|
 |
March 08, 2004 BUT DID GOD CHOOSE GEORGE BUSH TO BE PRESIDENT?....Does God exist? Bayesian analysis says the odds are 2:1 in favor! But the bookies still aren't willing to take bets:
Yeah, it's true, it's a bit of a slow day today.... Posted by Kevin Drum at March 8, 2004 02:57 PM | TrackBackComments
"BUT DID GOD CHOOSE GEORGE BUSH TO BE PRESIDENT?" Yes. "Does God exist?" Yes. Posted by: Charlie at March 8, 2004 02:58 PM | PERMALINKOK. Since it is a slow day, let's start working on the Liberal meme. I believe in the essential goodness of the people of the United States -- their courage, their spirit, and their good sense -- and I am a Liberal. Scorpio Charlie, we need more than the word of a lunatic as evidence. And really, do you believe that god is such a schmuck that he would inflict the worst president in our history on us? What lesson are we supposed to draw from this nightmare of a man – privileged beyond all reason and granted special dispensation - just so he could be the one to preside over the worst failure of intelligence in our history? Posted by: Lori Thantos at March 8, 2004 03:03 PM | PERMALINKIf God chose Bush, then God is a chimpanzee and he chose one of his own. Posted by: marky at March 8, 2004 03:06 PM | PERMALINKBUT DID GOD CHOOSE GEORGE BUSH TO BE PRESIDENT?" Why does God hate the United States? Posted by: koin at March 8, 2004 03:11 PM | PERMALINKI might buy this guy's book after I buy "The Bible Code" both part 1 and 2. I would be curious to see his argument. Does he really use Bayes theorem? My recollection of basic probability is weak, but don't you need some data to compute things like conditional probability? Reading the article in the Guardian, it would seem that he makes some assumptions then plugs them into a spreadsheet, but we'll see. Posted by: Roland at March 8, 2004 03:13 PM | PERMALINKGood response to instapundit. BTW, how about some discussion on whether the controversy over the 9/11 imagery actually helps Bush? After all, if the commercials get played over and over on TV news programs because of this, it will be quite helpful to Bush--the Republicans seem to understand that a moving picture is worth an infinite number of words. Posted by: praktike at March 8, 2004 03:14 PM | PERMALINKYeah, that's nice and all, but I'm still wondering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!! Posted by: EricD at March 8, 2004 03:16 PM | PERMALINK"BUT DID GOD CHOOSE GEORGE BUSH TO BE PRESIDENT?" No. "Does God exist?" Maybe. (I guess we're using the "literal minimalist" definition of "comments") -B- Posted by: Ben M. Schorr at March 8, 2004 03:18 PM | PERMALINKGod did, in fact, appoint George W. Bush as our President. He hates America, obviously. Posted by: grytpype pronounced grit-pipe at March 8, 2004 03:19 PM | PERMALINKIf he did pick bush JR. then God is imperfect. But I thought god was supposed to be perfect? Its a paradox, wrapped in a riddle, contained in a man that spends 5
hours watching horses and Nascar and 1 hr in front of the 9/11
investigation... If one understands that Bush is a Dominionist, (aka Christian Recontructionist), then one can understand why Charlie and Bush believe that Bush became God's regent when Pat Robertson symbolically stepped down as the head of the American Holy Christian Church in 2001. This means Bush has to get re-elected to fulfill his role as the head of his church and to fulfill the church's prophecy - that is the end times prophecy. It's all about re-electing the regent - not a president. Posted by: Diann at March 8, 2004 03:21 PM | PERMALINKAnd really, do you believe that god is such a schmuck that he would inflict the worst president in our history on us? If you believe the OT, God inflicted numerous oppressors as scourges on the Israelites, who were his "chosen people". What lesson are we supposed to draw from this nightmare of a man – privileged beyond all reason and granted special dispensation - just so he could be the one to preside over the worst failure of intelligence in our history? The OT tradition is not that the oppressor is specially virtuous or a role model, merely that he is a tool to get the nation to turn away from the false gods that it has adopted and return to holiness. Posted by: cmdicely at March 8, 2004 03:22 PM | PERMALINKCharlie Do you believe that God chose Bush to be President? In what sense? Did He choose Bush because Bush was a man of God? I presume, though perhaps unfairly, that you do not like Clinton. Did God choose Clinton as well? Why would God put a man like Clinton into office? By many conventional definitions, Clinton was immoral. Many have suggested criminal. Posted by: Roland at March 8, 2004 03:22 PM | PERMALINKHow amusing, Clown Charlie presents a typically clueless case and then whines that he is ignoring those who devastate his "argument". Posted by: Lori Thantos at March 8, 2004 03:22 PM | PERMALINKYea right, god sent us this incurious, mediocre man to be our fearless leader. I don't think so. Posted by: four legs good at March 8, 2004 03:25 PM | PERMALINKcmdicely, so your argument is that Bush is put here to test those who believe in god, rather like the 40 years of wandering or the slavery that preceded it? Well, it is certainly a more convincing theory than god just needed to kill a few thousand of our citizens, a few hundred of our soldiers, and a few thousand Iraqis – which seems to be the argument of the Charlies of the world. Posted by: Lori Thantos at March 8, 2004 03:25 PM | PERMALINKCharlie, Drink this. You'll feel better directly. Until the Haldol kicks, in please remember that when you talk to God it's prayer. When God talks to you, it's schizoprenia. This would be true of Mr. Bush also if he really believed. He doesn't. It's political theater masquerading as faith. That may be a mental disorder, but it's not schizophrenic. Better now? Posted by: caduceus at March 8, 2004 03:27 PM | PERMALINK...it's schizophrenia. Where's Mavis Beacon when I need her? Posted by: caduceus at March 8, 2004 03:30 PM | PERMALINKHmmm...I've always thought it kind of odd that people were waiting for the second coming of Christ-- didn't that already happen with the resurection? (I may have spelled that wrong, but my building was in the "lead pipe" district of DC). I mean, Jesus appeared, did his thing, was crucified, then appeared again, which to me adds up to two appearances. So, if we were waiting for another appearance, wouldn't that be the third coming of Christ? Posted by: Baaaa at March 8, 2004 03:30 PM | PERMALINKAs cmdicely points out, according to OT thought God could have used Bush as he used the Assyrians--as a rod to chastise people. God didn't have to have a high opinion of the Assyrians to use them this way. Maybe Bush is in there in part to make Christians more humble. Christianity has been in the news a lot in the past few years and as a Christian, I have to say it's been mostly for bad reasons--Catholic priests abusing children, bishops covering up, the church opposing condoms in Africa, and evangelicals supporting the current Presidential numbskull merely because he claims to be a sincere believer. I think Christianity is true, but it's fairly obvious that Christian belief by itself doesn't necessarily make people wise. So the news has been kind of humbling in that respect. Posted by: Donald Johnson at March 8, 2004 03:30 PM | PERMALINKIf you think that God sits around worrying about who the US President is, then your God is too small for me. Posted by: Roxanne at March 8, 2004 03:30 PM | PERMALINKBTW, on the Second Coming odds, is that 1000 to 1 in favor or against? Also, I don't think banks will be functioning then. Posted by: Donald Johnson at March 8, 2004 03:32 PM | PERMALINKCaduceus I must disagree. I think Bush very much believes in God. A great many people do. They are not absurd for this belief. On the other hand, there really do seem to be very serious problems with the notion of an omniscient and omnipotent God creating everything in 7 days. These range from the free will problem to scientific problems. Posted by: Roland at March 8, 2004 03:32 PM | PERMALINKGod told me she did in fact choose Bush to be President, and she apologizes profusely for the horrible, horrible joke. She always messes up the punchline... Posted by: NTodd at March 8, 2004 03:33 PM | PERMALINKGeorge W. Bush: Instrument of God, or tool of Allah? Posted by: koin at March 8, 2004 03:34 PM | PERMALINKWhy does God hate the United States? Because of the root beer? Posted by: MnE at March 8, 2004 03:35 PM | PERMALINKOT: New USA Today/Gallup/CNN Poll taken over weekend: Kerry 52%, Bush 44%, Nader 2% Posted by: JimPortlandOR at March 8, 2004 03:38 PM | PERMALINKGod sent Our President to destroy, so that evil coursing throughout will be destroyed and 1000 years of God given goodness will reign. Our President is God's avenging Arch-Angel. God blesses America, God works in strange ways to un-believers, but to us we see clearly and work the work of the Lord. Repent Sinners! Ye yet have time. Save Yourselves and be lifted up out of the coming tribulation. Posted by: ralph at March 8, 2004 03:43 PM | PERMALINKFor some reason, not to many believers around here. This is an interesting notion: using science to try to prove God's existence, at least up to some indeterminancy. Argument used to be used for this purpose and can be found in Aquinas and Augustine. There are some problems with these arguments though. It is very difficult for me to believe that someone has a proof that up to 67 percent, they are sure God exists. Posted by: Roland at March 8, 2004 03:48 PM | PERMALINKMy take on Eschatology: Some simple math applied, if an average human generation is 20 years, then 1000*20=10,000 years. We're nowhere near the supposed "End Times". Now that's if you're a dingbat literalist, and therefore, also
believe that pi=3.0, and therefore, don't drive because it's an awful
bumpy ride on those hexagon-shaped wheels. . . cmdicely, so your argument is that Bush is put here to test those who believe in god, rather like the 40 years of wandering or the slavery that preceded it? Well, I wouldn't argue that God has chosen Bush or, if so, what his reasons were. I'm just saying that, looking at Biblical precedent, even if you assume that Bush was chosen by God to rule over America at this point in history, that doesn't imply that Bush has any particular virtue. Posted by: cmdicely at March 8, 2004 03:50 PM | PERMALINK"Yeah, it's true, it's a bit of a slow day today...." Yeah. Nothing much happened today except, over in a country named Iraq, the first democratic adoption of a constitution, temporary admittedly, occurred. The first, that is, in an Arab country. The only other Arabs who can vote and be represented in a legislative body are in a place called Israel. A lot of people were saying it wouldn't happen and a few, some commenting on this blog, were hoping it wouldn't happen. After all, their candidate, named Kerry, is now announcing that he has talked to unnamed world leaders who have told him that they hope he beats George Bush. I suppose that means that they will do what they can to help him win; perhaps by obstructing the foreign policy of this country. He doesn't mention who they are. I suppose he doesn't mean Arafat, the Iranian mullahs and Kim Jong Il. They've already weighed in with their preference for Kerry. Another item for a slow day: One of the 9/11 family members who complained about the Bush ad is now quoted in Al Jazeera. Great ! That'll help Kerry. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8734826B-FBBF-4132-8BFB-11775A6F892F.htm It wasn't all that slow today. Posted by: Mike K at March 8, 2004 03:56 PM | PERMALINKMy take on Bush's supposed Christianity: Otherwise, Bush displays absolutely zero qualities of a real Christian. Nor has he ever demonstrated any knowledge of the Bible, in my experience. He's a liar, idolator, drunkard, hypocrite, murderer, who does not honor his father and mother, and works on Sundays. And he eats shellfish too. (www.godhatesshrimp.com). Is Bush our savior? re: "The OT tradition is not that the oppressor is specially virtuous or a role model, merely that he is a tool to get the nation to turn away from the false gods that it has adopted and return to holiness." Right, Maybe (s)he's sayin' dump the GOP and its vile policies or I'll haveto create a real crisis. Actually being fairly familiar with Bayesian statistics the selection of an "uninformative prior"--i.e., the 50/50 prior probability that God does not exist, is not without its own problems. Usually one selects such a prior when one has no justification for selection an "informative prior". In the continuous case an uninformative prior using the uniform distribution implies infinite precision. Also, when you think about all the evidence going from 0.5 to 0.67 that isn't what I'd call earth shattering support for the existence of God. I'd also think a sensitivity analysis (i.e., evaluation of the prior probability using different prior probabilities) could be informative. And finally, the issue of "goodness" that is mentioned in the article. Could "goodness" or charity be a result of evolution? If so then it doesn't work as support for God, but for nature which although not the antithesis of God, it shouldn't be seen as support for God. Basically, this is garbage in, garbage out. Oh, and Charlie, great trolling. You sure did get everybody here to flip out. Strong work. Posted by: Steve at March 8, 2004 03:59 PM | PERMALINKand a few, some commenting on this blog, were hoping it wouldn't happen. Hey, all you other libs; were you hoping this wouldn't happen? 'cmon, raise your hands! I, for one, am happy for the Iraqi people that they have a Constitution. Good for them. Can I have my $87 Billion back now please? You may make the payments in oil, free for American Consumers. Okay - we'll see if they actually get a real Democracy. What I'll take as unacceptable: 2) If Chalabi has any part in this new government, instead of going to stand trial in Jordan for his crimes, then we can pretty much assume that something illegal is going on, and the government is invalid, however it turns out. 3) If some of our US funds go to buy Iraq a bunch of Diebold voting machines for their next election - well, then you *KNOW* it just stinks to high heaven. (Maybe the Iraqis should all vote absentee). Posted by: Occam's Cuisinart at March 8, 2004 04:11 PM | PERMALINKRoland, As usual when trying to be brief the thought gets elided. I do not question that Mr. Bush believes in some form of God. That his God seems both truncated and unchristian may reflect Mr. Bush's own limitations, since even his best friends concede he is not a thoughtful man. I do not believe that Mr. Bush's faith affects his actions. I cite his public mocking of a death row inmate's plea for clemancy while governor of Texas (documented in Talk magazine) and his antipathy to funding programs for the poor and disabled. I do not see Mr. Bush honoring the basic teachings of the faith he professes to believe in either words or actions. The day after Martha Stewart is convicted for a lousy $80,000 insider trading profit while perps who stole billions walk free, John Ashcroft is stricken down with a particularly painful bowel ailment. If that isn't proof of a higher power, I don't know what is. Posted by: dryListener at March 8, 2004 04:15 PM | PERMALINKBUT DID GOD CHOOSE GEORGE BUSH TO BE PRESIDENT?" Ergo, the logical answer to Elizabeth Buhmiller's question to the Democratic candidates, "Quick, is God on America's side?" is "No." Posted by: Basharov at March 8, 2004 04:17 PM | PERMALINK"I do not believe that Mr. Bush's faith affects his actions. I cite his public mocking of a death row inmate's plea for clemancy while governor of Texas (documented in Talk magazine) and his antipathy to funding programs for the poor and disabled." Thanks for bringing me back to reality, sir/madam. Serious. I been too ridiculously joyful, lately. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Posted by: perpwalk at March 8, 2004 04:18 PM | PERMALINK"The day after Martha Stewart is convicted for a lousy $80,000 insider trading profit while perps who stole billions walk free, John Ashcroft is stricken down with a particularly painful bowel ailment. If that isn't proof of a higher power, I don't know what is." Amen. Posted by: perpwalk at March 8, 2004 04:20 PM | PERMALINKStill, I think those cats finally got him. Posted by: perpwalk at March 8, 2004 04:21 PM | PERMALINK(always ready, willing, and able to answer any direct questions of those who do not resort to personal attacks and/or return the same courtesy - I believe that was only one since I went to lunch): Roland: "Do you believe that God chose Bush to be President? Yes. Isn't that what I said above? "In what sense?" Ever since allowing governments to rule men, God also allows the leaders choosen to rule. "Did He choose Bush because Bush was a man of God?" I would like to think so, but it doesn't really matter (as your next question illustrates). "I presume, though perhaps unfairly, that you do not like Clinton. Did God choose Clinton as well?" Yes. "Why would God put a man like Clinton into office?" Plenty of reasons - I think cmdicely gave one such reason above - this is kinda like: "Why does an all-powerful God allow evil in the world?" "By many conventional definitions, Clinton was immoral. Many have suggested criminal." I agree, on both counts. Posted by: Charlie at March 8, 2004 04:23 PM | PERMALINKUnfortunately I don't remember the URL, but I did see a reference today to a site that's taking futures bets on the outcome of the 2004 election. Apparently Kerry has quite the edge. I'd be interested to see their work on that Bayesian analysis. If I remember correctly, when we worked through one in a graduate-level philosophy of religion course I took some years ago, the results were considerably less clear. (I happen to be in favor of the hypothesis, but the evidence I have in its favor is not sufficient for me to be able to make a definitive claim.) Posted by: Michael at March 8, 2004 04:25 PM | PERMALINKSo Charlie agrees that a President was placed in power because god allows evil in the world. He just hates Clinton, projects his hatred onto god, and so claims that, rather than the guy who presided over the worst intelligence failure in our history and the guy who has managed to get hundreds of our soldiers killed (as well as thousands of innocent Iraqis), god gave us Clinton to punish us with peace and prosperity and Bush to protect us from those twin evils. Posted by: Lori Thantos at March 8, 2004 04:27 PM | PERMALINKAnyone NOT already on my ignore-list? Yet another demonstration of limitless arrogance. Like we're really supposed to care. "Okay - we'll see if they actually get a real Democracy. What I'll take as unacceptable: Anything less than disaster would disappoint you. Come on. Fess up. If they don't choose a theocracy, which even Sistani has warned against, you will declare that the process was corrupt. You know you will. First of all, a succesful transition to self-govenment would weaken the Kerry case. Capture of Osama would be even worse. You didn't comment on the father of the 9/11 victim who said he would vote for Saddam before Bush. Who do you think that guy voted for in 2000 ? What you want is Bush's defeat for reelection. A little thing like losing a war,which you didn't support in the first place, is nothing next to that. Your wing of the Democratic Party is represented by the girl who called in on NPR last Friday and said that she was voting for Kerry because he would "crawl on his knees to the UN and beg for forgiveness". Yup. The whole premise of this thread is ridicule of a guy who might think he was chosen by God to be president. He's not the first you know. He's just out of style on the left. And style is everything. Posted by: Mike K at March 8, 2004 04:34 PM | PERMALINKGod may have chosen Bush. Bush clearly chose Satan. Posted by: peBird at March 8, 2004 04:36 PM | PERMALINKCharlie can I be on your ignore list ? In fact why don't you just put the Calpundit blog on your ignore list. But before you go point out a few conservative blogs for us, somewhere we could go and express our views and be treated to the same coutesy of freedom of expression you have recieved here. Ta ta Nothing much happened today except, over in a country named Iraq, the first democratic adoption of a constitution, temporary admittedly, occurred. The first, that is, in an Arab country. Calling it a "democratic adoption fo a constitution" implies that it was done by either popular election or democratically elected leaders; neither is in fact the case. The interim constitution was imposed by an undemocratic council appointed by a foreign power conducting a military occupation of the country, which is not precisely what most people would refer to as a "democratic" adoption of a Constitution, nor is it particularly unique in regard of its manner of adoption among Arab states, many of them had Constitutions similarly placed upon them by foreign-appointed overlords during the British colonial occupation of the region. The only other Arabs who can vote and be represented in a legislative body are in a place called Israel. And a place called Jordan. Anyone NOT already on my ignore-list? Posted by Charlie at March 8, 2004 03:11 PM | PERMALINK Fascinating. A right wing nut posts on this blog and then ignores anyone who responds to him. On the other hand, when I posted on 2 right wing blogs (blogsforbush & freerepublic) my posts were removed and I was banned. I guess we can see which part of the political spectrum is tolerant and which is not. Posted by: ____league at March 8, 2004 04:38 PM | PERMALINKAll of you fail to realize,that when man as a new species looked to the heavens and saw things they could not understand.He therefore needed a rationalization so he made a deitey to make up for his lack of understanding.This was an acceptable solution to an otherwise unexplainable problem.This may have gone on for centureis withput any dispute or any extra reasoning. Later man became more intelligent and had more time to ponder these things,and low and behold the idea that the power of people could be harnessed theu the idea of something that fed their needs to be more than they were/are.It is at this point that religion as we know it arrived.It's meaning and definition may have changed over the milinia and as those that had more power or wealth made more and more rules that they're gods were more powerful and therefore they are the only ones that would be able to decipher His message. Down thru the ages has this concept melded that in modern times the question of "God"is no more,This idea that began as ignorance has multiplied and grew to epidemic porportions untill the entire world grew to believe and pervert this concept. Today the concept is so thoroughly ingrained that none even consider challenging,and are reguarded as crackpots,heretics and worse.The concept has grown to a blight on humanity and has no place in our society and yet the myth remains. Untill this myth is debunked mankind is doomed to fail and worse due to the teachings within these "sacred" manuels that conflict with who and what we have become. Posted by: smalfish at March 8, 2004 04:40 PM | PERMALINKBasically, this is garbage in, garbage out. Bingo. How does crap like this get published? Before you can talk about whether or not God exists, you have to define God. If you define God as an omnipotent creator, then by definition everything that actually happens is consistent with his will. (Any other position on this question reduces to a contradiction.) Therefore, yes, if there is a God (as above defined), God chose George Bush to be President. He also chose Bill Clinton. If you advance the usual further postulate that God is good and/or loving, however, the contradiction is unavoidable; a God that is both good and omnipotent cannot allow evil to exist. Therefore God, as usually defined in the West, cannot exist, unless
you deny the reality of evil. Which may be a tenable position, but more
fraught with complications than simply relaxing the axiom that God is
good. I must be on the list already I think that you have to be told by Charlie that you are on the list. Until then he feels some compunction to sometimes reply to you. I think that his putting you on the list is sort of him granting himself foregiveness for not responding to you. Posted by: ____league at March 8, 2004 04:48 PM | PERMALINKIf you define God as an omnipotent creator, then by definition everything that actually happens is consistent with his will. (Any other position on this question reduces to a contradiction.) "Consistent with his will" does not mean "specifically chosen by Him". Particularly if among the things that happen is "Man has free will". Therefore, yes, if there is a God (as above defined), God chose George Bush to be President. He also chose Bill Clinton. Or he chose to let humans have free will, and humans chose those people as President, which choice is not inconsistent with His will, neither is the specific choice chosen by Him. He, in that case, allowed Bush to be President, rather than choosing Bush as President. Posted by: cmdicely at March 8, 2004 04:51 PM | PERMALINKThis argument illustrates the danger of appointing a president. Did Good choose Reagan? We know the American People chose Reagan. Who cares what God thinks. Posted by: Boronx at March 8, 2004 04:52 PM | PERMALINKIsn't this the guy that starts off assuming that the existence of God is 50/50 before he does his analysis? There's such a large gaping hole in that starting point that nothing else follows. Posted by: Irrational Bush Hatred at March 8, 2004 04:53 PM | PERMALINKBut, but maybe I got 'listed' on another blog I haven't revisited, or when I was at work or, or, Oh my god the shame ! Posted by: postit at March 8, 2004 04:53 PM | PERMALINKIf you advance the usual further postulate that God is good and/or loving, however, the contradiction is unavoidable; a God that is both good and omnipotent cannot allow evil to exist. Sure he can. Particularly he can if the good of free will is greater than the evil of evil, and is a good that cannot exist otherwise. Posted by: cmdicely at March 8, 2004 04:54 PM | PERMALINKYou know, I nightly give thanks for such luminaries as Mike K who provide me with clear insight into the thinking of The Democratic Elite™. For some reason I don't get the newsletter and so I don't get the updates on Bush hating that he does. Silly me, I thought that I opposed Bush because he has managed to preside over the worst administration in my lifetime. I thought that I didn't like people lying and trying to frighten me with fantasies of nuclear holocaust. I thought that I was concerned that Iraq wasn't going to turn out well because Bush has demonstrated his trademark incompetence on that issue as well. Instead, all of this is merely the product of unthinking Bush hatred directed by The Democratic Elite™. Posted by: Lori Thantos at March 8, 2004 04:58 PM | PERMALINKBasically, this is garbage in, garbage out. Bingo. How does crap like this get published? Seems to me that a discussion about the possible existence of God is a lot more valuable than another hundred articles about JJ's "wardrobe malfunction" or BS's 2 day marriage or BS and Madonna kissing. Posted by: ___league at March 8, 2004 05:00 PM | PERMALINKSure he can. Particularly he can if the good of free will is greater than the evil of evil, and is a good that cannot exist otherwise. That opens up a whole other can of worms, such as if free will cannot exist without evil then what is heaven? Will you have free will there, or be a mindless slave? If you have free will, then there must be evil in heaven, but that can't be right can it? Posted by: Irrational Bush Hatred at March 8, 2004 05:07 PM | PERMALINKWill G.: "Yet another demonstration of limitless arrogance." I've seen much worse from the liberals here. "Like we're really supposed to care." Maybe it was not directed toward you (unless you want to get on the list too). It was for the benefit of anyone new reading, wondering why I don't respond to all the posts. xf: "If you define God as an omnipotent creator, then by definition everything that actually happens is consistent with his will. (Any other position on this question reduces to a contradiction.)" No - there is another option cmdicely pointed out - an omnipotent Creator who CHOOSES to grant free will. "Therefore, yes, if there is a God (as above defined), God chose George Bush to be President. He also chose Bill Clinton." Glad you agree : ) "If you advance the usual further postulate that God is good and/or loving, however, the contradiction is unavoidable; a God that is both good and omnipotent cannot allow evil to exist . . ." Wrong - see above (if my puny little brain can understand how it would be possible, don't you think an all-powerful God could do it?) Irrational Bush Hatred: With a name like that, you have a 50/50 chance of getting on the List already - I have no idea what this statistician based his analysis on - I obviously don't need any of that to believe in God. Have you seen Mel Gibson's latest movie: "The Passion of The Christ"? http://www.fandango.com/movie_page.asp?mv=57327&source=tbo_l Posted by: Charlie at March 8, 2004 05:08 PM | PERMALINKI don't believe this shit. Do you people really believe in the divine right of presidents? Looks like somebody slept through the Enlightenment, and now he's cranky... Posted by: Johnny at March 8, 2004 05:14 PM | PERMALINKThe list is essentially a girdle that charlie wears while he's on the interwebscreen, it gives him 'special' powers. Ignore list? Fucking idiot. Posted by: perpwalk at March 8, 2004 05:17 PM | PERMALINKI wonder how this analysis would work with a wider assortment of deities, like the Greek pantheon. Zeus 57%, Hera 43%, Venus 69% and so forth? The fact that the actor Jim Caviezel was struck by lightning during
the filming of "The Passion" appears to be better evidence for Jupiter's
existence than Jehovah's. I obviously don't need any of that to believe in God. Have you seen Mel Gibson's latest movie: "The Passion of The Christ"? Shorter Charlie: "Mel Gibson is my prophet." Charlie Are you telling us you believe in God because of a movie made by Mel Gibson? Posted by: ___league at March 8, 2004 05:20 PM | PERMALINKCan we get back on topic now with anyone who does not resort to personal attacks and/or responds to direct questions? Posted by: Charlie at March 8, 2004 05:22 PM | PERMALINKOur resident wacko is caught in a conundrum: either the appointment of Bush was the result of free will, or it was the will of god. If, as he suggests in his first post, it was the will of god, then god is denying free will. If god is now denying human beings the right of free will then there is no more excuse for the existence of evil. With no more excuse for the existence of evil one must conclude that god is evil. So, since Charlie has affirmed his belief in both god and the
selection of Bush by god, one can only conclude that Charlie believes
god is evil. "Can we get back on topic now with anyone who does not resort to personal attacks and/or responds to direct questions?" Obviously not - good night everyone else. Posted by: Charlie at March 8, 2004 05:24 PM | PERMALINKCan we get back on topic now with anyone who does not resort to personal attacks and/or responds to direct questions? Charlie Two points 1)On the other thread you said you were going home for the night. 2) You are the one who posts comments that you know will be disagreed with and then petulantly puts reponders on your "ignore list" I do not think that you have much ground to stand on. Posted by: ___league at March 8, 2004 05:26 PM | PERMALINKOkay, who's on Charlie's list? I am — I took issue with his statement that it's better to leave kids in foster care rather than allow them to be adopted by same-sex couples. Anyone else remember how you made the list? Posted by: dix at March 8, 2004 05:26 PM | PERMALINKSure he can. Particularly he can if the good of free will is greater than the evil of evil, and is a good that cannot exist otherwise. In a created world, free will can exist only as an agency of the creator. The agent may believe that s/he has free will, and may in fact experience the act of choice, but the fact that the agent is a creature dictates that the choice is determined by the creator. This assertion may seem arbitrary on my part, but look at it this way. One of the observable predictions of Einstein's theory is that time is not absolute; we can manipulate the speed at which a clock runs by accelerating the clock. In order for a creator to impart such a power to creatures, the creator must exist outside the spacetime manifold in which everything happens, and must create the end of time in the same eternal metainstant in which the beginning is created. The alternative, a creator which exists within and subject to spacetime, a creator which could imaginably give its creatures free will, is not really and ultimately a creator at all, but merely a demiurge. Or you can just handwave the whole thing and call it a mystery. I'd
have to be nuts to think I'd be able to win anyone over to my point of
view on Calpundit. One thing puzzles me: why does Charlie continue posting here? Anyone who refuses to go along with his idiocies and tautologies goes on the list. What the hell is he trying to accomplish? Oh, well. Since I'm on the list, I guess I'll never find out. Posted by: dix at March 8, 2004 05:30 PM | PERMALINKAnyone else remember how you made the list? He seemed somewhat confused at the time he put me on the list. He mentioned the list in such a way that it was not clear if he felt that I was ignoring him or that he wanted to ignore me. I do not remember the topic. However it does appear that everyone on this thread is now on the list. Posted by: ___league at March 8, 2004 05:32 PM | PERMALINKHave you seen Mel Gibson's latest movie: "The Passion of The Christ"? oops! Damn, I forgot. I'm on his /ignore list. IBH; One thing puzzles me: why does Charlie continue posting here? Anyone who refuses to go along with his idiocies and tautologies goes on the list. Maybe the list is going to be a Christmas present for John Ashcroft. Posted by: ___league at March 8, 2004 05:34 PM | PERMALINKLet's assume for a moment that evil is necessary for freewill. What about all the bad things that aren't evil? What about a meteor hitting me in the head five minutes from now? What about the flu? What about cancer? These aren't evil things. The suffering caused by humans is a tiny fraction of the suffering caused by God. And what about the book of Job? God rips his life apart. At the end, Job asks: "Why did you do it, God?" But there's a catch: God's reason is, in fact, very simple. Job
could easily have comprehended it. Moreover, it is laid out for the
reader (another mere mortal) right at the beginning. I have always wondered at the Book of Job. It presents god as a malign thug willing to snuff out the lives of countless innocents for a bet. This is supposed to be a merciful god? And it presents human life as essentially interchangeable. After all, Job is supposed to be happy after having his entire family wiped out because god grants him a bigger one than before? What kind of sick pervert thinks this way? Posted by: Lori Thantos at March 8, 2004 06:00 PM | PERMALINK"You know, I nightly give thanks for such luminaries as Mike K who provide me with clear insight into the thinking of The Democratic Elite™. For some reason I don't get the newsletter and so I don't get the updates on Bush hating that he does." The sarcssm is lost on me. Kevin said it was a slow day. It wasn't. It's just that folks here don't want to discuss news that might make Bush look good. I don't get a "newsletter" unless you are referring to the four newspapers I read. Why don't you try it ? Kevin runs a good blog and I hope that mild disagreement is acceptable here. Not to all, I realize, but some. Posted by: Mike K at March 8, 2004 06:09 PM | PERMALINK Going back to the question of verifying and paying off on a bet, a
lawsuit wound its way through the NY court system for years in which the
defendant had asked the plaintiff, who was thought to be a very
spiritually-connected young man, to pray that the defendant's numbers
would win the lottery, in exchnage for half the winnings. Whether he
prayed or not, the numbers came through, the ticket owner reneged, and
the spiritual young man sued. Irrational Bush Hatred: With a name like that, you have a 50/50 chance of getting on the List already There we go, starting at an assumed 50/50 again. There's a 50/50 chance I don't care, so combining those two probabilities, we see that there's only a 25% chance that I'll be hurt by being included on "the List". I'll take those odds. Posted by: Irrational Bush Hatred at March 8, 2004 06:32 PM | PERMALINKThis sort of encapsulates, in a wonderfully absurd way, why I'm so dubious about Bayesian statistics. Of course, I haven't made any progress on figuring out the MLE of God's existence, either, so I suppose I shouldn't talk. Posted by: J. Michael Neal at March 8, 2004 06:35 PM | PERMALINKThe assumed "priors" at the heart of Bayesian analysis are its Achilles heel. (There's a mixed metaphor for you.) The 50/50 starting point may seem fair and neutral, but careful statisticians know to be wary and pick their priors more carefully. After all, tomorrow a giant asteroid either will or will not smash the earth into smithereens. Two outcomes. If we assume a 50/50 chance... [flips a coin] Omigawd. We're doomed! Posted by: TonyB at March 8, 2004 06:55 PM | PERMALINKSo, Kevin, are you saying that William Rehnquist is God? That would make at least two people in the country who think so.... Posted by: mwb at March 8, 2004 06:59 PM | PERMALINKSo, Kevin, are you saying that William Rehnquist is God? That would make at least two people in the country who think so... And Charlie makes three! Wait, Charlie, I'm kidding...cut it out, Charlie. Put the list away, will ya? Please not the list! Posted by: Boronx at March 8, 2004 07:14 PM | PERMALINKI am a Christian and a Democrat. I don't think that the Republicans follow a Christian agenda. Jesus told us to take care of the widows and the orphans and to take care of those that need help. The Republicans seem to follow the Social Darwinist agenda. I don't think Bush will win this November. With his economic record, not so much 911 as his tax cut plan, he deserves to lose. Posted by: Hi at March 8, 2004 07:34 PM | PERMALINKgood and evil God(s?) and Devil(s?) both exist, "BUT DID GOD CHOOSE GEORGE BUSH TO BE PRESIDENT?" No!!!! Sooooooooo..... Posted by: james at March 8, 2004 07:34 PM | PERMALINKHow does anyone know that God is not Evil? If he was he would surely put it into our heads that he was good. And since Bush obviously put Bush into the Presidency, and Bush is undoubtedly without question truly Evil, we must now know that God is Evil. Wow, this really blows my mind, man! Who woulda thunk it? Whaddaya think, huh? Have it got something here, or what? Posted by: Passerbye at March 8, 2004 07:35 PM | PERMALINKThe real problem Mr. K is that the depth of your "analysis" on each of the items you mentioned was so shallow that sarcasm was the only proper response to it. Really, how seriously am I supposed to take someone who finds merit in listing boogiemen who, just like the rest of the rational world, want to see America ruled by someone less prone to unprovoked invasions? Consider your point about the support for Kerry by your listed boogiemen. This is an amusing bit of guilt by association, but it does nothing to advance legitimate argumentation. How about the broadside represented by: A lot of people were saying it wouldn't happen and a few, some commenting on this blog, were hoping it wouldn't happen? This isn't so much mild dissent as it is a load of hasty generalization. Because many on the board opposed an invasion of a nation that was not a threat, oppose the election of someone who would engage in such behavior, doubt the good will of anyone who would do so, and have serious reservations about the current process, you have assumed that they "hope it won't happen." So now you have declared them enemies of humanity. Such vile heartless people as to hope for misery and death for political gain. Again, hardly "mild dissent." And what was your final point? More guilt by association. A news organization picks up that 9/11 family members are unhappy with the current stonewalling. Your point appears to be that it is an evil Arab news organization, since you once again reference Kerry in a way that suggests you are talking about boogiemen. In the end, your "four newspapers" seem to have done little for you
but provide you with input for your Kerry-hatred (hey, if you can make
hasty generalizations, so can I – right), and the only appropriate
response is sarcasm. Otherwise one is sucked into writing long
responses to what is essentially a content free post (see others for
debunking of your claims on voting). God told me he doesn't exist. With that inside scoop, I'm laying 10,000 to 1 that he doesn't exist. But if God does not exist, then how could he tell you he does not exist? Yet if he is omnipotent he can do anything, even consciously not exist....the mind reels. The betting windows are open, and we take all major credit cards. Posted by: bobbyp at March 8, 2004 07:54 PM | PERMALINKPeople will bet on anything. Count me among the rational -- I'm not a betting man, but I doubt God's existence. Posted by: Tony Shifflett at March 8, 2004 08:31 PM | PERMALINKI don't think Bush being appointed president proves anything about the existence of god, but it is evidence that Darwin was only half right. Posted by: BC Inaz at March 8, 2004 09:07 PM | PERMALINKHow about this;Adam and Eve were supposed to be the first people "God""created" right? Were Adam and Eve incestous?Isnt that against what the bible preaches?Why would "God create only 2 to start,Why not 2000? Along another line why is it we can see back more than 13 BILLION years into time?Oh ya I forget science doesnt really see back thru time. Is there really a thing as good or evil?Cant it be said that there are shades of good and evil and that there is no such thing as pure good or pure evil(not including Bush)?If there was a such thing as omnipotence wouldnt it manifest itself in many other ways and wouldnt the law of averages tell us that there should be an omnipotent person at least every few generations. Too many reasons why there is NO GOD and not enough to convince me there is.
BUT DID GOD CHOOSE GEORGE BUSH TO BE PRESIDENT?.... I guess that depends on whether you think Antonin Scalia is God. Posted by: rachelrachel at March 8, 2004 09:46 PM | PERMALINKI am not capable of discussions of the existence of God, free will, and the like. I got over my "God dilemma" by sizing up my abililty to reason out the greatest question of all time... and decided the only intellectually honest position I could take was one of agnosticism. But somewhere in skimming this thread there appears a comment about the Iraqi constitution being signed. The busy-ness of my day meant that I hadn't thought about that happening until a short while ago. I've now skimmed the document and read some of the transcripts from the signing ceremony. It affected me. To those who took pen in hand to sign it, and those who worked on it, my primary thought is, "good for you". This blog being what it is, I suppose the standard thinking is something other than "good for you", probably a lot more cynical than that, more skeptical, more --- well, negative, in various manifestations. "Good for you" is not the same as "job well done". The baby's first step is a "good for you" kind of thing --- "job well done" is reserved for the child's first trip on foot somewhere. So it is with this interim constitution, IMO. The child's trip cannot be taken without the first step wobbly step being achieved. Necessary but not sufficient. Tentative... but monumental ... all at the same time. No need to remind me that the signers of this constitution are not elected, nor to point out that it is a work in progress. In one of the speeches, the term "apirational" was used. I like that word, especially in this context. The baby's first step is wonderfully aspirational --- in the sense of showing a yearning to get on with a different kind of life, not yet knowing anything about what that life will be like. If you have not read the document, I suggest you do. It strikes me as a strong and comprehensive declaration; it has a grand aura about it, made all the more remarkable by the stark contrast to what "was" in Iraq. It seems to me to be, at the same time, a "Declaration of Independence" kind of thing, as well as a manifesto, and the foundation for a very different kind of life for the young people of Iraq. "Independence" in two senses --- independence from the Provisional Authority in coming months, or at least more independence from it, and independence from the rule of tyranny. Unlike many of you, I suspect, I inhabit the "gray areas" more than the black and white areas. Might be age, combined with personality; maybe I'm just wired for ambivalence. And I AM able to compartmentalize; by that I mean the abilty to see something good and appreciate it, separate from the circumstances that wrought it. I know from experience that one can screw something up very badly, and act in a way that is deplorable in retrospect, and yet emerge as a better person, doing better things, and seeing a bright future. So the discussion of the war is something I can put away today, and marvel a little bit that 25 people from several "turfs" and professions, probably suspicious of each other, were able to in a relatively short time coalesce around something that holds the promise of being bigger than whatever they "represent" in a conventional sense. They did something to be proud of, no matter how they got there. If this group of Iraqis were JUST puppets of the US their job would have been easier; they could have turned in their homework assignment to Mr. Bremer in a week if they were just trying to please their master. And if this group had been nothing MORE than representatives of factions, they could not have done this assignment in a decade or a lifetime. I am sure the best and worst characteristics of "government" were tasted while this soup was simmering .... the maneuvering, the asking for concessions, the negotiating, the grudging acceptance of something imperfect in each person's eye. It must have been a colossal struggle. But the baby DID take its first step, and by so doing I think it said to the world, "we may fall and have to get back up, and we may not know exactly where we are headed --- but we have hereby, by our action, rejected the notion that all we might ever do, or aspire to do, is whine and crawl." Posted by: Terry Ott at March 8, 2004 11:22 PM | PERMALINKThe assumed "priors" at the heart of Bayesian analysis are its Achilles heel. (There's a mixed metaphor for you.) The 50/50 starting point may seem fair and neutral, but careful statisticians know to be wary and pick their priors more carefully. We shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that any statistical analysis is wholly objective - so why not make it clearer where the subjectivity is concentrated, to make it easier to examine and perhaps correct? I'm not sure why you think that someone's choice of bad priors means Bayesian analysis is itself faulty. Don't get me wrong - in no way am I defending the analysis discussed in the referenced article. What I'm saying is that the method of analysis can still be valid and useful, even if a few of its practitioners don't use it wisely or correctly. Posted by: EricD at March 8, 2004 11:52 PM | PERMALINKOtt, that piece was beautiful, but before you dip your nib again into the purple well, may I note that it was off topic and slightly antagonistic to this neighborhood? Posted by: bad Jim at March 9, 2004 12:27 AM | PERMALINKMy hat's off to Charlie. He's managed to turn this discussion into a debate on how big an idiot he is while the rest of us are ignoring the evidence that the article, and its premise, are seriously flawed: Factors that were considered included recognition of goodness, which Dr Unwin said makes the existence of God more likely, countered by things like the existence of natural evil - including earthquakes and cancer. Charlie and too many of the rest of you obviously don't read your insurance policies. Those of us who live in California know that earthquakes are NOT considered a natural evil (nasty as riding out a 7.+ earthquake can be), but are instead considered an Act of God. We all know that insurance companies claim they are the final and ultimate authority on everything, including religion as herein demonstrated. Ergo, to follow this catechetical instructional pedagogic logic, as God can by definition do no wrong, then Acts of God cannot be evil. This section also endorses a healthy skepticism of the premise: However, Graham Sharp, media relations director at William Hill, said there were technical problems with giving odds on the existence of God. "The problem is how you confirm the existence of God. With the Loch Ness monster we require confirmation from the Natural History Museum to pay out, but who are we going to ask about God? The church would definitely confirm his existence." In addition, has anyone taken note of the name of this "scientist"? UNWIN????? It's been too long since I last read 1984, but this "name" smacks of a double-plus ungood example of Newspeak. If this be crimethink, make the most of it. Posted by: pessimist at March 9, 2004 12:29 AM | PERMALINKA couple of folks have expressed incredulity that Bayesian analysis could be used to determine whether or not God existed. Oddly enough, that is what Bayes' Theorem was invented for. Go figure. Bayes was a Priest. He was looking for away to assure his flock that, in spite of nasty stuff, God did indeed exist. However, though his theorem is amazingly useful in probability theory, even the idea of obtaining a probability for the existence God is silly. It is an ill-posed question. A probability is the number of successful trials as a ratio to the number of total trials, as the number of said trials goes to infinity. You can't test this trial for success or failure even once, let alone a whole bunch of times, so that you could be confident in the infinite limiting behavior. Posted by: Timothy Klein at March 9, 2004 01:18 AM | PERMALINKsmalfish, The story of Adam and Eve is metaphorical, not factual. Using it to prove/disprove anything would be like using LOTR to debate the merits of Central Asian farming policy pre- and post-Soviet. Chapters 1&2 of Genesis were some of the last parts of the OT written and had to do more with fighting off the spectre of creeping Mesopotamian mythological influences after the Babylonian Captivity than trying to establish a newspaper account of the beginnings of human existence. I've come across ~5 different Jewish creation stories - not to mention there are actually 2 in Genesis itself which differ with each other in key points. These stories weren't meant to be read as encyclodepia entries for factual description, but to be read metaphorically as a way to express some idea of the nature of God - or at least the nature of God revealled through one or more sefiroth(sp?). Therefore, the "facts" of the account are irrelevent to any discussion except as they point to the nature of God. This is not to say God does or does not exist, but the details of the story of Adam and Eve are not relevent to the issue, as those details are storytelling devices designed to evoke an understanding of the nature of God, not real facts. "Along another line why is it we can see back more than 13 BILLION years into time?" Probably because the universe is 13 billion years old. Hell man, even the Pope will tell you that fact; okay he will mumble and fall asleep two words into it, but his secretary can tell you that the Church believes the universe is 13 billion years old (or whatever age the astronomers settle on with more precise observations). Said Church will also tell you that several million years ago, our ancestors were playing grab-ass up in trees in Africa. "Cant it be said that there are shades of good and evil and that there is no such thing as pure good or pure evil" Actually, a lot of Abrahamic folks would kind of agree with that. Specifically, some forms of Neo-Platonist thought said that God has to incorporate evil into itself because for God to not have evil would make it imperfect because perfection requires the inclusion of everything; if God were not evil as well as good, it would be imperfect, so a perfect God must be evil and good. "If there was a such thing as omnipotence wouldnt it manifest itself in many other ways and wouldnt the law of averages tell us that there should be an omnipotent person at least every few generations. " You are making an unwarranted assuption, specifically that omnipotence is a quality that humans are capable of having. Humans cannot have natural bones made out of titanium - it just won't happen. But it does not make titanium bones non-real. In the same way, you can't argue onmipotence doesn't exist just because we don't have it. Of course, you can't argue omnipotence definitely exists either, but our not having the trait is not prove of its non-existence. Posted by: Phalamir at March 9, 2004 02:10 AM | PERMALINKBoronx " What about all the bad things that aren't evil?" Those would be called the results of the laws of the universe, ie science. A meteor hitting you in the noggin is just the result of a lot of physics and a little bad luck. Likewise, a person getting AIDS is simply a byproduct of the HIV virus trying to replicate itself. The virus means the person no harm, that is just how it spams the environment with its offspring. To assume God must bend the laws of the universe to make humans' lives prefect is actually a rather large act of hubris. How do you know we are the part of the universe God is most worried about? For all we know, God is really concerned with the well-being of the HIV virus. We could just be the most convinient way to help that virus succeed. I don't really think that is true, but the assumption that God is evil if our lives aren't perfect is based on the assumption that our place is at the apex of the universal order. If you assume God cares about all things equally, it isn't hard to see how God would not interfere with the mechanics of the universe (or at least not interfere too much) since that would value the protected over everything else. Posted by: Phalamir at March 9, 2004 02:45 AM | PERMALINKThis is too much fun. God bless all of you for making my morning coffee so entertaining. 2 cents: I (think) I'm with xf cuz I don't see how free will and omnipotent God can be reconciled. Rather, it is in our nature to want to have it both ways. We attribute human actions to humans or to God, according to our whims & prejudices. You know, who killed 5 million Jews, God or Hitler? At least Charlie is consistent in allowing that he thinks God elected Clinton too. Charlie just doesn't dwell on that when he's grinding his ax. And btw, who wins the dick-sizing contest, God or Satan? Posted by: obscure at March 9, 2004 05:25 AM | PERMALINKalso, a personal prejudice: As a rule I find scientists, who dedicate themselves to studying & observing this world (creation) with an open mind a far more pious group than religionists who cannot fight off the urge to tell other people how to live while their own attention is focused not on this indescribably beautiful world, but... a dusty book. Charles Darwin, one of the most pious men of the last millenium. Posted by: obscure at March 9, 2004 05:31 AM | PERMALINKSorry, bad JIm. I will grant you "...it was off topic", but I wonder about "...and slightly antagonistic to this neighborhood?" Is the neighborhood not in favor of Iraqis progressing toward the kind of society envisioned by the drafters of that constitution I read last night? Or is it, as I said in the post, that my neighbors might not be ready to accept that the effort behind it, or meaning of it, or the intent/purpose, is genuine? I think the evidence points away from that, but "you say tomayto, I say tomahto..." you know? The "off topic" charge can be easily fixed. Let's see, edits needed for topical conformity police...... hmmm, how 'bout: Phalamir, You made some really good points about Genesis, but ... how many Christians do you know that actually *know* anything about scholarly theology? 'Cuz I don't know any. For the last 11 years I've been trying to tell my Southern Baptist-raised husband that Revelations isn't about the Apocalypse, it's historical allegory, but he says he was taught the Bible is literal truth. I don't bother with Genesis, since he doesn't believe its account anyway. For that matter, how many of those fundy Christians know anything about biology? Not too many, IME. (Not to dump on Christians - *most people* I've met know almost nothing about elementary biology, never mind genetics or ecology.) If we believe in a god, no saying it has to be the Judeo-Christian Yahweh/Jehovah, right? I believe there's Something Bigger Than Us out there, but there are many other deities I'd prefer over Jehovah. (I was born, raised & educated Catholic, then had a "conversion experience" at age 20, and became a Neo-Pagan.) Posted by: Mychelline at March 9, 2004 06:15 AM | PERMALINKI got on Charlie's ignore list because I challenged his nonsensical theology on another discussion about gays. I think we should all put Charlie on OUR ignore list - how about it? NO ONE RESPOND TO CHARLIE!! Any takers? Posted by: Jon at March 9, 2004 06:16 AM | PERMALINKJon, I remember your excellent input on the gay-marriage boards. But I don't agree about Charlie. I think he presents a terrific challenge. Try to disagree with him in a respectful manner. And try to practise patience. Don't go for the easy bait. I'm not claiming any great proficiency in the art of patience... but I do believe it is a goal all of us should strive for. Posted by: obscure at March 9, 2004 06:27 AM | PERMALINK...and where did PaulB go? That dude is *smart*! I'm sure he knows whether God exists. Posted by: obscure at March 9, 2004 06:30 AM | PERMALINKI wrote a detailed reply/debunking of the "God exist with 67% probability" claim some time ago. Here (or click name): http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/2004/02/28.html#a4715 Comments welcome. Posted by: Jan Haugland at March 9, 2004 06:42 AM | PERMALINKthey should forget about bayes theorem and prior assumptions and just go with a parimutuel system. that way it wouldn't matter what the likelihood of either outcome is. the only thing that would matter is what people actually put their money on. Posted by: Olaf glad and big at March 9, 2004 07:12 AM | PERMALINKobscure: "Charles Darwin, one of the most pious men of the last millenium." Ever read a book entitled "Finding Darwin's God" (or something like that; I'm at work and thus don't have access to my bookcase)? A biology professor picks apart many of the shallow "Creation Science" type arguments and paints a far bigger picture of God than the fundies and the like could ever imagine. I read it while in an astronomy survey course and... wow. Instead of weakening my faith, like several youth pastors had told us believing such science would, it made it much stronger and broader. My old youth minister posted an entry to his blog discussing how the speed of light has changed sufficiently since the creation of the universe (but stopped changing sometime in the 1970's!)such that the age range given by virtually every astronomer and believed by virtually every scientist as well as a good deal of the Catholic hierarchy is false. He gleaned this bit of intelligence in some "graduate" theology class of his. I haven't finished shaking my head long enough to respond to that and, sadly, do not have access to the email with the link to his blog to let you all shake your heads over it. I've decided to think that the Bush Administration is here, in part, to humble us Christians, to force us to proclaim the true message of our faith by word and deed. Posted by: A Texan in Maryland at March 9, 2004 07:13 AM | PERMALINKSpeed of Light http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html Anyone debating creation/evolution should visit talkorigins.org frequently. You can find all the usual creationist arguments, and their rebuttals, here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html Posted by: Hermit at March 9, 2004 07:30 AM | PERMALINKNO Bush is not God creature. from the article "The Manchester University graduate, who now works as a risk assessor in Ohio, said the theory starts from the assumption that God has a 50/50 chance of existing, and then factors in the evidence both for and against the notion of a higher being." Starts at 50/50? This sounds as silly as Pascal's Wager. BTW, in addition to the excellent TalkOrigins web site, http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/index.shtml has some useful information when countering creationists. Including links to commentaries on Behe's bloviations. Posted by: raj at March 9, 2004 07:43 AM | PERMALINKJust curious...if free will is god's excuse for not intervening to prevent suffering, how does omniscience fit inot the equation? If god knows everything, then he already knows what a being's "free will" will lead him to do. So, she knew what Hitler or Stalin was going to do before they were born. Why would he knowingly allow the birth of someone who was going to cause the incredible amounts of human suffering that these two inflicted? Posted by: Mike H at March 9, 2004 07:58 AM | PERMALINK" So, she knew what Hitler or Stalin was going to do before they were born. Why would he knowingly allow the birth of someone who was going to cause the incredible amounts of human suffering that these two inflicted?" The argument usually goes that God will not intervene in human affairs to prevent evil because to do so would violate our free will, and we have to suffer the consequences of our own free will. The same people who advance this argument will often also tell you stories about how they were running late for an important meeting and couldn't find their car keys, but when they stopped frantically looking and prayed for help the keys miraculously turned up in their pocket. This is supposed to be proof of God's lovingkindness. The real miracle is that they honestly don't seem to see the contradiction..... Posted by: Hermit at March 9, 2004 08:07 AM | PERMALINKCheck out: "What Would Jesus Do? An Ethical Guide for George W. Bush in 2004" http://www.perrspectives.com/features/wwjd.htm Posted by: Jon at March 9, 2004 08:12 AM | PERMALINKHermit writes: The argument usually goes that God will not intervene in human affairs to prevent evil because to do so would violate our free will, and we have to suffer the consequences of our own free will. I don't see why God intervening violates free will. Maybe if God had tinkered with Hitler's brain to make him into a nice person, that would have violated his free will, but if God instead struck Hitler dead by lightning, that wouldn't have violated Hitler's free will. Posted by: Daryl McCullough at March 9, 2004 08:19 AM | PERMALINK"if God had tinkered with Hitler's brain to make him into a nice person" Hmmm...brings up another interesting issue about "free will". As our knowledge increases, we're finding that more and more of the bad decisions we make are a result of, as Father Kurt would say, "bad chemicals in our systems". Would god be intervening with our free will if he prevented a psychopath like Jeffrey Dahmer from inflicting the suffering he caused? Posted by: MikeH at March 9, 2004 08:31 AM | PERMALINK"interfering", not "intervening"...sorry about that. Posted by: Mike H at March 9, 2004 08:36 AM | PERMALINK"Science has to explain everything, including the Bible." Back To Methuselah G.B. Shaw Posted by: George Claredon at March 9, 2004 08:39 AM | PERMALINKobscure — In principle, I agree with you. But Charlie is a special case, and I'm using "special" in all its connotations. Ron puts up a real argument; I think he's wrong about almost everything but his reasoning doesn't completely conflict with terrestrial reality. I like arguing with Ron; I actually feel I gain something in the process. Al's an annoying pill but every once in a while he contributes something a little more substantive than *snicker* But Charlie... Show him evidence that Bush has made less-than-truthful statements and you get "I have faith in Bush therefore he can't be lying." Why do you have faith in Bush? "Because I believe what he says." Why do you believe what he says? "Because I have faith in him." Rinse, repeat. Charlie lives in a complicated cartoony world, in which it's a serious possibility that Dubya spent 1972 on a top-secret CIA mission and that's why there are no records of his National Guard service. It's like arguing with a two-year-old: logic, reason and evidence are all inoperative and he wears you down through pure pig-headedness. That's why attempting to discuss anything with Charlie is not worth the tsouris, the agita, the urge to reach through the monitor and strangle him. Your mileage may vary. Okay, I've vented. I'm returning to the list now. And I loathe that goddamn smiley-face shite. Posted by: dix at March 9, 2004 09:03 AM | PERMALINKSorry to interfere in your discussions. I'm not from your great
country and still trying to make head and tails from English language. That opens up a whole other can of worms, such as if free will cannot exist without evil then what is heaven? Will you have free will there, or be a mindless slave? If you have free will, then there must be evil in heaven, but that can't be right can it? Its interesting to note that purgatory, hell, and the presence of the
Holy Spirit are often traditionally represented by the same thing
(fire). One suggestion I've heard is that Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, etc.
are all the same thing, the only difference is for the person experiencing it. In a created world, free will can exist only as an agency of the creator. The agent may believe that s/he has free will, and may in fact experience the act of choice, but the fact that the agent is a creature dictates that the choice is determined by the creator. This simply doesn't follow. There is an unjustified implied assumption in here, that a creator cannot create that which he does not control. Posted by: cmdicely at March 9, 2004 09:19 AM | PERMALINKThe argument usually goes that God will not intervene in human affairs to prevent evil because to do so would violate our free will, and we have to suffer the consequences of our own free will. The usual argument I've heard isn't that, but that God does intervene all the time to prevent suffering large and small, but doesn't prevent all suffering -- either of the largest or smallest categories -- because that would impede the development of human virtue, which is a greater good than the evil that is allowed. Posted by: cmdicely at March 9, 2004 09:24 AM | PERMALINKNow that's if you're a dingbat literalist, and therefore, also believe that pi=3.0, and therefore, don't drive because it's an awful bumpy ride on those hexagon-shaped wheels. . . Read somewhere a long time ago that the Indiana (or maybe it was Kansas) legislature considered a bill that would have legally set the value of pi to 3.0, cuz that's whut the Bahble sez it is. It didn't pass, but if it had, I have no doubt that all circular objects in the state would have immediately turned hexagonal, in obedience to the Will o' Gawd. Posted by: Paolo Maldini at March 9, 2004 09:29 AM | PERMALINKxf: "In a created world, free will can exist only as an agency of the creator. The agent may believe that s/he has free will, and may in fact experience the act of choice, but the fact that the agent is a creature dictates that the choice is determined by the creator . . ." Think of it like two sides of the same coin - the person who only sees the "heads" side of the coin believes that's all there is. ". . . In order for a creator to impart such a power to creatures, the creator must exist outside the spacetime manifold in which everything happens, and must create the end of time in the same eternal metainstant in which the beginning is created. The alternative, a creator which exists within and subject to spacetime, a creator which could imaginably give its creatures free will, is not really and ultimately a creator at all, but merely a demiurge." One other alternative to consider: God always has and always will existed outside the spacetime manifold, but still exists inside the spacetime manifold, for instance 33 years a couple millinum (sp?) ago, He existed within and was subject to spacetime, right? "Or you can just handwave the whole thing and call it a mystery." Well, there probably are some things we won't understand until Heaven. It's not a mystery though if you trust that God is good. "I'd have to be nuts to think I'd be able to win anyone over to my point of view on Calpundit." That's definitely not why I post here either (I already waste too much time here, though, which is why I had to implement the ignore list for anyone who resorts to personal attacks and/or refuses to return the courtesy of answering direct questions - I simply won't waste any more time on them, and I don’t waste time keeping track of why someone gets on the ignore list - just to clarify, no one gets on the ignore list for debating the issues civilly or just because they challenge my positions or theology - sorry it has become such a distraction above : ) Hi: "I am a Christian and a Democrat." Are you pro-choice? "I don't think that the Republicans follow a Christian agenda." Perhaps just not through forced contributions to government - how many Republicans do you know who are Christian - are you sure that every one of them does not take care of the widows and the orphans and others that need help? "The Republicans seem to follow the Social Darwinist agenda." I wouldn't put it exactly that way. "I don't think Bush will win this November. With his economic record, not so much 911 as his tax cut plan, he deserves to lose." And, I think on all those points, he deserves to win : ) pessimist: "My hat's off to Charlie." Why thank you (I'm glad you like Orwell as well). "He's managed to turn this discussion into a debate on how big an idiot he is . . ." Well, that certainly was not my intention ; ) This statistical analysis was, in fact, created to determine whether God exists in the first place. "Charlie and too many of the rest of you obviously don't read your insurance policies." LOL - I find myself reading insurance policies much more than I'd prefer. "Those of us who live in California know that earthquakes are NOT considered a natural evil (nasty as riding out a 7.+ earthquake can be), but are instead considered an Act of God." Apart from the legalities, earthquakes are an act of God in the same sense that Satan's existence is an act of God. Do you think God preferred that Man fall? "We all know that insurance companies claim they are the final and ultimate authority on everything . . ." Again, I deal with claim reps enough to know this is, indeed, accurate : ) Phalamir: "This is not to say God does or does not exist, but the details of the story of Adam and Eve are not relevent to the issue, as those details are storytelling devices designed to evoke an understanding of the nature of God . . ." You had me finally agreeing with something you said, but then you threw in "not real facts." Seriously, after I read smallfish's comment this morning, I was amazed that my regularly scheduled quiet time with the Bible last night was Genesis 7, where Noah and his three sons Shem, Ham, and Japeth literally re-populated the entire world - don't you think that's at least a possibility? That's at least much closer to "scientists [theorizing] it takes a minimum of 11 people to create a sustainable population that doesn't contain defects created by inbreeding" : ) obscure: "You know, who killed 5 million Jews, God or Hitler?" Hitler. "At least Charlie is consistent in allowing that he thinks God elected Clinton too. Charlie just doesn't dwell on that when he's grinding his ax." I never said God elected Clinton. He ALLOWED Clinton to rise to power, just as He allowed Hitler to rise to power. Isn't that the very definition of "omnipotent"? "And btw, who wins the dick-sizing contest, God or Satan?" Apart from the fact I don't think that was what the Book of Job was all about, we know who wins - just read Revelations ; ) BTW: I'm not claiming any great proficiency in the art of patience either, but I do know that "Love is Patient . . ." I'm glad it is a goal for you as well. Posted by: Charlie at March 9, 2004 09:32 AM | PERMALINKFor the record (and those NOT on the ignore-list), I have NEVER said: "I have faith in Bush therefore he can't be lying." In fact, I have repeatedly stated I would be the FIRST TO CALL FOR HIS IMPEACHMENT if he knew there were no WMD in Iraq. Neither do I think it's a "serious" possibility that Dubya spent 1972 on a top-secret CIA mission - that was #5 on a list of possibilities though to the statement that: "There's no reason why there are no records of his National Guard service." IIRC, #1 on that list (the most likely explanation) was that the documents were lost. And, now you see why some people are on the ignore list. Posted by: Charlie at March 9, 2004 09:38 AM | PERMALINKSorry - not Pat Roberts, but Pat Robertson of the 700 Club. Posted by: Shelley at March 9, 2004 09:44 AM | PERMALINKCharlie Your contention is that God allowed both Hitler and Clinton to come to power. This is not the definition of omnipotent, at least not mine. However, my problem is more with the philosophy behind such a statement. Am I right to think that when you view an event you conclude that God allowed it to occur. Its not clear what you mean by this. Are you ascribing the responsibility to God or man when an injustice occurs? If God, then why would a perfect God allow an injustice? If man, then why does man need God if it is left up to man to right the injustice? Posted by: Roland at March 9, 2004 09:57 AM | PERMALINKShelley: Oh, O.K. Pat Robertson of the 700 Club - he's not why I believe in God though : ) Roland: "Your contention is that God allowed both Hitler and Clinton to come to power. This is not the definition of omnipotent, at least not mine." How about this then (and I'm not implying that GWB is omnipotent and/or God): The POTUS has the "power" to abduct you Roland under the Patriot Act - the fact that he does not exercise that "power" does not diminish the fact that he has that power, right? "However, my problem is more with the philosophy behind such a statement." Fine - let's delve right in. "Am I right to think that when you view an event you conclude that God allowed it to occur." Yes. "Its not clear what you mean by this. Are you ascribing the responsibility to God or man when an injustice occurs?" Man. "If God, then why would a perfect God allow an injustice?" Because love is a greater good than the bad from injustice. "If man, then why does man need God if it is left up to man to right the injustice?" I'm not sure what you're asking - while we are here on earth, men are charged (by God) to right injustice (we obviously can't right it all and God knows that). Ultimately, God will right all injustice. Posted by: Charlie at March 9, 2004 10:16 AM | PERMALINKActually, I just re-read that (and think of something like the Book of Job), I have to change one thing: "It's not clear what you mean by this. Are you ascribing the responsibility to God or man when an injustice occurs?" Man and/or Satan. Roland, are you a parent? Regardless, if a parent raises his kid the best he can and then the GROWN ADULT freely chooses to do something evil, is that the parent's fault? Posted by: Charlie at March 9, 2004 10:20 AM | PERMALINKCharlie You are saying that God choose Bush to be President but that he allowed Clinton and Hitler to rise to power. What is the basis for your differentiation among these three? Posted by: ____league at March 9, 2004 10:22 AM | PERMALINKOr, to fit into your question more closely: Are you ascribing the responsibility to the parent for that evil?" Posted by: Charlie at March 9, 2004 10:22 AM | PERMALINKPart of the problem I've noticed with this discussion is that even those of us who claim to believe in God seem to have very different conceptions of him/her/it. Charlie's God seems to be the one that I grew up with in Southern Baptist Sunday school. My God has evolved (for lack of a better word) and grown as I've learned a bit more about science and human nature. My God is very New Testament, caring much more about how much I love my neighbors and reminding me that wealth is a hindrance to goodness (rich men into heaven, camels through eyes of needles...) Charlie's God allowed Clinton to be president in order to punish us with peace and economic prosperity and personal scandal and Bush to be president in order to bless us with, uh, more family time for several million Americans and some really interesting-looking television pictures from the Middle East. My God is shaking his head over what his children are doing to each other, but letting us have it out and hoping we learn our lesson, as he's always done. My God laughs at those who try to stuff him into a little Creationist-sized box. He'd rather we look at the nice pictures coming back from Hubble, as they're far more interesting and enlightening. Posted by: A Texan in Maryland at March 9, 2004 10:22 AM | PERMALINKA Texan in Maryland: My God is very New Testament too, caring much more about how much I love my neighbors and reminding me that wealth is a hindrance to goodness, but He did not simply stop being an Old Testament God either. We needed BOTH aspects to present us some clue to God's nature. If we disregard the Old Testament God in favor of the New Testament God, we risk people not knowing WHY they need to follow Jesus. Or, don't you think the New Testament God / Jesus said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter or stroke will pass from the law until all is accomplished"? "Charlie's God allowed Clinton to be president in order to punish us with peace and economic prosperity . . ." That was not "punishment" ". . . and personal scandal . . ." I don;t think of that as punishment either - Clinton was simply a reflection of where most Americans were spiritually - the impact is just now being seen on the next generation, oral sex and all. ". . . and Bush to be president in order to bless us with, uh, more family time for several million Americans and some really interesting-looking television pictures from the Middle East." Sure - that and for God's righteous judgment against terrorism. Clinton didn't do that, right? "God is shaking his head over what his children are doing to each other, but letting us have it out and hoping we learn our lesson, as he's always done." Not always - see Book of Revelation. Posted by: Charlie at March 9, 2004 10:37 AM | PERMALINK
My view is that mankind is accountable for all evil. There are a few
tradegies, like the earthquake in Bam a few months ago, for which
mankind is not responsible. These are random occurences.
Hey, god's a pretty busy dude. Been around 12-15 billion years. (his
area of responsibility's always expanding) Has a lot of other galaxies
and worlds to worry about too. from terry pratchett, not a direct quote. . . one thing we know for sure about god is that he really, really, really, really likes beetles. Posted by: Olaf glad and big at March 9, 2004 01:05 PM | PERMALINKPratchett may have paraphrased it somewhere, but the original quote
was from Julian Huxley. When asked what science could tell about the
nature of God, Huxley responded, "He has an inordinate fondness for
beetles." dix: >>It's like arguing with a two-year-old: logic, reason and evidence are all inoperative and he wears you down through pure pig-headedness. dix, I don't disagree with you. But despite it all, Charlie has some charm. His persistence here is a product of many factors, but he really is gregarious and courageous, and fundamentally *social*. On some level I believe Charlie likes this place, and I often find Charlie likable. Many a wise person has pointed out that humans are less creatures of reason and more creatures of emotion and passion. Charlie is proof... and he means well to boot. Posted by: obscure at March 9, 2004 03:33 PM | PERMALINKCharlie: >>if a parent raises his kid the best he can and then the GROWN ADULT freely chooses to do something evil, is that the parent's fault? This doesn't fit very well with the omnipotent thing. Parents are not capable of controlling their childrens behavior, especially grown children. They have influence. That's another thing entirely. A big problem here: the simple fact of human nature that we tend to forget (put out of our minds) that which we find distasteful, such as injustice and human suffering. A criminal holds a gun to the head of an innocent person. In whose hands is the fate of this victim? God or the criminal? If the trigger gets pulled we blame the criminal. After the passage of some time we say, "it was Gods will." And ultimately, we forget about it because it is a blot on our view of the world. But the fact remains, innocent people--good people--get the shaft by the thousands each and every day. And GWB represents the selfish, the greedy, the shortsighted. And Christ counciled otherwise. Posted by: obscure at March 9, 2004 04:25 PM | PERMALINKBut the fact remains, innocent people--good people--get the shaft by the thousands each and every day. Mainstream Christianity accepts the existence of one (or two, depending on your view of Mary) people, in all of history, that were genuinely innocent, and he (or both of them) was (or were) assumed bodily into heaven. Whoever those people are getting the shaft every day, they aren't, in Christian theology, "innocent", except insofar as they are less guilty than other people. Posted by: cmdicely at March 9, 2004 04:33 PM | PERMALINKFor once, I'm not sure whether someone gets on the ignore-list. On one hand, you "don't disagree" with a personal attack on me. OTOH, you seem like a nice person - oh well. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (for now). I don't think ALL Republicans (especially the ones who are Christian) ignore Christ's council or are "selfish, greedy, and/or shortsighted" simply because they do not want government to pay for what Christ commanded the CHURCH to do. You know the concept, everyone repeat after me: Separation of Church and State : ) Only slightly off-topic - has anyone heard of Michael Peroutka, supposedly also running for POTUS this year? Posted by: Charlie at March 9, 2004 04:38 PM | PERMALINKOne other alternative to consider: God always has and always will existed outside the spacetime manifold, but still exists inside the spacetime manifold, for instance 33 years a couple millinum (sp?) ago, He existed within and was subject to spacetime, right? You could say that if you wanted to; personally I don't buy it any more, just because the only argument supporting it is the theological argument from authority. As you can probably deduce from what I wrote above, I tend more toward a secular panentheism, to the extent that I believe in a God at all (ultimately, the difference between universe-with-God and universe-with-no-God is pretty trivial, for any God consistent with the observable evidence). Posted by: xf at March 9, 2004 06:19 PM | PERMALINKBless your heart, obscure. May you always remain so patient. I've never suffered fools gladly, and dealing with a gen-yoo-wine two-year-old saps my tolerance for that particular rhetorical exercise. It's admirable that you manage to find Charlie "likable." Baffling, but admirable. Posted by: dix at March 9, 2004 06:55 PM | PERMALINKTimothy writes: A probability is the number of successful trials as a ratio to the number of total trials, as the number of said trials goes to infinity. But for Bayesian probability theory, that's not what probability is. Probability for a Bayesian is a subjective judgement of likelihood. So you and I have assign different probabilities to the same event. That doesn't mean that it probability is completely whimsical, because each of us must adjust our probabilities to take into account our observations, so hopefully our subjective notions of repeated events converges to roughly the same number. But for events that have only happened a handful of times, your and my subjective probabilities might be wildly different. If you think about it, it has to be this way. Otherwise, we'd never know anything until we had an infinite amount of data to work with. We have to make judgements (about what drugs to take, whether to fly in airplanes, who to vote for for President, etc.) based on only a finite amount of data. The frequentist account of probability would never actually tell us anything, but the Bayesian account of probability allows us to just make guesses and do the best we can. Posted by: Daryl McCullough at March 9, 2004 08:46 PM | PERMALINKBut for Bayesian probability theory, that's not what probability is. Probability for a Bayesian is a subjective judgement of likelihood. So you and I have assign different probabilities to the same event. Yeah, I guess you are right. But I am not a fan the entire scheme of Bayesian probability (probability as a measure of belief) -- I prefer the axiomatic approach. I understand your point, but I don't think that kind of analysis is particularly rigorous. It's probably better than guessing, but that is not saying much. Probability works when you have a large sample space from which to guess the likelihood of events. (Large is a subjective term -- but 100 or a 1000 will often do). When the event in question is a rare event, or a one time event, I don't think math really comes into play. It is a glorified guess. If you keep that in mind, it could be useful. But a bookie trying to pretend that there is a 60% chance of God's existence is most certainly not keeping the limitations in mind. When using probability as a measure of belief, the math is the same, if all of the axioms of probability hold. That is an ideal, and impossible, case. In reality, there will be violations of the axioms of probability. In which case, the math, which was rock solid, is now misapplied. Posted by: Timothy Klein at March 9, 2004 08:59 PM | PERMALINKi still say just open up the windows and go with a straight parimutuel system. miss me with this bayes shit. Posted by: Olaf glad and big at March 9, 2004 10:06 PM | PERMALINKcmdicely: >>Whoever those people are getting the shaft every day, they aren't, in Christian theology, "innocent", except insofar as they are less guilty than other people. OK, I guess I meant simply to point to the 'problem of injustice.' Rather than some spotless idea of innocence. On the one hand there are people (like columnist Cal Thomas) who argue that a person cannot be good unless he/she believes in (a Christian) god. An idea which is clearly refuted by experience in my view. On the other hand just because a person is kind, principled & compassionate (believer OR unbeliever) in no way guarantees protection from grave injustice. Although I certainly think it helps. xf: >>ultimately, the difference between universe-with-God and universe-with-no-God is pretty trivial, for any God consistent with the observable evidence Once again, I find myself in agreement. Posted by: obscure at March 10, 2004 04:48 AM | PERMALINKCharlie: >>On one hand, you "don't disagree" with a personal attack on me. OTOH, you seem like a nice person - oh well. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (for now). I don't think ALL Republicans (especially the ones who are Christian) ignore Christ's council or are "selfish, greedy, and/or shortsighted" simply because they do not want government to pay for what Christ commanded the CHURCH to do. Hey Charlie, can't you admit that arguing with us liberals is frustrating? Don't we seem like a bunch of stubborn blockheads to you? Vice versa, that's all. But something I wanted to ask you: wouldn't you admit that the liberal-leaning blogs are more fun? More tolerant of free speech? Better senses of humor? I mean, from the sound of it, you step over the line once on a conservative blog and that's it, tongue-ectomy. But did Christ really *discuss* the separate responsibilities of church & state? I don't know but I kind of doubt it. I mean, did Christ discuss the 'church' at all? I mean, after all, Christ was a Jew, no? I don't believe he renounced his heritage either. Correct me if I'm wrong. Posted by: obscure at March 10, 2004 04:58 AM | PERMALINKobscure: "Hey Charlie, can't you admit that arguing with us liberals is frustrating?" Actually, it's not frustrating at all - I guess it is a little
frustrating when I waste time civily answering each and every question
someone poses but then not get the same courtesy back - that's what the
ignore-list is for though. And, yes, I literally have a written list
(you were on it BTW - I've obviously forgiven and forgotten : ) Yes. But each of you are also human beings created in God's image whom He loves like the good shepherd loves his lost sheep. "Vice versa, that's all." That I can understand ; ) "But something I wanted to ask you: wouldn't you admit that the liberal-leaning blogs are more fun? More tolerant of free speech? Better senses of humor? I mean, from the sound of it, you step over the line once on a conservative blog and that's it, tongue-ectomy." I wouldn't know - this is the only blog I've ever posted on. What is the most popular "conservative" blog out there? "But did Christ really *discuss* the separate responsibilities of church & state?" Yes - the only hang-up I have now is that "We the People" have (relatively recently) combined government and governed - for instance, the government is specifically given the power of the sword (execution) but Jesus told His followers that those who live by the sword die by the sword. That was perfectly reconcilable in 100 A.D. because the Roman government was completely separate from the early Church. In America today, I can at least understand Christians who are uneasy supporting the death penalty, because the government (in theory) works for us. "I mean, did Christ discuss the 'church' at all?" Of course He did - since He knew exactly what he was setting forth (see the Great Commandment and the Great Commission). Paul afterwards dealt with "church" issues in detail. "I mean, after all, Christ was a Jew, no?" Of course He was born a Jew - He specifically started a different religion open to Gentiles as well. "I don't believe he renounced his heritage either. Correct me if I'm wrong." Of course not - He came to fulfill, not abolish, the Jewish law and heritage. I hope that answers your questions - let me know. Posted by: Charlie at March 10, 2004 09:42 AM | PERMALINKActually, I heard the quote was from the writer J. B. S. Haldane. Posted by: George Claredon at March 10, 2004 10:39 AM | PERMALINKCharlie: >>I wouldn't know - this is the only blog I've ever posted on. What is the most popular "conservative" blog out there? I don't know either. But on another thread recently were reports by some who had been silenced after expressing dissenting views on at least 2 conservative blogs. Now, Charlie, I did ask a couple specific questions concerning Christ's statements about the responsibilities of the state and the church. I was looking for Christ's words, frankly, not yours. You merely gave casual assurances without providing any information I asked for. So, if you know, I'd appreciate some references, the more specific the better. Thank you. And as a Buddhist I believe you are a valuable being, worthy of love & respect. And I TOTALLY agree with your statement that 'love is patient.' Posted by: obscure at March 10, 2004 04:52 PM | PERMALINK Well, the only two quotes attributed to Jesus directly (that I can think of off the top of my head) are "Those that live by the sword die by the sword" and "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar (taxes) and that which is God's to God" - I'll try to double-check those and more tonight. You aren't interested in what the Holy Spirit led Paul to write about the responsibilities of church vs. state then? You should know, however, that I think EVERY word in the Bible is Christ's (God's) Word. Posted by: Charlie at March 10, 2004 05:01 PM | PERMALINKCharlie, that kind of complicates matters, doesn't it?! I mean, does the NT quote Jesus as taking credit for every word in the OT? And if it doesn't, isn't that a bit of a rash assumption? Posted by: obscure at March 10, 2004 07:34 PM | PERMALINKI am at home now, looking up some verses for you. And I don't think it's a rash assumption when the Gospel of John, Chapter 1, Verse 1 clearly states: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" referring to Jesus Himself. And, then (I quoted this above, or maybe on a different thread) Jesus said in Mark 5:17: "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." What else would you like to see that Jesus indeed took credit for every word in the OT? I actually think (except for a few isolated cases in the entire Bible, for instance, Matthew 17:5, whenever God interacted with mankind, prior to the Holy Spirit at Pentacost, He was God the Son Jesus Christ, not the Father). The only other Gospel reference (not OT or Epistles) to "government" was actually an analogy to the church being separate (and better) than earthly government: Matthew 4:23 From there [Jesus] went all over Galilee. He used synagogues for meeting places and taught people the truth of God. God's kingdom was his theme - that beginning right now they were under God's government, a good government! As for the proper role of the church, by that name specifically, only in two places (like I said, Paul discusses this in much greater detail): Matthew 18:15-17 "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that 'by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.' And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector." Of course, how could I have forgotten earlier, Matthew 16:18: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. Let me know if you have any other questions. Posted by: Charlie at March 10, 2004 08:20 PM | PERMALINKCharlie: Questions? Not really. I quoted from BOTH last night (and even started looking up "disciples" "body" and "friends" if obscure really wants to see what Christ said about the church - would the King James Version suffice for that MathiasDom?) Posted by: Charlie at March 11, 2004 09:00 AM | PERMALINKCharlie I find it weird when people try to fit the teachings of Christ into some sort of idealogical framework. Where I grew up, he was recast as some sort of proto capitalist. I raise this only as an example. I'm sure somewhere else in the world Christ is recast as a socialist. Since these theories of organizing society had not yet developed, its pretty unlikely to me that Christ would have much to say on these issues at all. One can, of course, reinterpret what Christ said in a variety of ways. This doesn't really do what was said much justice though. Posted by: Roland at March 11, 2004 09:10 AM | PERMALINKCharlie: Roland: "I find it weird when people try to fit the teachings of Christ into some sort of idealogical framework." I don't do that. "Where I grew up, he was recast as some sort of proto capitalist. I raise this only as an example. I'm sure somewhere else in the world Christ is recast as a socialist." And I'm sure somewhere, He is recast as Satan, so what's the point? "Since these theories of organizing society had not yet developed, its pretty unlikely to me that Christ would have much to say on these issues at all." LOL - He certainly had quite a bit to say on how we should be and act toward others (regardless of which "theory of organizing society" "One can, of course, reinterpret what Christ said in a variety of ways. This doesn't really do what was said much justice though." Agreed : ) MathiasDom: "In short: no." O.K., since I read neither Hebrew nor Greek, what ENGLISH translation would you prefer I use? "By accepting King James as the ultimate source, you are quoting King James and not the Bible." More accurately, quoting the 47 Commissioners of the Hampton Court Conferences who took the Bishops' Bible as their basis, correcting it by a comparison with the orginial languages, along with a list of other English versions which they consulted as well. Posted by: Charlie at March 11, 2004 11:52 AM | PERMALINKWe are healthy only to the extent that our ideas are humane. Posted by: Abe Kaho at March 17, 2004 11:13 PM | PERMALINKYou cannot learn without already knowing. Posted by: Lashutka Michael at May 2, 2004 03:03 PM | PERMALINKMediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius. Posted by: Blinn Anne Isacowitz at May 3, 2004 02:13 AM | PERMALINK'May you live all the days of your life.' - Swift Posted by: Horwitz Russell at June 30, 2004 06:54 AM | PERMALINKstar luck casino.com | sterling house casino.com | strike it lucky casino.com | sun vegas.com | super slots.com | swiss casino.com | the sands.com | tiki bingo.com | turbo surfer.com | uk casino club.com | usa casino.com | usa prescription.com Posted by: 7 sultans casino at July 1, 2004 12:43 AM | PERMALINKsome christian bible-o-philiacs know that jerry jenkins and tim lahaye are right about the revelation and wrong about the details. I'm sure that I am not the only one who sees that bush will be a friend of isreal until he is actually elected, and then all evil will break loose. Posted by: matt at July 2, 2004 12:03 AM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - 7972 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online Posted by: play blackjack at August 23, 2004 08:45 PM | PERMALINK8631 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 09:11 AM | PERMALINK7927 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 25, 2004 07:52 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
