345 replies to this topic

[chrwe]

Even though I don`t believe in the Judao-Christian God, I have to say the argument seems a bit off. If it were so plain obvious that everything in the Bible is manufactured, far more than 10% would be in the closet atheists.

I know some very intelligent priests who are (in fact) atheists.

I know some very intelligent priests who believe that we don`t know even what "matter" is and that there is much more at work in the universe than we think (= not atheists)

Keeping a childish picture-religion in your mind is impossible, tho, for the inquisitive and intelligent mind, I concur.

Having a belief or agnosticism in the vast mystery and unknown facts of the universe - and that there may be a driving force - is not.

[eternaltraveler]

Having a belief without evidence to support it is fallacy. Agnosticism is the correct approach. Most atheists are agnostic toward the universe in general, simply atheist against human religions, most of which we have strong evidence that show they are false.

Duke's approach exploring the history of the Christian and other churches is an excellent method to demonstrate this.

[chrwe]

Oh, I keep saying that Agnosticism is the true approach.

[JonesGuy]

I'm always shocked when the moral arguments don't work.

I mean, I was horrified to find out that I was literally worshiping an entity that had demanded infant sacrifices. You'd think that should shake nearly anyone up, and I'm astounded that morality can be that broken.

[shadowhawk]

[quote name='Cameron' date='May 29 2010, 07:09 PM' post='410841']
The question is why is the evidence out there obscure and tenuous at best, why isn't it crystal clear, solid, and evident. One of the excuses given for this is the above presented excuse. A more plausible explanation as suggested in my previous quote, is the nonexistence of the particular deity involved. I

Just be consistent, most things we know are obscure, and tenuous. Why aren’t most things crystal clear, solid and evident. You have the answer to that? Don’t believe anything that isn’t. Nonsense. Most things we believe and do, involve faith of some degree. What is your excuse?

How about something that would've left evidence that would've withstood the test of time and been clear as day.

And what has stood the test of time (what is that test?) What is as clear as day?
How come the religious are the only ones to have a test?

It is intriguing that some prophets claim to be able to resurrect the dead yet fail to cure aging or grow a limb.

And some kill. Some atheists started the great atheist, unbelieving civilizations of the last century and killed more people by far than any others in history. This death by unbelievers goes on today. They claim to represent the people, be scientific, rational and anti-religious. Intriguing?

* 65 million in the People's Republic of China
* 20 million in the Soviet Union
* 2 million in Cambodia
* 2 million in North Korea
* 1.7 million in Africa
* 1.5 million in Afghanistan
* 1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
* 1 million in Vietnam
* 150,000 in Latin America

http://www.hawaii.ed...kills/NOTE1.HTM

These numbers are low and the totals continue to mount as research grows.

A story has to provide adequate reasons for it to be taken as more than mere fiction. Are you speaking of Atheism?


mentally ill person

Ho hum...

myself have known people
Good, me too.

After the crucifiction, a few of the apostles must've concurently seen Jesus in a dream. By the time the Gospels were written down decades later, and a thousand retellings later, he had appeared in bodily form and shown them his wounds; and had performed all kinds of miracles.

Where is any Historical evidence of this? This is someone’s baseless fantasy, passed off as fact.

We live in a time when organizations like CSICOP could investigate, and debunk, stories like this yogi who allegedly doesn't eat. When the Shroud of Turin has been carbon dated and proven to be a 14th century hoax; I could go on. Society should have an appreciation of how hearsay entropy (to coin a phrase) can mutate common occurences into the most fantastic stories.-Gus K. acceleratingfuture.com

The Shroud of Turin is still hotly debated and it has not been proven to be a 14th century hoax. Look at the latest research. (You believe!) Whether or not, it is real, remains to be seen. I do not base my faith on it one way or the other.

[shadowhawk]

These clergy also learn where all the ideas of Christianity where "borrowed" from, and how the Rapture and Heaven were post-Jesus additions to the Christian worldview. For example, on Facebook today, I posted:

Jesus never mentioned a rapture. And he never spoke of heaven. Originally, the Kingdom of God was to be on a renewed Earth and occur shortly after Jesus died. But, as time went on and believers starting dying, Paul and later Luke invented the idea of an offsite heaven where dead believers would go for a joyous afterlif...e. This clever addition kept believers happy while waiting longer and longer for Jesus to return.

Original Christians all believed that Jesus would return in their lifetime. So, when a few decades went on and some started dying, this raised an important concern: What will happen to these dead Believers??? Paul stated they would be resurrected upon His return. But, time continued to tick, and a decade after Paul died, Luke was forced to amend things further, because Believers didn't like the idea of being dead and waiting -- "What did death feel like?" they questioned. So, Luke invented the idea that you didn't have wait for Jesus to return, you were taken to His side as soon as you died.

And so Believers were happy. This basically solved the idea of waiting for Jesus to come, because now Believers go straight to Him. This was one of the most important on-the-fly adjustments to Christianity that kept is alive as a viable religion, in the face of competition from other religions that also promised an afterlife.

Do they teach this history in Churches. Hell no. ;-) They need to keep those blinders firmly in place.

Jesus never mentioned a rapture. And he never spoke of heaven. Originally, the Kingdom of God was to be on a renewed Earth and occur shortly after Jesus died. But, as time went on and believers starting dying, Paul and later Luke invented the idea of an offsite heaven where dead believers would go for a joyous afterlif...e. This clever addition kept believers happy while waiting longer and longer for Jesus to return.

Shadowhawk:
The full content of Christianity message, can't be found by only reading t\he words of Christ found in the four Gospels. For that matter no part of the faith is the same as all of the faith. In fact the canon was made up of the letters by the church members and as constant with the teaching received by those that were eye witnesses and students of Christ. The faith was built upon Christ and the Apostles and the Church. This Church was in existence since the day of Pentecost where those who were eye witness to the life of Christ gathered together in the upper room. There were many other teachings of Christ beside those mentioned and the Gospels and also taught by them.

Read these great classic books by F.F. Bruce.
http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/087784691X

http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/0385025335

There are many other books beside these classics that cover these issues and times but this is enough for now.

Original Christians all believed that Jesus would return in their lifetime. So, when a few decades went on and some started dying, this raised an important concern: What will happen to these dead Believers??? Paul stated they would be resurrected upon His return.

Just as Christ was resurrected. It was a common teaching throughout the Church, not just Paul. You are right this was a question that was asked very early and is the basis of our celebration of All Saints Day and Holy Evening, Halloween.

But, time continued to tick, and a decade after Paul died, Luke was forced to amend things further, because Believers didn't like the idea of being dead and waiting -- "What did death feel like?" they questioned. So, Luke invented the idea that you didn't have wait for Jesus to return, you were taken to His side as soon as you died.

Nice to know Luke invented it. And how do you know that?

And so Believers were happy. This basically solved the idea of waiting for Jesus to come, because now Believers go straight to Him. This was one of the most important on-the-fly adjustments to Christianity that kept is alive as a viable religion, in the face of competition from other religions that also promised an afterlife.

My response is answers to these questions are found in the bible and no one is happy about dying. that I am aware of in history. It is a faith issue whether there is life after death and Christians are not the only ones that answer such questions with faith. Anyone who tells you what happens after death, is giving you a faith answer.

Do they teach this history in Churches. Hell no. ;-) They need to keep those blinders firmly in place.

I will be kind, nonsense. I know they teach this subject. Give me any example of your claim.

Edited by shadowhawk, 01 June 2010 - 09:39 PM.

[DukeNukem]

I'm always shocked when the moral arguments don't work.

I mean, I was horrified to find out that I was literally worshiping an entity that had demanded infant sacrifices. You'd think that should shake nearly anyone up, and I'm astounded that morality can be that broken.

This fits what I wrote on FB today:

During Noah's flood, 1000's of children treaded water for possibly hours, their muscles burning from lactic acid build-up, until they couldn't fight for their lives any more and slip under the water to die a torturous drowning death. They would have sucked in a lung-full of water and immediately choked, gagged, breathed in more, suffocating slowly. I wonder if their last thoughts were, "What did I do wrong, God?"

Someone commented:

My wife used to be a catholic school teacher. She was told she wasn't allowed to teach old testament stories because there was no way to link them to the new testament "god loves everyone" message.

Says everything if you ask me.

I replied back:

Very true, Jake. God -- back then "Yahweh" -- was not an all-inclusive loving/parental god. He was "born" as a warrior god (which he even claims in the Bible), and had warrior tendencies throughout the Old Testament. In fact, it wasn't really Jesus that softened him up, it was more Paul's repackaging of the Hebrew God, as a way to give Jews a direct link to Christianity and to give Christianity a history, rather than having it come out of nowhere.

[JonesGuy]

Well, Noah's Flood is a myth, and is accepted as a myth amongst many believers.

However, the Israeli genocides could or could not have happened (they really could have, since genocides are fairly common historically). The egregious bit is where the genocides are justified as being commanded by God. I.e., a god that demands human sacrifices.

[shadowhawk]

Well, Noah's Flood is a myth, and is accepted as a myth amongst many believers.

However, the Israeli genocides could or could not have happened (they really could have, since genocides are fairly common historically). The egregious bit is where the genocides are justified as being commanded by God. I.e., a god that demands human sacrifices.

Just follow the process of forensic science and you will know unsolved problems often do not make sense. Often it takes more evidence to solve a problem but this not mean the evidence we have is wrong. We often have to proceed on a hunch or faith. Evidence leads us often we know not where. Science is often engaged in with just this kind of reasoning.

The facts we have regarding much of religion are historical..

http://en.wikipedia....i/Gary_Habermas
http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/0899007325
http://www.amazon.co...H2D2E2Q7E4VD1F2
http://www.garyhabermas.com/

The flood?
http://en.wikipedia....wick_Montgomery
http://www.jwm.christendom.co.uk/
http://www.amazon.co...y...4166&sr=1-4

The quest for Noah's ark;: A treasury of documented accounts from ancient times to the present day of sightings of the ark & explorations of Mount Ararat ... ascent to the summit of Noah's mountain
http://www.amazon.co...u...4166&sr=1-1

Some other ideas, the flood was the creation of the Black Sea and Noah lived in an area which is now under water.

The debate goes on but it, along with thousands of historical questions are not myths..

The problem of Evil seems to be an issue and I will give some thoughts on it soon.

[JonesGuy]

I'm sorry, I have trouble following your formatting style.

Though I notice that you point out that both there's supposition that they've found evidence of Noah's Ark, as well as the Flood being the flooding of the Black Sea.
These two are not coherent together. They're contradictory statements. They're not both possible.

[shadowhawk]

I'm sorry, I have trouble following your formatting style.

Though I notice that you point out that both there's supposition that they've found evidence of Noah's Ark, as well as the Flood being the flooding of the Black Sea.
These two are not coherent together. They're contradictory statements. They're not both possible.

My point is qualified historians with different views are still trying to find out what really took place. Many details are not there in the story. The story in the Bible has a purpose unrelated to many other questions we might want to ask. Further study and discovery will need to take place to answer some of them.

[JonesGuy]

Of course qualified historians are quite interested in the climatic struggles of previous generations.

The Jews highjacking a Babylonian myth in order to make their history 'extra special' is more of an issue for theological academics (not apologetics) or for historical academics. It's an interesting piece of history, for sure. Unfortunately, this myth continues to confuse hundreds of millions of Abrahamic believers about the natural history of our planet. Too many people don't have the knowledge to disprove the Flood, which is a shame, because a comprehension of natural history is an important component of the ecological debates.

If churches had lead the way over science in disavowing the Flood, I might be more impressed. As it is, they're causing ignorance.

[DukeNukem]

The Noah's flood myth is taken from a Sumerian legend that predates Noah's story by 1000 years, and is taken from table 11 of "The Epic of Gilgamesh". The vast similarities are uncanny and undeniable: building a huge ship to avoid a flood, saving animals to preserve life on Earth, releasing birds to find land, landing on a mountain, and burning animals to please the gods. Clearly, too good a story for the Christian's not to borrow.

A problem with Noah's flood is that it occurred during the recorded history of China, Egypt, Babylon and Mesopotamia (2500-2000 BCE). And while these societies recorded local floods, none of them wrote of a large flood. Clearly, the people who created the Noah flood myth did not take into account other civilizations around the world that would eventually prove the global flood story to be a fabrication.

Noah's flood covered all the land on Earth, like in the film, Waterworld. Where did all of this water come from? Fun math time: A category 5 hurricane dumps an amazing six inches of rain per hour. BUT, for a global flood to occur in 40 days/nights, it would need to dump six inches per HOUR...constantly! No boat could survive this tidal wave from the sky. And where did all of this water drain to after the flood???

Over 100,000 species of animals existed during this story's period. Had the authors of this story been more aware of the world's immensity of fauna, they may have appreciated the serious futility of their tall tale, or made the Ark a LOT bigger than the undersized one described in the Bible. And exactly how did these animals travel too and from Australia, the Americas, and 1000's of islands???

For those Christians who believe the Earth is around 6000 yrs old (and there are a LOT out there -- over 40% of all Christians), and therefore believe that dinosaurs lived at the time of the flood, please please please explain why these dinosaurs didn't board Noah's Ark with all of the other animals?

The writers of the Noah's flood simply didn't have the scientific knowledge to know that their fabulous tall tale had more holes than a moon made of Swiss cheese. The marine life is seemingly immune to a worldwide flood, and thus unnecessary to take aboard the Ark. Au contraire, all of the fresh water marine life would have perished as soon as the overflowing oceanic waters mixed with fresh water lakes and rivers.

Unless we invoke the Maker's Magic to fix everything, how do Christians explain the worldwide extermination of plant life from Noah's flood? Most seeds can't survive the immense underwater pressure from being so deep. And surviving underwater seeds would've sprouted and died quickly. Plus, many plants don't use seeds for reproduction. Fact: most the world's vegetarian would NOT have returned after the flood.

When taken literally, as in the Biblical description, the incredible tale of Noah and the flood is an insult to human intelligence and defies common sense. If the story didn't appear in the Bible, and if Christians weren't convinced by their leaders of its truthfulness, this story would be laughed off as an ancient urban legend with no one giving it a second thought.

[shadowhawk]

[quote name='DukeNukem' date='Jun 3 2010, 08:09 AM' post='411674']
The Noah's flood myth is taken from a Sumerian legend that predates Noah's story by 1000 years, and is taken from table 11 of "The Epic of Gilgamesh". The vast similarities are uncanny and undeniable: building a huge ship to avoid a flood, saving animals to preserve life on Earth, releasing birds to find land, landing on a mountain, and burning animals to please the gods. Clearly, too good a story for the Christian's not to borrow.

This is a Jewish story and you assume the flood was universal. More than Sumerans have flood stories. The Hebrew word for "earth" can be either universal or something more local. I lean to the latter view and have been involved in a number of formal debates on this point. That effects your second point.

A problem with Noah's flood is that it occurred during the recorded history of China, Egypt, Babylon and Mesopotamia (2500-2000 BCE). And while these societies recorded local floods, none of them wrote of a large flood. Clearly, the people who created the Noah flood myth did not take into account other civilizations around the world that would eventually prove the global flood story to be a fabrication.

There are flood stories all over the earth. I think they are local flood stories but certainly there has been massive flooding all over the earth since the last ice age. There are certainly many natural phoneme which can account for massive floods and extinctions. There are massive floods such as the black sea.

Noah's flood covered all the land on Earth, like in the film, Waterworld. Where did all of this water come from? Fun math time: A category 5 hurricane dumps an amazing six inches of rain per hour. BUT, for a global flood to occur in 40 days/nights, it would need to dump six inches per HOUR...constantly! No boat could survive this tidal wave from the sky. And where did all of this water drain to after the flood???

You have a straw man created. Look up the Hebrew words for earth. It is discussed in thousands of commentaries. But you caught the actual event on film, so nothing more needs to be said.

Over 100,000 species of animals existed during this story's period. Had the authors of this story been more aware of the world's immensity of fauna, they may have appreciated the serious futility of their tall tale, or made the Ark a LOT bigger than the undersized one described in the Bible. And exactly how did these animals travel too and from Australia, the Americas, and 1000's of islands???

All these issues have been discussed for decades. If it happened according to your movie, maybe you have a point, if not you are fighting a straw man. How did they (the ones who did get on the Ark) travel to the Ark? I didn't see the movie so I will be careful here. Maybe they walked if it was local. What of bactera, did they all die? And we think there may be life on Mars!

For those Christians who believe the Earth is 6000 years old (and there are a LOT out there -- over 40% of all Christians), and therefore believe that dinosaurs lived at the time of the flood, please please please explain why these dinosaurs didn't board Noah's Ark with all of the other animals?

Since I don't believe the world is only 6000 years old, I guess that rules me out. I have meet lots of Christians, of all kinds, but no one who thinks it isn't older than 6000 years old. I wonder who took that poll and how it was worded? It matters what you are talking about! (See Schroeder below) Don't you think it is a bit disingenuous to say this? Christians in the past have believed in a young earth but so did. scientists and all kinds of others. Only mentioning Christians..why? My own view has been shaped by a Jewish scientist, who deals with the time (seven) days issue of Genesis. It impacts the answer you mock Christians for.

Gerald L. Schroeder Ph
The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth
http://www.amazon.co...ntt_aut_sim_4_1
On days and years.
* http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx
One Review
“A remarkable book. The science as well as the meaning of this universe and of life are discussed with insight, rigor, and depth along with a perceptive, challenging and scholarly view of the Old Testament. Great for a thoughtful reader!” (Charles H. Townes, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics, Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley )

The writers of the Noah's flood simply didn't have the scientific knowledge to know that their fabulous tall tale had more holes than a moon made of Swiss cheese. The marine life is seemingly immune to a worldwide flood, and thus unnecessary to take aboard the Ark. Au contraire, all of the fresh water marine life would have perished as soon as the overflowing oceanic waters mixed with fresh water lakes and rivers.

Based on the movie? Remember, the movie is the real fiction.

Doesn't all water start in the ocean? Part of the flood started out as fresh water rain, lots of it. Is this an argument for saltwater rain? Can some creatures tolerate both salt and fresh water? Yes!

Unless we invoke the Maker's Magic to fix everything, how do Christians explain the worldwide extermination of plant life from Noah's flood? Most seeds can't survive the immense underwater pressure from being so deep. And surviving underwater seeds would've sprouted and died quickly. Plus, many plants don't use seeds for reproduction. Fact: most the world's vegetarian would NOT have returned after the flood.

Lots of vegetation tolerates salt water! Plants survive floods. I live by the ocean where tidal waves have gone far inland. Alive with fresh water plants!

And how do you know this? I believe the construct of your argument is built upon false data.

When taken literally, as in the Biblical description, the incredible tale of Noah and the flood is an insult to human intelligence and defies common sense. If the story didn't appear in the Bible, and if Christians weren't convinced by their leaders of its truthfulness, this story would be laughed off as an ancient urban legend with no one giving it a second thought.

What view is literal? This construct is insulting, but I take no offense. I have laughed it off as a modern construct bit I like you. You are great.

There have been tens of thousands of commentaries written on the various books of the Bible. This includes the Flood. This criticism is very dated. (speaking of dates) I suggest the Apologetics Study Bible as a beginning place to study these kinds of issues.

The Apologetics Study Bible: Understand Why You Believe
http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/158640024X

Edited by shadowhawk, 03 June 2010 - 09:41 PM.

[shadowhawk]

What is Faith?
Faith is a confidence or trust in the achievement of God's will, even though unseen and unexpected by non-believers. Some think non-believers also have faith, as do I.

Faith embodies more than belief. Faith elevates one's being, while belief is limited to a mental state or emotion. Faith implies a causal role by the believer in an outcome or in overcoming a personal fear. Faith also implies advancement or accomplishment rather than wrongdoing, while belief implies neither.

Faith plays a central role in overcoming addiction. Virtually everyone is plagued by one or more addictions, and faith enables overcoming those weaknesses. Similar to this is faith's key role in overcoming recidivism.

Faith is also helpful in overcoming fear, such as fear of public speaking, appearing on television, or standing up to a bully or unpleasant situations. Faith may be helpful in facing death.

Lack of faith can lead to fear, anxiety, depression, lack of confidence and sometimes death. A lack of faith can be very harmful, leading to self-destructive behavior. Faith can be described as the power to ignore evil.

Often faith inspires extra initiative or effort, adding confidence that it will yield the desired good result.

[DukeNukem]

What is Faith?
Faith is a confidence or trust in the achievement of God's will, even though unseen and unexpected by non-believers. Some think non-believers also have faith, as do I.

Faith embodies more than belief. Faith elevates one's being, while belief is limited to a mental state or emotion. Faith implies a causal role by the believer in an outcome or in overcoming a personal fear. Faith also implies advancement or accomplishment rather than wrongdoing, while belief implies neither.

Faith plays a central role in overcoming addiction. Virtually everyone is plagued by one or more addictions, and faith enables overcoming those weaknesses. Similar to this is faith's key role in overcoming recidivism.

Faith is also helpful in overcoming fear, such as fear of public speaking, appearing on television, or standing up to a bully or unpleasant situations. Faith may be helpful in facing death.

Lack of faith can lead to fear, anxiety, depression, lack of confidence and sometimes death. A lack of faith can be very harmful, leading to self-destructive behavior. Faith can be described as the power to ignore evil.

Often faith inspires extra initiative or effort, adding confidence that it will yield the desired good result.

(You double posted, so I deleted a copy.)

Why do you put so much faith in a murderous god? Especially a god who kills innocent babies and children by the 1000's (via drowning, raining fiery sulfur, plagues, etc.)?

Frankly, if I was in this god's religion, I'd want to dump him as unsuitable for office and elect a new guy. After all, this was a war god (Yahweh) originally, what more can be expected of him! And trillions of years of torturous punishment for not believing in his son??? C'mon, talk about radically unjust and devoid of compassion. Sheesh. Why do believers put up with this guy? After all, what if a believer unknowingly trips up on one of this guy's rules (like working on Sunday) and ends up taking the down elevator? Someone needs to stage a coup. Seriously, this god is dangerous to ALL of us -- believers, too!

Edited by DukeNukem, 04 June 2010 - 09:17 PM.

[shadowhawk]

What is Faith?
Faith is a confidence or trust in the achievement of God's will, even though unseen and unexpected by non-believers. Some think non-believers also have faith, as do I.

Faith embodies more than belief. Faith elevates one's being, while belief is limited to a mental state or emotion. Faith implies a causal role by the believer in an outcome or in overcoming a personal fear. Faith also implies advancement or accomplishment rather than wrongdoing, while belief implies neither.

Faith plays a central role in overcoming addiction. Virtually everyone is plagued by one or more addictions, and faith enables overcoming those weaknesses. Similar to this is faith's key role in overcoming recidivism.

Faith is also helpful in overcoming fear, such as fear of public speaking, appearing on television, or standing up to a bully or unpleasant situations. Faith may be helpful in facing death.

Lack of faith can lead to fear, anxiety, depression, lack of confidence and sometimes death. A lack of faith can be very harmful, leading to self-destructive behavior. Faith can be described as the power to ignore evil.

Often faith inspires extra initiative or effort, adding confidence that it will yield the desired good result.

(You double posted, so I deleted a copy.)

Why do you put so much faith in a murderous god? Especially a god who kills innocent babies and children by the 1000's (via drowning, raining fiery sulfur, plagues, etc.)?

Frankly, if I was in this god's religion, I'd want to dump him as unsuitable for office and elect a new guy. After all, this was a war god (Yahweh) originally, what more can be expected of him! And trillions of years of torturous punishment for not believing in his son??? C'mon, talk about radically unjust and devoid of compassion. Sheesh. Why do believers put up with this guy? After all, what if a believer unknowingly trips up on one of this guy's rules (like working on Sunday) and ends up taking the down elevator? Someone needs to stage a coup. Seriously, this god is dangerous to ALL of us -- believers, too!

Your faith says that if there is a evil (in this case moral), God must have done it, if there is one. You must believe in evil because you are exercising your moral capacity (such as it is) to condemn God for it. And what happens to those babies who die whether there is a God or not? No matter what your faith, babies still die. (I personally lost a 2 year old child) My entire birth family (5) are dead. My dear brother died in an industrial accident and he had 3 children. What can you do about it? (Rale against God) Whether there is a God or not, you are going to do nothing or little. Why not? You are impotent when it comes to such problems. So your protests are of little consequence, one way or the other. So stage your revolt! Save the babies after you get rid of God? By the way, do you even know what happens to them? How many have you saved from God or nature or...?

If there is a monotheistic God and I do believe, He is creator of the world and can do something about babies but not only little ones but us all. You can’t do anything about reality, except possibly in the smallest way. Pardon me but if I was looking for hope, I wouldn’t look to you even though I respect and like you. The Babies would have no chance or hope in your scheme of things nor does anyone else.

I suggest you look up the name of Yahweh in a scholarly lexicons such as Kittles TDNT (I have the 10 volume set but this one volume abridgement will work. http://www.amazon.co...l/dp/0802824048
http://www.olivetree...productid=16678
http://www.logos.com...ts/details/1416

And the Old Testament TDOT 15 volumes Which I also have.
http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/0802823386
http://www.christian...1009|21371|1009

It is to long to go into here but I will if there is real interest. There are many other good lexicons beside these. Check out scholarly commentaries. There are many names for God in the Bible and your take on YHWH is .... No need to say anything.

But I have not dealt adequately with the problem of evil. I will get to it but I need to make it short for this format.

[Cameron]

Just be consistent, most things we know are obscure, and tenuous. Why aren't most things crystal clear, solid and evident. You have the answer to that? Don't believe anything that isn't. Nonsense. Most things we believe and do, involve faith of some degree. What is your excuse?

Not every entity's presence in the world is obscure and tenuous, things like say the presence of the sun or the moon, they're quite clear an evident. Their nature not as easily, but their presence is clearly so.

The God of the bible failed to reach millions of humans through the generations, due to the failure of spreading the word in an efficient manner. Choosing a few men in a small corner of the world and providing them with nothing to prove their connection to the divine, is nothing short of pathetic as an attempt to connect with the human race as a whole.

What's likelier that a divine being had its attention devoted to a small group of israelites and sometimes sought and aided in the massacre of competing groups(Guess the love they got from the 'all-loving?!' was to be butchered...) or that this is just all made up?

One would expect a being with supreme intellect and capacity to be very effective at their goals. If they wanted to connect and have a relationship with an entire race of beings, like say the human race, one'd think they'd use some method that did not exclude large populations from even hearing their divinely inspired message. Often due to having died before it got to them or dismissing due to the questionability of the claims and the lack of proof. Proof necessary to convert people who'd likely been exposed to another religion.

If in the end it doesn't matter that large swaths of mankind don't get the message, then why does it matter if a few get it? after all everyone who didn't get the message and behaved aptly can't possibly experience repercussions from a just rational being. So what's the point?

Where is any Historical evidence of this? This is someone's baseless fantasy, passed off as fact.

That could be said of all the supernatural claims in most any holy book, like say the bible. And without evidence of the supernatural to back it up, claims of the supernatural are no more than fiction... and if they're really fiction, then there's no reason to suspect a connection to the divine.

The Hebrew word for "earth" can be either universal or something more local. I lean to the latter view and have been involved in a number of formal debates on this point. That effects your second point.

If it is a local flood why did he have to take all those animals in? Was it not said to be a flood to wipe out mankind due to sins except for Noah and his family?

The earth was corrupt before God and filled with crime. God saw the earth, and saw that it was corrupt, for all living beings had perverted their ways on the earth.

'I shall destroy humankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth -- humankind, as well as animals, creeping things, and birds of the sky. For I am sorry that I have made them.'-Yahweh

But Noah found favor in Yahweh's eyes. God said to Noah, 'The end of all living things has come , for the earth is filled with violence through them. And so I will destroy them with the earth. Make yourself an ark of gopher wood.'

'Behold, I will bring a flood of waters on this earth to destroy every living thing under heaven. Everything on earth will die.'

'In seven days, I will cause it to rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights. Every living thing that I have made, I will destroy from the face of the earth.'

The waters increased even more upon the earth, so that every tall mountain under the whole of heaven was covered. And every living thing that moved on the earth died -- all the birds, the livestock, the animals, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and all of humankind.

'Nor will I ever again destroy everything living, as I have done.'

'Never again will all living things be destroyed by the waters of a flood. '

-genesis

I assume more than just the word 'earth' has been confused and the translators have been malicious, as all the surrounding text suggests that the word 'earth' is meant to signify the whole earth. The whole story as translated does not suggest a local event but a global one.

After one hundred fifty days the waters had decreased, so that on the seventeenth day of the seventeenth month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

Do you honestly expect a local flood to cover every single mountain and for it to take that much time for dry land to appear on a mountain?

'The taking of a life I will punish with death. Any animal or human being who kills another human being must be put to death, for humankind was created in God's image.'-yahweh genesis

I also do not like the pro-death penalty stance here. Not to mention why are the executioners necessitated by this exempt from this law?

Edited by Cameron, 05 June 2010 - 05:41 AM.

[JonesGuy]

Firstly, if it's not a complete Flood, the reference to the rainbow makes no sense. Rainbows are a promise against further complete decimation.

Additionally, if it's not a complete Flood, the Ark being in the mountains of Ararat also makes no sense.

But hey, I think that Imminst Christians could do a lot of good in the world by endeavouring to convince churches that the Flood wasn't global. A lot more good than trying to convince non-Christians that 'hey, it might have happened, if you read it non-literally'. If you want some consensus, then I'll agree that it's possible that some guy survived on a boat with some livestock during a local flood at some point in history. In fact, I'll concede that it's likely to have occurred.

Right now, though, a vast number of Western-educated Christians think it was a Global Flood. This ruins their conception of natural history

[DukeNukem]

Right now, though, a vast number of Western-educated Christians think it was a Global Flood. This ruins their conception of natural history

It's sickening to me that primitive religious beliefs still survive and corrupt the minds of a large percentage of our youth, into believing that these Biblical tall tales are real history, and believing that evolution is incorrect. These are stunning setbacks for the progress of humankind, because they truly impede rational scientific progress. Over 25% of all Christians believe the Earth is 6000-ish years old and they pass this craziness to their children, totally destroying their ability to understand numerous branches of science (astronomy, geology, biology, etc.). And then you have a stunningly high percentage of Christians who believe Jesus is coming within five years, and therefore they don't care much about long-term environmental consequences or political consequences.

Religion truly is the most hurtful aspect of humankind.

But, because it's genetically encoded in all of us (and most of us will likely never be able to rise above this coding and escape the matrix), I fear it's here to stay until it destroys us due to national religious conflict.

Edited by DukeNukem, 05 June 2010 - 02:11 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Right now, though, a vast number of Western-educated Christians think it was a Global Flood. This ruins their conception of natural history

It's sickening to me that primitive religious beliefs still survive and corrupt the minds of a large percentage of our youth, into believing that these Biblical tall tales are real history, and believing that evolution is incorrect. These are stunning setbacks for the progress of humankind, because they truly impede rational scientific progress. Over 25% of all Christians believe the Earth is 6000-ish years old and they pass this craziness to their children, totally destroying their ability to understand numerous branches of science (astronomy, geology, biology, etc.). And then you have a stunningly high percentage of Christians who believe Jesus is coming within five years, and therefore they don't care much about long-term environmental consequences or political consequences.

Religion truly is the most hurtful aspect of humankind.

But, because it's genetically encoded in all of us (and most of us will likely never be able to rise above this coding and escape the matrix), I fear it's here to stay until it destroys us due to national religious conflict.

Sounds a bit fundamentalist and dogmatic to me. (Atheist in this case) Evolutionists fight among themselves all the time, even call each other ugly names. (Dawkins is a "Deathist," even here on ImmInst) We have a free country where different viewpoints are tolerated and debated. Views on evolution are always changing in keeping with Science being a process rather than a position. There are problems with evolution and it is still evolving.

Christians and theists have been among many of the leaders in science. If it makes you feel good, to think Christians believe the world is 6,000 years old, go ahead but you are wrong. Do you deny the following?
Read on days and years.
* http://www.geraldsch...geUniverse.aspx

Here is what has set back the world, from an earlier post of mine. Atheists killing people they disagree with. There were lots of babies among them. Why would anyone want to follow the Atheists?

Killings, just this last century.
* 65 million in the People's Republic of China
* 20 million in the Soviet Union
* 2 million in Cambodia
* 2 million in North Korea
* 1.7 million in Africa
* 1.5 million in Afghanistan
* 1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
* 1 million in Vietnam
* 150,000 in Latin America
http://en.wikipedia....ki/R._J._Rummel

And if killings were not bad enough, look at the great atheist societies they produced.
Germany under Hitler is another story where 6 million Jews and about 12 million Christians were killed.

But I am more interested in the problem of evil and wonder why God let those Atheists get away with this.

Edited by shadowhawk, 06 June 2010 - 01:08 AM.

[DukeNukem]

Right now, though, a vast number of Western-educated Christians think it was a Global Flood. This ruins their conception of natural history

It's sickening to me that primitive religious beliefs still survive and corrupt the minds of a large percentage of our youth, into believing that these Biblical tall tales are real history, and believing that evolution is incorrect. These are stunning setbacks for the progress of humankind, because they truly impede rational scientific progress. Over 25% of all Christians believe the Earth is 6000-ish years old and they pass this craziness to their children, totally destroying their ability to understand numerous branches of science (astronomy, geology, biology, etc.). And then you have a stunningly high percentage of Christians who believe Jesus is coming within five years, and therefore they don't care much about long-term environmental consequences or political consequences.

Religion truly is the most hurtful aspect of humankind.

But, because it's genetically encoded in all of us (and most of us will likely never be able to rise above this coding and escape the matrix), I fear it's here to stay until it destroys us due to national religious conflict.

Sounds a bit fundamentalist and dogmatic to me. (Atheist in this case) Evolutionists fight among themselves all the time, even call each other ugly names. (Dawkins is a "Deathist," even here on ImmInst) We have a free country where different viewpoints are tolerated and debated. Views on evolution are always changing in keeping with Science being a process rather than a position. There are problems with evolution and it is still evolving.

Christians and theists have been among many of the leaders in science. If it makes you feel good, to think Christians believe the world is 6,000 years old, go ahead but you are wrong. Do you deny the following?
Read on days and years.
* http://www.geraldsch...geUniverse.aspx

Here is what has set back the world, from an earlier post of mine. Atheists killing people they disagree with. There were lots of babies among them. Why would anyone want to follow the Atheists?

Killings, just this last century.
* 65 million in the People's Republic of China
* 20 million in the Soviet Union
* 2 million in Cambodia
* 2 million in North Korea
* 1.7 million in Africa
* 1.5 million in Afghanistan
* 1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
* 1 million in Vietnam
* 150,000 in Latin America
http://en.wikipedia....ki/R._J._Rummel

And if killings were not bad enough, look at the great atheist societies they produced.
Germany under Hitler is another story where 6 million Jews and about 12 million Christians were killed.

But I am more interested in the problem of evil and wonder why God let those Atheists get away with this.

>>> Evolutionists fight among themselves all the time <<<<

So do classical physicists, or quantum physicists, or astronomers, or any scientific discipline. Evolution is not under question -- however, where non-evolutionists get seriously confused is that within the scope of evolution or quantum physics, there is always ongoing refinement. This does not imply the theory is weak in any way -- it just means there's more to know within it's huge domain.

Sorry, but you lose on this one.

>>> If it makes you feel good, to think Christians believe the world is 6,000 years old, go ahead but you are wrong. <<<

There are numerous polls including Gallup polls showing that some 55% of all Christians strongly believe, or tend to believe, that the Earth is young. Palin is one. I have numerous FB friends I battle all the time with who believe this. It's quite a plague of stupidity that Christians are dealing with.

>>> Atheists killing people they disagree with.

Regardless of this, the primary point is that religion does not own moral high ground when it comes to killing people. They are just as murderous. If religion held any sort of moral high ground, then the differences should be stark. Instead, there's a contest, and that tales the tell. BTW, Hitler was a Christian. I'm surprised you didn't know this. Even religious scholars know this and discuss it.

Edited by DukeNukem, 06 June 2010 - 01:46 PM.

[shadowhawk]

[quote name='DukeNukem' date='Jun 5 2010, 06:24 PM' post='412163']
[quote name='shadowhawk' post='412158' date='Jun 6 2010, 12:56 AM'][quote name='DukeNukem' post='412066' date='Jun 5 2010, 07:10 AM']

>>> Evolutionists fight among themselves all the time <<<<

So do classical physicists, or quantum physicists, or astronomers, or any scientific discipline. Evolution is not under question -- however, where non-evolutionists get seriously confused is that within the scope of evolution or quantum physics, there is always ongoing refinement. This does not imply the theory is weak in any way -- it just means there's more to know within it's huge domain.

Sorry, but you lose on this one.

Let me be sure I am getting you right, are you saying Science is not a process but in the case of evolution it is settled and a position of sure knowledge? Anyone who comes up with a reason to doubt you, are dogmatically pronounced as losing? There are no weaknesses of any kind which warrant further questions? And,... “Christians are dogmatic?”

Here is a book by a scientist who in this case is an evolutionist who has an opposite view than yours. It is a very interesting book. One of my favorites.
“The Wonder of the World..”
http://www.amazon.co...ntt_aut_sim_2_2

Here is anther scientist. He holds two doctorates, one from UC Berkley and the other from Yale.
“Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong.”
by Jonathan Wells.
http://www.amazon.co...e...&sr=1-2-ent
He says, “Darwin’s “great Tree of Life” is being shredded by growing evidence from genome-sequencing projects. Against this backdrop of missing and disintegrating evidence, his disciples are resorting to censorship and character assassination.” I think, I’ve seen examples of this.

>>> If it makes you feel good, to think Christians believe the world is 6,000 years old, go ahead but you are wrong. <<<

I wonder at such polls. What would it be like if you polled the average Atheist?

There are numerous polls including Gallup polls showing that some 55% of all Christians strongly believe, or tend to believe, that the Earth is young. Palin is one. I have numerous FB friends I battle all the time with who believe this. It's quite a plague of stupidity that Christians are dealing with.

I believe God created the heavens and earth in seven days. I would have answered that poll this way. Lets see you take that apart!

>>> Atheists killing people they disagree with.

Regardless of this, the primary point is that religion does not own moral high ground when it comes to killing people.

Christians have not always been kind or loving. They have sinned but it is not even close who the real killers are. It is not even close.

They are just as murderous. If religion held any sort of moral high ground, then the differences should be stark. Instead, there's a contest, and that tales the tell.

BTW, Hitler was a Christian. I'm surprised you didn't know this. Even religious scholars know this and discuss it.

Know what? It is far more complicated than that. You can find Hitler saying all kinds of things. He loved the athiest Nietzsche and was far more influenced by him than Christ. So were his followers.

http://davnet.org/ke...ays/hitler.html
http://answers.org/a...s/hitquote.html
http://www.christian...ics/hitler.html
http://www.bede.org.uk/hitler.htm
http://homepages.par.../ca_hitler.html
http://christiancadr...n-churches.html
http://www.trueorigin.org/hitler01.asp
http://christiancadr...-christian.html
http://christiancadr...-nietzsche.html
http://en.wikipedia....religious_views
http://www.amazon.co...l...TF8&s=books
http://www.amazon.co...yhuc__sim_01_01

[eternaltraveler]

do you get commissions from all these books you keep spamming us with?

If you want to discuss a book that's fine. But 100 links to book purchasing pages is pretty much entirely useless and is called spam.

and no, This is not "flaming you", this forum has rules against spam.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 08 June 2010 - 02:46 AM.

[JonesGuy]

Here is what has set back the world, from an earlier post of mine. Atheists killing people they disagree with. There were lots of babies among them. Why would anyone want to follow the Atheists?

Killings, just this last century.
* 65 million in the People's Republic of China
* 20 million in the Soviet Union

Wow, that's an interesting list. I've snipped some of your list, because it makes my point clearer.

I would not want to 'follow the atheist' who encouraged the killing of 65 million Chinese. Firstly, I can reject his politics on secular principles. There's an extra benefit in that I can easily reject his policies because he's dead. People who followed that atheist committed a moral mistake.

I would not want to 'follow the atheist' who encouraged the politics that killed 20 million Soviets, either. Firstly, I reject his politics on secular principles. However, there are people who've tried to adopt those principles to the modern world. Luckily, they can change those principles, morph them into something better. Stalin's dead. Marx is dead. There might be wheat in the dross. If someone were to actually respect and admire Stalin, though, that person would've committed a grave moral error.

The decision-tree that lead to the murder of those Chinese and Russians is NOT to be admired. We should be glad that their founders are dead, and that we can evolve away from such horror.

Now, given all that: the god of 1 Samuel 15:2 also ordered a horror. The people, evilly, followed these instructions. We know that they shouldn't have, now, because we're more enlightened. As well, the people who followed those orders are long dead: we're not in much of a position to condemn them with any utility. However, strangely, unlike Stalin and Pol Pot and Mao, people still seem to think that it's acceptable to honor and adore the putative author of those murders. And it's not even like Marxism, where Stalin screwed up a political theory, so we can reject Stalinism while still considering Marxism. The 'Christians, Mulims, and Jews' are actually worshiping a god that demanded human sacrifices, and they think this monster still exists.

At least the White Supremacist movement has the common sense to underplay the Holocaust, and at least Hitler's dead enough that they can pervert Hitler's message. And yet, they're still evil. So how evil are the people who're calling this god "good", telling their children that this god DID actually order the mass slaughter of babies, and then telling their kids to worship this god?

It's disgusting.

The only redeeming thing about the whole thing is that there's no good reason to think that this god exists.

Edited by JonesGuy, 08 June 2010 - 04:15 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Here is what has set back the world, from an earlier post of mine. Atheists killing people they disagree with. There were lots of babies among them. Why would anyone want to follow the Atheists?

Killings, just this last century.
* 65 million in the People's Republic of China
* 20 million in the Soviet Union

Wow, that's an interesting list. I've snipped some of your list, because it makes my point clearer.

I would not want to 'follow the atheist' who encouraged the killing of 65 million Chinese. Firstly, I can reject his politics on secular principles. There's an extra benefit in that I can easily reject his policies because he's dead. People who followed that atheist committed a moral mistake.

I would not want to 'follow the atheist' who encouraged the politics that killed 20 million Soviets, either. Firstly, I reject his politics on secular principles. However, there are people who've tried to adopt those principles to the modern world. Luckily, they can change those principles, morph them into something better. Stalin's dead. Marx is dead. There might be wheat in the dross. If someone were to actually respect and admire Stalin, though, that person would've committed a grave moral error.

The decision-tree that lead to the murder of those Chinese and Russians is NOT to be admired. We should be glad that their founders are dead, and that we can evolve away from such horror.

Now, given all that: the god of 1 Samuel 15:2 also ordered a horror. The people, evilly, followed these instructions. We know that they shouldn't have, now, because we're more enlightened. As well, the people who followed those orders are long dead: we're not in much of a position to condemn them with any utility. However, strangely, unlike Stalin and Pol Pot and Mao, people still seem to think that it's acceptable to honor and adore the putative author of those murders. And it's not even like Marxism, where Stalin screwed up a political theory, so we can reject Stalinism while still considering Marxism. The 'Christians, Mulims, and Jews' are actually worshiping a god that demanded human sacrifices, and they think this monster still exists.

At least the White Supremacist movement has the common sense to underplay the Holocaust, and at least Hitler's dead enough that they can pervert Hitler's message. And yet, they're still evil. So how evil are the people who're calling this god "good", telling their children that this god DID actually order the mass slaughter of babies, and then telling their kids to worship this god?

It's disgusting.

The only redeeming thing about the whole thing is that there's no good reason to think that this god exists.

So your faith is there is no God. You want to claim you are morally superior enough to Judge God over something that happened thousands of years ago, which you don't understand.
I sugSgest a book between Christian JP Moreland and Atheist Kai Nielsen. Both are well known in their fields. This is a very fine book, well represented by both sides.
Does God Exist?: The Debate Between Theists & Atheists.
http://www.amazon.co...e...5571&sr=1-1

I notice your moral objection to God and so some other Atheists here as ImmInst. Where does your moral standard come from. CS Lewis in Mere Christianity uses this capacity for moral judgment as an argument for the existence of God.
http://www.amazon.co...P...&sr=1-2-ent

A transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an objective moral standard. So, ask yourself if you believe in right and wrong and then ask yourself why. Who gave you your conscience? Why does it exist? I don't find this 100 percent compelling but it is interesting.

Evil: Before you judge God read this.
http://www.leaderu.c.../docs/evil.html

Edited by shadowhawk, 08 June 2010 - 10:05 PM.

[DukeNukem]

The Biblical God is the ultimate killer. A few samples:

It seems that God's child-torturing, animal killing, adult annihilating flood DID NO GOOD AT ALL. The supposedly all-knowing God only realizes AFTER the flood that His human creations are evil from youth (Gen: 8:21). Thus, humans continue to be evil to this day, and the world is full of evil, no better off than when God decided to kill nearly all humans and animals. So exactly what was the point of the flood?

God, after killing all evil people and innocent children on Earth, creates the rainbow as a promise not to flood the world with rain again. Yet, not long after, He rains burning sulfur on two cities, Gomorrah and Sodom, roasting nearly everyone, including 100's of innocent children. Ouch! Didn't He learn from His last fit of rage that these mass murdering tactics don't work?

God loves to kill innocent babies and children, that much is clear in the Old Testament. After drowning and burning them, he sent a death plague after them (Exo 11:4-5). Even the innocent children of slaves were not spared. And this is the loving, compassionate God the Abrahamic religions and sects worship to this day.

Don't let the Lord hear you complain, else risk being burned to death! (Numbers 11:1) Or having a plague struck upon you! (Numbers 11:31-34) I'm guessing this and many other similar events all happened before God got on his Zoloft, which by all accounts kicked in around the time Jesus was born.

[JonesGuy]

I don't need to 'judge God'. Obviously, such a thing is impossible.

I judge the current Abrahamic faiths, who read a passage about a prophet who commands infanticide, and then close the book and say "Yeah, that prophet did the right thing. And the people who obeyed the prophet did the right thing too! Too bad Saul didn't kill absolutely everyone, like he was commanded to".

It's a disgusting mindset.

Oh, and CS Lewis's insights into the idea of a 'law giver' are so easily debunked that I find it somewhat funny that people still forward it. I know that it's convincing to people who already believe: that's the nature of confirmation bias. But you'd think that in the gazillions of times that Abrahamic religionists pray for 'wisdom', one of them would get a cue from their god that says "oh yeah, CS Lewis's argumentation is flawed". Why should I explain the flaws to you? They're obvious. And, putatively, God can explain them as well.

My point is that you shouldn't forward the idea of "look what previous atheists have done!", because I don't need to point to previous Christian behaviour to win the moral argument. Those ideas are both easily countered by the quite rational and reasonable condemnation of those previous acts. However, I just need to point out that the soldiers under Samuel should have said 'no' when told to slaughter babies, and that any other decision tree was immoral. And instead, Abrahamic religionists try to spin apologetics for it. And they continue to teach love for a being that would tell a prophet to kill innocent people through the use of soldiers. Yeah, whatever, Osama. I don't know where you get your morality, but I might also blame an external 'law giver' if my morality included teaching kids that slaughtering innocent people used to be okay (and even 'good') if a prophet told you to do it.

Edited by JonesGuy, 09 June 2010 - 01:07 AM.

[JonesGuy]

To add further, I'm not judging God with my example; though that's a very common 'comeback' to a statement about the 'morality of God'. I'm judging a story about this god, in a book, with very little evidence. I'm seeing a book where a god demands human sacrifice, including infants. I'm then told by people that they think this god is 'good'.

No, sorry, I don't think so. And I condemn the morality of those who read a story of an event (with very little evidence) about a god that commands the murder of infants, and then go on to call that god praiseworthy.

This isn't even the problem of evil, which is another topic entirely. This is a problem of saying that 'evil' (or, at the most generous, 'expedience') is 'good', and having 2 billion who don't seem to instantly recognise that.

It's taken 200 years of science, but now the average Christian doubts that the Flood was literally a Global event. We've had thousands of years of moral teachings, and the Christians haven't clued in to suggest that 1 Sam 15 wasn't a literal event, either. It's a copout, sure, but at least it's a reasonable one. So don't suggest that they have any insight into morality or the nature of goodness.

Edited by JonesGuy, 09 June 2010 - 01:25 AM.

[shadowhawk]

do you get commissions from all these books you keep spamming us with?

If you want to discuss a book that's fine. But 100 links to book purchasing pages is pretty much entirely useless and is called spam.

and no, This is not "flaming you", this forum has rules against spam.

How many times do I have to answer the same questions? The easiest way to cite books I have read and have in my library is to cite a link on line which has reviews and other books of the same subjects. Don’t like it, think you are being solicited, and have to buy something? Save yourself, don’t click the link. I have no interest in any link I have ever posted This is the last time I will deal with this subject.