that were true, everyone would believe in Evolution.

Followed by...

“What has the fact that not everyone believes in evolution have to do with the truth of the matter?"

Virtually nothing.

Can't make this stuff up. So instructional.

Having gotten over my disgust at being crypto-quasi-creeped upon, I retract and renounce my flounce.

I thought I knew what fornication was, i.e. sex out of wedlock, but it seems it’s a bit more complex. In Jesus’ time, until the 12th century, it was acceptable for a betrothed couple to cohabit and have sex, so presumably this means that Jesus would not consider this ‘fornication’.

That's a reasonable inference, but you were right the first time. Fornication is non-marital, by definition.

It's true that marriage wasn't a sacrament until the late 12th/early 13th century. So there wasn't necessarily a hard and fast dividing line between betrothal and marriage until then, one legal civil commitment to monogamous cohabitation that wasn't blessed by the church being as good as another..

However, marriage (as then understood) was still a part of the divine plan per Genesis, etc., in Christianity as in Judaism. And fornication was still bad. The thing that really distinguished Christianity's thinking about sex and marriage from Judaism's was the idea that lust was bad, and celibacy therefore good.

And that's a very meaningful difference, even when the rules are more or less the same. Because, you know. The concept of sin and its relationship to eternal punishment or reward changes everything.

So. Long story short:

As a consequence, until the 12th/13th centuries, only chastity/celibacy/virginity were regarded as truly holy. (By and large; Augustine made a qualified case to the contrary for marriage, a couple of early fathers of the church were married, etc.) And prior to that, the Christian position was essentially that while fornication was completely out of the question, marriage was okay and possibly even good, although marital sex wasn't the latter until later.

Anyway. That's a little reductive. But whatever. My main point is that it was really the premise that sex=bad and celibacy=good that was significant, not the prohibition on fornication, per se..
.

In what one specific case do you think I’ve borne false witness here?

Necessarily, here:

This may very well be ann’s song.
I don’t know. Sure as hell, she’d never say.

Because, as you say, you don't know.

And as the CCC says:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

So that's that.

To KayMarie #1224:

“1. What I think most likely…”

Sorry. Violation. See IMPORTANT RESTRICTION in #1190.

“3. What I think the can’t teach evolution crowd fear…”

Sorry. Violation. There is no such thing as a “can’t teach evolution” crowd. Everyone believes in evolution.

“Secondarily they [the non-existent “can’t teach evolution” crowd] may fear that people will just be totally immoral …”

Why would believing in evolution, which everyone does in this hypothetical world, lead to immorality or to fears of people being “totally immoral”?

Why would believing in evolution, which everyone does in this hypothetical world, lead to immorality or to fears of people being “totally immoral”?

You tell me. You were the one who made that exact claim previously, when you wagered that people who believe in evolution engaged in a laundry list of things you consider sinful.

Now, tell me something. Why should we play your little game? What point is there? My guess, the same reason you enjoy the idea of the infallible Catholic Church: You enjoy having power over other people.

See Noevo,

How is the Church causing terrible suffering?

Teaching people that using contraception to prevent pregnancy and STIs is wrong is the first example that springs to mind. Child sexual abuse, which I'm sure has to be somehow the results of the Church's twisted teachings on sex, is another. I have seen first-hand the misery that the Church's teachings on abortion can cause - I mentioned my Catholic friend who killed herself because she couldn't stand the guilt of having had one - as abortion is a deadly sin calling for immediate excommunication, I believe she had no way back.

If anyone claims they’re suffering at the hands of the Church, I’m quite confident they’ve already sought relief by leaving it. Why would they want to stay in a Church whose constant teaching causes them suffering anyway? Their “suffering” has turned to “joy”, outside the Church.

As you well know, people are born into a church and its teachings, and abandoning a faith, even if it makes you very unhappy, is not so easy.

And besides, Jesus said following him would cause distress and worse, even within families:

That's something to be proud of? The sufferings Jesus warned of were of people persecuting his followers. I see no warnings of people spreading AIDS because they think God doesn't want them to use a condom, or a woman dying because her body couldn't take yet another pregnancy, or a young woman jumping in front of a train because she thought her God hated her.

“The Church’s teachings do change.” No. The Church’s teachings, that is, its doctrines and dogmas do not change.

I think there are some differences in meaning in the word 'dogma'. Are you claiming the Catholic Church never supported slavery? What about opposing the separation of religion and state in the US? "There is no salvation outside the Church"? What about when the Pope makes an infallible pronouncement? These are mere doctrines I suppose. Could a Pope lift the ban on condoms if God spoke to him directly?

I’m not a scholar of first century sexual mores, but I know how to read this:
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to SHAME, resolved to divorce her quietly.” [Mat 1:18-19]

I think you misread the essential bit: "before they came together she was found to be with child". Doesn't the rest imply that if they had had sex all would have been well?

The Church is OK with ADULT stem cell research, but condemns embryonic stem cell research. You can probably figure out why. And oddly enough, from what I remember reading, the former is the one that has demonstrably helped people. No such luck with the latter.

Adult stem cells have been used for a long time, in treating people with leukemia for example. I'm not sure it's true that adult stem cells are more helpful, I thought they were less undifferentiated than fetal stem cells. I see no problem with using leftover IVF fetuses for stem cell research, unless you insist that is also a form of abortion, which seems silly to me.

“There are a lot of people who do not regard the Catholic Church as Jesus’ church.” I am shocked, shocked I tell you.

Explain this to a Mormon. That would be a conversation I might enjoy hearing.

Any thoughts on the IMAGINATION EXERCISE in #1190?

How would our lives be different if your holy book had an accurate account of how life originated on Earth instead of a pre-scientific origin myth? Who cares?

“What if you SUCCEEDED in getting everyone to believe in evolution? With everyone believing in evolution, HOW WOULD OUR LIVES BE DIFFERENT TODAY?”

Take a look at Europe. We seem to do OK and I have never met anyone here who doesn't believe in evolution. Hold on, one exception - an elderly, illiterate Bangladeshi lady, the mother of a colleague.

It wasn’t a plug: it’s just recognition of historical fact. Universities, hospitals, and prisons as we have them in “Western” society pretty much came out of the structure of cenobitic monasteries.

I think you could go further than that.

....

Well. I guess there's room for debate about how instrumental the Church was to the rise of western civilization, in some regards. But I really don't think it's possible to overstate how foundational it was. The west would not exist as it does in the present day without it.

And that's just the Church. Christianity was (and is) also enormously influential. Too much so to really apprehend, probably.

To ann #1231:

“The thing that really distinguished Christianity’s thinking about sex and marriage from Judaism’s was the idea that lust was bad, and celibacy therefore good.”

It’s almost as if you’re saying lust and celibacy are opposites. But they’re not. Lust and CHASTITY are closer to true opposites.
Christ and His Church call ALL to chastity, but only some to celibacy.

“1. What I think most likely…”

Sorry. Violation. See IMPORTANT RESTRICTION in #1190.

“3. What I think the can’t teach evolution crowd fear…”

Sorry. Violation. There is no such thing as a “can’t teach evolution” crowd. Everyone believes in evolution.

“Secondarily they [the non-existent “can’t teach evolution” crowd] may fear that people will just be totally immoral …”

Why would believing in evolution, which everyone does in this hypothetical world, lead to immorality or to fears of people being “totally immoral”?

Since you're apparently the only one who understands the rules of this game well enough to play it with yourself, I think it would be better for everybody if you just played it while we watched.

Well. I guess there’s room for debate about how instrumental the Church was to the rise of western civilization, in some regards. But I really don’t think it’s possible to overstate how foundational it was. The west would not exist as it does in the present day without it.

Well, obviously, right? It was the only game in town for a very long time. I suppose that theoretically the role that the RCC played in Western Europe could have been filled by another religion or church, but again, it wasn't, so it's a moot point.

or a young woman jumping in front of a train because she thought her God hated her.

I'm so sorry. That must have been...

It’s true that marriage wasn’t a sacrament until the late 12th/early 13th century.

And this utilitarian fiction has a pretty sorry rationalization retconned onto it. Strange that the Church nonetheless feels the urge to engage in secular meddling such as opposing legal recognition of civil unions, particularly given its assertion that it's not even a legal entity when convenient.

To ann #1232:

Me: “In what one specific case do you [Gray Falcon] think I’ve borne false witness here?”

ann: “Necessarily, here: [See Noevo saying] “This MAY very well be ann’s song. I DON’T KNOW. Sure as hell, she’d never say.”

No. Necessarily NOT.
CCC 2476: “FALSE WITNESS and perjury. When it is made publicly, a statement contrary to the truth takes on a particular gravity. IN COURT IT BECOMES FALSE WITNESS. 276 When it is under oath, it is perjury. Acts such as these contribute to condemnation of the innocent, exoneration of the guilty, or the increased punishment of the accused.277 They gravely compromise the exercise of justice and the fairness of JUDICIAL decisions.”

Were we in court? No.
And even if we WERE in court, how could a statement be considered contrary to the truth if no positive proposing of a fact is made? How could this statement – “This MAY very well be ann’s song. I DON’T KNOW.” – be contrary to the truth? It can’t.
Now if someone said “This IS ann’s song. I KNOW it is”, that would be a positive proposing of a fact.

And even in THAT case, what’s the harm? I think it’s a fantastic song. So do over 12 million other people (i.e. views on Youtube.). And besides, everyone sins. Fiona’s just more honest and articulate about it.

“And as the CCC says: 2477 Respect for the reputation of persons …”

Whose reputation?
Oh, that of “ann”? Who’s “ann”, man?
Sure as hell, I don’t know. Probably no one else does either. ‘ceptin’ “ann”.

So that’s that.

By the way, I think the song in question is so good I’m going to post it again, but this time with the creepy video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFOzayDpWoI

If anyone claims they’re suffering at the hands of the Church, I’m quite confident they’ve already sought relief by leaving it.

It would help if the Church were able to get its shіt together enough to do the same.

Re Derrida, Foucault, etc ---

Q: What happens if a Mafia Don gets a PhD in modern literary theory?

A: He makes you an offer you can't understand.

And oddly enough, from what I remember reading, the former is the one that has demonstrably helped people. No such luck with the latter.

And it's apparently Very Important that things stay that way.

Q: What happens if a Mafia Don gets a PhD in modern literary theory?

A: He makes you an offer you can’t understand.

I think you mean "postmodern." :)

Discipline and Punish was a pretty good book, actually; I read it my first year of college, if memory serves. If you're going to read one book by Foucault, that's probably the one to read, although I did find out sometime later that he tended to play a bit fast and loose with historical sources and, well, facts.

I personally never could get very far into Derrida, so to speak, although a college friend of mine was a big fan. He actually was being deliberately obscure, as I understand it, in a "language game" sort of way.

@#1237 --

I put it that way simply because the badness of lust and the goodness of celibacy are distinct to Christianity, whereas the badness of sex (or fornication, etc.) and the goodness of chastity (or virginity, etc.) aren't. And that's really all.

I'm certainly not saying that lust and celibacy are opposites. I don't even think that lust and chastity are, properly speaking.

JP,

"or a young woman jumping in front of a train because she thought her God hated her." I’m so sorry. That must have been…

It was a long time ago, but it still stings. The worst part was that I had no idea how unhappy she was or what she was planning until after it was too late.

@1242 --

Bullshit. Every word of that compounds the original lie.

Great song, though. She didn't actually mean what you're using it to mean. In fact, as far as I can dimly recall, she meant the opposite. But art is for everybody. So it's not a big deal.

To Krebiozen #1235:

“I mentioned my Catholic friend who killed herself because she couldn’t stand the guilt of having had one – as abortion is a deadly sin calling for immediate excommunication, I believe she had no way back.”

She had a way back. It’s called the Sacrament of Reconciliation (a.k.a. Confession).

“As you well know, people are born into a church and its teachings, and abandoning a faith, even if it makes you very unhappy, is not so easy.”

The Church doesn’t think we’re on earth to do easy things. We’re here to do difficult things, great things. (This is even somewhat reflected in the secular saying “No pain, no gain.”)

Of course, Jesus thought the same:
“"Enter by the NARROW gate; for the gate is WIDE and the way is EASY, that leads to DESTRUCTION, and those who enter by it are MANY.
For the gate is NARROW and the way is HARD, that leads to life, and those who find it are FEW.” [Mat 7:13-14]

Few. Whew!

“Are you claiming the Catholic Church never supported slavery?”

No, I’m not. And I’m not claiming Jesus never supported slavery, either.
Although it’s curious that Jesus never condemned slavery. Maybe He had so many other sins to condemn (e.g. adultery, fornication, murder) that He just never got around to it.
[By the way, murder, specifically, murdering a baby in the womb, is objectively far worse than slavery. At least a slave is treated fairly well and kept alive and healthy, because otherwise he’s not much use to the master. And as long as he’s alive, he has the hope of freedom. Many slaves in the U.S., of course, eventually DID see freedom. The tender targets in the womb aren’t so lucky.]

“I think you misread the essential bit: “before they came together she was found to be with child”. Doesn’t the rest imply that if they had had sex all would have been well?”

No, it does not.

Me: “What if you SUCCEEDED in getting everyone to believe in evolution? With everyone believing in evolution, HOW WOULD OUR LIVES BE DIFFERENT TODAY?”

You: “Take a look at Europe.”

Case closed.

“The Church’s teachings do change.” No. The Church’s teachings, that is, its doctrines and dogmas do not change.

I think there are some differences in meaning in the word ‘dogma’.

"But according to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition,[*] and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful. It might be described briefly as a revealed truth defined by the Church — but private revelations do not constitute dogmas, and some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office. A dogma therefore implies a twofold relation: to Divine revelation and to the authoritative teaching of the Church." (Boldface added.)

* Which is why historical inconveniences can engender contortionism.

It was a long time ago, but it still stings.

It never really stops, does it?

The worst part was that I had no idea how unhappy she was or what she was planning until after it was too late.

People can be very good at hiding that sort of thing; my own father's suicide seemed to come completely out of the blue, at least from my perspective. I have since been "blessed" to understand the man from the inside out, so to speak.

I held myself at least partially responsible for I don't know how many years, because obviously an 11-year-old girl is responsible for the things her parents do.

Oh, I see that SN is now defending slavery. I'm not terribly surprised.

Are you claiming the Catholic Church never supported slavery?

Of course they didn't. The Church says so itself. Problem solved.

Not everyone agrees.

To ann #1238:

“Since you’re apparently the only one who understands the rules of this game well enough to play it with yourself, I think it would be better for everybody if you just played it while we watched.”

I think you’d have to be pretty close to an idiot not to understand the rules of this game.
Actually, it’s not ruleS. There’s JUST ONE rule, as I made clear and with capital letters in #1190. Essentially, it's that if everyone has always believed in evolution, then your response CAN'T be that life would be better with no fights about evolution. There aren’t and never were fights over evolution.

You seem so very full of thoughts, ann. And so imaginative.

No thoughts about how our lives would be different today with everyone believing in evolution?

^ The Catholic Encyclopedia's defense of Las Casas contains some choice bits:

The first attempt of Las Casas to carry out his plan of educating the Indian apart from the white man resulted in disastrous failure, caused by the Indians themselves.

Were we in court? No.

Is the prohibition against false witness limited to what you say and do in court? No.

And even if we WERE in court, how could a statement be considered contrary to the truth if no positive proposing of a fact is made?

You are plainly proposing a fact. That you're not proposing it outright or without qualification makes no difference whatsoever to whether or not it's an offense against the truth, per the CCC, because:

(a) By your own admission, you have absolutely no basis for making a tacit suggestion of moral fault on my part.

(b) The suggestion that there is one therefore can only arise from your own tacit assumptions.

(c) Per the CCC, to assume, even tacitly, the moral fault of a neighbor without sufficient foundation is an offense against the truth.

How could this statement – “This MAY very well be ann’s song. I DON’T KNOW.” – be contrary to the truth? It can’t.

On the contrary. It's necessarily false. Please see above. It's open and shut.

To JP #1252:

“Oh, I see that SN is now defending slavery. I’m not terribly surprised.”

By any chance, do you write headlines for the New York Times?

Or perhaps work for MSNBC?

Or, are you actually Brian Williams, late of NBC Nightly News?

There’s JUST ONE rule, as I made clear and with capital letters in #1190.

Oh. Well then.

I wonder if the pontiff uses all caps when he is tweeting ex cathedra?

Or, are you actually Brian Williams, late of NBC Nightly News?

Not the last time I checked.

The Church doesn’t think we’re on earth to do easy things. We’re here to do difficult things, great things.

I guess that makes your supreme confidence in your towering ignorance of fundamental physics, as well as having to redefine your way out of evolution, a bit awkward.

JP,

I personally never could get very far into Derrida, so to speak, although a college friend of mine was a big fan. He actually was being deliberately obscure, as I understand it, in a “language game” sort of way.

I quite enjoyed Derrida, and some of the other nominally pomo writers of the time, Barthes and Baudrillard for example (I preferred the French writers). After a lot of struggle, I realized there was no deep difficult secret to understand, it was largely about style over substance (that, or there is a deep secret that I never uncovered).

In my final year studying social anthropology, in the early 90s at SOAS, some of my fellow students got caught up in that kind of pomo obscurantism. It reminded me a little of the kids at my Church of England school who were confirmed so they could take communion with the grown-ups, a little of conversations I have had with heroin addicts (oddly, enough one student who was particularly enthusiastic about this game was a ex/recovering junkie) and a little of Gurdjieff ("bury the dog deeper"). Not my idea of fun, really.

My tutor wanted me to do a PhD on C. S. Peirce, who he thought was in need of rehabilitation into the pomo era. Luckily funding was withheld that year and I had a family to support.

That said, I think pomo is often very useful when looking at cultural stuff. We still don't generally realize just how much of what we think is 'real' is culturally constructed and pomo at least gives us some way to approach that. It's only when pomo tries to class the scientific method as "just another way of knowing" that my hackles really rise. Otherwise I try to think of its excesses as a sort of performance art.

So we are asked to state how life would be different from how it is now, but we are not allowed to state how it would be different from how it is now.

I did show this thread to an educator, and she expressed appreciation for my providing her with such a crisp example of how people can cling to incorrect beliefs due to a combination of ignorance, bias, dishonesty, and a lack of understanding of basic logic.

^^ It's truly a work of art:

The conquest of Mexico brought the Spaniards into intimate contact with the most numerous and most cultured groups of Indians in America. The degree of culture and the civil polity of these groups were overrated, and the character of the people misunderstood, as well as their social organization. They were represented as highly civilized, and the coercion accompanying the conquest, even if indispensable for the changes which alone could set the aborigines upon the path of progress, appeared to many to be wanton cruelty.

SN,

No thoughts about how our lives would be different today with everyone believing in evolution?

No, you are breaking the rules of your own silly game. There is no "different" to compare to, as there is no reality where anyone disbelieves in evolution, remember?

and a little of Gurdjieff (“bury the dog deeper”)

"We might take Gurdjieff as an example of a master bullshіtter and Meher Baba as an example of a master horseshіtter."

To ann #1256:

“(c) Per the CCC, to assume, even tacitly, the moral fault of a neighbor without sufficient foundation is an offense against the truth.”

Gee, ann, where’d you find that coupling in the Catechism?
I mean the “even tacitly”.

I find it in only one place:

“2477 Respect for the REPUTATION of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty: - of rash judgment who, EVEN TACITLY, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor…”

I ask again, WHOSE REPUTATION? The reputation of an anonymous person?
I refer you back to my response in #1242, in what’s becoming a full circle of silliness.

“It’s open and shut.”

If only you were talking about your mouth, I’d be pleased. The shut part, I mean.

Or maybe you just need some shut-eye.

No thoughts about how our lives would be different today with everyone believing in evolution?

Nope.

But there's no food for them, absent some indication of what (if anything) there is about evolution that makes thinking about its transformative potential as a universal belief system a worthwhile exercise.

As phrased, it really seems more like a contrivance designed to show that Catholicism is better at being Catholicism than evolution is than it does a question.

And a fixed fight is just not thought-provoking.

There’s JUST ONE rule, as I made clear and with capital letters in #1190.

I haven't even read back that far yet, but since it's already apparent that S.N. has resorted to whiny control mode out of sheer desperation, I'll note that I have little choice but to assume that it holds the position – but unwilling to say so – that it is physically impossible for humans to experience an extinction event, thus implying a hard upper limit on the time until the Second Coming.

See Noevo,

She had a way back. It’s called the Sacrament of Reconciliation (a.k.a. Confession).

She didn't see it that way, evidently.

The Church doesn’t think we’re on earth to do easy things. We’re here to do difficult things, great things. (This is even somewhat reflected in the secular saying “No pain, no gain.”)

I don't see how making up a raft of weird rules around reproduction, and then threatening people with eternal suffering if they follow their instincts instead of these rules,will result in "great things". It seems like spiteful torture to me.

Of course, Jesus thought the same:
“”Enter by the NARROW gate; for the gate is WIDE and the way is EASY, that leads to DESTRUCTION, and those who enter by it are MANY.
For the gate is NARROW and the way is HARD, that leads to life, and those who find it are FEW.” [Mat 7:13-14]
Few. Whew!

My only interest in what Jesus had to say is to see if he had any useful ideas I can plunder for secular humanism. Persecuting people for having and acting on sexual feelings doesn't seem very useful to me, especially not now we have effective contraception and ways of avoiding STIs. You can keep that one. Thanks though.

“Are you claiming the Catholic Church never supported slavery?”
No, I’m not. And I’m not claiming Jesus never supported slavery, either.

So there was a change in dogma/doctrine? Or is this all retrospective; i.e. this was always the Church's dogma, they just didn't know it then?

Although it’s curious that Jesus never condemned slavery. Maybe He had so many other sins to condemn (e.g. adultery, fornication, murder) that He just never got around to it.

Or it was such a normal part of 1st century life he didn't even notice it?

[By the way, murder, specifically, murdering a baby in the womb, is objectively far worse than slavery.

Objectively? I think not. You seriously think a terrified young Irish girl traveling alone to England to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is worse than enslaving a human being? If so, I find that very odd.

I dislike suffering, and since a fetus aborted before the 3rd trimester experiences no pain, and a life of slavery is likely to include great suffering, not least from the mere lack of freedom, I think slavery is far, far worse than abortion.

At least a slave is treated fairly well and kept alive and healthy, because otherwise he’s not much use to the master. And as long as he’s alive, he has the hope of freedom. Many slaves in the U.S., of course, eventually DID see freedom. The tender targets in the womb aren’t so lucky.]

Well that's all right then [otherwise lost for words] .

“I think you misread the essential bit: “before they came together she was found to be with child”. Doesn’t the rest imply that if they had had sex all would have been well?” No, it does not.

Why not? Surely after they 'came together' is when you would expect Mary to be with child. Why mention it otherwise? I know it's of no consequence, I'm merely curious.

Me: “What if you SUCCEEDED in getting everyone to believe in evolution? With everyone believing in evolution, HOW WOULD OUR LIVES BE DIFFERENT TODAY?” You: “Take a look at Europe.” Case closed.

What's wrong with Europe? I'm a USophile, but even I can see that in some ways Europe seems to be doing better than the US, even by your somewhat peculiar standards. For example, the abortion rate in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Liechtenstein, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Switzerland, Abortion rates in the Aland Islands, Channel Islands, Denmark, Estonia, Faeroe Islands, Finland, Guernsey, Iceland, Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sark, Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands, Sweden, and the UK is 17 per 1,000 women or less. In the US it's 19 per 1,000 women.

It must be all those wicked non-Catholic USians furiously fornicating away, I guess.

@Ann,

I put it that way simply because the badness of lust and the goodness of celibacy are distinct to Christianity

We could argue. Personally, I think the Christian "stances" on those issues are neither that far removed from Second Temple Judaism in general

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutae

nor from some other Hellenistic movements, e.g. Neoplatonism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism

and especially Gnosticism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism#Moral_and_ritual_practice

Not that some brands of Gnosticism don't seem like a good way to become a memetic sex god with associated cult, though of course the descriptions coming from their enemies make for some doubts...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borborites

I ask again, WHOSE REPUTATION?

Oh, please.

First of all, I have repute under this name and in this forum.

Second of all, the prohibition applies to the spirit of your words as well as to the substance of what you say.

And third, whether or not something is an offense against the truth is not exclusively dependent on whether or not it's consequential.

The reputation of an anonymous person?

The reputation of a neighbor, you moron.

What part of this is unclear?

If other people can hear and/or read what you're saying about another person whom you identify by the name under which they know and recognize him/her, you are -- by effing definition -- talking about a person of repute.

I refer you back to my response in #1242, in what’s becoming a full circle of silliness.

Your defense is absolute crap no matter how many times you refer to it.

JP @1246 -- Aargh! It shoulda been "post modern", of course.

I have to admit taking quite a bit of delight in the Sokal hoax, which if you've never heard of it (you being evidently a younger person than my very-very-late-middle-aged self) I urge you to look up.

you being evidently a younger person than my very-very-late-middle-aged self)

I'm 27, which I suppose is not very old.

I have to admit taking quite a bit of delight in the Sokal hoax, which if you’ve never heard of it ... I urge you to look up.

Hmm. It's sort of funny, I suppose. I mean, it wasn't a peer reviewed journal or anything, which we do have in the humanities.

I did miss out on a lot of the "pomo" wars, partially because of my age and partially because Slavic studies sort of almost skipped postmodernism. (It's a very conservative field in some ways.) I suppose I count myself lucky.

It can lead to silliness sometimes when scholars in the humanities decide to comment upon science, at least when they don't really understand the science they are commenting upon. Even science enthusiasts can have a tendency to jumble things together in a way that doesn't really work; my own advisor asked me to read an article of his before publication, and I talked him out of a pretty dumb analogy involving dark matter in the context of a poet who was writing on mystery in the religious sense.

He has also stolen some of my ideas which had come up in conversation, but I didn't mention that.

To Krebiozen #1270:

“So there was a change in dogma/doctrine? Or is this all retrospective; i.e. this was always the Church’s dogma, they just didn’t know it then?”

Why do you ask? It makes no difference to you. You’ll “win” no matter what the answer is.

“Objectively? I think not. You seriously think a terrified young Irish girl traveling alone to England to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is worse than enslaving a human being?”

Objectively, yes, for the baby.

“I dislike suffering, and since a fetus aborted before the 3rd trimester experiences no pain…”

Experiences no pain. Neither does someone assassinated by having his head blown off. All thing considered, I’d probably take that, over having my skull opened up with surgical instruments and then having my brains sucked out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction

“Why not? Surely after they ‘came together’ is when you would expect Mary to be with child. Why mention it otherwise? I know it’s of no consequence, I’m merely curious.”

If you’re really curious, you could try ruminating on the only way this verse could make any sense whatsoever:

“And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?"

"If you’re really curious, you could try ruminating on the only way this verse could make any sense whatsoever:

“And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?”"

And when you do you realize it's simply fiction believed by the ignorant.

To ann #1271:

Me: “I ask again, WHOSE REPUTATION?”

You: “Oh, please. First of all, I have repute under this name and in this forum.”

Really? How could this be? The definition of repute is “GOOD reputation.”
Hmmm. I guess it depends on what the meaning of ...

Well, I’ll just say that, WHOEVER you are, you’re one of the more pathetically pedantic people I’ve encountered.

You might have made a “great” Pharisee. If you had some balls.

.......
Dear ann, do you think you have it in your heart to forgive what you consider my offense?
Will you?

See is definitely guilty of one of the Deadly Sins....obviously, he has been consumed by the sin of Pride. Satan / Lucifer could take lessons from him.

Update on #1190’s IMAGINATION EXERCISE:

Responses through 7:27 PM EST 6/7/15 indicate that
our lives would be no different today if everyone believed in evolution.

Some may be somewhat surprised by these results, given all the time and energy expended by atheists and others on the teaching of evolution and for the acceptance of evolution. Some might wonder: Why bother, if it won’t change anything?

re #1278 - More to the point, why bother indulging in this pointless exercise since the author thereof was going to declare a win no matter what the outcome.

“It’s open and shut.”

If only you were talking about your mouth, I’d be pleased. The shut part, I mean.

„Wer hat euch befohlen also zu setzen? ‚Schweig du Ketzer, was zu unserm Mund ausgehet, das soll man halten.‘ Ich hör es; welchen Mund meinst du? da die Förze ausfahren? (das magst du selbst halten) oder da der gute Korso einfleußt? (Da scheiß ein Hund ein!)“

Some may be somewhat surprised by these results, given all the time and energy expended by atheists and others on the teaching of evolution and for the acceptance of evolution.

Note the tell, which corresponds to S.N.'s original Torquemadito routine. Just as the big bang equals the string landscape in the anaerobically deliquescing slop between his ears, "under the hood" he imagines an argument with New Atheists, which he has transplanted here out of cowardice.

Or to try another approach.

Gee, ann, where’d you find that coupling in the Catechism?
I mean the “even tacitly”.

I find it in only one place:

“2477 Respect for the REPUTATION of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty: – of rash judgment who, EVEN TACITLY, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor…”

Gee, SN. That's where I found it too!

But unless you're saying that this...

2464 The eighth commandment forbids misrepresenting the truth in our relations with others. This moral prescription flows from the vocation of the holy people to bear witness to their God who is the truth and wills the truth. Offenses against the truth express by word or deed a refusal to commit oneself to moral uprightness: they are fundamental infidelities to God and, in this sense, they undermine the foundations of the covenant.

...only applies sometimes to some relations with others, because -- for example -- when everybody's pseudonymous and you have no idea whether or not what you're suggesting is the truth, you're under no obligation to bear witness to it, except when, in your estimation, somebody's reputation is at stake, it doesn't matter where those two words come from. An offense against the truth is an offense against the truth, whether it's tacit or explicit; informed or ignorant, partial or comprehensive, and/or consequential or harm-free.

I mean, are you saying that you can easily sidestep the eighth commandment whenever you feel like it, simply by sticking to subjects about which you're completely ignorant on the internet, because as long as everybody's pseudonymous and nobody gets hurt, you're not obligated to bear witness to the actual truth -- you know, the one that is and is willed by God -- but just to what might be the truth, for all you know or care?

Because that would be a very idiosyncratic reading.

@#1276 --

If it ever becomes a matter of concern to you, ask me again and I'll let you know.

pathetically pedantic

Up the creek without a paddle again, I see.

There's an old adage in the (north american) world of public figures, relating to disputes with newspaper owners: "Don't get in an argument with a man who buys ink by the ton."

SN has led us to a corollary: "Don't get into an argument with a man who produces foot-noted excrement by the metric ton."

It's truly fascinating to see what a what happens when an
RCC priest impregnates a snake-handling fundamentalist and the child of this union is raised to believe that BOTH parents are right. Or so one would guess, based on SN's writing.

If you had some balls.

The irony, it burns.

Unless taken literally, in which case I should have said "foul, anaerobically deliquescing slop," as it's then just another instantiation of tie misogyny that S.N. has been unable to refrain from drip-drip-dripping out as though his prostate were as enlarged as his self-image.

Or like Clement VI, whatever.

Responses through 7:27 PM EST 6/7/15 indicate that our lives would be no different today if everyone believed in evolution.

Well, that was a real cliff-hanger. Who could have predicted?

To ann #1282:

Wha, ann-abelle!
I do declare! Did you just write fuh thuh whole wide world to see that See Noevo be talkin ‘bout ‘subjects about which he’s COMPLETELY IGNORANT on the internet’?

Missy ann-abelle, doesn't “completely ignorant” mean 100% ignorant?
Oh my, Missy ann-abelle! Duh ya think thas fair? Mightn’t that be what you called… wha was it now… oh, an “an offense against the truth”?

........
Missy ann, are you on medications?
Oh, fugetaboutit. That be “personal.”

P.S.
ann, do you think you have it in your heart to forgive what you consider my offense?
Will you?

Again, See, I direct you to comment 173, where you insisted that the current theory was that each part of the eye developed separately and co-located together to form a functioning eye. We sent you links discussing the evolution of the eye, so you don't even get plausible deniability on that one.

Then there's your Mount Rushmore analogy, which was based on the assumption that every member of a species changed in the exact same way at once. I have studied evolutionary algorithms in computer science, the flaws of that argument are extremely easy to see.

@Krebiozen - it isn't only the Catholic church. I was raised fundamentalist Baptist and was coerced into an abortion by a boyfriend (he threatened suicide if anyone found out about the pregnancy). Between his position and a stepmother who always said, "If you turn up pregnant, don't even bother coming home," I couldn't see any place for support. A few months later I went to a pastor looking for counseling for my unforgivable sin. He said my inability to forgive myself was idolatry (yay, more sin). That was no help...

... a year later I just barely failed a suicide attempt.

I don't understand why churches everywhere elevate sexual behavior outside of their rules to the level of unforgivable sin, but a serial killer can be "saved" and safe in the embrace of Jesus in heaven. I know that it took more than a decade to come to terms with my abortion and the loss.

To ann #1286:

Me: “Responses through 7:27 PM EST 6/7/15 indicate that our lives would be no different today if everyone believed in evolution.”

You: “Well, that was a real cliff-hanger. Who could have predicted?”

Sounds like you’re saying everybody would have predicted that “nothing” outcome.

But then, that makes atheists and others pushing evolution even sillier than I thought before. Why are they wasting resources on a cause which has no impact on our lives?

Why aren’t the science-y evolutionists switching over to doing real science for real impacts on our lives like, say, on climate change?
I mean, yes, climate change concerns aren’t high on people’s priority lists. But unlike with evolution, at least they’re ON the list.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx

And as far as spending resources on climate change instead of on evolution indoctrination, yes, some experts don’t even want to spend precious resources on climate change. But at least climate change MIGHT have a shot of getting on the list sometime. Maybe.
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/copenhagen-consensus-iii/outcome

In any case, I just can’t believe how silly and wasteful evolution educators are.
It’s almost…well, sinful!

See Noevo @1278

Responses through 7:27 PM EST 6/7/15 indicate that our lives would be no different today if everyone believed in evolution.

Incorrect. I answered your question once already (#1218: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/05/20/why-do-doctors-deny-evolut… )

But I am willing to take your question seriously. How would our lives be different?

Well, I’d be a lot less uncertain about the future of the US economy going into the next century. Why, See Noevo? Because if everyone “believes” in evolution, that would include students currently being educated in the United States. “Belief” in evolution comes from understanding evolution. Understanding evolution comes from understanding scientific method.

Students who understand scientific method can problem solve. Those students will be equipped for employment in scientific and technical fields – jobs which can both benefit humanity as a whole and also pay well. Their contributions, in turn, will advance knowledge, create new jobs, and improve the quality of life and economic security worldwide (yeah, long term goal).

This means the future gets better for everyone.

As long as you are unwilling to try to understand the universe you are in, you cannot contribute to that better future.

… a year later I just barely failed a suicide attempt.

Mrs. Woo, I'm glad you made it.

I have a friend, an Orthodox priest, who is more conservative than I am on certain issues, but is in general a real mensch. He gets particularly angry about the way fundies place all the blame for everything related to "sexual sin" on women; "Well, where are the men?" he once opined.

It's not even just religious ideologues who have this problem; the Soviet Union, for instance, was an extremely prudish place. Sex education was basically non-existent, oral contraception was hardly available, and even condoms were hard to come by. A friend of mine got pregnant as a teenager back in the 80s and had an abortion, and literally didn't tell anyone about it, not even her dad or grandparents, for years. She was messed up about it for a long time.

To ann #1282:

Wha, ann-abelle!
I do declare! Did you just write fuh thuh whole wide world to see that See Noevo be talkin ‘bout ‘subjects about which he’s COMPLETELY IGNORANT on the internet’?

Actually, no. That wasn't a when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife-type accusation in question's clothing that I was wildly flinging at you out of nowhere. It was a real question about the eighth commandment. And there was a real basis for it in your ostensible justification of yourself.

I was hoping for a real answer. But oh, well.

I mean, just to be clear:

I did effectively write for the whole wide world to see that you were completely ignorant about the truth of this:

This may very well be ann’s song.

But that's not controversial. So did you.

Missy ann-abelle, doesn’t “completely ignorant” mean 100% ignorant?
Oh my, Missy ann-abelle! Duh ya think thas fair? Mightn’t that be what you called… wha was it now… oh, an “an offense against the truth”?

Do you always go all minstrel-show in the face of adversity? Or is it something I said?

Because another person's humiliation is very painful to behold. So if there's a trigger, I'd really like to avoid it in future.

Missy ann, are you on medications?
Oh, fugetaboutit. That be “personal.”

Now that's what a when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife-type accusation in question's clothing being flung wildly out of nowhere looks like..

So there you go.

P.S.
ann, do you think you have it in your heart to forgive what you consider my offense?
Will you?

Tell me why it's of concern to you, and I'll do my best to address it.

To Gray Falcon #1288:

“Again, See, I direct you to comment 173…”

Thanks, Gray. Almost forgot about old #173. It was a good one. (But aren’t they all?)

Old Gray one, it’s getting late and probably past your bedtime. Get some rest.

You mentioned you were Lutheran. Here’s some bedtime reading for you. It’s about Richard John Neuhaus. He was a Lutheran minister who converted to Catholicism and became a Catholic priest. He was a wonderful guy. http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2009/01/how-i-became-the-cath…

Sounds like you’re saying everybody would have predicted that “nothing” outcome.

I am.

But then, that makes atheists and others pushing evolution even sillier than I thought before. Why are they wasting resources on a cause which has no impact on our lives?

That's just a restatement of the same contrived fallacies that made the outcome of the original exercise a foregone conclusion.

And as I already said, there's really nothing thought-provoking about a fixed fight.

^ Nearly forgot:

The misogyny follows all too naturally from one whose actual object of veneration is a morally bankrupt cult of bureaucracy that comically took to imagining itself – in a shining example of sado-paternalistic hypocrisy – as the bride of Jesus and thus both setting itself up as the purest example of, and therefore authority on, the proper arrangement of submission and seizing for itself a perfectly natural aspect of life and converting it into something inhuman.

Do you always go all minstrel-show in the face of adversity?

Yeah, the overt stinking racism on top of the sexism and the "medications" talk is really something to behold. I mean, I already knew he didn't think slaves had it that bad, but man...

@#1297 --

IKR.

It's really almost a shame that going the "What are you wearing?" route has to be so off-limits to him. He was thisclose to pitching a perfect game.

See, if you were trying to convert someone to Christianity, and after reading the Bible, they refused because Jesus declared people with red hair have no souls and deserve to die, what would you think of them?

That's what your arguments about the human eye are like. There was absolutely nothing suggesting that was how the eye developed. Jesus demanded humility from His followers, I suggest you follow His command.

And I can name entire nations that abandoned the Catholic church for Protestantism. Norway for one. One man isn't going to sway me.

@JP - it took them several days to get kidney function back online. I remember vaguely remember a very rapid IV, alarms that kept going off all the time, repeated blood gas tests and very angry nurses. My very inadequate health insurance didn't cover much. The day before my discharge a doctor came in and said, "That was stupid. Going to do it again?" I replied, "Duh. It didn't work." And was released. No counseling, no discussion about why I might be that desperate.

I didn't tell my family for almost ten years. As far as I know they weren't informed at the time. I think they would have done something about it if they knew.

I don't think the teachings of Christ are wrong, but I believe they are terribly misused. The church I attend with Mr Woo tends to focus on being as good as you can be and God filling in the blanks. This implies, without explicitly saying so, that you have some part in earning that forgiveness. It also loves to stress that "better" believers get "better" rewards. At one Sunday school lesson a teacher actually said they worried about possibly dying in an accident with an unrecognized skin not repented for yet. Talk about a capricious diety!

It gets increasingly difficult to call myself Christian. So many are just shameful in how they treat others, all the while proclaiming their selfishness and lack of humility or love as based in the most basic tenets of Christian belief. And I am in the wrong, a hypocrite to share judge them, when I am imperfect myself.

To Gray Falcon #1299:

“One man isn’t going to sway me.”

I know, Gray. I know.

You could be speaking for everyone here with that line.

That MAY even have been spoken by Martin Luther, or Henry VIII. I don’t know.

That MAY even have been spoken by Judas. I don’t know.
But sure as hell, I know Jesus said it would have been better for that man had he never been born.

Here’s a bedtime song for you. One more time,
for Fiona Apple annie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFOzayDpWoI

@JP - that is often asked about the woman caught in adultery. Some of the fundamentalist Baptist churches I attended were very patriarchal. One in particular had a pastor that taught that if America allowed polygamy, men would not have as many struggles, because whenever they found a woman attractive the Bible really had no problem with him having sex with her, as long as she wasn't married to someone else. Marriage, even, was pretty much mostly required if he got caught or if she wasn't a prostitute. Only women, really, were ever meant to honor a marriage contract - men were expected to sow their seed far and wide.

Some of the very fundamentalist, "Quiverfull" teachings pretty much reduce women to chattel. Everything is their husband's, including the wife herself.

*sin, not skin. This Kindle gets very creative in its corrections!

But sure as hell, I know Jesus said it would have been better for that man had he never been born.

I'm sure the devil felt similarly after the pain of shіtting out a watermelon such as yourself.

Problem of why don't every one just become a climate scientists.

But if the world is only 6000 years old and the only global disaster is the one flood and both are due to the magic fairy in the sky, why study climate change. Base it only on the last 6000 years, because we can't use any of the data of how climate changed over the eons to help us understand what is going on now, because none of that ever happened and is just a lie put here to confuse us.

Which is probably why most biblical literalness are also doing things like passing laws in my state to pretend as if we just don't allow any predictions about aspects of climate change to be made then nothing bad will ever happen. They are so powerful they can prevent the rise of the sea and hurricanes just by closing their eyes and putting fingers in their ears and humming really loud.

Marriage, even, was pretty much mostly required if he got caught or if she wasn’t a prostitute.

The Catholic Church of course used to sanction prostitution and brothels. The Bishop of Constance even managed to monetize priestly concubinage.

@Mrs. Woo:

The day before my discharge a doctor came in and said, “That was stupid. Going to do it again?” I replied, “Duh. It didn’t work.” And was released. No counseling, no discussion about why I might be that desperate.

Oy. I have had a couple attempts; after the most recent one, I was chatting with a social worker about how I'm obviously incompetent at it anyway. She indulged my own dark sense of humor with jokes of her own - I suppose, working in a psych ER, that if you didn't have one to begin with, you develop one - but that kind of callousness is just awful.

The priest that I referred to - the one who asked, "well, where are the men?" - meant it in the sense of it takes two to tango, I suppose. He brought it up after a couple days after a fundie protest at an abortion clinic where the "Christians" were heaping abuse on the women going into the clinic. He is something of a feminist, actually; having only daughters might have something to do with it. (He always makes a point of referencing "the Desert Fathers and Mothers," for instance.) One thing I can appreciate about the Orthodox Church(es) is that there is a sense, at least, that morality is about situations rather than rules - economia and all that.

To open Chemmomo #1292:

“How would our lives be different? Well, I’d be a lot less uncertain about the future of the US economy going into the next century…. Understanding evolution comes from understanding scientific method. Students who understand scientific method can problem solve. Those students will be equipped for employment in scientific and technical fields – jobs which can…”

… and everything’s happy ever after.

“Scientific method” my butt.
“Scientific method” is just a science-y flourish for “trial-and-error”, something any person from about age three forward practices.

And the SM does NOT “problem solve”. It just eliminates the possibilities that might have worked. It certainly never proves what will work. Science never proves anything.

I WILL say that “replication” is a strength of trial-and-error, er, the “Scientific Method”. It’s just that these days there seems to be less and less of it.

“Replication—The confirmation of results and conclusions from one study obtained independently in another—is considered the scientific gold standard. New tools and technologies, massive amounts of data, long-term studies, interdisciplinary approaches, and the complexity of the questions being asked are COMPLICATING REPLICATION EFFORTS, as are increased pressures on scientists to advance their research… In particular, observing processes as they occur in nature allows for discovery but MAKES REPLICATION DIFFICULT, because the precise conditions surrounding the observations are unique… the CONCLUSIONS MAY NOT APPLY TO THE REAL WORLD. Debate about the merits of lab-based and field-based studies has been a persistent theme over time… The need to convince the public that data are replicable has grown as science and public policy-making intersect, an issue that has has beset climate change studies.” http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6060/1225.full

I bet that, for the population of young people graduating from college, the % who understand and believe in evolution is higher than for the general population. You might even agree.

But, surprisingly, it seems they’re “problem solving skills are lacking:
“A survey of business owners to be released next week by the American Association Colleges and Universities also found that NINE out of 10 employers judge recent college graduates as poorly prepared for the work force in such areas as critical thinking, communication and problem solving.” http://www.wsj.com/articles/test-finds-many-students-ill-prepared-to-en…

Happy days are here again!

But that’s OK, open Chemmomo.
My #1190 exercise didn’t say everybody had to UNDERSTAND evolution (or problem solving).
Just that everybody BELIEVE evolution.

Some of the very fundamentalist, “Quiverfull” teachings pretty much reduce women to chattel. Everything is their husband’s, including the wife herself.

I have a friend here in the History dept. who grew up in the "Quiverfull" movement. Her stories are relatively mild compared to some of what I have read, but they are bad enough. It is a disgusting "culture."

“Scientific method” is just a science-y flourish for “trial-and-error”, something any person from about age three forward practices.

Looks like someone is still very busy transubstantiating the wine tonight.

The "scientific method" and the the pitfalls of gay “science.”
(I wonder if he taught Hillary how to destroy data?)

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-retraction-response…

Looks like someone is still very busy transubstantiating the wine tonight.

Old Pa Zen once posted a picture of himself "biking on the Columbia" on Facebook - I posted a retort: "So when are you going to turn the water into beer?"

"Well, I've turned a lot of beer into water!"

Christ and His Church call ALL to chastity, but only some to celibacy.

How long have you just been getting a busy signal for? You seem to have a lot of pent-up hostility toward women.

^ Another fun "Ma and Pa Zen" anecdote: somebody once needed something done, by Kyogen specifically, "urgently." He replied that he could probably get to it by Tuesday evening."

"Well, what about Monday?"

"I don't think you understand. Do you know what I do on Mondays? On Mondays I drink beer, watch football, and screw."

The “scientific method” and the the pitfalls of gay “science.”

Given that you're plainly too ignorant to do more than barf up a newspaper story about how the fraud was caught out, the only signal to be extracted here would be if you please sacked up to clarify the precise meaning of "gay 'science'."

^ Or, of course, that replication is part of what you're braying about, little donkey. Careful on the ice.

See, in my #1193, I hinted that I recognized your #1190 "IMAGINATION EXERCISE" as a Calvinball game. I can't know how many others had the same recognition, but your commenting history made it obvious that you would not have the honesty or humility to play it straight.
I played with you, just to see what you would pull. I'm disappointed that you gave up so quickly, but I'm not at all surprised that you ignored all the replies, and claimed that there were none. After all, honesty is not your forté.
As calvinball games go, yours rates about .3 on 0-10 scale.

As I have caught up and then stayed with this exchange, I have to admit to being confused about what SN is really attempting to accomplish here. He obviously has no hope of changing any of the minds he is arguing with. Often his attitude seems pedantic and condescending, as though he views the whole discussion as some kind of demonstration of his "superior" intellect or understanding.

I understand RI regulars usually attempt to provide information to counter misinformation...

Most likely I am just not informed enough to take part in this...

Most likely I am just not informed enough to take part in this…

Don't sell yourself short.

^ My previous comment, as a result of revising on the fly, actually reads as assigning credit where none was due. This clumsy emendation will have to do:

Given that you’re plainly too ignorant to do more than barf up a newspaper story that says nothing meaningful about how the fraud was caught out, the only signal to be extracted here would be if you please sacked up to clarify the precise meaning of “gay ‘science’.”

@Bill Price - I think you have that pegged about right.

@JP - I have always considered myself a both/and rather than either or... but I am not a doctor, so I cannot answer why some doctors do not believe in evolution. The "afraid of going to help" type comment up there somewhere resonated with me, though, especially with a fundamentalist history.

If you choose to look at the Bible as types of literature, some of which was not intended to be taken literally, it becomes much easier to navigate life with scientific literacy and faith. In my own journey, though, loyalty to Mr Woo has placed me in a church I strongly disagree with, and as I struggle with why I can't agree with their beliefs, I realize just how much is taken on faith, and end up perplexed by how I can have faith to believe some teachings and not others. It of course gets even more frustrating and conflicted when people in his church who are strong believers in faith healing accuse me of sin/lack of faith/demonic possession/etc., because I remain chronically ill no matter what they try.

The longer I am there, the closer I drift to agnosticism. The experience also tells me that the likely answer to the question posed by this blog entry is that personal belief is complex and the brain is more than capable of serious cognitive dissonance. If someone is more comfortable maintaining that vs. examining it, especially of they draw comfort from their faith and it's related family and community, they are unlikely to be willing to choose one over the other, but rather keep as much as they can of both to remain functional in both work and personal spheres...

In short, because they are human.

Darn it Kindle!

"...going to hell

but I am not a doctor, so I cannot answer why some doctors do not believe in evolution

If, for some insane reason, you were to review the record again, one of the original "questions" was this:

Can anyone name just one medical breakthrough or current medical treatment or procedure which required a belief in evolution?

This promptly required a redefinition of "evolution" to "mean" viruses turning into kittens in the lab, or something and, at long last, has devolved into this self-parody presented as Triumph:

Responses through 7:27 PM EST 6/7/15 indicate that
our lives would be no different today if everyone believed in evolution.

Better that he should have conserved all his soiled pants to wipe his mouth with.

See, you are not Christ, and I am no Judas. When I criticize you, I am not betraying Christ. To suggest I am is idolatrous, blasphemous, and arrogant.

But at least I'm now aware of Radical Criticism after wondering on and off for a while whether S.N. was actually a Marcionite.

And I had completely forgotten that not only did Paul "meet" Jesus, so did Moses. Which brings me back around to my disappointment at his turning tail on the UNPOSSIBLE FIZIKS before I could get to the Hartle–Hawking wavefunction.

It turns out that this had already attracted some sort of screwball creationist physics,* but I was curious to see whether it would fritz out over "imaginary time," which would have led, after some mirth, right back to pi.

* Not that this response seems all that promising at first glance.

See Noevo 1309

“Scientific method” my butt.

That’s all you’ve got?

No, it wasn’t: See Noevo 1309

My #1190 exercise didn’t say everybody had to UNDERSTAND

This is why you fail.>/i>

Think again, See Noevo: do you want contribute to a better future? Or do you want to live in an unattainatble, idealized version of the past?

See, I finally got a look at the testimony you sent me. The man was formerly a Missouri Synod Lutheran, in other words, a biblical literalist who abandoned literalism when he joined Catholocism. In other words, the opposite of you.

As I have caught up and then stayed with this exchange, I have to admit to being confused about what SN is really attempting to accomplish here. He obviously has no hope of changing any of the minds he is arguing with. Often his attitude seems pedantic and condescending, as though he views the whole discussion as some kind of demonstration of his “superior” intellect or understanding.

Such is often the nature of trolls. Basically he's posting to get attention, have his jollies and possibly to feed his ego.

Who knows if he is even a member of a church or religious, sometimes it does seem more like a caricature of religious zealotry than any actual faith.

Basically he is responding in whatever way that he thinks will get people to respond back so the thread continues on and on.

His type of trolling in this sort of forum does tend to collect a number of anti-trolls (from an old Usenet post that was written as if trolls were particles and how they interact with online communities) which I'm sure has him fapping himself straight to hades because well of course from what appears to be his world view every sperm is sacred he has to be spilling way more than his fair share over what he thinks is brilliance.

I'm actually hoping it is all just an act and he gets some sort of points if the thread reply count hits 1500 or something. If not I feel sorry for those who have to put up with his antics in RL.

Or SN could be pulling a Gergles -- hoping that at some point he gets provoking enough to be banned; so he can brag about how dangerous he is.

Mrs Woo,

@Krebiozen – it isn’t only the Catholic church.

I know. The Anglicans aren't much better. After my parents divorced my father remarried and had two more children, while my mother and us kids moved to a village in East Anglia. I remember my mother telling me that when she wanted to sing in the Anglican village church choir, the vicar would only allow her to join if she went to confession and discussed a possible reconciliation with my father. He was aware that my father had remarried, decades previously, so I'm not sure what he thought that reconciliation would have looked like, and where my stepmother would have stood. My mother joined the choir of the church in the next village.

Later, when she was retired, elderly and frail my mother was approached by the church again, this time asking her to tithe 10% of her pension to them, which annoyed me.

I also remember being treated horribly by the vicar at school, but it was only later that I realized it was because my mother was divorced.

I know this isn't even in the same league as the kind of ordeal you and my friend went through, but it left a sour taste regarding the church. Well-meaning Vicar of Dibley types are one thing, but I detect a sort of spite in this behavior, that I can't help wondering is based on envy.

@#1302 --

It's still a great song and a great video. I'm a fan. (As it happens, I also know her slightly. But that's really only "as it happens." Small world, etc.) I'm basically just a fan.

I especially like the videos she did with PTA. This one, for example.

Anyway. Thanks!

@shay

That often is the troll end game. Especially if the regulars stop feeding the troll and then then the only source of amusement is to see how obnoxious you have to be so the powers that be finally ban you and thus you can claim imaginary points that only impress other trolls.

See Noevo,

Why do you ask? It makes no difference to you. You’ll “win” no matter what the answer is.

I'm not trying to 'win', whatever that might entail. I doubt anything I write here is going to change your mind, and any casual reader will doubtless have formed their own opinion of you by now anyway. I'm curious about your beliefs, how you come to hold them and how you rationalize them to yourself. I find it hard to understand how anyone can put all their faith in anything, much less a holy book written thousands of years ago by people living thousands of miles away, rooted in an utterly alien culture and language. I know most people follow the religion of their parents (though I met a female Lithuanian convert to Islam recently, which surprised me), but don't they wonder what would have happened if they had happened to have been born into another religion? Do they just think themselves lucky being born into the one true religion?

“Objectively? I think not. You seriously think a terrified young Irish girl traveling alone to England to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is worse than enslaving a human being?” Objectively, yes, for the baby.

There was no baby. There was a 15-week (at maximum, I'm guessing) fetus. Clearly that is the root of our differences here: I don't believe a fetus is a baby/person and you apparently do.

Experiences no pain. Neither does someone assassinated by having his head blown off.

A don't see how a first trimester fetus can be considered a "someone", whether legally or by any rational definition of the term I am familiar with. This is a tired old argument that we are not going to resolve here.

All thing considered, I’d probably take that, over having my skull opened up with surgical instruments and then having my brains sucked out.

During the first trimester (there are other arguments later in pregnancy, obviously) your brain would not be capable of feeling anything, or of even knowing it existed (since you're a Cartesian). Of course it's possible to personify a fetus, put yourself in its place and imagine how unpleasant an abortion might be. It's possible to do the same with animals and plants, or even with inanimate objects. Our emotional responses are not always the best gauge of things.
If I have to weigh the actual suffering of a real live slave, or a young woman, against the painless loss of a parentally-unwanted potential human life, I would pick the real suffering as most important every time.

As I understand it, according to your Church the souls of aborted fetuses either go the Heaven or into some sort of limbo as "Companion Martyrs to the Holy Innocents" (reading about this strongly reminded me of the pomo literature I read some years ago, but is less interesting). Surely by your beliefs there are plenty more souls all waiting for a chance to incarnate. Couldn't one of them step aside and let the aborted fetus' soul have another go? That way there's no harm done, and it only seems fair... I know, I know, you didn't make the rules and we're not going to agree.

If you’re really curious, you could try ruminating on the only way this verse could make any sense whatsoever:
“And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?”

I can think of a couple of other ways it would make a great deal of sense, but I don't think you would like either of them very much.

Wow almost as epic as MarJudith and even Satan (not Miroslav) makes an appearance. Who says religion isn't woo?

Of course doctors can deny evolution they're human after all and most of us have religion foisted on us via familial/societal indoctrination in infancy.

As I've discovered over the years, woo knows no bounds. People of all stripes and levels of education will believe utterly ridiculous things. Most get quite irate when it is pointed out the Emperor they're worshiping is buck naked, be it Bengston or Yeshua.

See Noevo (how cute), I'm an atheist because I read the BuyBull cover to cover after being told by nice old ladies in Sunday School that The Holey Book has all life's answers. It raised a lot more questions aboot the moral monster in the sky in my curious mind and then learning the bloody history of christianity and all the pain and suffering it caused (and does to this day) sealed it.

Besides, why would I want to go to Heaven when my parents are damned:

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be damned"
– Mark 16.16

Presumably to hell. That's not love, that's abuse - "I'm sorry, but you made me punch you out for not having dinner on the table when I walked through the door."

Besides, as mentioned above, Hell has a better band.

There's a thing floating aboot many christian circles claiming there's more historical evidence for Buddy Jebus than Julius Caesar, Emperor Tiberius or Napoleon even. In the case of Tiberius, a book claimed 42 sources for Jesus and 10 for Tiberius. One way they accomplished this was by stretching the window of independent contemporary sources to 150 years! In that vein, next year I publish my eyewitness account of First Manassas.

Here a student of the antiquities analyses the claim and concludes:

"People are free to believe in Christianity on the basis of faith, but pretending that this faith is rooted in historical evidence is a pernicious illusion spread by disingenuous apologetic salesmen."

Those hucksters being Protestant Inc. and VatiCorp AKA The Raping Children Church.

As for Buddy Jebus and slavery, Stephen Fry said it best - "Then what are you for?"

The time I spend learning is not time I consider wasted.
Over the years, I've heard the phrase "without mental reservation or purpose of evasion" in various oaths. One, in particular, is the US military oath for commissioned officers. I had thought it was just kinda decorative.
Thanks to See, however, I find that it has much more significance. In the discussion of the RCC's catechism, I found that "mental reservation," in catlick doctrine, is the church's permission to lie. So, this phrase is aimed at those catlicks who would use that doctrine in favor of the church, against secular organizations.
Thanks, See, leading me to understand yet one more evil of your church.

@Mrs. Woo:

It of course gets even more frustrating and conflicted when people in his church who are strong believers in faith healing accuse me of sin/lack of faith/demonic possession/etc., because I remain chronically ill no matter what they try.

I myself would probably waste no time telling those people to f*ck right off, but I am a blunt and vulgar person.

Seriously though, a kooky church is one thing, but that is BS of a magnitude up with which you should not have to put.

The experience also tells me that the likely answer to the question posed by this blog entry is that personal belief is complex and the brain is more than capable of serious cognitive dissonance.

True that. Most of my experience with creationists was with JWs growing up; they don't tend to have a lot of cognitive dissonance on this particular issue, since the WTBTS conveniently more-or-less forbids the pursuit of higher education, so yer pious JWs are typically not going to college and learning much about evolution anyway. The thought of someone managing to get through pre-med classes, medical school, etc., though, and still holding on to creationist (of the evolution denialist variety) beliefs almost fills with a kind of wonder, actually. Like, "man, how does your brain even do that?"

It’s possible to do the same with animals and plants, or even with inanimate objects. Our emotional responses are not always the best gauge of things.

I like to think that I am immune to this sort of thing, but I was observed, while spending the day at the arboretum this past lovely Saturday, to be singing a song about my cute, lovely spider friends I had made up in their honor while allowing them to crawl up and down my arm.

To Krebiozen #1334:

“I’m curious about your beliefs, how you come to hold them and how you rationalize them to yourself. I find it hard to understand how anyone can put all their faith in anything, much less a holy book written thousands of years ago by people living thousands of miles away, rooted in an utterly alien culture and language. I know most people follow the religion of their parents …but don’t they wonder what would have happened if they had happened to have been born into another religion?”

You’re actually touching on one of the reasons why I became really Catholic (as opposed to Catholic by birth or upbringing). One might call it the witness of history.
Recall that in #715 I said “… I do not accept it as Holy Writ blindly. I accept it as Holy Writ ONLY because I use the critical-thinking part of brain and my curiosity.”

“There was no baby. There was a 15-week (at maximum, I’m guessing) fetus. Clearly that is the root of our differences here: I don’t believe a fetus is a baby/person and you apparently do.”

I have never, ever seen one, single, solitary pro-abortion argument that was logical or made any common sense.
Even from a secular perspective.

Speaking of which, here’s a modern person – from the UK, no less - who sounds pretty non-religious and pretty non-dogmatic (“I’m not laying out a complete or coherent position here, because frankly I don’t precisely know where I stand…”) who nevertheless doesn’t see the sense of the pro-abortion position either:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/07/i-wish-we-had-a-religious-ri…

“Surely by your beliefs there are plenty more souls all waiting for a chance to incarnate.”

Surely not.

"The Anglicans aren’t much better."

Methodists are no great shakes either. After she discussed options with us and we had Hospice care come in for my father, she asked her minister to visit. He did, but told her that he was disgusted with her because "people only call Hospice when they've given up caring and want someone to die." He then left.

He returned after my father's funeral, explaining that he was sure my father would want her to make a contribution to the church's drive to build a new wing. I will always be grateful that my sister who answered the door and explained why that wasn't going to happen and what should happen to him, so my mother didn't have to deal with him.

He probably isn't as scummy as see noevo, but they are quite close.

"I have never, ever seen one, single, solitary pro-abortion argument that was logical or made any common sense."

Your failure to grasp a concept does not invalidate it.

We could argue. Personally, I think the Christian “stances” on those issues are neither that far removed from Second Temple Judaism in general

Celibacy is not holy in Judaism. And lust is not an offense against G-d. I would say that those are significant differences. But I agree -- and, in fact, said -- that the relative attitudes towards fornication, chastity, virginity, etc. aren't all that distinct.

So if that's not what you're arguing with, we have no argument.

Also:

Sorry, JP! #1299 was addressed to you. I just typed the wrong numeral.

Chemmomo:

See's 'game' is rigged, and a virtual tautology. The answer is indeed, "nothing (much) changes" due to the way he framed the hypothetical, which definitionally reduces evolutionary theory to decontentextualized trivia. He's playing a trick of pure sophistry by pretending that the answer to his rigged question has some meaning or relevance to our non-hypothetical world.

See's hypothetical frames 'evolution' as BELIEF, supported by the language of Genesis. As such, it can be abstracted from science, and would not be an examplar of valid modes of inquiry that could be applied to solve other problems. The hypothetical is ridiculous, because there is nothing in the real world that EVERYONE believes, and evolutionary theory IS connected to ideas that move back and forth between other matters of science and morality.

If everyone just 'believed in evolution' on See's terms, that would affect the other dogmata of fundies or RCC extremists not one whit. That is, they'd still be the authoritarian patriarchal racist (ad infinitium) haters they are now, whipping up crackpot exegesis of scripture as the definitive Word justifying whatever the hell (literally?) their twisted psyches want it to mean.

You 'lost' when you tried to play the game. The only 'winning move' was to call out the 'rules for their irrelevance to any issue of substance.

For example, if 'everyone believed in evolution' there would be no Young Earth Creationists, but there would still be battles over the content of high school science textbooks. Religious dogma would then be some form of ID — species evolved over millenia, but all according to God's Plan and by His hand. In our actual world, there is no 'theory of evolution' of course, but a vigorous debate between scientific theories of exactly how evolution works (e.g. Pinker vs. Gould, etc.), almost all of which would fall under the category of apostasy in See's rigged hypothetical... Thus, the scientists would still be doing their own truth-seeking thing, and it would still be too dangerous for the fundies to tolerate.

shay @1341

Your failure to grasp a concept does not invalidate it.

That basically sums up this entire comments section.

To Bill Price #1336:

“In the discussion of the RCC’s catechism, I found that “mental reservation,” in catlick doctrine, is the church’s permission to lie…Thanks, See, leading me to understand yet one more evil of your church.”

I don’t remember seeing the term “mental reservation” in the Catechism,
but I’ll let ann take that one.
She’s the expert on the Catechism and catlick doctrine.

......
P.S.
In the meantime, and on a more personal note, I might have had a dream last night. It was weird and I think I was protecting someone named “ann” from nazi-storm-trooper kind of guys by hiding ann in my basement. I showed her various nooks and crannies she could hide in. Then, the pounding on my front door forced me to leave her at the base of the stairs. As I hurried up the steps, I whispered back “Go hide somewhere, ann!” When I opened the door, my worst fears were realized. It was the nazi-storm-trooper kind of guys. They looked at me menacingly and the leader shouted “We have reason to believe you may be harboring someone named ann who we’re looking for. Do you know where ann is?” And I hesitated for a moment. Thoughts of right and wrong ran through my head. I don’t want to lie but I also don’t want to… And then I looked at the leader and said “Officer, I can assure you, I do NOT know where ann is!” Despite the situation, I now felt at peace.
But my peace was shattered by more pounding - the jarring pounding of jack hammers down the street. And I awoke from my dream.
And I thought, “What was THAT all about?”
Any ideas?

See Noevolution, #1339:

I have never, ever seen one, single, solitary pro-abortion argument that was logical or made any common sense.

Shay, #3141:

Your failure [I wonder what markup gets through WordPress uncorrupted] refusal to grasp a concept does not invalidate it.

FTFY, Shay.

You have an incredibly overblown sense of your own importance?

And I awoke from my dream.
And I thought, “What was THAT all about?”
Any ideas?

Obviously the Holy Spirit is telling you to stop holding this thread hostage and go do something more important with your life like working on climate change.

Clearly false sn. You would never turn down a chance to sell someone out to a group like that.

To sadmar #1343:

“See’s ‘game’ is rigged, and a virtual tautology…
definitionally…decontentextualized trivia… sophistry…”

Thems some fancy words, ramdas.

But with the rest of your post, you seem to be saying the problem is not failure to believe in evolution. You seem to be saying the problem is believing a God has anything to do with evolution or with how evolution works.
At bottom, you seem to be saying the problem is believing in God.

You know, Jerry Coyne put out a book a while back titled “Why Evolution Is True”.
He now has a follow up work titled “Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible”.
I think if Jerry was a little more honest, and more transparent about his agenda, he would have titled the new book
“Why Faith Is False”.
Or better yet, “Why God Is False”.

I thought, “What was THAT all about?”
Any ideas?

Of course. You believe all the lying you're doing here in this thread (and elsewhere) is excusable, because you're convinced your goals are righteous.

You're wrong, of course, but I very much appreciate your confession.

See, if you don't understand words, look them up. Don't make fun of people for using them, you'll just look stupid.

Believing in god? Which one or ones?

Given your statements, it seems as though we could even say the different Christian sects here in the US worship a different god, in your opinion.

Speaking of which, here’s a modern person – from the UK, no less – who sounds pretty non-religious and pretty non-dogmatic (“I’m not laying out a complete or coherent position here, because frankly I don’t precisely know where I stand…”) who nevertheless doesn’t see the sense of the pro-abortion position either:

Oh, sure. There's nobody who's more qualified to speak for the importance of respecting and preserving life than Milo Yiannopolis.

Yiannopoulos received criticism in 2009 for tweeting that he hoped the police "beat the shit out of those wankers" at the G20 protests, and then deleting the tweet after Ian Tomlinson, a newspaper vendor, was killed.[10] He later apologized and pointed out that he could not have known in advance about the death of Ian Tomlinson and that his tweet was sent in anger about another person who was protesting.

Right. Who could have predicted.

I have never, ever seen one, single, solitary pro-abortion argument that was logical or made any common sense.

How about "At this point in time I do not desire to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term"?

Re: "Believing in god? Which one or ones?" it's instructive to remember that a Christian rejects belief in just one less god than does an athiest.

@Lawrence - forty years ago, churches often seemed to also be of the opinion that they worshipped different gods. To this day, most mainstream Christians will assure you that Mormons and their offshoots do not worship the "same" God or Jesus.

When letting go of organized religion, the accusation is more of a comfort than alarming, though. In SeeNoevo's case, I would suspect he might take it as a compliment.

I have never, ever seen one, single, solitary pro-abortion argument against allowing religion to arbitrarily dictate civil law that was logical or made any common sense.

FTFY. Perhaps you could try out your act over here. You could even bring along the doubtlessly profound Constitutional insight that you've alluded to (but scuttle away from challenges to) here.

That was in unclear. In SN's case I would expect him to take the suggestion as proof he has achieved greater understanding of doctrine and God than his accuser rather than as a suggestion that he makes assumptions that create an unrecognizable version of God.

@#1345

Any ideas?

Yes. But it's more or less the same one Shay had @#1341.

@#1346

It looks more like a real cognitive deficit to me than it does a refusal. Because, for example, if this is true:

I was a cradle Catholic from 0 to 14; was a nominal Catholic (i.e. go through the motions without really believing) from about 18 to 22; was effectively agnostic or atheistic from about 22 to 33; came back to Christianity at 33; came back to Catholicism fully about 40.

Then this can't be:

(I converted from agnosticism/atheism to Catholicism a couple decades ago when I was in my 30s.)

But I think that's genuinely not apparent to SN.

It seems kind of like all abstract concepts look the same to him, or something.

Anyway. I'm not so sure it's as willful as it looks.

I see no reason to assume that the god (or gods) of any particular religion is either more or less "correct" than any other....it just so happens that Christianity (or specifically the Catholic Church) managed to ingratiate itself into the dominant culture at the time (Roman) & helped maintain a modicum of stability as the Roman Empire splintered and collapsed.

The "Catholic" Church that we know today created at the literal "point of the sword / spear" when the Roman Emperor Constantine brought together the various church leaders at the time to create a clear and coherent doctrine.

Over time, it was alternatively in the best interest of the local kings to either have a strong Church that could help them keep control of the population or a weak Church that they could manipulate for their own ends.

Of course, if say China or Islam had risen to become the dominant culture (if they hadn't been decimated by the Mongols, they probably would have), then the face of religion today would be significantly different.

See just wants to believe in something that makes him important - hence his overblown sense of self. But, I know just as many people who feel the exact same way about Buddha or the various Pagan religions, yet another reason why religion is an interesting pastime, but means nothing to real life.

To ann #1360:

“… if this is true:
[I was a cradle Catholic from 0 to 14; was a nominal Catholic (i.e. go through the motions without really believing) from about 18 to 22; was effectively agnostic or atheistic from about 22 to 33; came back to Christianity at 33; came back to Catholicism fully about 40.]

Then this can’t be:
[I converted from agnosticism/atheism to Catholicism a couple decades ago when I was in my 30s.]

But I think that’s genuinely not apparent to SN.”

You’re right, ann. It’s not apparent to me that if the one is true that the other can’t be true. Because I KNOW BOTH are true, even as written.

And you are wrong. Again.

Start thinking. Don’t be so pedestrian, ped-ann-tic.

@ann - obviously, SN does not like being challenged by a mere woman....

See, #1345:

I don’t remember seeing the term “mental reservation” in the Catechism,

I discussed it in an earlier comment, a couple of days ago. Search for the word cardinal.
I don't think I said that the words were used there, but that the idea, according to the cardinal, were.

Mrs. Woo:

I'm glad you made it, too. The disjunction between the realities of depression alternating with SN's verbal jerking-off makes this thread kinda surreal. I'd like to say the sophistry is just silly, but it is connected with the pain, isn't it? On the subject of dieties, I might ask myself what kind of God would allow the pain to be dished out so disproportionately to the best people (like you and JP), while the asshats get to sit in a catbird's seat of smug satisfaction. If He existed, I'd certainly tell Him to fu¢k off, not worship the bastard. Alas, knowing He doesn't, doesn't relieve the metaphysical quandry. It sounds like Mr. Woo's church is pretty twisted, laying on judgement and guilt, but attributing it to God so the believers can claim to be humble, selfless and accepting.

Still... No matter what ideas or principles any of us hold dear, someone is going to come along, claim them for themselves for some dubious purpose, and piss all over them. We could say it gets increasingly difficult to call ourselves anything, including 'human beings'. Back to SN — the whole point of the protest-ant Reformation was that what had been THE Church no longer got to have exclusive say on the meaning of the Word. Post-Gutenberg, folks outside of monastery monks got to read scripture for themselves, and wound up responding, 'Hell, what Rome claims the Good Book says isn't what it says to me at all!" There are not only a multiplicity of 'Christian' sects with drastically different theologies, but different orders and subcultures within the RCC that subscribe to very different positions on a variety of social issues: e.g. Plowshares anti-militarism. If the teachings attributed to Christ speak to you, and suggest that faith demands only a sincere effort to do as much good as you can, and places no judgment on your inevitable human imperfections, then you have as much right to consider yourself a Christian (if not much, much more) than any fundie.

There are churches where you would probably feel a lot more comfortable (modern Mennonite congregations come immediately to my mind, as I have a good friend much involved in same who's guite heathy in all the ways SN appears to be sick). Perhaps your problem is not with religion per se, but with Mr. Woo's version of Christianity? Perhaps your Christ would say, 'Forgive him, but pay the false judgements of his congregation no mind whatsoever. Believe that you do know me, and go in peace...'?

While we're on the subject of urine and bad faith, I'd be remiss if I didn't note my own harsh judgment of the outrageous secular failure of the medical establishment in the wake of your desperate act. No counseling referral. Completely inadequate insurance coverage for it had you been referred to some place that could have helped. Just another ludicrous definitive judgment, another form of the Word: "That was stupid." Uh, no, Dr. Asshat. Failing to understand the reasons sensitive people fall into desperation amid the myriad injustices of the world in general and their everyday lives in particular is stupid. But worse than that, it's cruel.

See Noevo. Hear Noevo. Speak Noevo.

Evo—>Eva—>Eve.

Damn women, getting the bros kicked out of Eden, all 'cause they listen to that Snake, and we all know what shakin' serpent that is, amirite?

Ever get the feeling you've been ribbed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_WGZ4Fcw90

If anyone claims they’re suffering at the hands of the Church, I’m quite confident they’ve already sought relief by leaving it. Why would they want to stay in a Church whose constant teaching causes them suffering anyway? Their “suffering” has turned to “joy”, outside the Church.

Apparently he missed the Rwandan Genocide altogether.

Someone earlier seemed to suggest that I “stop holding this thread hostage”. Others here have posted similar sentiments.

I can envision how this thread might look sans See Noevo:

Comment #1: That some of these doctors deny evolution is outrageous! So sad.
#2: Absolutely.
#3: And it’s outrageous on so many, many…you know?
#4: EXACTLY.
#5: Right on!
#6: The problem, I think, is that these doctors are in denial of evolution for one reason only – their RELIGION!
#7: Absolutely.
#8: And this religion-based-denial-of science is outrageous on so many, many…you know?
#9: EXACTLY.
#10: Right on!
#11: And this so called RELIGION calls them to HATE WOMEN. So sad.
#12: Absolutely.
#13: And their hatred of women is outrageous on so many, many…you know?
#14: EXACTLY.
#15: Right on!
#16: And these basta#%s can’t deny their religion’s hatred of women. It’s so obvious. Just look with your own eyes. These religious nut-cases are AGAINST ABORTION. How dare they deny a woman the right to do what she wants with her own body! Those religious women haters. So sad. And SO DANGEROUS.
#17: Absolutely.
#18: Yes! It’s outrageous on so many, many…you know?
#19: EXACTLY.
#20: Right on!
#21: Actually, that isn’t really the main problem. The evolution denial because of the religion is a FACT, yes. But where does the religion come from? Basically, it comes from a belief in god or gods.
Let’s face facts, the REAL problem here is BELIEF in GOD.
#22: Absolutely.
#23: And this belief in a God is just so outrageous on so many, many…you know?
#24: EXACTLY.
#25: Right on!
#26: I just thank g-d (ha ha) for a site like this, where free-thinking people with diverse views can really dissect and dialog, and come to not just common ground, but come to the TRUTH!
#27 Absolutely.
#28: And this thread and this site are so wonderful on so many, many…you know?
#29: EXACTLY.
#30: Right on!
#31: I'd love to stay, but I’m late for a Black Mass.
#32: Ahh. You’re no fun.
#33: Actually, that sounds like fun!
#34: Absolutely.
#35: EXACTLY.
#36: Right on!

An insightful and important thread, involving wide-ranging but related and relevant topics. All brought to multiple mutually satisfactory conclusions in three dozen comments.

Yes, all wrapped up in 36 comments, sans See Noevo.

And the brevity of the above envisioned comments is not too unlike the short retorts I often actually get here (e.g. #1349, #1352, #1363).

Ahhh, life in the bubble. Short and sweet. And stagnant.

Putrid, really.

@sadmar:

Thanks for the reminder of that album; I haven't listened to it in ages*, and it's welcome accompaniment to a stack of Russian homework that otherwise is making me feel a bit stabby.

*Let England Shake has been on regular rotation for a while now, but I don't think I've listened to Rid of Me since college or so. I might have lost it in a move at some point.

See Noevo, doesn't the Bible teach that pride is not only a sin, but the greatest sin of all? So why are you acting arrogant?

An insightful and important thread, involving wide-ranging but related and relevant topics. All brought to multiple mutually satisfactory conclusions in three dozen comments.

Yes, all wrapped up in 36 comments, sans See Noevo.

And the brevity of the above envisioned comments is not too unlike the short retorts I often actually get here (e.g. #1349, #1352, #1363).

Ahhh, life in the bubble. Short and sweet. And stagnant.

Putrid, really.

This is concerning. He went from fabricating something totally imaginary to attacking it as though it had actually happened, all in the span of a few sentences. It's getting more than a little embarrassing. But importantly revealing, too.

Sn, without your lies, assertions with no supporting evidence, refusal to answer questions, demonstrations of bigotry, racism, and dismissal of women, there is no way to no what the discussion would have been lIke.

#26: I just thank g-d (ha ha)

I take it that the reason for writing G-d can be added to the list of things you're utterly clueless about.

for a site like this, where free-thinking people

Once again, if you had the balls, you could quit pretending that you're at FTB.

with diverse views can really dissect and dialog, and come to not just common ground, but come to the TRUTH!

Given that your experience with RI appears to be limited to this thread and your shіtting on the Wallace Sampson post, it's utterly predictable that days and days of accumulated asshurt of comical failures and cowardly flight from them would leave you with nothing to resort to but moronic caricature at this point.

Putrid, really.

Project much? Mirrors are your friends; in this case, I suggest that you use competent clerical authority for the role. Better drop off a printout at the rectory a few days in advance, though.

. And I awoke from my dream.
And I thought, “What was THAT all about?”
Any ideas?

Lay off the Welsh Rabbit.

And I awoke from my dream.

And promptly fled back to the bosom of the self-constructed nightmare to which you are desperately attached as a lone, pathetic comfort shield from your own failings.

What do your kids think about evolution?

@ann, 1342:

Celibacy is not holy in Judaism.

It's not holy in mainstream contemporary Rabbinical Judaism, though I wouldn't be that certain with e.g. every small quasi-heretic Chabad offshoot. For the past, as mentioned, there were historical movements in Second Temple Judaism that are described as celibate and IMHO it's likely they thought celibacy holy, else they wouldn't have implemented it. IMHO celibacy is only indicative if you compare contemporary Christianity and Judaism, not past one.

And lust is not an offense against G-d.

It's also not necessarily in Roman Catholicism, at least if it's between man and woman, it's real love, the partners are married and the sex is open to conception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_teachings_on_sexual_morality#Chas…

In fact, in these cases the whole exchange of bodily fluids is even holy and seen as a parallel to

a) God[1]'s love for humanity
b) the Holy Family (e.g. Joseph, Maria and Jesus)
c) the love of the Father for the Son in the Trinity

Choose you flavour.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

And don't ask how it squares with celibacy, nobody asked the RCC to be coherent, in fact, "credo quia absurda est". ;)

As for lust outside of marriage in Judaism...

Personally, the Big Three (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) arguing with each other always reminded me of some quite similar friends with, err, issues who always stressed the other one was totally messed up and totally different from themselves. Therapy helped, at least somewhat. ;)

[1] Omission of letters is only for the Tetragrammaton...

What do your kids think about evolution?

Oh G-d, he has kids?

You’re right, ann. It’s not apparent to me that if the one is true that the other can’t be true.

I'm not surprised.

And I imagine that it's also not apparent to you why this:

And then I looked at the leader and said “Officer, I can assure you, I do NOT know where ann is!”

Is not analogous to this:

This may very well be ann’s song.
I don’t know. Sure as hell, she’d never say.

Because it's the same kind of category error.

It's really kind of interesting, potentially.

... how does it get so messed up?

@sadmar - yes. This was long ago - very late 80s. The sin aspect still bothered me almost a decade later. I remain personally pro-life, but life is too complicated for me to remove another's choice, especially if they do not believe as I do or are in a really bad situation. A counselor years later said serial abortion is very rare, etc., as we discussed many things in my adventure. Using it as "birth control" as one would more easily procured options? Not much risk in that.

Just told Mr Woo what I was commenting on. He snorted and said, "Everyone knows science has disproved evolution. I heard they are working on new theories."

Life in his echo chamber...

The church? We are moving and will be church shopping. Hoping to find something more mainstream.

To whom it may concern, regarding #1378:

“… if this is true:
[I was a cradle Catholic from 0 to 14; was a nominal Catholic (i.e. go through the motions without really believing) from about 18 to 22; was effectively agnostic or atheistic from about 22 to 33; came back to Christianity at 33; came back to Catholicism fully about 40.]

Then this can’t be:
[I converted from agnosticism/atheism to Catholicism a couple decades ago when I was in my 30s.]”

BOTH bracketed statements are true, even as written.

While ann says the second CAN’T be true (given the truth of the first), she is wrong.

It’s just not apparent to her.

P.S.
I’m normally a very pro-marriage person.
But if SHE’s married…well…
I just pity that poor bas

Omission of letters is only for the Tetragrammaton… courtesy

FTFY. If it were printed out, it would have to be disposed of properly.

By the way, See, the reason we give short answers is simple. A skilled fighter doesn't waste energy on useless motions, he simply looks for an opening and delivers the decisive blow. The same is true with words.

But if SHE’s married…well…
I just pity that poor bas

Do you normally spill your seed on a framed image of the Virgin or use it as a condiment?

For the past, as mentioned, there were historical movements in Second Temple Judaism that are described as celibate

The movement you mentioned was described as chaste, and also as ascetic. But neither of those is synonymous with celibacy. And in a Jewish context, neither automatically suggests it. Because as the Encyclopedia Judaica states:

The deliberate renunciation of marriage is all but completely alien to Judaism. Scarcely any references to celibates are to be found in the Bible or in the Talmud, and no medieval rabbi is known to have lived as a celibate (see L. Loew , Gesammelte Schriften, 2 (1890), 112; 3 (1893), 29ff.). The demands of celibacy were included neither among the acts of self-denial imposed upon the Nazirite (Num. 6:1–21), nor among the special restrictions incumbent upon the priesthood (Lev. 21:1–15). Celibacy among Jews was a strictly sectarian practice; Josephus ascribes it to some of the *Essenes (Wars 2:120–21). Equally exceptional is the one solitary case of the talmudist Simeon ben *Azzai who explained his celibacy with the words: "My soul is fond of the Law; the world will be perpetuated by others" (Yev. 63b).

The norm of Jewish law, thought, and life is represented rather by the opening clause in the matrimonial code of the Shulḥan Arukh: "Every man is obliged to marry in order to fulfill the duty of procreation, and whoever is not engaged in propagating the race is as if he shed blood, diminishing the Divine image and causing His Presence to depart from Israel" (Sh. Ar., EH 1:1).

It's conceptually at odd with the religion.

Which is not to say it might never have happened. Judaism has been around for a long time. But it would be a radical departure if it did.

It’s also not necessarily in Roman Catholicism, at least if it’s between man and woman, it’s real love, the partners are married and the sex is open to conception.

That's true now, but it wasn't for a long time. And I was talking about the early church.

But it would still be completely true to say that lust is an offense against G-d in Catholicism, but not in Judaism. I mean, that's the case.

As for lust outside of marriage in Judaism…

There is no such conceptual entity.

Sex outside of marriage -- aka "fornication" -- is prohibited, discouraged, and severely sanctioned. Among the ultra-orthodox, women are practically kept in purdah. Female sexuality is traditionally stigmatized, suppressed and restricted, as are all expressions, signs, and signifiers of it.

But lust itself is not conceived of as inherently bad, wrong, or offensive -- ie, the reason that coveting a neighbor's wife is prohibited is not that G-d frowns on covetous feelings. It's that he frowns on offenses against duty, the rules, property, and order.

Personally, the Big Three (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) arguing with each other always reminded me of some quite similar friends with, err, issues who always stressed the other one was totally messed up and totally different from themselves. Therapy helped, at least somewhat.

If you think I'm arguing for the superiority of one system over the other, that's sheer projection. I don't dispute that all three Abrahamic religions have broadly similar attitudes to sex and sexuality, or that all three are similarly sexually oppressive in practice. That would be idiotic. It's not what I'm talking about.

I'm really making a very basic point. There are no implications attached to it. It's just a stone fact that sexual sin is not conceptually central to Judaism. Neither is original sin. Inasmuch as the expulsion from Eden ever comes up, which is rarely, the emphasis is on Adam's disobedience and not on the weakness that led to it or followed from it.

I mean, obviously, immorality -- including sexual immorality -- is an offense against G-d. Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. It's lax. G-d doesn't like it. But it's not, like, the execrable, unthinkable, absolutely ungodly act that worshiping the Golden Calf is. Judaism is very, very theocentric. And also very, very rules-based. Or...You know. G-d doesn't particularly care what your stupid feelings are. He cares what you do.

It's a very different paradigm.

@Narad, 1381:
In Judaism, this command only applies to some Hebrew names of god, not all names.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton#Written_prohibitions

So I'd leave it at that, using the same argument for the word "god" IMHO would get a Jew into all kinds of problems, not the least one indicating that the God of some other religions is the same one as his. ;)

And I never cared that much for Evangelicals and their fashions. Let's just say doing more than Mosaic Law(tm) demands and else following "sola fide" makes for a strange mixture.

And personally, I'd like to believe I couldn't care less for courtesy to religious taboos, but than, I also don't usually depict the Mohammed (PBUH), let alone in an insulting manner. Interesting analogy, come to think about it...

I am a true Catholic (i.e. One who believes in and strives to follow ALL that the Church teaches.).

Then,

Missy ann, are you on medications?

And,

I’m normally a very pro-marriage person.
But if SHE’s married…well…
I just pity that poor bas[tard]

Did the Church teach you to talk to women -- or anyone -- that way?

Jesus wouldn't like you at all. He'd be quite angry with your behavior.

So I’d leave it at that

As I don't consider W—dia to represent competent halachic authority or have the energy at the moment to set it all out, I'll instead leave it at this.

I only have one close Orthodox friend at the moment, but it's "G-d" all the way in E-mail.

^ And the BookFace feed.

The movement you mentioned was described as chaste, and also as ascetic. But neither of those is synonymous with celibacy.

We might of course argue what Philo meant when he mentioned both Essenes and Therapeutae left their wives behind, or the Esseneswere only men. I see two interpretations to reconcile it with your opinion, either staying in the community was just a phase in life, not that likely, or they indulged in extramarital sex, the Essenes usually with other men. We could argue if this or celibacy is more out of bounds for Judaism...

That’s true now, but it wasn’t for a long time.

So Christianity changed, but Judaism never did?

And I was talking about the early church.

Where most of the leaders, like one Simon Petrus, were married. Hell, even celibacy for priests is a somewhat late development, thank you Augustinus...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celibacy#Augustinian_view

It’s just a stone fact that sexual sin is not conceptually central to Judaism.

So removing German chancellor Angela Merkel, of all cases, from pictures, is just to keep men from disobeying their duties or coveting their neighbours' things. Funny thing they usually don't do it with thy neighbour's car, though of course it has nothing to do with sexual sin. The Nile...

If you think I’m arguing for the superiority of one system over the other, that’s sheer projection.

Now that is your projection, I wasn't arguing about superiority, just about distinctiveness.

Rabbinical Judaism and Christianity are both offshots of Second Temple Judaism, which is a development from early Judaism, which is an offfshot from General Canaanite religion. And neither of those makes any sense without their forebears. And quite often each other, BTW.

And BTW, the Jewish Encyclopedia has this to say about the Therapeutae:

Although the life of the Therapeutæ as depicted by Philo appears rather singular and strange, its Jewish character may as little be questioned as the authenticity of the Philonic work itself. The influx of many currents of thought and religious practise produced in the Jewish diaspora many forms of religious life scarcely known to the historian: several of these helped in the shaping of the Christian Church.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14366-therapeutae

Which is exactly my point.

I’m normally a very pro-marriage person.
But if SHE’s married…well…
I just pity that poor bas

Aren't you glad my mother didn't abort me, though?

Hell, even celibacy for priests is a somewhat late development, thank you Augustinus…

For parish priests; celibacy has been required of bishops since the year 400 at the latest reckoning. The question of celibacy had been discussed for quite some time already by then - see Tertullian, for instance. One could argue that this was partially a pragmatic thing - kids might take up too much time and energy that could be spent bishoping, for example - but there was certainly a sense of celibacy being "holier" if you go back and look at the discussions of the time.

I mean, Christian monasticism is undeniable celibate, and that is, after all, what is referred to as "the angelic life" within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Monasticism is not typical of Judaism, in fact it has been pretty much condemned.

^ Sorry about the typos and weird compositional tics.

Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you.
……………
Look out for the dogs, look out for the evil-workers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh.
……………
Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood.

See Noevo: What gives you the right to decide what is holy and what isn't?

I only have one close Orthodox friend at the moment, but it’s “G-d” all the way in E-mail.

Which is his prerogative.

In my world, g-d or G-tt is usually used by Evangelicals to indicate a putative connection to Judaism, which is somewhat funny given "sola fide" is about as far from orthopraxy as you can get.

From what I got about Judaism, they agree somewhat to the text you linked, it's somewhat controversial.

Of course, Orthodox Jews are invited to do the placeholder game with "god" or "Gott", though as mentioned IMHO this indicates they think the Christian god (or any others) is the same as HaShem. Which, come to think about it, is also somewhat ironic. ;)

Monasticism is not typical of Judaism, in fact it has been pretty much condemned.

It's not typical of contemporary Judaism. My point is, given the vicinity and similarities between Therapeutae, Essenes and early Christian monasticism, it might not be a Christian innovation but a tradition from the Hellenistic Judaism that got preserved in Christianity, but for a variety of reasons didn't make it in Rabbinical Judaism. IMHO there are quite a few indications that early Christianity was not that much of an outlier in Second Temple Judaism as we might think. So arguing "this is Christianity, this is Judaism" is about as sensible as differentiation birds from theropods.

Come to think about it, you also don't usually find religious paintings in synagogues today AFAIK...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos_synagogue

So Christianity changed, but Judaism never did?

WTF?

It changes continually. Religion is a dynamic, not a static thing. My remarks were not designed to make one religion look better than another. I was speaking about the ways in which early Christianity was a departure from Judaism.

There is no question that one of the principle ways in which it did, indeed, depart was that it conceived, categorically, of lust as a sin and of celibacy as the ideal and most sinless state.

Where most of the leaders, like one Simon Petrus, were married. Hell, even celibacy for priests is a somewhat late development, thank you Augustinus…

Again, WTF?

There is no question -- zero, none -- that the early church and all the early church fathers until Augustine regarded celibacy as the only entirely holy state. That included those who were married. They were okay with Christians marrying. But that was not because either sex or sexual desire was not sinful within marriage prior to Augustine. It was because they recognized that not everybody was cut out for celibacy.

Nevertheless, celibacy was preferred, holiness-wise.

So removing German chancellor Angela Merkel, of all cases, from pictures, is just to keep men from disobeying their duties or coveting their neighbours’ things. Funny thing they usually don’t do it with thy neighbour’s car, though of course it has nothing to do with sexual sin. The Nile…

Okay. This is ridiculous. No, it is not. And nothing I said indicated that I thought so. The ultra-orthodox are extremely sexually repressive. And all the worst things that can go along with it do go along with it.

However. They do not regard lust as an offense against G-d, or celibacy as an ideal. That is simply not a part of the concept. It's not how they think about it. It's not how the religion conceives of it.

You can persist in taking that to mean that I'm asserting some kind of all-or-nothing binary opposition to what is, from your point of view, apparently the one and only repressive religious conception of sexual morality possible until you're blue in the face. But it's not what I mean.

Now that is your projection, I wasn’t arguing about superiority, just about distinctiveness.

Ah. OK. Well, if you think there are no meaningful distinctions of any kind, we will never agree. It's a valid point, from the perspective of praxis.

But there's more to life than praxis. And I would say that the presence (or, as the case may be, absence) of (a) heaven; (b) hell; and (c) an immediately imminent afterlife is a meaningful distinction.

That's really not separable from the distinctions regarding celibacy and lust, actually. Even when the values are fundamentally the same -- as with chastity and virginity -- their import's very different, once it gets incentivized that way.

There are no frequent-flyer miles in Judaism. You don't get rewards for good behavior. On a this-lifetime, quotidian basis, it's pretty much all stick, no carrot. You do the right thing because you're Jewish, end of story. And if you don't, you're bad. But you don't have a personal relationship with G-d. And neither does anybody else. So "bad" doesn't have the same connotations.

It's really a very different religion, however closely related to Christianity it may be and/or is. And however similar in most regards it may be and/or is.

Rabbinical Judaism and Christianity are both offshots of Second Temple Judaism, which is a development from early Judaism, which is an offfshot from General Canaanite religion. And neither of those makes any sense without their forebears. And quite often each other, BTW.

Yes, I know. What's your point?

And BTW, the Jewish Encyclopedia has this to say about the Therapeutae:

Although the life of the Therapeutæ as depicted by Philo appears rather singular and strange, its Jewish character may as little be questioned as the authenticity of the Philonic work itself. The influx of many currents of thought and religious practise produced in the Jewish diaspora many forms of religious life scarcely known to the historian: several of these helped in the shaping of the Christian Church.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14366-therapeutae

As I said, Judaism is a very old religion. It's also not an inherently monolithic religion. There's no central locus of control. No Top Jew. No institutional hierarchical organization. No head office coordinating the far-flung franchisees.

That's actually another way it differs from Christianity (meaning what we now call Roman Catholicism). So, yes. Sure. There were no doubt sects who practiced all kinds of stuff that mainstream Judaism didn't. And, no doubt, there still are. But they don't typify or define the faith, any more than polygamous Mormons did Christianity.

I mean, sh-t happens. Nothing to be done about it.

several of these helped in the shaping of the Christian Church.

BTW -- no argument here. Nothing's ex nihilo. History is not just one great big unidirectional line of singular cause leading to singular effect, step by innovative step, right up to the present.

But it's just crazy to insist that there are no distinctions between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It begs too many questions. I mean, why, exactly, is Christianity so incomparably more popular if they're all substantially the same?

There’s no central locus of control. No Top Jew. No institutional hierarchical organization. No head office coordinating the far-flung franchisees.

This is true of historical Christianity, actually, and is still the case w/in Orthodoxy. There is a patriarch and a hierarchy within each "national" Church, but there is no equivalent of the Pope, i.e., there is no head of the entire Orthodox Church. It is certainly more "one religion" than Judaism is, in that there is doctrinal unity - if one excludes the heterodox Oriental Churches and so on, the Churches are in communion with each other (but not with Rome), and so on.

That’s actually another way it differs from Christianity (meaning what we now call Roman Catholicism).

I'm not quite sure why you're conflating those two noun phrases.

But it’s just crazy to insist that there are no distinctions between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It begs too many questions. I mean, why, exactly, is Christianity so incomparably more popular if they’re all substantially the same?

I'm guessing you mean that Christianity is incomparably more popular than Judaism, not Islam, which is fast closing in, actually, numbers-wise.

Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine

I think that explosion at the secret Russian Man-Cave irony reactor is probably visible from space, given your braying in comment 1368, Esel.

I was speaking about the ways in which early Christianity was a departure from Judaism.

Which about nails it where my problems are. You are using extant Rabbinical Judaism as a placeholder for the Judaism from which Christianity departed. Where the forefathers of Rabbinical Judaism, the Pharisees, were just one of many movements in Judaism at the time, actually quite close to that strange Jewish sect that became Christianity in some regards. Actually Paulus even once played the "I'm a Pharisee" gambit according to Acts, though of course we might argue about the veracity.

We know quite a lot about the Pharisees, a little less about the Sadducees, quite something about the literature of the Essenes and some lone facts about other movements. And then there is this big dark entity called "Hellenistic Judaism", or Jewish Diaspora".

There is no question — zero, none — that the early church and all the early church fathers until Augustine regarded celibacy as the only entirely holy state

Err, we are talking about the same early church where one Paulus wrote:

"If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?"

I'm not saying the early church was a haven of gender equality and sensible sexuality, I'm just saying you are simplifying too much.

However. They do not regard lust as an offense against G-d, or celibacy as an ideal.

Err, I was not talking about celibacy, I was talking abou lust. As you mentioned, chastity is not celibacy. And else, sorry, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and talks like a duck...

But there’s more to life than praxis. And I would say that the presence (or, as the case may be, absence) of (a) heaven; (b) hell; and (c) an immediately imminent afterlife is a meaningful distinction.

Err, remember, we are not talking about contemporary Judaism, which in part developed as a reaction towards "heretical" beliefs close to early Christianity, we are talking about Judaism in the 1st century CE.

BTW, the things you mentioned are part of mainstream Roman Catholicism, but not necessarily every current in Christianity. Some groups have something called "soul sleep" instead of an imminent afterlife, for example.

It’s really a very different religion, however closely related to Christianity it may be and/or is. And however similar in most regards it may be and/or is.

I agree. And birds and crocodiles are quite different animals. That doesn't say how birds differed from other Mesozoic archosaurs.

I mean, why, exactly, is Christianity so incomparably more popular if they’re all substantially the same?

My personal take, it's all about the meat and sex. ;)

AFAIR, early Christianity had three currents, one group trying to stick to Jewish dietary law and keeping circumcission, leader James, brother of Jesus. Mostly the old, Galilean Messianic stock. Second group, the gentiles followers don't have to, the Jewish have, both just have to believe into Jesus, leader of this group Paulus of Tarsus, most likely somewhat tied in with Hellenistic Judaism. Since all the funny "original sin" and "sola fide" stuff comes from there, IMHO it raises some questions about how much Hellenistic Judaism played into early Christianity.

Third group, trying to negotiate. Leader one Simon Petrus. Trying to go a middle road to keep Jewish customs but not scare the sympathetic gentiles away, who were quite a factor in the Jewish diaspora, see Flavius Josephus on one Poppaea, mistress of Nero, of all people.

Which lead to some kind of compromise, gentile members of the Jesus sect were not required to keep Jewish dietary law, but they had to refrain from "temple meat", e.g. the cheap meat from pagan sacrifices. Which compromise, AFAIR, Paulus' homies broke almost immediately...

Sorry, from memory, there might be some factual errors. Some time later, Rabbinical Judaism reformed what was left from Second Temple Judaism without the Second Temple, expunged Greek and Aramaic from the sacred literature, while Christianity went all Pauline; after that, both sides had quite some fun with their shared heritage. At the some time, the other groups, e.g. Essenes, Sadducees, Hellenistic Judaism etc. went either extinct or were absorbed by one or both currents, with some leftovers maybe playing into Samaritans, Mandeans, early Islam, Alevites and like. And voila, we have two totally different religions, minus the occasional Sabbatean, Frankist or Chabad who at least for me make for a strange deja-vu...

I'm aware of 1 Tim 3:2 - I brought it up in a similar context quite a while ago - but I'm aware of exactly no historical precedent that supports a notion that bishops/clergy were ever required to be married. Which is to say, "the husband of one wife" seems to clearly mean "just one" not "at least one," or an indefinite article would have been used, or an indefinite article would have been used. Indeed, many translations simply have it as "faithful to his wife." Paul, in any case, clearly regarded celibacy as a "gift" and superior to non-celibacy. (Corinthians 7)

I don't really see how biological evolution is a useful metaphor here, given that a sect, and later a church, is a very conscious human creation, much moreso than language, let alone biology. There's no reason why a sect couldn't depart quite wildly and quickly from its "parent" religion, quite unlike what is possible w/in biological evolution.

^Sorry, there couldn't have been a definite article, but I don't see why the number one would have been used unless specifying just one.

@JP:
Actually, I'd argue if we could speak about clergy at this time; and if we read this one as a job advertisment, the profile reads more like a mid-level manager, where some experience is welcome.

Speaking about 1 Tim, it seems to be generally quite pro-marriage, e.g. with chapter 4:

But the Spirit says expressly that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron; forbidding marriage and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with thanksgiving. For it is sanctified through the word of God and prayer. If you instruct the brothers of these things, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, nourished in the words of the faith, and of the good doctrine which you have followed. But refuse profane and old wives' fables. Exercise yourself toward godliness. For bodily exercise has some value, but godliness has value in all things, having the promise of the life which is now, and of that which is to come."

Of course, Paulus might write with his audience in mind, according to tradition Timothy was a young man with a Jewish mother, while the Corinthians were pagan converts. Of course, this is somewhat up to debate.

And Cor 7 starts with "Now concerning the things where of you wrote unto me", e.g. it might be an answer to something written to him. And so I have this strange picture of some old bearded guy, writing about the unrestrained youth of his day and how it's much better to abstain from women, and always opportunist, err, understanding Paulus agrees to not rebuke him. Just an idea, but I find it entertaining.

As for 1 Tim 4, I think it's somewhat puzzling if the people prohibiting marriage and the ones prohibiting some food are the same or different. Given Paulus' stance, the latter most likely want to uphold Jewish dietary law, but I guess the first ones would be into celibacy. And we already talked about why this might be strange or not strange in the same person.

As for the exact wording, err, my Koine Greek is somewhat non-existant...

^^That should have been 1 Corinthians 7.

BTW, it's Paul in English. Constantly writing "Paulus" makes about as much sense as if I were to go around referring to Moskva and Warszawa, or better yet, Parizh and Rim.

@JP:
Sorry, old habits die slow. Also, there are quite a few Pauls around, so I thought English used the same nomenclatura to differentiate them from old I-met-Jesus-too-you-know as German. Again, sorry.

@JP:
As for the Pauline letters, there is of course also the old question of authorship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

There is a strong case for 1 Tim being written not by Paul but a later pupil, and the people prohibiting marriage and some food being early Gnostics.

@#1402 --

@JP

I’m not quite sure why you’re conflating those two noun phrases.

Because I'm a bad writer.

@Trottelreiner --

Err, we are talking about the same early church where one Paulus wrote:

“If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?”

Err, so?

Err, I was not talking about celibacy, I was talking abou lust. As you mentioned, chastity is not celibacy. And else, sorry, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and talks like a duck…

Err, has it ever occurred to you that what it looks like to you might not be the same as what it looks like to someone who's been extensively and thoroughly indoctrinated to understand, think of and view it in entirely different terms?

Err, remember, we are not talking about contemporary Judaism, which in part developed as a reaction towards “heretical” beliefs close to early Christianity, we are talking about Judaism in the 1st century CE.

Err, it is obviously completely and entirely possible that the surviving documentary record of both Jewish and Christian practices and beliefs from the 1rst century CE is full of so many gaping holes and so heavily revised by subsequent generations that many -- possibly even most -- practicing, believing 1rst-century Jews and/or Christians wouldn't recognize the practices and beliefs therein described.

But them's the breaks. Extant sources are extant. There is a Mishnah. And a Torah. There are Dead Sea Scrolls. There is a Nag Hammadi Library. And so on.

Long story short: That the historical record is imperfect does not constitute an open license to posit entirely imaginary things about the past in accordance with your own personal/idealogical needs and whims.

There is, afaik, no indication that Jews ever believed that conduct in this life led to eternal punishment or reward in an immediately imminent afterlife. And it would be such a major departure from the Mosaic covenant if they did, it would effectively be a different religion if they did.

BTW, the things you mentioned are part of mainstream Roman Catholicism, but not necessarily every current in Christianity. Some groups have something called “soul sleep” instead of an imminent afterlife, for example.

There are and always have been a variety of competitive sectarian beliefs and practices within both Christianity and Judaism (and, for all I know, within every single religion ever ever). If that's your point, I agree with it.

Long story short: That the historical record is imperfect does not constitute an open license to posit entirely imaginary things about the past in accordance with your own personal/idealogical needs and whims.

Tenure does, though.

Sorry, old habits die slow. Also, there are quite a few Pauls around, so I thought English used the same nomenclatura to differentiate them from old I-met-Jesus-too-you-know as German. Again, sorry.

Sorry, I didn't realize English wasn't your native language; I thought you were just being pretentious.

@ Trottelreiner --

Yikes. I also didn't adjust for fluent-but-non-native English, and wrongly assumed attitude.

I apologize. I really don't think we have any very major disagreements. The only one I even feel strongly about is the principle I was trying to express here:

Err, has it ever occurred to you that what it looks like to you might not be the same as what it looks like to someone who’s been extensively and thoroughly indoctrinated to understand, think of and view it in entirely different terms?

Except minus the unnecessarily aggressive tone. The ultra-orthodox who took Angela Merkel out of the picture live in an insular community the members of which have very little (if any) exposure to anything else. They really are rigorously, extensively indoctrinated to think about, eg, women exclusively within the terms and parameters of their belief system, which is the only one they know.

You can't necessarily assume that they share your connotative understanding of sexual repression, even if it's more or less universally shared by the culture at large. They're not a part of it.

“Long story short: That the historical record is imperfect does not constitute an open license to posit entirely imaginary things about the past in accordance with your own personal/idealogical needs and whims.
Tenure does, though.”

Amen, annie.

I think of tenure in much the same way I think of unions. Not nice thoughts. I think the whole idea of a protective cocoon of tenure should be opened up for the so-called national conversation. Perhaps Wisconsin will lead the way. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/the-tenure-conundrum_b_753…

Some of the craziest stuff I’ve ever heard comes from tenured PhDs - in economics, psychology, philosophy, theology, and most definitely, in science.
And some of the evilest
http://www.equip.org/article/peter-singers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/

Now understand, I have nothing against the idea of formal higher education. I have some myself, including a masters from the Ivy League.

However, the older I get (now 59), and especially over the last couple decades, the less respect I have for tenure and for fancy academic credentials in general. Frankly, it’s almost to the point for me where a PhD is guilty until proven innocent (of academic fraud). And if the PhD is in “evolutionary biology” or “evolutionary medicine”, it’s all over for me. No more evidence needed, your honor, annie.

See, does that include the evolutionary biologists responsible for figuring out where oil and coal deposits are located?

SN,

Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood.

That's what my cult leader says too!

" I have some myself, including a masters from the Ivy League"

How strange that everything you say indicates that yiu never learned anything. Who did you cheat from?

For the lurkers attracted by the (much earlier) talk about fossils, I will mention this site:

http://fossilcalibrations.org/

It's an open database of fossil calibrations.

I like open repositories of curated scientific data. Free access, and some people went to the trouble of double-checking the entered results (that's the "curated" part).

How very odd it is that atheists and others here try to reprimand me for what they perceive to be my violations of commandments of decency, and particularly of commandments of God and Catholicism.

It’s not odd in the sense of being unusual, for I see it all the time, in this thread and elsewhere.

Rather, it’s odd in the sense of being bizarre and/or illogical, for at least four reasons:

Reason #1:
The atheists and others here are quick to condemn me for what they perceive to be harsh/politically-incorrect language.

But some of the foulest things imaginable have been said about me here (e.g. #1349, #1383, #623), and yet no one says a word. No one reprimands THEM.
How very sensitive and decent of you. How bizarre.
(But I understand.)
[And regarding one of the tamer examples, #623, I know and God knows that everything I’ve said here is true, or at a bare minimum, we know that I believed to be true everything I’ve said here. Perhaps, old Gray is just too stupid or invincibly ignorant to know when to lay off the word “lying.” I don’t know.]

Reason #2:
The atheists and others here condemn me for what they perceive to be my breaking of doctrines and rules which they themselves believe to be false or evil. In other words, ‘You’re an evil/false person, because you’re not obeying the evil/false rules.’ Bizarre. Illogical. And related to this…

Reason #3:
The atheists and others here condemn me for hypocrisy for what they perceive to be my breaking of doctrines and rules which I say are good/holy.
Now, remember that the charge of hypocrisy makes sense ONLY when what is supposedly violated is generally or universally considered MEANINGFUL AND GOOD.
Hypocrisy makes no sense if the thing violated is essentially meaningLESS (e.g. A man who says he loves the color Red, but in his public and private life displays every color EXCEPT red. So what? Strange? Yes. Hypocrite? No.)
And hypocrisy makes no sense if the thing “violated” is generally or universally considered BAD (e.g. No one would even think of calling hypocrite a happily married and forever faithful man who for some reason advocates “free love” and sleeping around.)

So, atheists’/non-Catholics’ charge of hypocrisy against me makes sense ONLY if they see as GOOD the things I’m supposedly violating, namely Catholic doctrine and teaching. YOU think Catholic doctrine and teaching GOOD? Bizarre.

Reason #4:
The atheists and others here condemn me for arrogance, for what they perceive to be a) My supposed air of superiority, and b) My belief that the Catholic way is superior to all other ways, and what’s more, that Catholic doctrine is infallibly true.

Regarding a), so sorry if I come off that way. Perhaps your fury will be softened by my truthful admission that I, See Noevo, could end up in hell. See Noevo MAY go to hell. I don’t know.
I have no certainty that I’ll make it to heaven. (Although I can have reason for confidence that I’m on the right track.)

Regarding b), why would the idea that SOMETHING/ANYTHING is superior to all other things be objectionable? If NOTHING is superior then ALL things are the SAME in merit. (Tell that to MVP Steph Curry.) It’s ridiculous. It’s bizarre, illogical.

Oh, and on the infallibility thing, nothing strange about that. In fact, EVERYONE reading this right now AGREES that the INFALLIBILITY of statements by a human being is possible. (Even Pope Francis would smile.)

So, why anyone would object to the idea of infallibility is bizarre, illogical.

Thus, I end where I began: The attacks on me here are very… “odd”.

P.S.
I believe it necessary to confess EVERY sin you can think of in the sacrament of Reconciliation, and then do your best, with the help of God’s grace, to repent of each one of them. But I can think of nothing I’ve done in this thread that I would need to confess.

P.P.S.
As I noted to someone in #1174, the attacks on me here have not “hurt my feelings.” I’m doing great, thank you.

And what about your lying, arrogance, and heartlessness, See?

Definitely a picture perfect example of the phrase "Pride Goeth before the Fall."

<I?But I can think of nothing I’ve done in this thread that I would need to confess.

Everyone else can.

Is it possible sn is as clueless as that most recent post indicates?

Forget what I wrote about 500 posts ago of this dude reminding me of converted Catholics. He doesn't remind me of any Catholic I've ever met. The Franciscans/Jesuits/Carmelites under whom I studied were less doctrinaire. And none of them were pompous windbags, either.

When you are less liberal than the current Pope, perhaps it's time to reassess.

@see

Whatever "god" that you profess to worship, who allows people to blatantly lie and cast false aspersions on others without proof, is a deity that I wouldn't want to worship at all.

“And what about your lying, arrogance, and heartlessness, See?...
Is it possible sn is as clueless as that most recent post indicates?”

Yeah, what they said.
Absolutely.

And See Noevo’s outrageous on so many, many…you know?

EXACTLY.

Right on!

Well, when you realize sn said that nobody should ever study anything for which there isn't an immediate application, you can't be surprised that everything else he says is reasonable (or honest).

See, the arrogance that I see in you is your apparent attitude that your belief, your choice of tenets about reality, is superior to all evidence to the contrary; that your choice of belief takes precedence over any evidence to the contrary. That's the arrogance of (religious) faith. It's an arrogance that fits well with narcissism.
----------------------------------------------------------------

the charge of hypocrisy makes sense ONLY when what is supposedly violated is generally or universally considered MEANINGFUL AND GOOD.

Ah, no. Hypocrisy occurs when the hypocrite violates what the hypocrite claims to be "MEANINGFUL AND GOOD."
It's hypocrisy when the RCC preaches against extramarital sexual activity, but hides, protects, and otherwise encourages its extramarital sexual actors. Extramarital sexual activity is not universally considered bad.
It's hypocrisy when a cop, who tickets unbelted car occupants, puts more passengers in his own car than there are seatbelts. Seatbelts are not universally considered good (e.g., in Texas).
It's hypocrisy when the Duggar family et. al. preach fear of imaginary gay child molestation while protecting and thereby encouraging Josh's own actual duggaring.
And the beat goes on...

Reason 1 explained --

To an impartial reader, two of those accusations appear justified by the truth. And the third is a tit-for-tat reply to the equivalently personal attack by you quoted right above it, which -- like nearly all the harsh things you were criticized for saying -- was a unilateral and elective first-strike, not a pushback against one.

Which is why you were criticized.

Reason 2 explained --

I'm not clear on how it differs from Reason 3. Please see below.

Reason 3 explained --

It's neither true nor sensible that hypocrisy only makes sense when everyone agrees that the hypocrite's purported values are meaningful and good.

For example:

You not only don't have to be pro-communism to think that members of the politburo who live in luxury while imposing stringently non-materialist privations on the masses are hypocrites, you're probably likelier to think it if you're anti-.

You not only don't have to be pro-war to think that political chickenhawks are hypocrites, you're probably likelier to think it if you're anti-.

And so on. Which pretty much takes care of the "makes no sense when agreed to be bad" condition, as well.

I'm not sure I understand the meaningless condition. But I don't see how it applies to the instant circumstances. So I suppose it doesn't matter.

Reason 4 explained --

Speaking only for myself, I do not regard it as arrogant that you believe the Catholic way to be superior to all others or that you accept the doctrine of infallibility.

I do regard it as arrogant that you feel entitled to pass judgment on people, subjects and things about which you know very little and don't appear even to have thought about casually, particularly since you compound it by issuing wholesale condemnations of those who are unwilling to work.

But I can think of nothing I’ve done in this thread that I would need to confess.

You might not be the most reliable judge of that, however. Few people are wrt their own faults and failings.

I suggest printing out the thread and showing it to a moral authority who's familiar with all the by-ways of your faith. Such as a priest. There might be some errors and lapses that you didn't catch.

Oh, and on the infallibility thing, nothing strange about that. In fact, EVERYONE reading this right now AGREES that the INFALLIBILITY of statements by a human being is possible. (Even Pope Francis would smile.)
So, why anyone would object to the idea of infallibility is bizarre, illogical.

What on Earth are you talking about? No one is INFALLIBLE. A statement may be true, but the speaker is not thereby infallible. S/he's just right in that statement. 

@#1426 -- #1429 --

Well. If the comments were more detailed, you'd just say they were pedantic.

So it's never your fault. Funny how that works.

@#1423 --

Sadly, yes.

To ann #1432:

“Reason 1 explained — …”

No comprende.
Ándale. Skip it.
……..

“Reason 3 explained —
It’s neither true nor sensible that hypocrisy only makes sense when everyone agrees that the hypocrite’s purported values are meaningful and good.
For example:
You not only don’t have to be pro-communism to think that members of the politburo who live in luxury while imposing stringently non-materialist privations on the masses are hypocrites, you’re probably likelier to think it if you’re anti-.”

Most people would consider BAD a “pro-communism” platform which is “imposing stringently non-materialist privations on the masses.”
I would agree that it’s also BAD that a person pushing such “pro-communism” in fact lives in luxury.
I can understand how this could be considered hypocritical. This would be Bad and Bad. So, I can see how you, ann, MIGHT say See Noevo is a hypocrite because ‘See Noevo is an evil/false person for his not obeying the evil/false rules of his Church.’
….

“I do regard it as arrogant that you feel entitled to pass judgment on people, subjects and things about which you know very little …”

I don’t pass judgment on people, only God does that.
I pass judgment on subjects and things, like on people’s actions and speech. And thanks to Christ and His Church, I know quite a bit about them, that is, know about when they are wrong. Or at least as much as I need to know.

I JUDGE these things AT THE COMMAND OF JESUS CHRIST. And so should EVERY other Christian.

How so? To repeat what I said in #655:
“In the citation I gave of Mat 18:15-18, how does a believer KNOW when “your brother SINS against you” and how would he have the capability to DEFINE and “TELL him his FAULT”?
In the citation of 1 Cor 5:11-13, how can Paul tell the believers to JUDGE those inside the church, and how would they have the BASIS for this REQUIRED judging?”

Answer: From what Christ and His Church say.
So, for example, when a Nancy Pelosi-type of person publicly supports abortion and works to further abortion rights, I AM OBLIGATED to “suggest” to the Nancy Pelosi-type to knock it off, for the sake of the babies and the parents, and for the sake of her own soul.

To LW #1433:

“What on Earth are you talking about? No one is INFALLIBLE. A statement may be true, but the speaker is not thereby infallible. S/he’s just right in that statement.”

Or statementS.
And what I said is absolutely true: EVERYONE (that includes you) reading this right now AGREES that the INFALLIBILITY of statements by a human being is possible.

I JUDGE these things AT THE COMMAND OF JESUS CHRIST. And so should EVERY other Christian.

Um, I'm not sure if the Catholic Church is the right one for you. This kind of rant is more consistent with the Westboro
Baptist Church. I think you'd like the whole the only way to love thy neighbor is to hate the crap out of them.

And what I said is absolutely true: EVERYONE (that includes you) reading this right now AGREES that the INFALLIBILITY of statements by a human being is possible.

What, you believe your powers of mind control are so vast that if we read any combination of letters that spew forth from you fingers we will then go against all logic, sanity or reason and believe the world is only as the great and powerful See Noevo commands them to see it?

Some people may say some things at some times that might actually turn out to be true for some value of the truth. I don't know that any human can ever make a statement that completely and totally encompasses the whole entirety of the truth of anything. Because you know humans aren't omniscient.

Back to the original topic involving doctors and evolution…
well, actually not exactly back to it because the article was talking about doctors of medicine, MDs.

Anyway, here’s a new article about evolution and OTHER kinds of doctors, PhDs:

“Proteins commonly decay hundreds to thousands of years after an organism dies, but…
What they found shocked them. Imaging the fresh-cut surfaces with scanning and transmission electron microscopes, “we didn’t see bone crystallites” as expected, Maidment says. “What we saw instead was soft tissue. It was completely unexpected. My initial response was these results are not real.”

For real.

http://news.sciencemag.org/paleontology/2015/06/signs-ancient-cells-and…

Old news, actually. Just a current update. Yet still “shocking.”

To KayMarie #1438:

“Um, I’m not sure if the Catholic Church is the right one for you.”

Um, looks like we got ourselves a female pope!

But, um, I’m quite sure the Catholic Church is the right one for me. In fact, it’s the only one.

“I don’t know that any human can ever make a statement that completely and totally encompasses the whole entirety of the truth of anything.”

You don’t know. So, in your eyes, it’s possible.
Good.

Most people would consider BAD a “pro-communism” platform which is “imposing stringently non-materialist privations on the masses.”
I would agree that it’s also BAD that a person pushing such “pro-communism” in fact lives in luxury.
I can understand how this could be considered hypocritical. This would be Bad and Bad. So, I can see how you, ann, MIGHT say See Noevo is a hypocrite because ‘See Noevo is an evil/false person for his not obeying the evil/false rules of his Church.’

A person might, but I wouldn't.

I would say it's hypocritical of you to continually find a way to blame others while giving yourself a free pass.

I mean, you can't even just say "I failed to comprehend this journal article, my bad, next time I'll work harder." You have to pin it on the efforts of imaginary headline-writing editors to make you look bad.

So. I might say that was hypocritical (or irresponsible, or self-indulgent, or lazy, or childish, or whatever). And if I was pissed off enough I might say that you were a hypocrite (or a jerk, or an idiot, or a big baby, or whatever).

You don't show much regard for the truth. But I'm not sure I'd even be right to say you were a liar. And I certainly wouldn't say you were a false person. Because (a) I have no idea; and (b) I really don't care.

And you'd have to be guilty of a hell of a lot worse than posting your hypocritical, irresponsible, ill-considered and sometimes ill-natured thoughts to the comments section of a blog before I'd start thinking in terms of evil.

But I'm glad you now understand that Reason 3 isn't one.

Or at least as much as I need to know.

^^That's just first-rank unwillingness to work, imo.

To ann #1441:

“I mean, you can’t even just say “I failed to comprehend this journal article, my bad, next time I’ll work harder.” You have to pin it on the efforts of imaginary headline-writing editors to make you look bad.”

IMAGINARY headline-writing editors?

This headline didn’t write itself: “The Oldest Shrimp (Devonian: Famennian) and Remarkable Preservation of Soft Tissue”.

Then again, maybe the headline self-organized or maybe it just mutated into existence. Yeah, it FIRST mutated into existence as “The Oldest Shrimp (Devonian: Famennian) and Remarkable Preservation of IMPRESSIONS of Soft Tissue”

But THEN it experienced the almost invariably harmful mutations, and lost those critical letters, namely “IMPRESSIONS of”.

I’m pretty sure I comprehended the article I posted above on roughly the same topic.
Did you?

If you missed it, here it is again: http://news.sciencemag.org/paleontology/2015/06/signs-ancient-cells-and…

…………..
“But I’m not sure I’d even be right to say you were a liar.”

I’d suggest you be damn sure before you do.

Just a suggestion.
………….

“^^That’s just first-rank unwillingness to work, imo.”

The key portion there is “imo”.

To use your words, I really don’t care.

Incidentally, I picked those examples of hypocrisy because in both cases, many people are willing to cross political lines to condemn them (going left to right for the politburo and going right to left for the chickenhawks).

But I notice you only picked one. And I'd be interested to hear why you don't think it's hypocritical for people who dodged the draft themselves to accuse people who object to their plans to send soldiers off to die of being wimps.

Because I would say that was hypocrisy.

And I MIGHT also say it was hypocrisy that you chose just the one. Depends on whether/how you think it's defensible.

...

I'm assuming that's not a personal question. But you said you were 59. So the draft must have ended shortly before you were eligible and the war not long after.

Dear FSM you really do have to twist everything so every human on earth completely and totally in every way possible no matter what must always agree with your personal version of perfection after all you seem to believe you know all truths even better than God in all ways all the time don't you?

And you think I think I'm the pope? You seem to claim power far beyond what even the pope does.

But honestly the only church leaders I have seen use those bible verses in that way are the Westboro Baptist folks, and I've run into a few off the deep end Catholics that wouldn't go that far. Including the Catholic wedding that was almost entirely an anti-abortion rant that confused even the Catholic that had a double major in theology and biology from the Jesuits i was sitting with (who was convinced that evolution is how we got here, for what that is worth).

I’d suggest you be damn sure before you do.

Just a suggestion.

Considering you decided that "nothing" was at least as much as you needed to know about me before your moral obligation to "suggest" I was complicit in damnable wrongdoing way back at #674, it kind of has the appearance of hypocrisy that you think you're in a position to school me on such things.

For another, similar example:

The key portion there is “imo”.

Yes, I know. That's why I put it there.

.

There's a "kicked in" missing from the above that should have gone after the word "wrongdoing."

"Nothing" also being as much as you needed to know before your moral obligation to associate all people who accept evolution with pornography, divorce, STDs, and the disintegration of the community.

Of course.

^^Kicked in.

Sorry.

To ann #1443:

“Incidentally, I picked those examples of hypocrisy because…But I notice you only picked one.
And I’d be interested to hear why…”

Maybe I have only so much time and patience to respond to the profusion of pedantry you put out.

I guess you’ll never know for sure.

But stay interested.

P.S.
I read your #1445 twice. Didn’t understand it either time.

P.P.S.
Re: #1446, #1447. Go get some sleep, ann.

Back on #1368, the main “scholar” brings the profound dialog to an end by saying he’d love to stay, but he’s late for a Black Mass.

It didn’t HAVE to be a Black Mass, of course. It could have been something else.

Sure as hell, he/she/it may have been late for something like this:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/09/priest-and-monks-gay-sex-on-…

“The beast and dragon, adored
You been gone so long
Where you been for so long”
......
Actually, I think they’ve been here all along.

But neat beat and scratchy guitar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFZmYm-BOJs

#1368? That would be your fantasy conversation involving imaginary people, correct?

(Can't wait to see what point he's trying to prove with this one...)

G: Next!
SN: That’d be me!
G: Name?
SN: See Noevo – get it??
G: Heh. I see what you did there. Well, Mr. Noevo. How’re you doing?
SN: I’m feeling pretty good about my chances, to be honest!
G: Well, let’s talk about that. I’m rather unhappy with your behavior. Your posts on the Internet, to be specific.
SN: Whaaat? I always acted as you commanded. Can we get these gates open already?
G: I don’t think so, Mr. Noevo. You acted very badly towards others.
SN: Not at all! What do you mean? I need concrete examples.
G: Well, frankly, there are too many to list them all, and there’s a line forming up behind you. First, you used foul language. I take a dim view of obscenity.
SN: No no no! I was very careful to use various tricks so I could deny actually cursing. Like, I would write “S h ! t”! And, um, “p i s s i n g.” If the obscenity filters don’t match the word, it’s not obscene! So, strike one, there, Slugger.
G: Mr. Noevo, it’s your intent and the effect that count, not some sort of string comparison function’s output.
SN: Ah, but you can’t know what my “intent” was! I was just scattering letters with spaces between them. Dum da dum.
G: Er…are you aware that I’m not only omniscient, I’m not stupid? I know you were cursing, you know you were cursing, Zorak knows you were cursing. More seriously, you were intentionally cruel to people in an attempt to make them feel pain. I’m not into that.
SN: Impossible! I was always asking myself, “what would Jesus say?”
G: You mocked gay people, See. Can I call you See? Made fun of them. Jesus wouldn’t say those things. He’s into kindness. You, not so much. The opposite, in fact. This concerns me deeply.
SN: But they’re sinners, Mr. God sir, and besides, they’re gay, for goodness sakes. Lighten up! Admit it – my gay jokes made you chuckle! Who cares about their feelings, anyway?
G: I do, See. And you were supposed to, also. But you disappointed me. You also mocked people’s appearances; you know, people you thought were unattractive, or overweight. That sort of thing. Not cool.
SN: Oh, please. I followed the Commandments and all that stuff. Look it up. You’re getting a little too touchy-feely for my liking. Can we cut to the chase?
G: You also tried to hurt people using tactics that you thought would give you deniability so you could rationalize your behavior to me – you know, like when you asked that woman, “Missy ann, are you on medications?”
SN: Uh, well, I was just making conversation, obviously. Chit-chat. Small talk. Expressing an interest! It’s not all about me, you know.
G: No. You were insinuating that she was behaving like someone who was impaired by drugs. And now you’re pulling that deniability act on me.
SN: You can’t prove that! Look at what I wrote – it’s just a question! Not even a statement. Can’t pin anything on my there. Maybe I'm interested in medications! Sometimes, when I get a stuffy nose, I use Afrin. Ever tried it? Great stuff. Some rebound. But, anyway, I just like to get to know the good folks with whom I correspond. The weather, sports, medications, whatever. No no no. “Insinuate?” C’mon! You’re really reaching here, Big G.
G: (Sighs). See, I don’t even need to play the “omniscient” card on this one. It’s so obvious. And here you are, trying to put one over on me. On ME! Wow. This is exactly the deniability game I’m talking about, and it’s worse than I had thought. It doesn’t play with me, Mr. Noevo.
SN: You’re maybe being a little too picky here. I’m a good guy, I’m kind and gentle, open the f u ( k i n g gate! Hey, look, some letters and spaces got sprinkled in there. Don’t look at me!
G: And you tried to hurt that same woman when she said, “It’s open and shut,” and you replied, “If only you were talking about your mouth, I’d be pleased. The shut part, I mean.”
SN: Whoa, there – that was purely hypothetical! I said, “IF only you were!” But she wasn’t!!! So IT DOESN’T COUNT. I have no responsibility, and I’m squeaky-clean. I know you are all-seeing, but you are not paying very close attention. New prescription?
G: See, it’s becoming clear you never really understood what I asked of you. And you were even crueler when you said of Ann, “if SHE’s married…well… I just pity that poor bastard.”
SN: WRONG!! A ha! I’ve got you now. My ticket through the gate is all but punched! You’re misquoting me, Oh Omniscient One with Sloppy Reading Habits! I didn’t write “bastard.” Ouch – that wasn’t even easy for me to type, it’s so abhorrent to my basic, warm, kind, nature. But it was in the service of the TRUTH! I wrote “bas”! B-A-S. You, sir, have a dirty mind!
G: Doesn’t matter, See; you thought “bastard,” and you intended Ann to read “bastard.” That’s the only thing that matters.
SN: “Thought?” What, now you’re the Holy Thought Police?? You don’t know what I thought! I could have been thinking, um, that her husband was an impoverished, er, BASketmaker! They do NOT make a lot of dough, I hear. Basket market is on the rocks. Containers in general. Sell short. That could have been what I was thinking! Very possible. Maybe even likely!
G: Marty, Marty, Marty…
SN: (Startled) Whu…how’d you know my name?
G: Still not hip to the whole “omniscient” thing, eh? Anyway, I know what was in your heart. And I don’t like it one bit.
SN: Nonsense! Do you know how many words start with b-a-s?? I read that a bunch of PhD’s said it was in the MILLIONS!
G: um, got a cite for that?
SN: Wow, do a little homework on your own! I don’t keep that kind of information, well, anywhere at all. Can’t you look it up? No Wifi up here?
G: I’m afraid our time has run out. You’ll be going through the door down the hall, on the extreme left. Dress for summer.

I am really beginning to regret catching up to the end of this thread to only continue to follow SN's antics. I have to admit to enjoying the discussions about first century religion, though.

I think the whole idea of a protective cocoon of tenure should be opened up for the so-called national conversation. Perhaps Wisconsin will lead the way.

I presume that anyone with the slightest understanding of the market and two neurons to rub together has already immediately and precisely understood exactly what this is a recipe for, but I'd love to see just what sort of onanistic fantasy S.N. has of how the "so-called national conversation" might unfold to his liking.

Then again, he hasn't had the meat curtains to address the handouts from the public purse that his own favored, tenure-based monstrosity enthusiastically gobbles down, so I'm not expecting anything but another entry in the personal blotter of shіt-and-run accidents.

I believe it necessary to confess EVERY sin you can think of in the sacrament of Reconciliation, and then do your best, with the help of God’s grace, to repent of each one of them. But I can think of nothing I’ve done in this thread that I would need to confess.

And the great part is that this is formally juridical, so S.N. is in fact playing a role equivalent to your run-of-the-mill district attorney. Well, if they had tenure.

Most glaring, though, is that there's not the slightest glimmer of interest in whether the prosecutorial duty is being handled competently.

Maybe I have only so much time and patience to respond to the profusion of pedantry you put out.

Aw, poor you. Always the victim, it's never your fault.

@#1455 --

I hope it goes without saying that I was not really commenting on tenure at all. I just meant that bad scholarship and the humanities are not strangers to one another.

@#1453 --

And you were even crueler when you said of Ann, “if SHE’s married…well… I just pity that poor bastard.”

Happily, he's too emotionally undisciplined to be better at cruelty than he is at anything else. I mean, it's always distressing to see someone having hysterics, of course. But it's not hurtful.

“I'd like to find your inner child and kick its little ass.”

Great line.

Great song.
Get over it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H-Y7MAASkg

“I’d like to find your inner child and kick its little ass.”

Great line.

Jesus wouldn't think so.

I have to admit taking quite a bit of delight in the Sokal hoax, which if you’ve never heard of it (you being evidently a younger person than my very-very-late-middle-aged self) I urge you to look up.

I understand why people feel that way. But I think that if you can't make your case without using entrapment, you should just stay home.

I mean, as far as I can see, until he came along, his primary targets hadn't really done anything wrong. For the most part, they were just sitting around making perfectly generally acceptable (and sometimes even good) contributions to their field.

And again, as far as I can see, that's actually more than you can say of Sokal.

Anyway. Not a fan.

Yeesh.

Not that inner-child-speak isn't annoying. But the Eagles?

palate cleanser

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAtUw6lxcis

@#1463 --

I love that song, which is linked in my mind to this one, for no very particular reason.

By which I meant this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQZDINDoU6E

I'm just gonna leave this here.

They're both perfect, tight pop songs with perfectly timed solos. Have you seen John Peel's headstone? http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00655/news-graphics-2008-_6…

I love the brothers Davies. The story of of how Dave created the distortion on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7ffgqjcH40 is truly cool (cut into his amp speaker with a blade and then stuck pins in it.)

Heh. I met my first love at an Undertones gig, and was listening to John Peel on the notorious night he played Teenage Kicks on his show twice in a row.

But I think that if you can’t make your case without using entrapment, you should just stay home.

Merely providing the opportunity to do something is most certainly not "entrapment."

ann has sent me down a Kinks rabbit hole, in which I have listened to Waterloo Sunset on auto-repeat for the past hour.

@ #1469 --

I suppose that's true. But to the best of my knowledge, prior to Sokal's little prank, Social Text was not in the business of deconstructing hard science that its editors couldn't comprehend and had no intention whatsoever of going into it.

I mean, maybe there were some people there who were guilty of gruesome acts of Science-Wars terrorism that I've never heard about. But it's not necessarily unreasonable to say that science is culturally determined. Sometimes it is.

And based on my impression of the work of the only two who I'd had some casual exposure to (Stanley Aronowitz; Andrew Ross), there was nothing particularly objectionable or notably foolish about it unless you just hate the left. They're not even excessively pomo. I probably wouldn't have gotten as far as casual exposure if they had been. I think that stuff is ridiculous.

Anyway. I'm not saying that they weren't ordinarily foolish, or that their work was error-free. But as far as I can recall, they weren't doing anything that called for hoaxing rather than regular old bare-knuckled academic feuding. And Sokal himself was not exactly standing on a record of such distinguished professional achievement in his own field that there was simply nothing further for him to do but go out and bring those toiling others up to speed.

I thought he was a troll, basically.

@#1470 --

Well, I owe you for the palate cleanser. I mean, if it wasn't for "The Boys of Summer," I could honestly say that the mere sound of Don Henley's voice on the radio is practically enough to make me fling myself from a moving car into oncoming traffic.

There really is no arguing about taste, though. And at least it wasn't Glenn Frey.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSciUplVZrA

^^Almost but not quite on topic.

Stupid esprit de l'escalier

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEep67akIn4

^^More on topic.

Obligatory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JlmvtAHhnc

The Eagles had one good album.

They're fine, really.

But OccamsLaser wins the internet.

Doesn’t even matter if your Mr. Fantasy is a she (e.g. Mother Natural Selection)
or an it (e.g. Evolution-of-the-Gaps) …
…. or Something else.

That old dinosaur Stevie can still play:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmoL-qXAr5o

The Eagles had one good album.

Synchronistically, as I recall, the eponymous Doobie Brothers album had at least one standout in "Slippery St. Paul."

I still have it on vinyl here somewhere, but it looks like the vertical bearings on the tone arm are gummed, and the races are sealed from what I've read.

IMAGINARY headline-writing editors?

This headline didn’t write itself: “The Oldest Shrimp (Devonian: Famennian) and Remarkable Preservation of Soft Tissue”.

Jesus, failure to figure that one out after 1000 comments is idiocy for the ages.

Jesus would weep if He could see what SeeNoevo has been up to on Disqus:

Discussion on Breitbart News Network 252 comments

Feminist Ariana Grande Says Media Treats Women Like Accessories to Men

See Noevo

See Noevo 3 days ago
Women an accessory to men? I don't know about that.
I kind of like the reverse idea: Men as an accessory to women.
What I REALLY mean is...
Arianna could wear ME anytime.

Looks as though this thread has run out of gas.
(I do encourage you, however, to tell others about it. Show it to everyone you can think of, from dyed-in-the-wool Darwinists to crazy Catholic creationists and everyone in between.)

As Barack Hussein Obama has said on a related junk science topic, ‘This debate is over.’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64n8WZdk-qQ
.....

P.S.
I probably shan’t return here. I’m getting going over at
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2015/06/10/the-cambrian-explosion…

Perhaps he'll actually leave this time....

Perhaps .... all of his arguments have been shot down here.

I wonder how long he'll last at the other blog?

As Phil B observed of SN over at evolutionblog:

By now it must surely be abundantly clear to all of us that he will not listen, he is incapable of any critical thinking with regard to possible modification of his own views, and he will never give a satisfactory response when his errors are pointed out to him.

Perhaps he’ll actually leave this time….

Oh, dear, and I was just going to ask the Big Big Bang Bumbler whether he thought these guys had been successful or not.

Or whether the ability to make such calculations at all kind of puts the Good Ship Unpossible on a course to deliver its crewmember to Davy Jones' Locker.

True, but now that we have his prevaricating style down, it's easy to recognize that he has lost whenever he tries to change the subject. He also craves attention in the most obvious and crass manner.

Now, seeing as he enjoys wasting bandwidth, watch this:

Hey See Noeveo, I'm an atheist (it took 13 years of Catholic schooling before I gave up pretending to believe in God) and was wondering if you could, without using the Bible, Catechism of the Catholic Church, or Canon Law and Dogma, answer this:

If God is omnipotent, can He create a boulder so large that He cannot lift it?

Bill Price earlier mentioned lying for Jesus being quite alright and it is, as long as it is in service to the faith. This "idea" has a long TRADITION! and not only amongst the Cult of the Magic Underpants. Here's John Chrysostom, 5th C. Bishop of Constantinople:

For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ...

And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived" – Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1

Iggy Loyola, founder of the VatiCorp Hitmen Jesuits on the corporate policy of Mind Phuqqery:

"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."

Lest anyone think the Reformation put an end to the professional authoritative bullpoopery, here's that hateful, anti-Semitic scumbag epitome of humanity, Marty Luther, revealing that his malevolent imaginary friend:welcomes it:

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." – Martin Luther (Cited by his secretary, in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmüthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. I.)

Additionally, here's what Marty had to say aboot the women in his flock:

"Even though they grow weary and wear themselves out with child-bearing, it does not matter; let them go on bearing children till they die, that is what they are there for." - Martin Luther, Works 20.84

and

"We may well lie with what seems to be a woman of flesh and blood, and yet all the time it is only a devil in the shape of a woman."

These last two quotes from sweet, sweet Marty (of many, many more) are right in line with the earlier mention of women as property and, indeed, reduces women to sperm receptacles that are somehow less than worthy of being considered human. An opinion which, for all intents and purposes, still holds.

More recently, we have the Raping Children Church spreading the lie in Africa that condoms do not help prevent HIV/Aids but actually spread it:

In March 2009, on his flight to Cameroon (where 540,000 people have HIV), Pope Benedict XVI explained that Aids is a tragedy "that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems". In May 2009, the Congolese bishops conference made a happy announcement: "In all truth, the pope's message which we received with joy has confirmed us in our fight against HIV/Aids. We say no to condoms!" - the good Dr. Ben Goldacre

Following the link, there are similar lies uttered by lower, middle and upper management of The Original Salvation Inc. (accept no substitutes) worldwide - Australia, England, Colombia and Spain. A real doozy comes to us from Mozambique via the Archbishop Francisco Chimoio, who claims condom companies deliberately infect them with HIV to spread Aids. Sounds like spreading FUD to make your product a palatable, or even preferred alternative, no?

Dr. Goldacre informs us of the reality of 80% effectiveness for condoms and concludes:

This is ludicrous. You, the Catholic church, is the only major influential international political organisation that actively tells people not to do something that works – on a huge scale. Your own figures show that your numbers are growing in Africa, even faster than the population does... (this) makes you a serious global health problem."

So we see with just these few examples among some very large number of them, SeeNoevo is merely following a looong standing TRADITION! of religious authoritah! He(?) is also a wee late to the party in giving christianity a bad name.

Just to clarify some earlier implications, yes The Raping Children Church is OK with evolution. Their bastardised version, where at some point in what is obviously a completely natural process, the supernatural Malevolent One penetrated human genealogy and ejaculated a soul.

When this happened is hard to say, considering all our earliest examples of art contain not one image of Jeffery Hunter, er, Yahweh or his zombie offspring self. Wildlife, their own hands or themselves and spacemen, sure, but nothing remotely resembling the portraits that regularly appear on burnt toast these days.

Appy-polly loggies for the long comment, but we all know how difficult it is to respond to a Gish Gallop - especially one that has been running for aboot 2000 years.

The breadth and promptness of S.N.'s collapse over at Jason's crib are tantamount to the triumph of Aesthetic Design, BTW.

"Dr. Goldacre informs us of the reality of 80% effectiveness for condoms and concludes"

Antibiotic resistance is the next biggest global threat to humanity - the obsfucaction by proper doctors over the real causes of 'infections' is putting the world's population at risk in the same way that the catholic church is over contraception.
Infection is not 'caused' by deficiency in antibiotics and he sooner proper doctors start being taught the real cause of diseases the more useful they will be.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/amr-report/en/
If the WHO sees proper doctor's use of antibiotics as a bigger threat than even ISIS, maybe that is why there is so much vitriol on this site.
Are you sure you are not a Catholic NObRed?

Doctors need to stop looking at microbes as if they just 'appear' they don't, they evolve dependent on their environment. Bishop Pasteur was the first pharma shill and what a balls up he started.

@ Johnny
I suppose you didn't read the article you linked to. The only thing you cited correct was the threat of antibiotic resistance. Everything else you say is wrong and can't be read in the article.

johnny

Doctors need to stop looking at microbes as if they just ‘appear’

Way ahead of you dude, doctors stopped doing that since Pasteur came around.

Re: al kimeea #1487 and many, many others:

Although the subject article was about doctors denying of evolution, this thread eventually focused quite a bit on the Catholic Church.
I didn’t bring up the RCC, others did (#29, #322). And then the hounds were released.
I’ve found that virtually any prolonged discussion about evolution eventually mutates into tirades about Catholicism.

Not surprising, really. The Devil’s most hated target among men is the Catholic Church. Probably the same could be said for atheists and other evolutionists.

Along those lines, perhaps I should modify the hypothetical hyperventilations in #1368 above.
The leader says “Let’s face facts, the REAL problem here is BELIEF in GOD.”
Perhaps he should say instead “Let’s face facts, the REAL problem here is THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”

Say what you will (and you will) about the Catholic Church. No other organization (i.e. A distinct body of people under centralized hierarchical authority with established practices, doctrines, rules.) in recorded history can come anywhere close to it in longevity.

And I will guarantee you this much, or, at least I would bet the house, hell, I’d bet my very life, that
when this world comes to an end, at least one church will be still standing, and that Church will be the Catholic Church.

Sure as hell.

AND.... he just can't stick the flounce!

And I will guarantee you this much, or, at least I would bet the house, hell, I’d bet my very life, that
when this world comes to an end, at least one church will be still standing, and that Church will be the Catholic Church.

They're not very interesting stakes, now are they?

Once again, see comment 1269.

Oh, right...

I’ve found that virtually any prolonged discussion about evolution eventually mutates into tirades about Catholicism.

Wholesale lack of self-awareness duly noted.

I've been drifting in and out for the last thousand comments or so, but I find myself morbidly fascinated with See's last couple. I've never encountered someone who so overtly worships the Church itself - it seems strange, but when you think about it its also an obvious trap for a religious person to fall into. I'm sure See isn't the first, which makes me curious: does anyone know of a specific term for, or teachings about, idolatry of the Church itself? My somewhat cursory Google search comes up empty.

How can we miss you, if you won't go away?

I find myself morbidly fascinated with See’s last couple

He's lashing out after the failure of the flounce to bring him the engagement that he so desperately craves.

The speed with which his performance at Jason's degenerated into desperately contrived obnoxiousness is truly embarrassing.

Same desperate tactics as the others; deliberately set out to be banned or put into moderation so you can tell yourself how dangerous you are.

To Sarah A #1496:

“I’ve been drifting in and out for the last thousand comments or so, but I find myself morbidly fascinated with See’s last couple. I’ve never encountered someone who so overtly worships the Church itself … I’m sure See isn’t the first… does anyone know of a specific term for, or teachings about, idolatry of the Church itself? My somewhat cursory Google search comes up empty.”

Your Google search comes up empty because there is no such thing as worshiping or idolizing the Church.

You either have a very poor vocabulary or a very poor understanding of what I’ve said here, or both.

If you’re going to drift in here and read, it won’t do you any good if you don’t have simple comprehension skills.

Perhaps you should drift back out of here and go read a dictionary. And the Catechism.