Why did God create a pleasure organ for Eve but not for Adam?

[Chesterton]

Well, mollusk eyes would be a big improvement. They're the same as ours, except it isn't wired in a convoluted fasion. Oh, and a decent load-bearing skeletal system. Our's is rubbish .

And laser vision.

Okay, I'll talk to him. Anything else? Perhaps a body that doesn't die? I'll talk to His Son about that.

 

[busterdog]

Okay, I'll talk to him. Anything else? Perhaps a body that doesn't die? I'll talk to His Son about that.

1Cr 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

As Dave Matthews said, "Everything good [in this world] needs replacing." Again, not a design issue. The critical design is the incorruptible one.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Okay, I'll talk to him. Anything else? Perhaps a body that doesn't die? I'll talk to His Son about that.

No, thanks. I'd hate to exist in a 500 year old body; have you seen what happens to us at a mere 100?

*shudder*

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes. My thesis is simple. Disobedience robs the disobedient of the ability to enjoy the life given to them.

I disagree. I, for one, have disobeyed a great many people, yet I continue to enjoy life. Indeed, I should think only severe mental trauma would have the effect you're talking about.

Kinsey is regarded as a revolutionary thinker, yet all he was was a rebel.

Is that not a crucial criterion for being deemed a revolutionary thinker? How can one be the latter, without first being the former? More to the point, what is wrong with being a rebel? Galileo, Newton, Plank, Dirac, Darwin, Curie, Einstein, Hawking... all of the greatest scientific discoveries were made by rebels.

As evidence of his corruption is the fact instead of freedom, he died like an addict.

He died of heart disease and pneumonia at the ripe old age of 62. He enjoyed many of the comforts of mid-20[sup]th[/sup]C USA. Besides a few quirks in his sex life, he was your average citizen.

But what does lambasting a dead man have to do with the topic at hand? You haven't even touched on his research .

Trying to get off by circumcising himself with a pocket knife, "catheterizing" himself (actually with a tooth brush) and needing the "pleasure" of being kicked and beaten in the gonads (which might actually have killed him).

So he was a hardcore [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. Who doesn't like being slapped around a little?

Kinsey himself warned his researchers that their work would actually impair their physical senses. Their simple ability to enjoy physical beauty was at risk by "studying" pornography. Kinsey betrayed, ever so subtly, his knowledge that he was doing damage to people by his work.

Similarly, what is the result of abortion? Agony. Depression. Nightmares.

Similarly? Both involve vaginas, but there the similarities end. And what evidence do you have that abortion results in "Agony, depression, and nightmares"?

The same pattern exists in with other examples of disobedience -- whether heterosexual or otherwise. Hereosexuals who are not following the biblical model tend to have a lousy sex life. Perhaps not at first, but that is the trend. Look it up.

I looked around, but I couldn't find any data to corroborate your claims. Can you provide your sources?

Kinsey was a lousy scientist.

... so?

Dont blame the designer when the equipment is being misused.

Curvy spines and inverted retina are hardly instances of equipment being misused.

That is why the atheist attribution of a poor design sounds nonsensical to a happily married man.

That's the biggest non sequitur since Star Trek: Enterprise.

As a scientist, the rebuttal to this entire area is a rather simple evidential rebuttal. I would save you the pain of "speculation". The evidence is in. There is a pattern. The day that it begins to resonate with reality, know that Jesus will make you forgiven and free. He promises more abundant life.

I do like how you think a "rather simple evidential rebuttal" is the same as unevidenced religious mythology. What evidence are you talking about? What pattern are you referring to? We are both scientists, so I would appreciate it if you started talking like one.

Was the OP a question or something more akin to the nonsense critique of God on the basis of design?

The former.

As for the notion that the human body is badly designed, that is not speculation. It is a foolish conclusion.

A rather strange thing to say, given that I've cited several examples of flawed design.

No. They don't exist. Not as design issues. This is a fallen world. It is not as it was designed to be.

So, when Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, it caused her retina to turn inside out? It cause her spine to become 'S'-shaped? This theology is equally flawed: imperfect design is the result of the Flying Spaghetti Monster being drunk on the job.

See? I too can turn an intellectual discussion into one of mythology and make-believe.

I am taking God's Word on this.

If you're taking about the Bible, you're taking your interpretation of a particular translation of a piece of text you believe to be God's Word. That's quite a lot of dubious qualifiers.
If you're talking about your religious communiqués, that's still dubious: nothing has discredited Christianity more than Fundamentalist Creationism, so clearly it is a ploy of Satan. Beware his witchery!

I wasn't there. But, there is no refutation in science. There is only speculation, much of which is proven to be pointless as science advances.

Uhuh. Call me when you the homoeopathy stops working.

 

[FallingWaters]

Well, mollusk eyes would be a big improvement. They're the same as ours, except it isn't wired in a convoluted fasion. Oh, and a decent load-bearing skeletal system. Our's is rubbish .

And laser vision.

I'd like a better tan... and bigger boobs for my girlfriend

And while we're at it, I'd like to be able to fly!

 

[Chesterton]

No, thanks. I'd hate to exist in a 500 year old body; have you seen what happens to us at a mere 100?

*shudder*

Maybe you should cut back on the kidney pies and stout.

 

[busterdog]

I disagree. I, for one, have disobeyed a great many people, yet I continue to enjoy life. Indeed, I should think only severe mental trauma would have the effect you're talking about.

We shall see.

Is that not a crucial criterion for being deemed a revolutionary thinker? How can one be the latter, without first being the former? More to the point, what is wrong with being a rebel? Galileo, Newton, Plank, Dirac, Darwin, Curie, Einstein, Hawking... all of the greatest scientific discoveries were made by rebels.

Kinsey rebelled against God. His sex life was painful and horrid.

He died of heart disease and pneumonia at the ripe old age of 62. He enjoyed many of the comforts of mid-20[sup]th[/sup]C USA. Besides a few quirks in his sex life, he was your average citizen.

Only if you misrepresent what was "average", which is what he did. The average guy would have had turned over his materials on "Mr. Green" and had him arrested for raping children. The man was not average. The average guy does not circumcise himself with a pocket knife. Yes, the medical issue and cause of death would be speculative by Dr. Reisman. No one claims clear proof. But, his SM was indeed dangerous to his health.

But what does lambasting a dead man have to do with the topic at hand? You haven't even touched on his research .

The issue is design. The misuse of the equipment is not an indictment of the designer. Kinsey misused the equipment. Kinsey's fellow researcher quoted him as saying that misuse of his eyes (pornography) would injure his senses and ability to enjoy life. Look at the video at about 26:00 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2061305218446628970&hl=en

Kinsey said that his colleague would lose the ability to enjoy visual stimuli, he would "lose his sensitivity" and ultimately, it would be harder and harder for him to be "turned on." Now, credit Kinsey for that honesty and sophistication. However, if I willingly deafen myself to the point where I can no long play guitar and sing, there is little that is admirable in such conduct.

The science provided by Judith Reisman is that a great many men have the problem that they cannot enjoy sex because of this very same problem with pornography. It is really the issue behind the nature of sex becoming less fulfilling and the desire become more insatiable, more aberrant and ultimately more painful and conflicted. One piece is on the "impotence pandemic" at http://www.drjudithreisman.org/erototoxin.html.

Remember this. One day the bells will go off. Is there an immediate warning light that goes off? Not necessarily. Anyone who understands the nature of addictive behavior understands the strange tolerance that an addiction creates. By about beer number two, I am thinking, how is this better? For some, that whole dynamic is turned on its head.

I am into Jesus for the absolute joy and freedom. In many ways I am a Christian because I just feel better. I remember my other friends, where there was quite a bit of drinking going on, arguing for 45 minutes about where to out. It was like reading Hemmingway. It was conflict and worry and it only seemed like freedom.

So he was a hardcore [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. Who doesn't like being slapped around a little?

The great majority of people. Happy people.

Similarly? Both involve vaginas, but there the similarities end. And what evidence do you have that abortion results in "Agony, depression, and nightmares"?

Abortion is the misuse of equipment, with bad consequences.

Curvy spines and inverted retina are hardly instances of equipment being misused.

They are no more design issues than are amputations. YOu can not follow my reasoning if you choose, but don't pretend to be following it while introducing contradictions. We all know that your a priori's are different. If you live next to a Monsanto pesticide factory and are born with no eyes, is that a design defect?

Originally Posted by busterdog

That is why the atheist attribution of a poor design sounds nonsensical to a happily married man.
​

That's the biggest non sequitur since Star Trek: Enterprise.

Really? Why is it the Christians aren't the ones complaining about the alleged design problem? Sounds like its working for one group and not the other. If the atheist in my example has nothing to complain about, then the atheist's point about excretion and sex being in the same organ was stupid to begin with.

I do like how you think a "rather simple evidential rebuttal" is the same as unevidenced religious mythology. What evidence are you talking about? What pattern are you referring to? We are both scientists, so I would appreciate it if you started talking like one.

The evidence above. There is also quite a bit of evidence that the Kinsey Institute wont release, since it is damaging evidence to their cause and they lie (as in the video) apparently because that's what it takes for them to get off.

The former.

Well, the OP hasn't commented.

However, sex is a vital origins issues. So, the topic is legitimate.

A rather strange thing to say, given that I've cited several examples of flawed design.

Except you have no basis on which to conclude that those anatomical issues were inherent in the design of the human body. We all understand the differing a priori. Me: a creator. You: ?. If you are an atheist, then there is no point to discussing whether God properly designed the human body. If you believe that there was creator, you also must know that you haven't the proper data set to exclude tampering with the design in a world where evil is in evidence.

Pretty much every earth based religion or other spiritual practice similar wicca believes in good forces and evil forces. Presumptively, you have the background to understand that much is happening in the unseen world that you cannot understand. THat is a big problem for concluding that scoliosis is a design problem. And lets not waste time arguing about whether every virus is a work of the devil. The point is that ultimate causes are just not self-evident, and thus the allegation of poor design is unprovable. You might say we were poorly evolved, but to accuse the creator of a poor design is an appeal to things that can't be proven. Its more tantrum that science.

So, when Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, it caused her retina to turn inside out? It cause her spine to become 'S'-shaped? This theology is equally flawed: imperfect design is the result of the Flying Spaghetti Monster being drunk on the job.

It caused the pain of childbirth. Now, you don't really want an exegis on the spiritual cause of disease do you? You can FSM all you want, but all that means is that we begin from a different set of assumptions about the nature of creation. I am perfectly comfortable with the notion that I have a data set for faith that is quite satisfactory to some and quite baffling to others. You may have guessed that your faith is baffling to me as well, since it seems to be just more FSM.

See? I too can turn an intellectual discussion into one of mythology and make-believe.

We all know how to make this kind of rhetorial insult. This is nothing special. Been there. Done that.

If you're taking about the Bible, you're taking your interpretation of a particular translation of a piece of text you believe to be God's Word. That's quite a lot of dubious qualifiers.
If you're talking about your religious communiqués, that's still dubious: nothing has discredited Christianity more than Fundamentalist Creationism, so clearly it is a ploy of Satan. Beware his witchery!

What do you want scripture for? Am I wrong in thinking that all the scripture in the world in support of my position will mean nothing to you? Lets not pretend that any fundamentalism is discredited by misquoting scripture if loving scripture and quoting scripture are for you a discredit in the first place.

 

[Chesterton]

Wiccan, your "design flaws" of the human body are a great argument for atheism. I think you've actually convinced me. Because, why stop with the human body, there are plenty of flaws throughout the physical universe. I've always thought the gravity/mass relationship was discriminatory. Why should more mass entitle a body to more gravity? It's just unfair. What about color? Sure, some are very pretty, but have you seen brown and beige? And temperature, what a disaster! Did you know people and animals can actually freeze or burn to death? Don't even get me started on Reason, have you seen the many ways it's misused?

 

[busterdog]

Wiccan, your "design flaws" of the human body are a great argument for atheism. I think you've actually convinced me. Because, why stop with the human body, there are plenty of flaws throughout the physical universe. I've always thought the gravity/mass relationship was discriminatory. Why should more mass entitle a body to more gravity? It's just unfair. What about color? Sure, some are very pretty, but have you seen brown and beige? And temperature, what a disaster! Did you know people and animals can actually freeze or burn to death? Don't even get me started on Reason, have you seen the many ways it's misused?

I hope Wiccan accepts that for the lighthearted, but insightful, jape that it was. It was brilliant.

By the way, for all the rhetorical warfare I am waging, I rather suspect that the guy has broad enough shoulders to accept your jesting. I suspect he has better-than-average tolerance for self-deprecating humor (a key to intelligence), and I am not completely ignorant of a number of his character strengths.

 

[Chesterton]

For the record, yes it was intended as lighthearted. I'm sure Wiccan will know, I think he's a good guy. I think one must respect something about someone else to even make it worth arguing with them.

And besides, his people gave the world monotheism and ... oh wait... that's not the Star of David is it?...never mind.

 

[busterdog]

For the record, yes it was intended as lighthearted. I'm sure Wiccan will know, I think he's a good guy. I think one must respect something about someone else to even make it worth arguing with them.

And besides, his people gave the world monotheism and ... oh wait... that's not the Star of David is it?...never mind.

That's why I just refuse to sing that song, "Give me that old time religion ....."

I wouldn't say his people gave us monotheism, but arguably, they gave us religion. (Yes, that is so vicious it must be tongue in cheek.)

 

[Melethiel]

Curvy spines aren't a flaw - without the curve, we couldn't stand upright. The curve helps to carry the load.

Carry on.

 

[busterdog]

Curvy spines aren't a flaw - without the curve, we couldn't stand upright. The curve helps to carry the load.

Carry on.

"Aaaaaaaaand you put the load right on me ......"

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Kinsey rebelled against God. His sex life was painful and horrid.

According to whom? He was a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], so I daresay his sex life involved quite a bit of intentional pain. But why do you say it was horrid? It would be horrid if you had his sex life, perhaps, but that's the thing about sexuality: everyone's is different. Heterosexual sex is, to me, disgusting, but I'm not so pig-headed to think that I must impose my aesthetic opinions on everyone else.

Only if you misrepresent what was "average", which is what he did. The average guy would have had turned over his materials on "Mr. Green" and had him arrested for raping children.

You have too much faith in humanity. If a person deemed the paedophile's anonymity a worthy price, then that person will maintain said anonymity. You may disagree with that person's assessment, perhaps to the point where said anonymity is never a worthy price, but that again is your own personal opinion.

The man was not average. The average guy does not circumcise himself with a pocket knife.

Like I said, he was average in all but his sex life.

But, his SM was indeed dangerous to his health.

Source?

The issue is design.

Indeed. So what possible relevance does Kinsey's sex life have to do with anything?

The misuse of the equipment is not an indictment of the designer.

Correct. So?

Kinsey misused the equipment.

So?

Kinsey said that his colleague would lose the ability to enjoy visual stimuli, he would "lose his sensitivity" and ultimately, it would be harder and harder for him to be "turned on." Now, credit Kinsey for that honesty and sophistication. However, if I willingly deafen myself to the point where I can no long play guitar and sing, there is little that is admirable in such conduct.

So?

The science provided by Judith Reisman is that a great many men have the problem that they cannot enjoy sex because of this very same problem with pornography.

She attributed this to a number of so-called 'erototoxins' (testosterone, adrenaline, oxytocin, serotonin, glucose, dopamine, etc), despite these being involved in a huge number of metabolic pathways and physiological responses besides erotic stimulation. She also accused Kinsey of paedophilia, despite the complete lack of supporting evidence. In short, I find Reisman to be an opportunistic fraud basing her conclusions on a personal vendetta against Kinsey, rather than any scientific rigour.

It is really the issue behind the nature of sex becoming less fulfilling and the desire become more insatiable, more aberrant and ultimately more painful and conflicted. One piece is on the "impotence pandemic" at http://www.drjudithreisman.org/erototoxin.html.

Having read a number of the articles on that site, they can be disparagingly summed up in one word: sensationalism. Anyone who disagrees with the article is 'embracing the modern face of denial', which adds credence to my suspicions that she isn't, in fact, a proper scientist (at least as far as sex is concerned).

Remember this. One day the bells will go off. Is there an immediate warning light that goes off? Not necessarily. Anyone who understands the nature of addictive behavior understands the strange tolerance that an addiction creates. By about beer number two, I am thinking, how is this better? For some, that whole dynamic is turned on its head.

Maybe you're right. Maybe you're not. I still have no idea what this talk of sex has to do with design, or with the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

I am into Jesus for the absolute joy and freedom. In many ways I am a Christian because I just feel better. I remember my other friends, where there was quite a bit of drinking going on, arguing for 45 minutes about where to out. It was like reading Hemmingway. It was conflict and worry and it only seemed like freedom.

Ah, and of course your friends were unbelieving Heathens. Tell me, did they also engage in abominable homosexualist practices, lace children's drinks with rohypnol, and support "Obama '08"? Truly these people are the scum of the Earth: how dare they engage in a semi-democratic process when faced with a large number of entertainment venues!!!

The great majority of people. Happy people.

A member of the former is not necessarily a member of the latter, and vice versa. Did it ever occur to you that the people who are sadomasochists are so because they want to be? You may not want to be, and you may be happy with male-female missionary sex, but please, don't be so arrogant as to assume everyone is so bland (and that deviants from this 'Biblical standard' are to be lambasted and driven to the seventh depth of Hell).

Abortion is the misuse of equipment,

Explain miscarriages.

with bad consequences.

I ask you again: source? Put up, or shut up.

They are no more design issues than are amputations.

Of course they are: humans are not salamanders, and our bodies have not evolved to undergo amputation. On the other hand, convoluted retina and curvy spines were evolved.

So tell me, if our bodies were designed, why were we given inverted retina and curvy spines?

YOu can not follow my reasoning if you choose, but don't pretend to be following it while introducing contradictions.

Since you have stuffed our discussion with so much sophistry that it's threatening to implode, I find your words bemusingly hypocritical.

We all know that your a priori's are different. If you live next to a Monsanto pesticide factory and are born with no eyes, is that a design defect?

No: the human body never evolved next to pesticide factories. It did, however, evolve in sub-Saharan Africa. So tell me: why does the average human have so may design defects? The earliest bipedal hominids had them, and they lived long before we started destroying the world. Indeed, their equipment was used as it was 'intended', so that excuse doesn't work.

Really? Why is it the Christians aren't the ones complaining about the alleged design problem?

Because it is only a sub-set of Christians that are advocating it. There are a great many Christians (both within and without the scientific community) that disagree with the claim that the universe shows evidence of intelligent design, and acknowledge the evolutionary mark in biology.

Sounds like its working for one group and not the other. If the atheist in my example has nothing to complain about, then the atheist's point about excretion and sex being in the same organ was stupid to begin with.

Since he does have something to complain about (he may have a bad back, or cataracts, or an enlarged prostate*), your point is moot.

The evidence above. There is also quite a bit of evidence that the Kinsey Institute wont release, since it is damaging evidence to their cause and they lie (as in the video) apparently because that's what it takes for them to get off.

Let us recap:

You: As a scientist, the rebuttal to this entire area [disobedience leads to bad sex] is a rather simple evidential rebuttal. I would save you the pain of "speculation". The evidence is in. There is a pattern. The day that it begins to resonate with reality, know that Jesus will make you forgiven and free. He promises more abundant life.

Me: What evidence are you talking about? What pattern are you referring to?

You: The evidence above. There is also quite a bit of evidence that the Kinsey Institute wont release, since it is damaging evidence to their cause and they lie (as in the video) apparently because that's what it takes for them to get off.

Another non sequitur. What does the Kinsey institute have to do with anything? Moreover, if the Kinsey is withholding evidence (as you claim), how on Earth do you know about it?

You have provided no evidence in the preceding part of your post, and I am at a loss to see what relevance Kinsey has in all of this.

However, sex is a vital origins issues. So, the topic is legitimate.

The topic is why the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is apparently a pleasure organ only. Quite where you're going with your 'disobedience leads to bad sex' and 'Kinsey' tangents is beyond me.

Except you have no basis on which to conclude that those anatomical issues were inherent in the design of the human body. We all understand the differing a priori. Me: a creator. You: ?. If you are an atheist, then there is no point to discussing whether God properly designed the human body. If you believe that there was creator, you also must know that you haven't the proper data set to exclude tampering with the design in a world where evil is in evidence.

First, I'm neither an atheist nor a Creationist: I'm Wiccan, and I believe in the theory of common descent.
Second, you are right in that it is possible that, if life were designed, the original design might have subsequently been tampered with. However, this doesn't explain why such flaws are exactly what we would expect if common descent were true. For example, if our spines are the result of tampering, why do they look exactly like we would expect them to look if humans evolved from quadrupeds?

Pretty much every earth based religion or other spiritual practice similar wicca believes in good forces and evil forces.

Er, no. The notion of the 'Devil' is very much an Abrahamic one. In Wicca, for instance, there is no 'Evil' being in contrast with a 'Good' being.

Presumptively, you have the background to understand that much is happening in the unseen world that you cannot understand. THat is a big problem for concluding that scoliosis is a design problem. And lets not waste time arguing about whether every virus is a work of the devil. The point is that ultimate causes are just not self-evident, and thus the allegation of poor design is unprovable.

You appear to shoot yourself in the foot. Are you saying that there is absolutely no reason to conclude that ID is correct?

You might say we were poorly evolved, but to accuse the creator of a poor design is an appeal to things that can't be proven. Its more tantrum that science.

Indeed: ID is not a science to begin with, so to poke holes in it is just rubbing salt in the wound.

It caused the pain of childbirth. Now, you don't really want an exegis on the spiritual cause of disease do you?

I'm well aware of it. My point is that

You can FSM all you want, but all that means is that we begin from a different set of assumptions about the nature of creation. I am perfectly comfortable with the notion that I have a data set for faith that is quite satisfactory to some and quite baffling to others. You may have guessed that your faith is baffling to me as well, since it seems to be just more FSM.

My point is that your assumptions are as arbitrary as Pastafarianism. Thus, why should one be taken any more seriously than the other? Indeed, why do you believe one over the other?

Oh, and 'FSM' is not a noun, not a verb.

What do you want scripture for? Am I wrong in thinking that all the scripture in the world in support of my position will mean nothing to you?

I never asked for Bible verses,. It would just help me understand your position if I knew what you meant by "God's Word".

*Honestly, who would place the urethra through the prostate?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Curvy spines aren't a flaw - without the curve, we couldn't stand upright. The curve helps to carry the load.

Carry on.

The worlds of orthopaedic surgery and neurology would beg to differ. As would any competent engineer.

If our spines were built, it was for quadrupedal movement, not bipedal. Yes, our spines carry the load, but they are horribly bad at it. Again, refer to your local orthopaedic expert.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Wiccan, your "design flaws" of the human body are a great argument for atheism. I think you've actually convinced me. Because, why stop with the human body, there are plenty of flaws throughout the physical universe. I've always thought the gravity/mass relationship was discriminatory. Why should more mass entitle a body to more gravity? It's just unfair. What about color? Sure, some are very pretty, but have you seen brown and beige? And temperature, what a disaster! Did you know people and animals can actually freeze or burn to death? Don't even get me started on Reason, have you seen the many ways it's misused?

My sarcasm-o-meter is tingling.

 

[busterdog]

There comes a point when you rest your case. You can have the last word on most of the above and probably most of what follows.

One of the strangest, but most repetitive thing about your worldview is that my world view seems to have "no evidence" -- at least that seems to be your taken on Judith Reisman. She has reams of evidence, but its not like those who oppose biblical Christianity can say, "evidence not of my liking." So often it is "no evidence." Because if it were "some evidence", its implications should terrify you, because the consequences are grave, even if it is only a little bit of questionable evidence.

quote=Wiccan_Child;47779088]

I ask you again: source? Put up, or shut up.

Anyone who wants the data can find it easily.

Er, no. The notion of the 'Devil' is very much an Abrahamic one. In Wicca, for instance, there is no 'Evil' being in contrast with a 'Good' being.

Isn't that a bit disrespectful to Hindus? How about satanists? How about the Maya? They all have a very upfront and clear picture of supernatural evil and their reverence for it. Some pull beating hearts out of men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Tenochtitlan

Human sacrifice is not just another turn on the wheel of life.

If they would demand your death to be appeased, how can you be sure they would not also decieve you on ultimate matters.

As for the "turn or burn" part, another man setting the match to the sticks is not to be confused with a warning. One is cruel. The other is kindness. There is evidence that requires only one conclusion about the "turn or burn" message. It is a rational position based upon evidence that can be disfavored, but never completely dismissed by anyone who understands what evidence is. And we are but small people of limited knowledge trying to evaluate ultimate things, and possibly excruciating consequences. Careful who you assume your friends to be.

 

[FallingWaters]

unsubscribing

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There comes a point when you rest your case. You can have the last word on most of the above and probably most of what follows.

Oh joy of joys.

One of the strangest, but most repetitive thing about your worldview is that my world view seems to have "no evidence"

By all means, if you have evidence, present it. However, it might help if we knew just what it was we were discussing; we've gone all over the place.

at least that seems to be your taken on Judith Reisman. She has reams of evidence, but its not like those who oppose biblical Christianity can say, "evidence not of my liking."

No scientist worth her salt would make such a sanctimonious statement. Indeed, it is

So often it is "no evidence." Because if it were "some evidence", its implications should terrify you, because the consequences are grave, even if it is only a little bit of questionable evidence.

Read my signature. We yearn for contradictory evidence. Failing a falsification test is as exciting as passing one. Few scientists are into science to justify their own preconceptions.

Anyone who wants the data can find it easily.

That is not how this dance goes. You made the claim, so why should I go scurrying around the internet to see if it's true?

OK, I will.

I found no such evidence. Therefore, you're a liar and a fraud, and your account should be frozen immediately.

Isn't that a bit disrespectful to Hindus?

I don't see how. There is no supreme 'Evil' in Hindu mythology. Even Kali isn't seen as evil, in the same way that the Death card in a Tarot reading isn't seen as a bad card. They both merely represent time and change.

How about satanists?

There are two forms of Satanism I am aware of. One, the parody of Christianity, is technically an offshoot of Christianity, and is therefore an Abrahamic faith. The other, LaVeyan Satanism, does not acknowledge the existence of either God nor Satan; rather, Satan is a symbolic representation of the primal human mind.

How about the Maya? They all have a very upfront and clear picture of supernatural evil and their reverence for it. Some pull beating hearts out of men.

Indeed: they did so to keep the Sun going. This is because the Sun was born out of sacrifice, and sacrifice keeps it going.

But I notice we've gone from a supreme 'Evil', to mere naughty ghosts. I don't see how poltergeist can cause permanent disfigurement to an entire species, much less do it in such a way that it looks exactly as we would expect it to look if it had evolved that way.

Human sacrifice is not just another turn on the wheel of life.

According to Christianity, sure. According to the Mayans? Perhaps not.

If they would demand your death to be appeased, how can you be sure they would not also decieve you on ultimate matters.

The same could be said of your own faith. Despite the earnest promises of the Bible, how can you be sure you're not being deceived by the same evil spirits you associate with flawed design?

As for the "turn or burn" part, another man setting the match to the sticks is not to be confused with a warning. One is cruel. The other is kindness. There is evidence that requires only one conclusion about the "turn or burn" message. It is a rational position based upon evidence that can be disfavored, but never completely dismissed by anyone who understands what evidence is. And we are but small people of limited knowledge trying to evaluate ultimate things, and possibly excruciating consequences. Careful who you assume your friends to be.

Ditto. The jealous god of Bronze-age nomads is a far cry from the modern Christian god, and neither take kindly to polytheism.

I do love how some Christians can't see when their own arguments work against them.

 

[busterdog]

I do love how some Christians can't see when their own arguments work against them.

Who says I can't see it? I deliberately identified our mutual problem. That epistemology is essential to understand who the creator God of Israel is.