Why is the book of Genesis so popular?

So obsessed that he demands a piece of it from his chosen people.

I think it was Jack Miles's A Biography of God which introduced me to the idea that the source of Yahweh's jealousy was that he had somehow managed to create a being that could do something even Yahweh could not -- reproduce.

Sure, Yahweh can create stuff. But he can't create an equal being without giving up his essential godness. The idea that his omnipotence is limited to creating lesser stuff makes him very sad, and occasionally act like a petulant two-year old, and so forth. Plus, his followers have to mutilate their own reproductive organs because Yahweh is just that spiteful.

Yeah, that Jehova god-fellah was a big dick. You know, all that smiting & genocide, misogyny, infanticide, homophobia, etc.

Joel,

Sure, Yahweh can create stuff. But he can't create an equal being without giving up his essential godness.

So true. Consider the oft overlooked tree of knowledge.

KJV: Genesis 3:22

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

I always got the sense that god is scared shitless that Adam and Eve would become too much like gods themselves if they ate from the tree of life. So he evicted them. Thus it wasn't so much their disobedience*, but the potential competition that he feared.

*Given that Adam and Eve didn't know good from evil, they could hardly be expected to know right from wrong, so the claim of disobedience is fallacious. God, in his infinite dickism, set them up to fail.

"Why are Jewish men optimists?"
"Because they cut off a 1/4" before they even know how long it's going to be."
----
I gotta million of 'em. Try the roast beef--it's tender.

Genesis shows gawd in all his glory. Being irritated at Adam, Eve and the snake. Smiting the entire Earth except for the folks and critters on the Ark. Setting Abraham up to kill his son ("ha ha, Abe, I really gotcha that time"). Gawd's just being an all-around asshole in Genesis.

This Asimov short story was always my favourite:

How it Happened

dominich (aka AItOawlBtzBnH17TTSEy0GxjoKcp8dGPCuMt0hY)

I always got the sense that god is scared shitless that Adam and Eve would become too much like gods themselves if they ate from the tree of life. So he evicted them. Thus it wasn't so much their disobedience*, but the potential competition that he feared.

I was taught that Adam and Eve were allowed to eat from the tree of Life; they were only forbidden the tree of Knowledge.

*Given that Adam and Eve didn't know good from evil, they could hardly be expected to know right from wrong, so the claim of disobedience is fallacious. God, in his infinite dickism, set them up to fail.

I think there is a difference between obedience and knowing right from wrong. That is, you can teach a dog obedience, not right from wrong. That is, the dog is taught that certain actions are allowed and others are not, but it does not generalize them into a concept of these are "right" and these are "wrong". The point of the garden story, I believe, is exactly that, to illustrate that conceptual difference between man and animal, between "civilized" man and "savages".

And then, to totally contradict myself, what happens once A&E gain the knowledge of good and evil? They realize they are naked and decide that it is "wrong", yet they do not appear to have any guilt about their disobedience. They do not try to hide the fact they disobeyed. So maybe "Good and Evil" is not the same as "right and wrong". So maybe it is more about why we wear clothes and animals do not than about any philosophical concepts of cognition.

R.Crumb did a nice job with it I thought.

I disagree. The only reason a dog knows obedience is through action and consequence.

Knowing the consequence enough times, the dog -which evolved as a social pack animal- learns that the group sees the behaviour in some way as wrong through negative re-enforcement.

As humans had no knowledge of consequence, or right vs wrong in obedience, God created his own fallible creation.

Therefore, is God infallible?

Nah, she ate it first, then gave it to Adam because she wanted some action.

Then she pretended that it wasn't what she wanted. Not unknown since that time.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

SteveM, A&E were kicked out of Eden before they could eat from the tree of Life so they wouldn't become immortal like the gods.

I think the real point of that tale is to explain why we have death, sex and birth in the world. There was no sex or even knowledge of sexuality until there was death... no risk of overpopulation in Eden I suppose :)

KJV: Genesis 3:22

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil

Yeah, I've always wondered who the us consisted of. Exactly how many gods were there at the time? Did Yahweh kill the others off?

Biggest problem in the Wholy Babble is that word 'know'. It gets used as Adam 'knowing' Eve, ie having sex. So original sin is interpreted as having sex, which explains the Christian attitude to sex ('nasty, but it has to be done'). Anyone know if the original Hebrew differentiates the two meanings?

Hmmmm. Eve doesn't think it was worth it? :(

"It's also perfectly in character for Jehovah, who is obsessed with that thing."

Since the Bible doesn't say the Tree of Knowledge explained why Adam has a weiner, I think the obsessed party is a lot closer than that.

Plus this cartoon has that whole unhealthy "tricking chyx into sex" flavor.

That it casts the woman as interested in knowledge (science) rather than shoes is a very minor sop to female dignity. Woman as goddess, man as horndog is no less limiting than woman as brainless fluff, man as master of the universe.

FordPerfect:

I think the real point of that tale is to explain why we have death, sex and birth in the world.

Yeah, makes sense in an Aesop's Fables kind of way.

It's also perfectly in character for Jehovah, who is obsessed with that thing.

Aren't we all? Jehovah is supposed to be male, isn't he? (Though why he tends to be so notably silent on the subjects of cars and sports in the Bible is a question best left to the theologians, I guess.)

I'm going to have to go with XKCD on this one.

SteveM, we currently have no way of knowing how dogs generalize their concepts. They may internally use concepts of 'moral/amoral', 'right/wrong', 'good/evil', 'punishment/reward', or something else.

It is clear from their behaviors that they understand when they've broken the rules, hanging their heads in shame, expecting punishment, cowering in fear.

While it is possible they don't fully understand what the rules are, particularly when they are not consistently applied by humans, their actions/reactions clearly indicate they understand causality.

davem, original sin (not a Hebrew concept, by the way) was disobedience, not having sex.

"Plus this cartoon has that whole unhealthy "tricking chyx into sex" flavor. "

Totally. Cuz protracted rape jokes to totally never get stale or tedious.

Yeah, I've always wondered who the us consisted of. Exactly how many gods were there at the time? Did Yahweh kill the others off?

See Elohim.

Lies, lies lies. It was the Flying spaghetti monster who gave the fruit to Eve. She looked a little hungry, and it got her out of the garden with all of the carnivorous dinosaurs.

Yeah, I've always wondered who the us consisted of. Exactly how many gods were there at the time? Did Yahweh kill the others off?

psalm 82:

"I said, 'You are "gods";
you are all sons of the Most High.'

7 But you will die like mere men;
you will fall like every other ruler."

There used to be multiple gods in the bible. According to psalms 82, Yahweh threatened to fire them. There is no record that he actually did but they have been scarce lately.

His followers also got rid of his wife, Asherah.

Why is Yahweh worth worshipping? He threatened to kill his brothers and his wife has gone missing. Is this an example of xian family values?

Most High is probably El or Elyon, the original father of all the other gods and goddesses.

gobbledygook@6,

This Asimov short story was always my favourite:
How it Happened

That's was great! Thanks.

"Plus this cartoon has that whole unhealthy "tricking chyx into sex" flavor. "

Totally. Cuz protracted rape jokes to totally never get stale or tedious.

And the centrailzing of male experience and penetration and male orgasm as the objective of sex. HAHAHA I never get sick of that!

Holy contradictions, Batman!

This bit from Genesis always got me (emphasis mine):

2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

So, was Gawd cool with them eating from the Tree of Life at first, but changed his mind after they ate from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

Or is this just another case of poor editing?

Then she pretended that it wasn't what she wanted. Not unknown since that time.

Just ask a rapist.

"Biggest problem in the Wholy Babble is that word 'know'. It gets used as Adam 'knowing' Eve, ie having sex....Anyone know if the original Hebrew differentiates the two meanings?"
The original Hebrew uses the same word (yodah) for both meanings of "know." Context is everything.

This also allows homophobes to indulge in a creative misreading of the story of Lot. Lot offers shelter to strangers (angels), and the locals come to his door and demand to "know" his guests. Now, it ought to be obvious that in this case, "to know" means "to have an an intellectual understanding," and that the men were saying, "bring out your guests so we can see who they are." However, some people find it convenient to claim that the locals were saying, "bring them out so we can have sex with them," never mind that this seems like a rather pointless demand.

It's like "do it" in English. If I want to ask if someone has completed an assignment, I can say, "Did you do it?" If I want to ask if someone has had sex (and I want to sound like I'm about 12 years old), I can say, "Did you do it?" or perhaps, "Did you, y'know, do it?"

I read the book of Genesis, but it didnt mention Peter Gabriel even once.

This also allows homophobes to indulge in a creative misreading of the story of Lot. Lot offers shelter to strangers (angels), and the locals come to his door and demand to "know" his guests. Now, it ought to be obvious that in this case, "to know" means "to have an an intellectual understanding," and that the men were saying, "bring out your guests so we can see who they are." However, some people find it convenient to claim that the locals were saying, "bring them out so we can have sex with them," never mind that this seems like a rather pointless demand.

How do you explain the substitution of Lot's daughters? If they are using "know" as "to have an intellectual understanding", why is it at all relevant that they are virgins?

Context is everything.
This also allows homophobes to indulge in a creative misreading of the story of Lot. Lot offers shelter to strangers (angels), and the locals come to his door and demand to "know" his guests. Now, it ought to be obvious that in this case, "to know" means "to have an an intellectual understanding," and that the men were saying, "bring out your guests so we can see who they are."

Context is everything as you say, if they just wanted to just "see who they are" what is the justification for...

19:6-7 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, and said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

Explain what wickedness was Lot referring to? why would it be wicked to "see who they were" further why would Lot offer up two daughters which have not known men? do you mean they had never met a man before or known a man intellectually? or is it more likely that the more fescinnine definition of "known" was intended.

19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

not only does he offer to bring them out but then bids the men of the town to do their will upon his daughters in lieu of the visitors...

Given the context of the story I find your interpretation to be weak.

@davem #12 and raven #23. Right, the "us" were the Elohim, the 70 sons of El. Yaweh was the new guy on the block when the Jews moved into Canaan. The Canaanites were open-minded and let the new god into their pantheon.

Evidently Yaweh didn't play nice with others and eventually supplanted all the other Elohim. Yaweh even took El's wife, Asherah, but later dumped her too. What a jerk!

Inscriptions found at Kuntillet Ajrud (dated between 850 and 750 BC):

"Blessed be Uriyahu through Yahweh,
and his enemies have been conquered
through Yahweh's Asherah."

"How do you explain the substitution of Lot's daughters? If they are using "know" as "to have an intellectual understanding", why is it at all relevant that they are virgins?"

Distraction and/or redirection. Lot hopes that the locals will be more interested in the prospect of sex than in their original plans (driving the strangers out of town, or maybe just a good old-fashioned lynching). The daughters' virginity simply adds to their desirability (cf the fetishization of virginity in the modern Middle East). Lot reasons that the well-being of his supernatural guests far outweighs his daughters' virginity and general safety.

Lot may well have cared for his daughters, but being a man of his time, he would have viewed them as things to be exchanged (usually via marriage) for power, to strengthen family ties, etc. So it's not surprising that given the choice between the likely murder of his guests and the premature devaluing of his daughters (who would have lost most of their desirability on their wedding nights in any case) that he would have offered his children to the mob.

So it's not surprising that given the choice between the likely murder of his guests

Ah so the townspeople werent out to "know them intellectually" but to murder them then? in this context then "to know" is equivelant to "to kill"?

This post prompted me to go read Genesis, just for chuckles.

Do you ever get the feeling that perhaps there wouldn't be such excitement about a given religion if people actually read their sacred texts?

I mean, c'mon. Lot having drunken sex with his daughters? Noah getting drunk and then cursing one of his kids for covering his sorry naked self with a sheet while he was sleeping? Abraham telling everybody that his wife is his sister, then God smiting people for hitting on her? Let's not forget the incomprehensible random renamings that God meted out - Abram -> Abraham, and Sarai ->? All the text says is that she will no longer be called Sarai.

I cannot believe that we're still killing each other over this stuff.

Lot offers shelter to strangers (angels), and the locals come to his door and demand to "know" his guests. Now, it ought to be obvious that in this case, "to know" means "to have an an intellectual understanding," and that the men were saying, "bring out your guests so we can see who they are."

Got some links to back up this claim? You're the first person I've seen come up with this interpretation of the scene. Everyone else--from Evil Atheists to True Believers and all in between--seems to have the idea that the Sodomites wanted to, er, sodomize Lot's guests, and that Lot gave them his daughters to fuck instead.

The idea behind the parable was that the entire city was absolutely nasty and perverse (hence god wanting to smite it), with Lot being the only non-bastard there. So no, it's not obvious that the townspeople only wanted an intellectual understanding of Lot's guests.

Ah... after reading these comments, now I know why "silence is golden!"

Professor D, You're a prime example of the sort to which Mr Twain referred when he said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

Ah... after reading these comments, now I know why "silence is golden!"

I-R-O-N-Y

#37

"Ah... after reading these comments, now I know why "silence is golden!"

Wow...I mean just wow...

Apparently Professordumbo can read!

Does not seem to do much good though.
the dude is challenged in rationality...probably reading won't help.

Kraid, if the town were full of homosexuals, why would anyone think offering them virgin girls would be the least bit enticing?

It is a matter of history that strangers were often interrogated by locals, including torturing/imprisoning/killing them if they didn't answer questions correctly. This violated the rules of hospitality -- which was the sin of Sodom, according to jesus, not a sexual one.

professordendrophiliac wrote:

Ah... after reading these comments, now I know why "silence is golden!"

10/10 for both irony and inanity. Haven't you got a Jesus to suck up to rather than spend time here boring us?

gr8hands,

It is a matter of history that strangers were often interrogated by locals, including torturing/imprisoning/killing them if they didn't answer questions correctly.

It's Biblical, too! Judges 12:5-6.

Kraid, if the town were full of homosexuals, why would anyone think offering them virgin girls would be the least bit enticing?

Why do they need to be "homosexual" according to our current understanding (e.g. only interested sexually in other males) to want to rape other males? Homosexuality wasn't always seen as an equal partnership between consenting adults, and it has not been unknown throughout history for otherwise "straight" men to take advantage of lower class, slave, or just otherwise less powerful males for sexual pleasure.

Amazingly, statements made by a literary character in a book written 600-700 years after Genesis does not help us all that much in understanding Genesis. It's baffling the many ways New Testament authors misunderstood, misquoted, or simply made up regarding the Old Testament.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hombibg193.htm

http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/sodom.html

How did the lesson of Sodom become so identified with homosexual acts that the very word for one of those acts became Sodomy? The answer is in the Hebrew word: yãdhà.

Yãdhà has two meanings: "to know" and "engage in coitus." Of 943 times yãdhà is used in the Old Testament, only ten times is it used to mean sexual intercourse, and all of these are heterosexual coitus. The Old Testament uses the word shãkhabh to mean homosexual acts and bestiality.

Lot was a resident alien in Sodom. When Lot invited strangers into his home, the townspeople approached Lot and demanded "Bring them out unto us, that we may know them (yãdhà)." Judging from the biblical references we've just discussed, it seems the townspeople were asking to get to know the credentials and intentions of strangers in their city.

Judging from the biblical references we've just discussed, it seems the townspeople were asking to get to know the credentials and intentions of strangers in their city.

this is laughable bullshit that ignores the entire context and purpose of the story.

oops, lost the block quote for those last two paragraphs.

Kraid, if the town were full of homosexuals, why would anyone think offering them virgin girls would be the least bit enticing?

because they fucked anything that moved, male, female, animal, plant, whatever.

iow, your question is really, really stupid.

The original Hebrew uses the same word (yodah) for both meanings of "know."

Technically, the original root (cue for Australians to snicker here) word was just dah (דע); yadah is "know (masc. present tense)" and da'at is the noun meaning "knowledge".

More to the point, the word was translated into English as "know/knowledge" in all places it is used in the OT precisely because it's the same word everywhere.

Regarding Sodom: I think the implication was indeed that the townspeople were demanding to commit rape of the travellers. Rape is pretty damn inhospitable.

if the town were full of homosexuals, why would anyone think offering them virgin girls would be the least bit enticing?

False dichotomy.

Ichthyic, are you suggesting that men who "fucked anything that moved, male, female, animal, plant, whatever" are heterosexual?

I think you are a bit . . . confused.

Ichthyic, are you suggesting that men who "fucked anything that moved, male, female, animal, plant, whatever" are heterosexual?

are you suggesting they aren't?

Ichthyic, you should have read the links (which gives the context) prior to commenting on them.

Ichthyic, are you suggesting that men who "fucked anything that moved, male, female, animal, plant, whatever" are heterosexual?

...moreover, how is that even relevant to your inane idea that the passage represents nothing more than a mob requesting credentials?

you're fucking inane.

Ichthyic, you should have read the links (which gives the context) prior to commenting on them.

I did, it's all bullshit.

Owlmirror, you are confused about what a false dichotomy is. Or about what a homosexual is. Or what enticing means.

It's baffling the many ways New Testament authors misunderstood, misquoted, or simply made up regarding the Old Testament.

My favourite religious dodge is the laughable piece of confirmation bias I call 'the genre defence' - where anything that doesn't make sense or is invalidated by modern science or doesn't meet the standards of contemporary society (i.e. slavery) is explained away by claiming the passage in question was written a genre that wasn't meant to be taken literally (metaphor, poetry, apocalyptic tradition and so forth).

Hilarious, this genre-jumping doesn't just take place from passage to passage but within the same sentence - if it suits the needs of the religidiot using it.

Ichthyic, you are clearly confused. But I'll help explain it to you:

Men who like sex with women -- heterosexual
Men who like sex with men -- homosexual

I hope that clears up your confusion.

Oh, your 'opinion' about the evidence is not convincing.

Ichthyic: "this is laughable bullshit that ignores the entire context and purpose of the story."

Considering that the context of the story includes two young women conspiring to commit rape by deception upon their father (the only undisputable reference to sex in the story, by the way), I'm not sure what you're talking about.

The "purpose" of the story, like all other Bible stories, is to give credence to the the in-group's sense of superiority over everyone else. For this reason alone we ought to dismiss it as the basis for serious discussion.

Owlmirror, you are confused about what a false dichotomy is. Or about what a homosexual is. Or what enticing means.

You're the only one that implied the men of Sodom were homosexuals, you moron. Everyone else simply pointed out that the apparent meaning of the passage is that they wanted to rape the guests, upon which Lot offered his virgin daughters as a substitute. This doesn't require homosexuality or heterosexuality, simply a proclivity for sticking their members in holes of other creatures.

Owlmirror, you are confused about what a false dichotomy is. Or about what a homosexual is. Or what enticing means.

if you're really basing your arguments on the actual context of those passages from the links you provided, i'd say you're the one that's got the problem with being confused.

... however, let's say that really it is the case that every theologian up till your posted nonsense has indeed completely misinterpreted the meaning of those passages....

if we interpret them in your fashion, we get a god who destroyed thousands on a whim of inhospitality.

whee!

look, i understand the effort to try and get the bible to look less homophobic, but this attempt is stretched at best.

any attempt to revise interpretation of the bible to be less homophobic has the exact same problem of those interpreting it as being against homosexuality to begin with.

it's a bunch of crap written by a damn lot of mostly goatherders ffs... let it go.

Owlmirror, you are confused about what a false dichotomy is. Or about what a homosexual is. Or what enticing means.

and

Men who like sex with women -- heterosexual
Men who like sex with men -- homosexual

sexuality is analog, not digital.

Ichthyic: "because they fucked anything that moved, male, female, animal, plant, whatever."

And you know this how? It's not in the text. It's implied in some discussions of the text, but it's nowhere in the text itself.

Men who like sex with women -- heterosexual
Men who like sex with men -- homosexual

what about men who like sex with both?

women that like sex with women?

women that like sex with both?

are you sure you can't see where i'm going with this?

Owlmirror, you are confused about what a false dichotomy is. Or about what a homosexual is. Or what enticing means.

You're the one who is insisting that a desire to rape males implies exclusive male homosexuality.

oh, man, this might end up being the most pointless discussion ever.

I'm out.

I see perfessor dandy-no-brains is back. He must resent posting here, as he must take time away from his mirror and self admiration to do so.

Dammit Jadehawk, you owe me a sangria.

*wipes off screen*

But I'll help explain it to you:Men who like sex with women -- heterosexualMen who like sex with men -- homosexual

Alas, poor Kinsey. You lived and worked in vain.

Away with you, all psychologists of human behavior, sexuality, and aggression. Your work is useless. "gr8hands" supersedes you all.

So when the religious claim that "religion is another way of knowing", they really do mean "another way of raping"?

Heh. You're reminding me of the Piltdown's wailings about the inexorable creeping advent of pansexualism!

(Good times!)

So when the religious claim that "religion is another way of knowing", they really do mean "another way of raping"?

No, that's Monsanto.

Call me an "alternatard" again, MadScientist. Really. G'head.

I am a former minister and have spent most of my life studying woo-woo. I don't know how the best way to pose a question on this site. It can be overwhelming with all the comments. But I am throwing this out in hopes you all can expand my understanding of evolution. One of the arguments I hear from my former fundies is we don't see a half dog/half rat and that somehow proves evolution is a rouse. I know from my reading that all living things are transitional creatures. In my research I see there are some clear transition fossils like the feathered dinosaur and also there was a species with the bottom half like homos (walking erect) and the top half was more ape like (smaller brain). I can look it up again but think it might have been either Lucy or H. Habilis(sp?). But these are fossils. I came across this article that says this slug is half plant/half animal.
Can this be a clear living transitional fossil that would give a creationist pause?

Here is the article
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34824610/ns/technology_and_science-science/…

What does this science community think about this slug? Are there any other living transitional species in the half this/half that category? Also I am open to fossil species as well. Any doc out on the web would be appreciated. I think this is a question around micro-evolution and macro-evolution. It is odd so many Xians accept micro which is just foundational to macro, just a longer length of time. Please help.

Thanks in Advance.

hmmm.... "half-plant, half-animal" doesn't make much sense, but we'll see what this is really about.

In the meantime, I'd like to just say that fundies often think of transitional creatures, while scientists talk of transitional features. Meaning that it isn't the whole animal that is part-this and part-that, just specific features that are between other features, developmentally speaking.

So, for example, wisdom teeth are a transitional form. It's a transition from a larger set of jaws that could easily fit 32 teeth to smaller jaws with only 28 teeth. This is why many people have jaws that are too small to fit their wisdom teeth and the teeth need to be pulled.

SC - Too right about damned Monsanto. ;)

Jadehawk, OM,
Who had the bigger jaw, Neanderthal? H Erectus?
So, I guess you are saying I am going down a path were the fundies are driving me and I wouldn't go there from a scientific approach.
Transitional features. thanks.

Obligatory warning, thar be Twoofer in them thar Far Left Side.

Ex-minister, I smell concern troll but I can't see it so I'm still going to walk in. No. Those slugs are not useful as an example of a 'living fossil' Last Common Ancestor of animals and plants; if they were, we would expect much more numerous diversions from the animal way of doing things - maybe cell walls, bizarre Hox genes, and of course self-manufactured chloroplasts. They're "only" a fascinating example of specialist predation far gone, in combination with some interesting gene transfer event. Notice that similarly sensationalist science reporting has long called animals with symbiotic algae, such as coral, "half plant half animal" as well.

Assuming you're honest, you're chasing a red herring looking for "half this half that". First, even a good example would do nothing to convince a creationist - those demands are made in bad faith. Second, they'd frankly be right in remaining unconvinced because the situation of a last common ancestor being a "half this half that" organism is not a prediction of evolutionary theory. Neither is the slightly less obvious situation of a LCA being 'equidistant' from its descendants. There are many examples in the fossil record of a clade spawning others while remaining in the same ecological niche itself. If you want to understand better, there are many sources that address the "half-and-half" misconception. Others can probably recommend better than I can, but Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale and The Greatest Show On Earth both take it on directly as well as being fun reads.

Well, now that everyone has left in a huff.....
This whole Tree of Life, Tree of Knowledge, thing is kinda interesting. Cause there is no command not to eat of the Tree of Life - but, according to the rumors, A&E already had eternal life, which they lost as punishment for eating from the ToK. And were thrown out of Eden so they couldn't eat from the ToL and regain eternal life.
SteveM #7

I was taught that Adam and Eve were allowed to eat from the tree of Life; they were only forbidden the tree of Knowledge.

This actually makes sense (did that just come out of my mouth?!!). A&E's eternal life came from eating from the ToL. Being chucked out of the Garden for being uppity cut off their drug supply....

hypocee,
thank you for you reply. I think I will have to read it a dozen times to understand it but definitely need to. I am honest and not a troll if I understand the word correctly. I think in one aspect I am a troll in that I jumped into a topic and changed the topic. I need to lurk more here to learn proper etiquette.
Just so you know I am honest. I am John, invited co-owner, on this website
http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com

I have read Jerry Coyne's book Why Evolution is True. Wonderful book. I just started reading Dawkins greatest show and to round it out I listening to the audio and fully agreeing with Hitchen's God is not Great with a better sub-title Religion poisons everything.
So much to learn to undo the 40 years of being a fundie. Am grateful for this website.
Back to lurking.

An easy-to-understand explanation of both misconceptions about transitional fossils, and the actual transitional characteristics of fossils that palaeontologists look for and compare.

It is a matter of history that strangers were often interrogated by locals, including torturing/imprisoning/killing them if they didn't answer questions correctly.

And one of the tortures commonly utilized in some of the cultures of that time and place was homosexual rape. Frequently inflicted on captured enemy prisoners of war, etc. Strangers presumed to be undesirable foreigners were certainly at risk.

It was an expression of dominance and power, rather than lust. I'm pretty sure that "know" in the Lot story refers to homosexual rape in precisely this context, which was why the crowd remained unplacated even after being offered Lot's daughters. Sex wasn't the point.

If you want the "pansy-liberal-moderate" interpretation, then you could say, given this context, that the sin of the Sodomites was intolerance.

(One has to wonder what Lot's daughters thought about all of this, and how that factored into their actions in regards to their drunken patriarch later in the tale. . . .)

[meta]

ex-minister,

Back to lurking.

I hope you're aware there's an Endless Thread open to all and any comments where you can't be out-of-topic.

There's a link on the upper-left of the page.

If A&E ate from the tree of life but not the tree of knowledge, they would become immortal but remain innocent, which was ok, because that still puts them below god.

But what couldn't be allowed was them eating from BOTH trees, because then they would become equals of god, and that was the big no-no.

So it was a dichotomy of choice. Knowledge (actually, morality because it was the tree of knowledge of GOOD AND EVIL, and nothing else) or Life, but not both.

(When I'm in a generous mood, I prefer the interpretation that "Eat not of this tree, lest ye die" was not a command, but a warning of consequence. I mean, why put in the extraneous "lest ye die" if it was just a commandment? You don't see any "lest ye X" after any of the other commandments, do you? You don't ever see "Thou shalt have no other gods before me, lest I get might pissed and smite thee with the thunder and the flooding" right? So, in other words, Yes, A&E, I gave you free will and you can if you want to eat this tree, but if you do, let me warn you, this is gonna happen, wink wink nudge nudge. . . )

Jadehawk, OM,
Who had the bigger jaw, Neanderthal? H Erectus?

bah, I can't find good details, so don't take what I'm saying as gospel (sorry, bad pun), but our ancestors had a more ape-like, protruding jaw; Australopithecus Afarensis (Neanderthals aren't our ancestors, so their jaws aren't really important right now) for example seems to have a longish jaw that fits 32 teeth just fine. Later, some evolutionary pressures led to a shortening of the jaw, which often no longer fit all teeth. And from there, I think, you end up with wisdom teeth coming in later or not at all in some individuals, because those would be less likely to die from various teeth-related problems... eventually possibly leading to a species of humans who don't get any wisdom teeth at all (though, ATM, it's not that likely that we'll get there, since the pressure to evolve in that direction has stopped: people aren't as likely to die and not have children because they grow wisdom teeth)

ex-minister,

I tried three times to post a comment on your blog and failed each time.

ex-minister,

A very common mechanism for evolutionary change in the long term is through the modification/specializations of initially similar, repeated segments (think body sections of arthropods, vertebrae of vertebrates), each of which is developmentally somewhat independent (not wholly, of course) of its neighbours, and thus free to change without greatly affecting its neighbours.

This kind of modularity makes it possible for some parts to change greatly/rapidly, while others remain less changed, more similar to the ancestral state, and so you can get intermediate forms with transitional features at "different" stages of development. But it is only with hindsight (ie, knowing what the descendent forms look like) that we can actually say that any feature is or is not "transitional".

In terms of human evolution, you can, if you want to stupendously simplify things, think of it as occurring in three main stages. The first stage was the advent of bipedality. Hominids at this stage still had essentially ape-like bodies, but they walked on two legs. They probably could not run very well. The second stage may have arisen because of adaptions for long-distance running, and resulted in a nearly anatomically modern body from the neck down, and the third stage was the development of modern features of the head, face and brain.

Comic 3-3-08

[runs away]

@Gr8hands:
"Men who like sex with women -- heterosexual
Men who like sex with men -- homosexual"

I think we have a confusing and corrupted terminology. Rather it should be:

"Men who like sex with women -- orthosexual
Men who like sex with men -- heterosexual"

There, have I helped enough?

"if we interpret them in your fashion, we get a god who destroyed thousands on a whim of inhospitality"

Actually, Ichthyic, hospitality was a VERY important part of the ancient world. The rules were set up that you pretty much would let about any traveler in and treat them well, while they, in turn, had to follow a code of conduct as well. Any breach of this code was an insult to the gods and a declaration of hostility. (See Ovid's Baucis and Philemon where an elder couple were the only ones spared from a horrible flood, because they were nice to strangers. Also see the book of Genesis where Abraham and Sarah deal with Pharoah and the myriad breaches of etiquette both sides make AND how big of a deal it was).

So, yes, in the story, God DID destroy thousands of people because they were inhospitable.

However, I do disagree with the idea that Lot's neighbors wanting to "know" the angels had nothing to do with sex. It's very likely that they were wanting to participate in a humiliating form of gang rape, intended to torture and humiliate the strangers (a way to punish and degrade your enemies after battle, back in the day), though that still goes back to the idea that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were, yes, inhospitable.

@davem
"I've always wondered who the us consisted of"

Genesis is the first book of the Torah, and early Judaism was not monotheistic, so there were more than one god in the belief system. Though the nature of god changes quite a bit even in these five books, references to other gods continues even in Jeremiah. (Xtianity has never consistently reconciled many passages from the Torah; which, since it's a different religion, shouldn't be surprising).

@jupiter9
"Since the Bible doesn't say the Tree of Knowledge explained why Adam has a weiner...
Weiner, sure, but did Adam have a belly button?!

Owlmirror #67, you actually made me chuckle -- which is quite a feat, as I usually respond to utter stupidity with more disdain. I suppose it was the sarcasm.

Tis himself wrote: I tried three times to post a comment on your blog and failed each time.

Sorry, I don't administer it. What were you trying to post?
It does have a limit of 4096 chars and even I have to hit submit a couple of times.

Tis Himself I left a comment for Human Ape regarding your issue. Hopefully it can be addressed.

Owlmirror #67, you actually made me chuckle -- which is quite a feat, as I usually respond to utter stupidity with more disdain.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Good luck with that gr8hands, sometimes a small furry rodent should look up.

[OT]

ex-minister, I just successfully posted a comment there; it would not recognise my TypePad UID (yorickoid), but when I used my Name/URL option (leaving the URL blank, I have no blog or permanent Web presence), it accepted it. Strangely, it also accepted the UID "yorickoid".

I usually respond to more disdain with utter stupidity

FTFY -- although I note that that must lead to a lot of conversational death spirals.

I suppose it was the sarcasm.

Strange that you read your own gospel as sarcasm: You, a random individual writing on your own authority on teh Internets, must necessarily trump everyone else who has actually studied the matter, because you say so.

One of the arguments I hear from my former fundies is we don't see a half dog/half rat and that somehow proves evolution is a rouse.

It would be pretty silly to expect a half dog /half rat in the fossil record. Any ancestor that both dogs and rats have must also be an ancestor of bears, coyotes, pandas, cats, weasels, seals, anteaters, whales, camels, giraffes, bats, moles, shrews, lemurs, monkeys, apes, humans, rabbits, etc. just to name a few.

John Morales/yorickoid,
Excellent. Drop by and comment freely. I said I was going to lurk but you guys seem like a good bunch and I can get gabby sometimes.

Thanks for telling me about the Endless Thread. I didn't know about it.

Perhaps this is now on topic.
Adam apparently had no need for a belly button, but had a scar where the rib was taken out if you believe the 2nd myth in Genesis. It was a church joke in how you could identify Adam in heaven. Anyway, Genesis was an attempt to fill in the gaps pre-Moses, but each "revelation" caused more questions. Each Apology demands yet another Apology (e.g. The lives of Adam and Eve).

I like Hitchen's discussion of Ockham's razor. You can believe in a divine mover if you choose but it adds unneeded and unnecessary complexity to the discussion and the more you EXPLAIN the worse it gets. From my fundie days I totally related to that. The theory simply works without a divine assumption. I am finding science while quite complex for me much more straight forward an explanation. It is more intuitive and I find life itself reinforces it, where Xianity was God and Me agin the world and the more I struggled the more I went deeper into the quicksand of defending the indefensible.

Credo quia absurdum - Tertullian.
I believe it because it is absurd.

You cannot quarrel with that. I fully recognize what hypocee stated above that the Christian who demands proof is doing so in bad faith.

You know it strikes me suddenly as this. Once I tell a lie, I have to tell more and more to cover it up. Now I didn't go into fundamentalism thinking it was a lie or that I wanted to lie. But since it was built on a myth or rather multiple myths in order to defend it I had to ... well ... lie. It didn't seem so then, but today when I knowingly lie it feels much like I did back then. I was fearful that I would be exposed as the vile sinner I knew deep in my heart that I was (the Bible tells me so). It really was an awful way to live and I am glad those days are receding behind me. Guilt is how they get you and keep you. I at times still get a Inspector Dreyfus eye twinge when I read about all the threats of eternal damnation. Powerful shit.

Jadehawk @ 60, I disagree, re: sexuality is analog, not digital. My wife truly enjoys some digital sensuality as foreplay. ba-dum-tshh

I go now.

hypocee or anyone,
What is LCA ?

context "Neither is the slightly less obvious situation of a LCA being 'equidistant' from its descendants. "

google is not clearing it up for me.

LCA = Last Common Ancestor (i.e. the most recent) between species.

ex-minister (#98)

What is LCA ?

last common ancestor

Lyrical Carnival Atmosphere

hope this helps

hypocee, thank you for your reply. I think I will have to read it a dozen times to understand it but definitely need to.

Nah, I overwrote it with lots of jargon. I'm sorry. Short version: 1. A true "living fossil" from the animal/plant divide would be far far weirder, in many predictable ways, than a sea slug with a clever trick, and 2. Like many pop-sci articles, that article contains some statements so mangled that they just barely stop short of being lies.

I am honest and not a troll if I understand the word correctly. I think in one aspect I am a troll in that I jumped into a topic and changed the topic. I need to lurk more here to learn proper etiquette.

You did no harm, your message wasn't a derail. Just to explain, a "concern troll" is a person who pretends to hold a position while arguing against it. Concern trolls usually use the gambit of wrapping their lies inside the premises of questions. They show up here fairly often. An example post from a creationist concern troll might be, "I believe in Charles Darwin, even though I'm bothered by the fact that scientists don't even agree on how old the earth is. Can anyone help me understand how I can have faith in radioactive dating when carbon dating shows living animals as being 40,000 years old?" Your post didn't have any of that, but the form made me feel like I might be seeing some odd new tactic. Sorry I was so cagey!

Congratulations on your courage, and on your curiosity; it's more than most people ever manage. May you find a lot to enjoy here.

By the way, this site isn't horrible if you're trying to figure out an acronym or abbreviation.

Owlmirror,
Thanks for the link to the Use & Abuse of the Fossil Record.

Sven wrote:
Lyrical Carnival Atmosphere
hope this helps

ah yes, it did, I thought it stood for Last Christian Assh*le. Boy, was my face red.

You cannot quarrel with that. I fully recognize what hypocee stated above that the Christian who demands proof is doing so in bad faith.

You'll make slightly fewer enemies if you take some care to distinguish between "Christian" and "creationist" :)

You know it strikes me suddenly as this. Once I tell a lie, I have to tell more and more to cover it up.

"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." ~Mark Twain

Ugh, I hate when National Blockquote Day falls on Forgetfulsday.
A true "living fossil" from the animal/plant divide would be far far weirder, in many predictable ways, than a sea slug with a clever trick
Indeed, earlier version of myself! In fact it would be approximately a fungus.

I got a baaad feeling about ex-minister.

hypocee: You'll make slightly fewer enemies if you take some care to distinguish between "Christian" and "creationist" :)

Duly noted. Christians, IDers and creationist (or are the latter two redundant?)

"This is no time to make new enemies." - Voltaire, when asked on his deathbed to renounce Satan

So, said the cougar licking her lips, why are you an ex minister, ex-minister? And ex-minister of what creed? We love catholics and calvinists best, my darlings, the Brethern fall in way below those popular god fearing people.

ex-minister:

Duly noted. Christians, IDers and creationist (or are the latter two redundant?)

No, they're different if overlapping sets of people.

Christians are (definitionally) creationists¹, but the bulk of them are sensible enough to accept evolutionary science; indeed, the original evolutionary scientists were Christians, and reluctant (but honest enough) to accept the evidence over their interpretation of the Bible.

Creationists is a term used for those who are in denial of evolutionary science, but at least they're honest about it and have decided faith trumps evidence. Not all creationists are Christians.

IDiots are creationists who are too dishonest to admit they're creationists, and perforce claim their faith-based beliefs are scientific, evidence be damned.

Consider those sets in terms of a Venn diagram: the three sets overlap as per the illustration on that page.

--

¹ in the sense they believe a deity created nature and living things, but not necessarily via "special creation" contrary to scientific findings.

So, said the cougar licking her lips, why are you an ex minister, ex-minister?

Caught with a rent boy behind King's Cross Station?

And ex-minister of what creed?

Oh that kind of minister.

Yes darlings, there it is.

@ex-minister

Powerful shit indeed. The combination of carrot, stick and rationality disrupting memes in monotheism can be a crippling cocktail.

I think those that have never been "fully immersed" in the raw, hardcore power of high octane fundyism, sometimes have trouble comprehending just how hard it can be to leave.

Many religious people are not dumb, quite a few are very intelligent; for the most part they are trapped, not stupid.

I interpret the story of the Garden of Eden as a metaphor for puberty.

During most of the long history of the human species, i.e. when we were hunter-gatherers and/or pastoralists, children were effectively adults when they achieved puberty. By that time they had learned all they needed to know to make their own living, do the work of an adult, so when they discovered the "tree in the center of the garden" and tasted of its fruit, they were kicked out of their parent's house to fend for themselves. Adulthood is not nearly so pleasant as childhood, more work and more worries. So, subconsciously, sex must be some terrible badness, if adulthood is its punishment.

The above post (re. GOE as metaphor for puberty) was by John B Hodges.

I've heard an alternate argument, that it is a metaphor for the onset of agriculture and the settled way of life, as contrasted to hunter-gathering and pastoralism. (nomadic herding.) Tribes that did agriculture, perhaps for only part of the year, could generate more food than tribes that did not, and so their populations grew, and soon they HAD to do agriculture whether they wanted to or not; they may even have been forced to give up hunting/gathering altogether for full-time farming, in part because of depletion of wildlife in the vicinity. The life of a subsistence-farmer is much harder than the life of a hunter-gatherer. Their growing population had trapped them in a miserable lifestyle. Hence the story to explain it. -JBH

JBH, I'm pretty sure it's also been interpreted as metaphor for the acquisition of sapience by humans.

lol, Patricia, you're hungry for some fresh meat, aren't you.

We don't know how old the roots of the Myth of the Fall are. I like to think they started out as metaphors for puberty. Later, as we "evolved" into mental/cultural "awakening", which puberty can also be a metaphor for, the myth became less about puberty and more about self awareness. But this I just pull out of my ass.

We don't know how old the roots of the Myth of the Fall are

I think we do, the Sumerians came up with the first "Fall" myth, En-Ki ate a forbidden fruit and lost immortality.They also invented the flood myth and the talking snake, by the way.

Posted by: Patricia, Queen of Sluts OM
So, said the cougar licking her lips, why are you an ex minister, ex-minister? And ex-minister of what creed? We love catholics and calvinists best, my darlings, the Brethern fall in way below those popular god fearing people.

Seventh Day Adventist. I fear that may be lower than whale shit for you.
Why I left? That is a very long story. Essentially I couldn't believe the unbelievable. I was terribly conflicted. All this wonderful stuff that was supposed to be happening never happened. I didn't hop directly to evolution. I had many years of shedding religion first.

I talk about it a bit on our blog.
Darwin Killed God

It may take years to sort out my past, but evolution is NOT related to that path. But shedding religion has allowed me to look at evolution with eyes open. I did look at evolution years ago and of course only through creationist literature with their bullet point to poke a stick at you guys. Looking at what has developed since then and directly reading science books instead is opening up an incredible world for me.

Ok. Here I lie exposed. Be gentle. :-P

the Sumerians came up with the first "Fall" myth

Sorry if this question is stupid, but how do we know it was the first?

Patricia @ 107,

I got a baaad feeling about ex-minister.

Your knowledge and intuition wrt religionists by far trumps mine, but fwiw I dont get such a bad vibe here.....

My impression is the guy got out of the xtian quicksand, that's an achievement !

I didn't hop directly to evolution. I had many years of shedding religion first.

I don't like this statement though, there are plenty religious people(in fact, the overwhelming majority of them) that have no problem with evolution whatsoever, it takes active denial to not see that evolution is a fact.

Ok. Here I lie exposed. Be gentle. :-P

ex-minister, relax. We'll be as gentle as any disputatious, rabid, godless, critical, obsessive, pedantic and ravenous horde on the internet can be — every bit as gentle as we are on ourselves!

Welcome to Pharyngula. :)

Sorry if this question is stupid, but how do we know it was the first?

Ok, fair enough, they were the first to write it down,so we know about it today ! Since En-Ki was a sumerian god, I guess it makes sense to assume that the Sumerians came up with that myth.But Mr Avalos or Owlmirror might be able to expand on that.

@Ex-Minister

But shedding religion has allowed me to look at evolution with eyes open. I did look at evolution years ago and of course only through creationist literature with their bullet point to poke a stick at you guys. Looking at what has developed since then and directly reading science books instead is opening up an incredible world for me.

Getting out of any christian cult, let alone one is ruthlessly blinkered as the 7th Day Adventists is a fairly impressive acheivement, of course, having made a similar journey myself I would say that:-)

And an ex-minister too boot? Thats the red sea of peer pressure, woo terror canyon and the mountains of self interest you had to overcome to get out. Nice going.

Seriously, kudos.

#120

"Ok. Here I lie exposed. Be gentle. :-P"

Indeed, and welcome to the chaos which is unorganised atheism!

Try and forgive the odd terse rebuttal and do not assume the following is correct...but

The Rational dialogue.

"Our progenitor which art not in heaven nor hell.
Quantum thermodynamics be thy name.
Thy singularity come,
Thy physics be done, in earth as it is elsewhere (except on the event horizon...maybe!)
Give us this day our daily education,
And curse the IDiots for lying their asses off, as we do not forgive the creationists for self inflicted inanity,
And lead us not into ignorance,
But deliver us from theocracy,
For thine is the M-brane, the fluctuation and the inflation theory, for ever and ever...or until cosmological heat death does for us all...Ofuck!"

I noticed a previous comment noted that Adam and Eve felt guilty for being naked, but not for disobeying God. It postulated some sort of deeper meaning for this.

Duh. It's because God's a miserable despotic jackass. You're not supposed to obey those. Ur Doin It Wrong.

It's a shame our artist is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

http://www.farleftside.com/2009/12-28-09.html

I don't know anymore. Having been in politics for 6 years, I wouldn't put it past government to do it. I used to hear a few of them talking about how good it would be to be an autocracy. In the political game, all members are treated as numbers, cattle to win the vote. I used to be a party official.

Like religion, intellectual dishonesty, cut members off from outside information by saying "Media is biased against us, convince your friends and family..." etc, and if you do deviate from a party line, your faction freezes you out and labels you a turn-coat, they'll even organise someone to take your position come the next annual general meeting.

@77

I need to lurk more here to learn proper etiquette.

If you're here to learn etiquette ex-rev, I should warn you, you're barking up the wrong blog. /ribbing

Rorschach @ 122,

I don't like this statement though, there are plenty religious people(in fact, the overwhelming majority of them) that have no problem with evolution whatsoever, it takes active denial to not see that evolution is a fact.

I don't know any. My entire extended family belongs to some fundamentalist church (Adventist and Church of God of Prophecy). Those who don't go to church still believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Maybe I should get out more. What denominations are comfortable with evolution? Do they believe in a personal God? and that he/she/it is involved in anything related to this planet?

Rutee @ 127

I noticed a previous comment noted that Adam and Eve felt guilty for being naked, but not for disobeying God. It postulated some sort of deeper meaning for this.

That is a sharp observation. Thanks.

coughlanbrianm @ 125

Getting out of any christian cult, let alone one is ruthlessly blinkered as the 7th Day Adventists is a fairly impressive acheivement, of course, having made a similar journey myself I would say that:-)

Seriously, kudos.

Which denomination did you escape from?

Thanks to all. I think I like this place.

What denominations are comfortable with evolution? Do they believe in a personal God? and that he/she/it is involved in anything related to this planet?

The large majority of the world's xian denominations don't have a problem with evolution.

This would include Catholics, mainline Protestants, Mormons, and some Evangelicals.

Evolutionary biology is taught at most real Xian universities. Baylor(Baptist), Notre Dame(Catholic), Calvin (Xian Reformed), SMU (Methodist), most Lutheran, some Nazarene and Adventists(so far), and so on.

Most xians just say god touched off the Big Bang and invented evolution. The fundie god always comes across as an incompetent meddler who can't get anything right. He put two humans in a garden with a talking snake, genocided everyone to make them behave, and can't keep a biosphere going for more than 6,000 years. The evolution god has been running a universe for 13.7 billion years and it is just getting started.

Raven @ 132,
The official Adventist conference of 2004 affirmed believe in creationism.

- Creation is a foundational pillar in the entire system of Seventh-day Adventist doctrine—it bears direct relationship to many if not all other fundamental beliefs. Any alternative interpretation of the creation story needs to be examined in light of its impact on all other beliefs. Several of the Faith and Science Conferences reviewed alternative interpretations of Genesis 1, including the idea of theistic evolution. These other interpretations lack theological coherence with the whole of Scripture and reveal areas of inconsistency with the rest of Seventh-day Adventist doctrine. They are therefore unacceptable substitutes for the biblical doctrine of creation held by the church.

- We affirm the primacy of Scripture in the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of origins.

- We affirm the historic Seventh-day Adventist understanding of Genesis 1 that life on earth was created in six literal days and is of recent origin.

An Affirmation of Creation

Teaching it in school doesn't mean they agree with it. When I was studying for the ministry they taught us about all the other religions so that we would know where they were wrong.

Raven @ 132
Mormon are a bit more cagey about creation. I think there must be some controversy within.

From one of their websites, while they allow for time and not 6 days, Adam and Eve were first and immortal. That to me conflicts with evolution

Adam and Eve were created in the image of God. In the Garden of Eden, they were immortal. After the fall, they became mortal.
The six “days” of creation were actually six consecutive creative periods of unknown length.

The Creation Mormon Beliefs

Mormon are a bit more cagey about creation. I think there must be some controversy within.

They teach evolutionary biology at BYU. Many of these sects have factions that don't agree on much of anything.

They also teach evolutionary biology at many of the Adventists colleges. There is a movement within the group to burn them at the stake purge them. Some think the Adventists may have another schism again.

The denominations are not armies or prisons, mostly. People within have a wide spectrum of belief. Even some Catholics are fundie creationists even though the last four Popes didn't agree.

Polls show that today Americans aren't interested in dogma and doctrine. Cults that make following a long list of dogmas a requirement usually end up fragmenting into a zillion pieces. Armstrong's Worldwide Horror Show of God split off from the Adventists. After he died it split into something like 300 pieces.

Motive, means and opportunity, MolBio. Let's grant President Cheney the motive - he'd already started the wheels rolling on killing a few hundred thousand Ay-raqis for stock options, so I'm not unwilling to believe he'd cheerfully tack on a few thousand of 'his' nation's citizens. Opportunity? All over. Fine.

It's the means that are the problem with Mr. Far Left Side and similar eye-diverging looney tunes. Whether LIHOP or MIHOP, as long as you're claiming that the means was suicidal high-speed impact by tons of jet fuel then we can agree to disagree - I choose to be less paranoid in the absence of evidence, but inviting or turning a blind eye to some murderous thugs is something that could have happened, and could have been pretty well covered up.

However most Truthers, including Mr. FLS, feel such a need for exciting techno-evidence that they fly in the face of reality, insulting readers' intelligence in the process. Prime example, linked upthread, is a photo claimed to demonstrate that the WTC was implosive-detonated, a hypothesis that completely ignores the prep time and hard graft involved in orchestrating an implosive detonation, the logical contradictions involved in the Devil supposedly choosing to do so, and the overwhelming expert opinion that it's not needed to encompass the evidence. High air pressure in front of a huge rapidly moving object? Steel bending before it breaks? These are things that never happen!

Owlmirror #94 wrote the following . . . stuff:

You, a random individual writing on your own authority on teh Internets, must necessarily trump everyone else who has actually studied the matter, because you say so.

Well, if you had actually taken the time to read what I wrote, you would see that I provided sources -- not my 'own authority' for my points.

I have studied the matter. Extensively. Using insults (starting off by calling me a 'moron' for instance) doesn't demonstrate any 'authority' on your part -- only a puerile writing style so common to trolls.

I have no need to argue from authority, even though I have expertise in several areas that repeatedly show up in this forum. I am amply able to substantiate my positions with evidence -- and without needing to call you a fuckwit names in the process. Perhaps you might give that strategy a try.

Well, if you had actually taken the time to read what I wrote, you would see that I provided sources

Your sources do not support your argument very well. Their point appears to be to emphasize that the sin of Sodom was not consensual homosexuality, which I agree with. But they do not entirely eliminate the possibility that male rape was intended, and acknowledge that as a possible interpretation of the passage -- which was the point of everyone who disagrees with you here.

Using insults (starting off by calling me a 'moron' for instance)

Speaking of taking the time to read what I wrote, where did I "start off" by doing that?

I have no need to argue from authority, even though I have expertise in several areas that repeatedly show up in this forum.

Not in this particular thread....

I am amply able to substantiate my positions with evidence

Yet you misread and misunderstood your interlocutors and your sources, and argued, rather unsuccessfully, from your own authority, on the subject of human sexuality.

and without needing to call you a fuckwit names in the process.

Your passive-aggressive need to call me names behind the figleaf of a strikeout is noted. And I note in addition that this is despite the fact that I have not used any vulgar epithets towards you, whatsoever.

Perhaps you might give that strategy a try.

Your hypocrisy is noted.

Owlmirror, my mistake, I appear to have mixed up Paul #58 with your comment. (That's what I get for skimming while at work.) I admit I was wrong. I apologize.

However, that being said, you have several times accused me of not knowing what I'm talking about, and been insulting (#49, #67, #94). All with an arrogance not backed up by evidence. And the hypocrisy of accusing me (using faux teenage vernacular -- perhaps in an attempt at humor) of making claims only on my own authority -- yet in countering you only use your own authority.

In fact, all of your comments to me have been on your own authority. No evidence, no links, only your word. Yet you dare to accuse me of the same thing when I have provided evidence.

Owlmirror's hypocrisy is noted.

FTFY.

You do seem to like tossing about the labels (i.e. passive-aggressive). Judging by their inaccuracy, I'd say you barely passed Psych 101 and think it makes you qualified to analyze someone from blog posts. Oops, I suppose that was snarky of me.

Your pathetic need to attempt condescension is noted.

Your posts would be more effective if you were more accurate, less hypocritical, and a tad bit more pleasant -- even with those you feel are in error.

But to drive home the point further, I did not 'misread' my sources. As my sources pointed out, the bible itself states that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality (I'm glad that you admit to agreeing with that). I never suggested that there wasn't a possible threat of male rape after interrogation -- that's a fantasy you created. I repeat my suggestion that you need to actually read what I wrote.

As for my statements 'on the subject of human sexuality' -- are you suggesting that a homosexual man is not a man who likes sex with men? That a heterosexual man is not a man who likes sex with women? Really? Be careful, because this isn't a trick question. I didn't mention bisexuals or all the possible human sexualities, but do you have a problem with those two definitions? Really? Perhaps a good dictionary would come in handy for you.

As for my statements 'on the subject of human sexuality' -- are you suggesting that a homosexual man is not a man who likes sex with men? That a heterosexual man is not a man who likes sex with women? Really? Be careful, because this isn't a trick question. I didn't mention bisexuals or all the possible human sexualities, but do you have a problem with those two definitions? Really? Perhaps a good dictionary would come in handy for you.

You're the one that brought up homo/hetero and somehow didn't understand his pointing out that it was a false dichotomy, or you pretended not to since it made your argument less plausible (and was a way of brushing under the carpet the idea that the hetero populace wasn't above homo rape, as noted by your sources).

I stand by my earlier assessment.

@Joel: (#1)

Sure, Yahweh can create stuff. But he can't create an equal being without giving up his essential godness. The idea that his omnipotence is limited to creating lesser stuff makes him very sad, and occasionally act like a petulant two-year old, and so forth. Plus, his followers have to mutilate their own reproductive organs because Yahweh is just that spiteful.

genesis 2 and 3 is the story of the creation a godly equal, man. god himself admits so, in the verse cited two posts below yours.

@Legion: (#3)

*Given that Adam and Eve didn't know good from evil, they could hardly be expected to know right from wrong, so the claim of disobedience is fallacious. God, in his infinite dickism, set them up to fail.

he did, but the claim of disobedience is not necessarily fallacious. whether or not they knew right from wrong is questionable at best. is it knowledge of good and evil, or knowledge that is good and evil? it can really be read either way. and in either case, they knew who was in charge and what he said not to do. if they were not fully morally aware, it can't be counted as sin, no. there's a whole line of jewish thought on that. but it was still disobedience -- the same way your dog may not be fully morally aware, but does things you tell him not to.

of course, there's also the "sex" reading. l'daat is frequently read as "to have sex with", such as in chapter 4, v'ha-adam yada et-chavah ishto, "and the man knew his wife chavah..." and begot qayin. same word as etz ha-daat tov v'ra. it might be an inappropriate extension of the idiom, but i dunno. they did, uh, figure out that they were naked afterward, and "shame" and seeing nakedness is a general biblical way to beat around the bush at saying "fucked". so it might make sense.

in which case, uh, why are they like god for having sex? perhaps its the procreative ability -- god made man, now man makes another man?

@SteveM: (#7)

I was taught that Adam and Eve were allowed to eat from the tree of Life; they were only forbidden the tree of Knowledge.

yes, they were! until god got threatened. there's also this question of whether the affects of the tree are permanent and hereditary, permanent and "acquired traits", or just plain temporary. none of these views are entirely logically consistent. except maybe the sex one. maybe.

@jupiter9: (#14)

Woman as goddess, man as horndog is no less limiting than woman as brainless fluff, man as master of the universe.

men smart, women dumb = sexist against women.
women smart, men dumb = sexist against women?

just checking.

Since the Bible doesn't say the Tree of Knowledge explained why Adam has a weiner, I think the obsessed party is a lot closer than that.

they figured out they were naked. both of them. then they made pants. yeah, uh, it sort of heavily implies that.

and the original story is, of course, a fair deal more sexist than that.

@raven: (#23)

There used to be multiple gods in the bible. According to psalms 82, Yahweh threatened to fire them.

oh god, not this again. the polytheist reading of psalm 82 is highly suspect at best. go look at some commentary on the subject. but mostly, it's historically inaccurate. when these things were written, the culture was already thoroughly monotheistic. there are some hints as to the polytheist roots of judaism in the bible (especially the polytheism of the non-priests) but this is probably not one of them.

His followers also got rid of his wife, Asherah.

strictly speaking, the followers of yahweh that mattered historically did. there was a time when asherah worship was rampant (or at least frequently railed against) in ancient judah. but she also has much, much stronger links to foreign gods than yahweh. not that yahweh's are absent, just older.

the "us" btw seems to be simply a figure of speech. in all of the verses i've seen, he uses it rather strictly in a reflective sense, "let us do this," etc. i bet you frequently say similar things talking to yourself. in the very next verse, he always switches right back to singular.

while i'm on the subject of grammar, "elohim" isn't plural, either. since it's used with singular verbs, it's singular. every case where it is not, context indicates that it's talking about something else, generally "other gods" but sometimes earthly entities as well. however, its apparently plural construction may be an indication of the polytheistic past, especially when linked to the similarly named council in ugaritic mythology.

@Martin: (#28)

This also allows homophobes to indulge in a creative misreading of the story of Lot. Lot offers shelter to strangers (angels), and the locals come to his door and demand to "know" his guests. Now, it ought to be obvious that in this case, "to know" means "to have an an intellectual understanding," and that the men were saying, "bring out your guests so we can see who they are." However, some people find it convenient to claim that the locals were saying, "bring them out so we can have sex with them," never mind that this seems like a rather pointless demand.

no, this is not the case in the sodom story. it's quite clear what lot at least thought they meant: he offered his two "virgin" daughters (quotes because he lied; they're married) as an enticing alternative. his "not known a man" in the offer directly parallels the "know" in the demand. one doesn't pull a red-herring by using precisely the same language, unless one is trying to be funny. and i don't think lot is trying to be funny.

there's also a similar story in judges 19, where the mob does indeed take the offer. they rape ("know") the woman all night, until she's dead in the morning. as you say, context is everything.

this criticism, btw, has nothing to do with homophobia. in hebrew, male-gendered plurals are gender indeterminate. it would say "men of the city" if it were all men, some men and some women, or all women except for one man. similarly, there's no good reason to assume that the men of the city knew that both travelers staying in lot's house were male. indeed, that would have been a very strange thing for the day (maybe they were the homophobes lol). rather, they were after abusing guests. like, in general.

as i'm sure any feminist will tell you, rape is not about sex. it's about power.

@gr8thands:

Of 943 times yãdhà is used in the Old Testament, only ten times is it used to mean sexual intercourse, and all of these are heterosexual coitus.

excluding this example, and judges 19. which, btw, is called question-begging.

The Old Testament uses the word shãkhabh to mean homosexual acts and bestiality.

don't be silly. shakab (stop it with all the extra letters!) means "lay." as in the physical act of reclining. it's another euphism. and is, in fact, used in the very same chapter as the sodom story. lot's daughters shakab with him.

I appear to have mixed up Paul #58 with your comment

Yet Paul didn't "start out" by insulting you either.

I admit I was wrong. I apologize.

But are you sincere, I wonder? Let's see what else you write.

However, that being said, you have several times accused me of not knowing what I'm talking about,

Yes, but I was right.

And you have repeatedly accused me of not knowing what I'm talking about, and been wrong.

and been insulting.

In response to you being insulting. What, you dish it out but you can't take it?

All with an arrogance not backed up by evidence.

The evidence of your arrogance is in your own comments.

Your double-standard and general insincerity are noted.

And the hypocrisy of accusing me [...] of making claims only on my own authority

Which you remain guilty of. And now you commit the hypocritical fallacy of the tu quoque.

In fact, all of your comments to me have been on your own authority.

Would you acknowledge that you were arguing on your own authority, and getting it wrong, if I went to the effort of citing the works of behaviorists and psychologists that demonstrate how utterly wrong you were?

Just curious.

No evidence, no links, only your word. Yet you dare to accuse me of the same thing when I have provided evidence.

You have provided no evidence that supported your arguments -- based on following the links that you did provide as "evidence", and reading what they actually said, as opposed to what you wanted them to say.

FTFY

Your total lack of originality is noted.

You do seem to like tossing about the labels

You do seem to like behaving like a stereotype.

Oops, I suppose that was snarky of me.

Your snide insincerity is noted.

Your posts would be more effective if you were more accurate, less hypocritical, and a tad bit more pleasant -- even with those you feel are in error.

Have you looked in a mirror lately?

I never suggested that there wasn't a possible threat of male rape after interrogation -- that's a fantasy you created.

Actually, it's the one that you created. Read your own comments again.

As for my statements 'on the subject of human sexuality' -- are you suggesting that a homosexual man is not a man who likes sex with men? That a heterosexual man is not a man who likes sex with women?

Not in the least. I am suggesting that your binary definitions are complete fallacies: an implicit false dichotomy (either the Sodomites were exclusive homosexuals who would have had no interest in girls, or they were 100% heterosexuals who would have had no interest in raping men), that begs the question as an argument from authority (got any citations that human sexuality is exclusively a complete binary?), and that is a strawman argument (no one was arguing that the Sodomites were exclusive homosexuals).

Now, you can either concede that your argument was completely fallacious, or you can continue to argue in bad faith.

And if the above is not what you intended, you can start all over again and rephrase what the hell your argument is.

I didn't mention bisexuals or all the possible human sexualities

Because doing so would have highlighted that you were arguing fallaciously?

@raven: (#23)

There used to be multiple gods in the bible. According to psalms 82, Yahweh threatened to fire them.

oh god, not this again. the polytheist reading of psalm 82 is highly suspect at best. go look at some commentary on the subject. but mostly, it's historically inaccurate.

Why? I can read English.

A huge amount of commentary, especially that written by fundie xians is worthless. They come up with convoluted explanations for why there really isn't 2 genesis myths, why the bible doesn't really say the earth is flat, and on and on.

Historically inaccurate? How so? The bible has been written and rewritten so many times that it definitely is a work of many things, mostly propaganda. Who knows how much of the polytheism has been written out of the bible? A lot for sure. It is a wonder any remains.

Asherah was a very popular goddess in Israel and Judea even up until late times. One can easily see how popular she was by how much of the bible is spent libeling her. The OT is also the religion of the priests, not necessarily the common people. Figures of Asherah are common archaeological findings.

the polytheist reading of psalm 82 is highly suspect at best.

Hm. I was just recently listening to the Higgaion podcast series, which argues that the plurals when Elohim speaks in Genesis, and references Psalm 82 as referring to the council of gods -- lesser deities or demigods, perhaps, but still powerful supernatural beings subordinate to the "Chief/King" God.

when these things were written, the culture was already thoroughly monotheistic.

I recall it being stated that archaeologists found idols and house-shrines and such right up until the Assyrians and Babylonians rolled through.

  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3516_bible.html

Specifically:

PETER MACHINIST: They resort first to a standard form of explanation, which is found elsewhere in the ancient Near East: "We must have done something wrong to incur the wrath of our God."
WILLIAM DEVER: It's out of this that comes the reflection that polytheism was our downfall; there is, after all, only one God.
NARRATOR: The Israelites abandon the folly of polytheism, monotheism triumphs, and the archaeological evidence proves it.
EPHRAIM STERN (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem): Before the destruction of the First Temple, wherever we dig, in whatever part of the Judean country, we find sanctuaries, and, more often, we find hundreds and thousands of figurines, even in Jerusalem itself.
NARRATOR: But after the destruction there are none.
EPHRAIM STERN: We are speaking about thousands before and nothing—completely nothing at all—after.
LEE LEVINE: Monotheism is well-ensconced, firmly ensconced, so something major happened which is very hard to trace. But that was a searing experience, that time in the exile.

And the Psalms were, I am pretty sure, written before the destruction of the first temple (when Yahwistic monolatry was one faction competing with earlier polytheism).

the "us" btw seems to be simply a figure of speech. in all of the verses i've seen, he uses it rather strictly in a reflective sense, "let us do this,"

See (or listen to) Higgaion. Not saying they're absolutely right, but "the divine council" is what they argue for those verses.

@raven (#143)

Why? I can read English.

reading english and comprehending poetry are two entirely different matters.

A huge amount of commentary, especially that written by fundie xians is worthless. They come up with convoluted explanations for why there really isn't 2 genesis myths, why the bible doesn't really say the earth is flat, and on and on.

i didn't say "fundie xtian commentary". i didn't actually specify, but perhaps jewish commentary might be a good place to start. and secular, academic commentary would be even better.

yes, there are some people with a vested interest in disguising whatever hints of polytheism remain in the bible. i am not one of them. in fact, i would be more than happy to point one such instance that is a remainder of judaism's ancient polytheistic roots, and point out when it was first covered up. go look up deuteronomy 32:8, and compare the difference between the septuagint and the masoretic, and how the masoretic version doesn't actually make much sense.

Historically inaccurate? How so? The bible has been written and rewritten so many times that it definitely is a work of many things, mostly propaganda. Who knows how much of the polytheism has been written out of the bible? A lot for sure. It is a wonder any remains.

historically inaccurate in that when this psalm was written, judaism had already moved quite far beyond polytheism.

Asherah was a very popular goddess in Israel and Judea even up until late times.

yes, and even the bible admits as such.

The OT is also the religion of the priests, not necessarily the common people. Figures of Asherah are common archaeological findings.

yes, and this is precisely the issue. while the commoners seem to have treated yahweh in a polytheistic sense, the preisthood, at least the ones that historically were in power, did not. and they went to a great deal of effort to be quite exclusionary in their monotheism, too, demanding the removal of all other gods (especially asherah) from judah. the idea that they would be writing things at the same time that literally acknowledge other gods is just a little silly. if anything, the psalm reads as sort of a depiction of what was going on in judah at the time, either regarding the purge of polytheism (around the time of josiah), or perhaps as a reference to the exile. depending on what you take "elohim" to mean.

@Owlmirror: (#144)

Hm. I was just recently listening to the Higgaion podcast series, which argues that the plurals when Elohim speaks in Genesis, and references Psalm 82 as referring to the council of gods -- lesser deities or demigods, perhaps, but still powerful supernatural beings subordinate to the "Chief/King" God.

there definitely is a pretty wide range of what "monotheism" means to the authors of the old testament. some are quite exclusionary, and some are a little more accepting of the practices of others. the "council" idea comes from comparison to surrounding cultures, and the inclusion of the "sons of god(s)", and is perhaps valid.

i've heard the argument before, but i don't think it quite works. for instance, look at genesis 1:

26: נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ
27: וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ

see the change in number? god says "let us make man in our image, as our likeness..." and god makes (singular) man in his image. this makes me think it's simply some kind of quirk of the language. happens again in genesis 11.

I recall it being stated that archaeologists found idols and house-shrines and such right up until the Assyrians and Babylonians rolled through.

yes. there was a whole lot of polytheism going on, at least outside the temple of solomon. but you have to remember that the bible is representative of the late and post 1st temple preisthood, not the common jewish person in the early 1st temple. this difference is absolutely essential. it's quite appropriate to take the bible with a gigantic grain of salt and as not representative of the common practices. even assuming some slight influence makes sense -- but a wholesale inclusion of polytheism probably means you're reading it wrong.

And the Psalms were, I am pretty sure, written before the destruction of the first temple (when Yahwistic monolatry was one faction competing with earlier polytheism).

i'd have to see some kind of argument for that. there's not much that we can date in the bible until basically just prior to the destruction of the temple, and most of the OT was written (or compiled, redacted, and editted) just shortly thereafter. some documents are older -- the torah is slightly older in its component parts. but i'd have to see a good argument that the psalms are. even the torah is not that polytheistic.

the babylonian exile seems to have been a kind of crucible for judaism, which burned off everything but the most xenophobic of the tribalist preists, leaving yahweh alone as the singular god of israel. you can find lots of stuff about this really right in the bible -- the "we must have done something wrong, guess it's the other gods" argument above is essentially a paraphrase of jeremiah. the exclusionist tendency certainly existed before, but the populace didn't seem to take it seriously.

btw, psalm 82 happens to be one of the places where one part of the bible comments on another. for instance, the second century christian authors seem to have thought psalm 82 was about human beings. in john 10, jesus quotes psalm 82 as a response to people accusing him of blasphemy for claiming he was god. it's clear from verse 35 that the author of john thought the psalm refered to the people "unto whom the word of god came", ie, that psalm 82 was a condemnation of the priestly class. but i dunno if that reading's especially valid either.

as another aside, the "completely disappeared after the destruction of the temple" bit isn't quite true either. what about the samarians? :D

wow, i really have watch that e/i typo on "priest". i keep doing that.

@arachnophilia:

I think you're forgetting the point that monolatry is a transitional stage between general polytheism and specific monotheism. We can be generally sure from that very verse in Deut 32:8 that other gods were acknowledged to be real, but the commandment to the polytheists is not to worship other gods -- not that the other gods are not real.

Given this context, I think the "divine council" interpretation in Psalm 82 makes sense: Yahweh is described as being in charge of all the rest. It's an early propaganda piece that reinforces monolatry; of a god -- Yahweh -- that was more powerful than very powerful beings.

the idea that they would be writing things at the same time that literally acknowledge other gods is just a little silly.

It only acknowledges them as Yahweh's inferiors/subordinates.

but you have to remember that the bible is representative of the late and post 1st temple preisthood,

Yet the priesthood had to deal with polytheism somehow, in order to advocate monolatry.

not the common jewish person in the early 1st temple.

Or rather, the common Israelite or Judean. "Jewish" has connotations of the current religion, not followers of the ancient cult of Yahweh and other gods of the ancient near east.

it's quite appropriate to take the bible with a gigantic grain of salt and as not representative of the common practices.

Of course. But there are remnants -- like the redacted Deut 32:8; like Psalm 82 -- that suggest that some of the common practices may have been inadvertently left in the bible. Sometimes priests are not aware of the implications of the writings (and some generations later then become aware, as the editing of the Masoretic version of Deut 32:8 shows)

I don't have anything to hand to date Psalm 82; I miswrote in implying that they all date to before the conquest. I think it's more correct to say that the psalms are a collection of materials that dates to different periods.

Hm.

More on the divine council here

as another aside, the "completely disappeared after the destruction of the temple" bit isn't quite true either. what about the samarians?

Well... even if this is correct, they're a mighty small exception.

And I'm not sure they are an exception -- as I recall, the Samaritans were/are a remnant population of Assyrians that were brought into Israel, as Israelites were transferred to different parts of Assyria. So they weren't Israelites/Judeans to count as exceptions, I think.