| Jump to bottom |
Quick update
It's been a very tiring week. Got most everything finally moved Wednesday, getting to bed around 4:00 a.m. Work projects made me go back and spend Thursday night in the old house, but waking up this morning to an amazing panorama and standing dumbfounded for long spells just looking out the window at the beautiful mountains has me pinching myself.
Having problems with Internet. Seem only to get one computer online, so I thought I'd take a moment to let you all know we are now living in these amazing mountains, filled with gratitude and looking forward to a new life in a very new reality for us both.
Have some wild stories to tell about how we got the moving truck here. Let's just say, it was hair raising. But it'll have to wait until I have more time to write - which will be when both our computers are fully functional online.
Hope all is well with all of you.
Good night from Harris Park, a small high-altitude community near Bailey, Colorado.
Enjoy,
Elroy
Islamic temper tantrums
Posted by: Elroy
8 Mile wrote:
"Sorry, I forgot to wave. You wouldn't have seen it anyway because I was sitting in the middle of the plane with the view blocked by a wing."
I hate getting stuck in the middle, especially if it's not in an aisle seat. Was this a last-minute kind of trip where you just didn't have many options?
"VP Biden landed here about 10 minutes before I did. I saw his jet. The two events, of course, are completely unrelated. He is not here to meet me. Can you blame him?"
LOL. Bad seat and bad timing. Was security at the airport a lot tighter than normal?
"The weather report for Phoenix is for dry weather. I'm not exactly shocked by that."
The first ten years of my life were spent on the China Lake Navy base in the middle of the Mojave desert. Yep, a navy base in the desert. It's where the navy built and tested new weapon's system. My Dad was involved the sidewinder missile program and many others but transferred to San Diego after a friend of his died while trying to make better napalm. There he designed special boats, the purpose for which I didn't know until after he retired ant the project was declassified. It was a boat for spying on the Russians. And he was the primary spy.
In China Lake we didn't get much rain. The days were hot, but I was a kid, so that wasn't a problem. But evenings, with the sun behind the Sierra Nevada mountains, we sometimes went to the drive-in restaurant just off based in the town of Ridgecrest, and the feel of that air was something amazing.
It's dry here too, but not as hot, but occasionally we will have a summer evening like those back in the desert, and I am taken back to those evenings back then, eating corn dogs and French fries in the dry desert night. My previous in-laws lived in Chandler, next to Phoenix, and far more frequently did we have nights like that when we went to visit.
"The reason I write, though, is because I was reading a book about Islam on the flight. Very disturbing. The treatment of women, of course, is deplorable. This was not a surprise, of course."
I have known some great people who were Muslims, but to me they seemed more like Muslim by culture than strict adherents to the Quran. Those who are Quran literalists are as scary as if there were still Jewish literalists with the power of the state or massive funds because of oil revenues.
There are many Muslims with whom I have no problems, but literalist Islam sucks, as far as religions go.
"It was this line, however, that really bothers me:
"The truth is that most Muslims are part of 'political Islam' rather than a religion and a personal relationship with God. Furthermore, the nonpracticing Muslims are often as biased, extreme, and supportive of jihad as the religious extremists.""
My personal take is that most, if not all, major religious go through a phase of extremist segments pushing their legalism on anyone they can. If you read the Old Testament, Judaism certainly had its terrorist past. From reading the history of the Crusades, Christianity certainly had its terrorist past. And now it is Islam's turn.
The older the religion, the less strictly the majority of believers follow their scriptures. No Christian I know today really accepts all those Leviticus laws except for the few that support their social agendas. Most Christians have seemingly also stopped following at least one of the Ten Commandments, the one about keeping the Sabbath. But there were times, some very bad times, such as the Inquisition when Christian Europe had terrorist states, such as Spain..
Judaism was at one time both a religion and a political system. Christianity was as well, when entire kingdoms declared their version of Christianity and suppressed those who didn't convert. The division of Ireland stemmed from England going Protestant while Ireland remained Catholic. Seems, more or less, both Judaism and Christianity have kind of learned their lesson about having the government be run by the rules of any given scripture. Islam is younger than the other two monotheistic religions, and seems to be throwing temper tantrums in the Wal-Mart. Sadly, though, their kind hurts, maims and kills people.
It's when religions have the power of the state that all manner of evil comes out of ordinarily good people. And right now, we see Islam struggling to hold on to or gain political control of those areas where it dominates.
"I have a couple of questions. I need to know that is taught in mosques in this country. I also need to know what it taught in terms of Islam at public universities. From what the writer indicates, the "studies" are funded by radical Islamists."
Hootie took some classes on Islam. He might be a good resource or know someone who could answer your questions.
"The writer moved to this country at the age of about 30, around the year 1980. The writer says that the increase in the kind of radical, violent hatred preached here by Islamists from 1980 to the current time was not tolerated in Saudi Arabia during the time she lived there."
From reading Marion's posts, it looks as if any form of Islam but the one the Saudis like is outright forbidden. Again, it goes back to a religion having political control. And that, precisely, is what also scares me about Christian Fundamentalists trying to get more and more political control over our own country.
Enjoy,
Elroy
Very specific questions for you Mr. Styler
Posted by: Elroy
A. Fundamentalist Sinner wrote:
"Yes, I'm familiar with the word "all" and its meaning. Did you miss my point intentionally?"
No.
"Actually, I'm being quite literal... to the point that I'm not adding my own interpretation as to the "why" and I'm only sticking with the "what" as in "what" do the actual words say."
Let's check your claim here against your words.
You quoted this verse where God tells Noah: "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.'
Then you wrote this: "What it means is this: God told Noah (i.e., all humankind) that meat was OK to eat..."
Thus you summarized what is written to mean something ("Everything that lives and moves") other than what is written, which means you are not taking it literally.
Then you wrote this: "and later He restricted the Israelites from eating animals with a cloven foot."
Which directly supports my belief that God changed his mind.
"Nope, my take on it is that when God separated the Israelites from the rest of the world, that their avoidance of pork was one of the things that separated them (but I don't pretend to "know" that). The rest of the world was not forbidden from eating pork, but the Israelites were."
Oh, okay. I get it. You simply create your own little beliefs that let you not have to take a stand on the fact God told Noah one thing and the Israelis something else.
"Elroy: "But that does not answer my question of whether or not you believe your understanding is from the actual Holy Spirit while all others are simply people deluding themselves."
I simply don't look at it as some kind of us vs. them thing like you do, like I'm somehow better than others... I don't know how to respond to you any better than that."
So a One God Pentecostal Christian, who does not accept the notion of the Trinity because, well, it's not biblical, who, like you, relies on the Holy Spirit (which is not a separate person from God the Father) to guide him in his understanding of scripture and who believes he "knows" that his One God Pentecostal beliefs are absolutely the right beliefs tells you that you are not listening to the Holy Spirit because of your Catholic-inspired Trinity belief, do you believe he is wrong and thus deluded just as he thinks you're wrong and thus deluded?
Or the Mormon, filled with the Holy Spirit during baptism and the laying on of hands as he commits his life to follow Jesus, who is not the same as God but who is equal with God and one with God in purpose, and the Holy Spirit confirms his belief and helps guide his belief in better understanding the person of Jesus, and who finds the Holy Spirit guiding him on his mission to avoid danger, comes to you and declares your version of Jesus is no better than the Catholic version that is a corruption of the true Church that Jesus founded, do you believe he is wrong and thus deluded just as he thinks you're wrong and thus deluded?
You may not want to look at it as us vs. them, but your own theology and their theology shows that you are in essence claiming they are delusional while you are not. And that is why I call you egotistical.
"I know you think otherwise, so keep thinking what you want if you wish, rather than taking me at my word."
Answer how you would respond to the above two situations, with two other guys who follow Christ and believe they are being led by the Holy Spirit, and then, perhaps, we'll see if I should take you at your word.
"Elroy: "So do you believe you could be wrong about your personal Christian witness?"
How God changed my life? Nope."
Alrighty then. Yep. No ego here.
"I don't know how to respond any better than that... I do think there are people who try to make the bible say what they want it to say, rather than trust the Holy Spirit to lead them... and that they are deluded if they do that."
Do you believe the One God Pentecostal Christian and the Mormon Christian are trusting the Holy Spirit the same way you are?
"We discuss right here in this forum how people try to make the bible say what they want it to say... I guess those of us who think that others actually do that are egotistical... you should probably add your own name to the list."
I have no idea what you meant here.
"Elroy: "How do you know that you are right and they are wrong?"
I have no response for another blanket "us vs. them" question. Maybe you could be more specific, and less leading?"
Okay, I believe I was very specific in my two questions about the Holy Spirit teaching the One God Pentecostal Christian that there is no Trinity and the Holy Spirit teaching the Mormon Christian that Christ is not the same God as the Father and the Holy Spirit teaching you that your brand of Protestant Christianity is the correct faith. Now, do you believe you do a better job of listening to the Holy Spirit than those two do and thus they are deluded but you are not?
Is that specific enough for you?
"I think there are certain items in the bible that are absolutely clear and agreed upon as essential and core to the Christian faith, and that those who take another position are wrong... that much is true and I don't apologize for that..."
So do you believe the Trinity is being taught to you by the Holy Spirit even though it is never mentioned in the Bible?
"I also think there are many items we can disagree on and still agree that we're Christians."
Is the One God Pentecostal Christian a Christian in your definition that you were given by the Holy Spirit? Is the Mormon Christian a Christian in your definition that you were given by the Holy Spirit? I'm trying to be specific for you.
"Elroy: "If you are to accept that my understanding might be incorrect, are you also now willing to concede yours might also be incorrect?"
Nope, the whole "no one can be 100% sure of anything based on how our brains work" is your viewpoint, not mine."
Wow. Nope. No ego here.
Enjoy,
Elroy
Pray for the President.............................
Posted by: Elroy
Elder Walker wrote:
"Shame on you 41fan"
I completely agree with you. 41fan's comment, using some out-of-context Bible verse to aim her bile at the president, was low brow, low class and unbecoming someone who claims to follow God.
Enjoy,
Elroy
A Response to a Seclur Histroy or Christianty: Posted By Elroy on 11/15/09 at 10:26 pm
Posted by: Elroy
Elder Walker wrote:
"Elroy: This was interesting reading and it is oblivious the author has some issue over the bible and use his vast resources to make a compelling argruement that would sway anyone who is weak in their faith for the bible speak of people like this author in Matthew 24:24, 2 John 1:7 and 2 Peter 2:1-3(KJV)."
It's a very compelling piece. It helped me greatly because it wove together many different histories I have studied over the past several decades. As I've had some time, I've been looking up some of the references he listed at the end of the article. I believe it's important to check references for ourselves to be sure we're not just reading someone's opinion.
"THANK YOU ELROY THIS WAS GOOD:"
Thank you for being a real Christian who is willing to have his faith tested.
Enjoy,
Elroy
Philo
Posted by: Elroy
8 Mile wrote:
"Can you list a few points where evolutionists have changed their beliefs to fit "evidence"?"
I expected this question from someone who actually thinks. You didn't disappoint me.
To say evolutionists change their entire framework of evolution being true is not what I claim. But within that framework, the dates, lines of modifications and the whys change rather fluidly when new fossil records are found that challenge the current theories. More recent archeological finds have changed the understanding of how far back certain aspects of human evolution is understood.
My contention remains, however, that new findings do not change the creationist's point of view simply because that point of view is based on faith and is, therefore, required. Thus new evidence does not change the creationist's point of view but merely gives him or her another task in making it fit into pre-set conclusions.
"Evidence" includes lack of evidence."
I'm not sure you want to go down this street. It is lack of evidence that makes the Bible suspect. It is lack of evidence that makes Jesus' actual existence suspect. I was recently reading Philo, and what is the most striking is that he was a very verbose writer who chronicled Jewish activity, thought and change during the exact same time Christ was supposed to have lived and died. The guy is extremely verbose, more so than either you or me.
And yet....
Not one mention of Jesus.
Enjoy,
Elroy
That was perfect, Styler. Thanks!
Posted by: Elroy
A. Fundamentalist Sinner wrote:
"It simply does not follow that God's telling Noah that all meat could be eaten, and later giving Moses restrictions means that God changed His mind, misspoke, contradicted Himself, or lied. What it means is this: God told Noah (i.e., all humankind) that meat was OK to eat... and later He restricted the Israelites from eating animals with a cloven foot (the rest you read into it)."
Sure. Fine. As long as you're willing to ignore the term "all animals."
All, as in all of them, not just some of them. Why is it at this particular junction I am the one being the biblical literalist while you are not?
"Do I have ideas on the "why" part? Yes, I do, but to address that overlooks the point that all of mankind was permitted to eat meat, until the Israelites were specifically directed not to eat certain kinds of meat, and that you read the rest into it."
My take here is you are saying the no-pork rule applied only to the Israelis roaming the desert (which is not historically correct, by the way) in order to keep them from eating meat that may have gone bad.
Is it your belief, then, that once Israelis had settled and gone back to a somewhat normal lifestyle that pork was once again acceptable?
"Sure there is one right way to understand them: The way God intended them to be understood."
But that does not answer my question of whether or not you believe your understanding is from the actual Holy Spirit while all others are simply people deluding themselves.
"I personally don't believe I'm capable of understanding the entire bible in that way, however, because I'm a fallible human being, which is why I question some of the things you read into the text, like saying God contradicted Himself, or lied, about who could eat what... or whether or not Abel was a meat eater."
Okay. So, do you believe modern Jews are being kind of stupid by still following kosher laws?
"Elroy: "Of the many interpretations of Genesis, would you say yours is the one truly inspired by the Holy Spirit?""
I believe He's led me to much of the understanding I have, however that understanding is still mitigated by my own fallibility."
So do you believe you could be wrong about your personal Christian witness?
"Elroy: "There are a lot of people who claim God is instructing them, communicating with them and directing them, and yet they don't interpret the Bible as you interpret it. So it begs the question of which one of you is actually hearing the Holy Spirit and which ones of you are simply deceived of self deluded?"
It would seem to make sense that those who are not trusting the Holy Spirit to lead them are either deceived or self deluded."
As egotistical as your reply is, it does not answer the question in a direct manner. The ones you simply wrote off as being either deceived or self deluded say the EXACT same thing you say when you claim you are receiving the ability to interpret the bible correctly directly from God. How do you know that you are right and they are wrong?
"Elroy: "Do you believe you better hear the Holy Spirit than those Christians whose beliefs counter yours?"
Why the persistent us vs. them scenarios?"
Because many different types of Christians believe in things that are contradictory. I'm simply asking if your interpretation is the right one according to you while everyone else's different interpretation is either from delusion or from being deceived.
"Elroy: "Are you assuming all of us did something wrong and, thus, your God ignored us?"
No, I'm saying that based on your own position that "no one can be 100% sure of anything based on how our brains work" that you don't actually know if it "worked" and neither do you know whether or not it worked for those thousands of others."
Agreed. Great point. Now do you also concede that you do not know that it worked for you as well? If you are to accept that my understanding might be incorrect, are you also now willing to concede yours might also be incorrect?
Enjoy,
Elroy
Lynn
Posted by: Elroy
Lynn wrote:
"One man's justice is another's injustice; one man's beauty is another's ugliness; one man's wisdom is another's folly.
Ralph Waldo Emerson"
You do have a wonderful knack for finding the most apropos quotes for any particular discussion going on in the forum. This one is so true.
Enjoy,
Elroy
Killing in the name of
Posted by: Elroy
MacBadger wrote:
"Remember Job's ten kids are wiped out with the approval of God who, gushing benelovence, later says Job can have ten new kids -- almost as if they were light bulbs fallen to the floor being replaced by more from WalMart."
Again, it was stories like this, when first I decided to read the entire bible cover to cover that made me question how this supposed God could do that to people without even a little concern for the fact he killed children or allowed them to be killed just to make a point.
Enjoy,
Elroy
Mr. Walker
Posted by: Elroy
Elder Walker wrote:
"Elroy is this the correct title for I am going to the book store to tomorrow. The Bible book store first but there's are a Barnes and Noble and the other large bookstore for I forget their name real close."
No need to buy a book. Just click on the text with the blue underline, and you can read the whole thing online for free.
Enjoy,
Elroy
A secular history of Christianity
Posted by: Elroy
Elder Walker wrote:
"All I ask is someone to try for this is not a question of intelligence, But have we notice a change around us about certain attitude and the answer that is prepared show a change in our society of that was once was offensive and I am not talking about homosexual either for they are sometime accepted before them."
I'm sorry, but my time has been truncated by the need to box, tape, store and watch the weather for the best time to jump in the U-Haul and, well, haul buns up the hill.
Still, if you find you have some time and don't mind doing some pretty heavy reading, I would be quite interested in your personal take on this article I so enjoyed last night. It's not kind to your faith. But I believe it is quite true to history, at least matching all the other histories I've read of the nation of Israel as well as the birth of the Christian movement.
A rational, secular, historical perspective on the history of Christianity and its scripture
No stress. It's long, and so I know it would be asking a lot to say please read it and give me your response. Still, it doesn't hurt ask, and perhaps, maybe you do have the time for a very intriguing history.
Enjoy,
Elroy
What curtain?
Posted by: Elroy
8 Mile wrote:
"Elroy:-"Interesting. Very interesting. So if there is no fossil record of soft tissue development, then even a possible evolutionary explanation is to be rejected? Are you sure you understand the definition of theory?"
No offense but may I suggest that you pose your question to the evolutionist crowd. Though playing lip service to evolution as a theory, they present it as fact throughout our educational system to the exclusion of any other theory."
While I agree there are some who are, for lack of a better word, fundamentalist evolutionists, in my humble estimation, it is the creationist side that presents their views as being absolute fact, truth or whatever else you want to call it. For creationists to claim evolutionists are being too dogmatic in their approach is singularly hypocritical and arrogant.
While evolutionists, for the most part, adapt their theory as new evidence is uncovered, the creationist never lets any data change his mind. By no means does that mean evolutionists are always getting it right, but it does indicate a greater willingness to change their belief to fit the evidence rather than interpret the evidence in a way to support a pre-conceived beliefs.
Enjoy,
Elroy
Reading is fun
Posted by: Elroy
I spent this evening reading a thoroughly engaging and seemingly well documented (and very long) essay on the history of Judaism and Christianity this evening. It offers a cohesive explanation of the many and varied historical notes I've read over the years.
I've not read this author before, and he clearly does not accept Christianity as a well-founded religion, but he does a good job of explaining why. It was fascinating, and I plan to follow up and see if the resources he used can be trusted.
But if you want a great read, and have a few hours of your life to enjoy it, I very much recommend the following article:
A rational, secular, historical perspective on the history of Christianity and its scripture
Enjoy,
Elroy
What curtain?
Posted by: Elroy
8 Mile wrote:
"I was not a Christian for the first 25 years of life. I accepted evolution as a FACT. Now I know better."
I don't accept evolution as a fact, but it's an intriguing theory that I enjoy studying because it at least tries to offer explanations that are simply overlooked by creationists.
"Suppose a young earth creationist asked an evolutionist to explain what evolved first: blood or the heart. The evolutionist was stumped."
I think you are being rather loose with your interpretation here.
"Suppose also that another person jumped in and claimed that heart/blood evolved from the process of osmosis."
Don't go all black and white on me now Mr. 8. I did not claim anything but rather showed how evolutionary theory can answer the transition from an osmosis system to a circulatory system.
"Then suppose the creationist, pulling back the curtain, exposed the fact that osmosis is a passive process and that the osmosis argument, as such, made no sense."
Perhaps it made no sense to you, but I was showing how an osmosis system could, through evolutionary processes slowly become a circulatory process.
"Accordingly, the creationist suggested "Let's stop with the wild imagination. There's no fossil record to support it."
Finally, the person jumping in then blinked, and admitted "There rarely is for the soft tissue parts of the body.""
Blinked? I never made the claim there is fossil evidence for how a circulatory system evolved. I simply gave an example of how evolutionary theory sees the solution.
"See, it was a total make believe!"
Interesting. Very interesting. So if there is no fossil record of soft tissue development, then even a possible evolutionary explanation is to be rejected? Are you sure you understand the definition of theory?
"Now, I ask you, rhetorically speaking, who is "rabid in their assertions", "more loose with their interpretations", and laboring under a "preconceived assumption"?"
That would be you. You assumed my speculation based on evolutionary theory was me making a claim. You assumed your assertion that there are no fossil records violates the laws of a given theory. And you quite obviously started with the preconceived notion that creation is true and thus are on the attack of any other possible explanation of the development of a circulatory system.
"And who desperately needs to divert attention to alleged "vestigial body parts"? (See my Saturday morning post that explains why "vestigial body parts", if there are any, cannot support evolution.)"
Went back and skimmed. Didn't find what you said. Even searched on the word "vestigial," but to no avail. Care to do a summary. I certainly hope it's better than those creationist websites I read earlier. Those were atrocious.
"And who shifts the discussion onto men having nipples?"
What is the creationist's explanation for men having what most consider vestigial nipples? Can you give me a biblical rundown that shows where creation has an answer to it. Since the discussion covers how the two systems try to answer certain things in existence, asking about obvious human vestigial organs is appropriate. Why do men have nipples is a fair question in this discussion.
If you consider it shifting the discussion, then we are quite obviously not on the same page.
"You may wish to take the time to read both sides (evolutionist and creationist positions). It's simply not a problem for the creationist position."
Okay, but do take a moment to explain away from a creationist perspective vestigial body parts in a way that I can find it if I need to go look for it again.
"Bottom line: There is NO acceptable evolutionist explanation for the heart/blood dilemma."
Perhaps for you. But it works for me. And again, I have no skin in this game. I don't claim to be right. Between the two of us, you are the only one who has something to lose from being wrong in this discussion.
Enjoy,
Elroy
Did an all-powerful God need to create a more economical human?
Posted by: Elroy
8 Mile wrote:
"Elroy story is interesting, but it's just that, a story. Quite a leap of faith-from osmosis to blood and heart. Beeting osmosis! I mean flowing osmosis!"
I find it interesting.
Like I said, I have no vested interest in how we got here, but I do enjoy keeping up on various theories. Having been on both sides of the evolution-creation debate, I can tell you that creationists are by far the more rabid in their assertions and the more loose with their interpretations so they can bend ever-increasing historical data into a preconceived assumption.
While reading up on vestigial body parts, I followed a link to a creationist's page about such unneeded parts, because I do like to see what the other side has to say rather than just take evolutionists at their word, and it was simply awful and embarrassing. He picked a few examples, mostly in whales, and created an argument that was entertaining at best, very bad science at the worst.
I noted, though, several places the explanation for men having nipples was so God could use an economy of design. Why bother to create a man without nipples if God knew he could simply reuse the prototype and enlarge the area, thus turning the nipple and enlarged breast into a food supply for the young? Doesn't it seem strange that God created men so they could more easily have a sex change?
"Let's stop with the wild imagination. There's no fossil record to support it."
There rarely is for the soft tissue parts of the body. As far as wild imaginations, you should read some of those creationists explanations for vestigial body parts.
"Perhaps the beating hearts flowing blood just spontaneously arose in the "Cambrian explosion"!"
For either the creationist or the evolutionist, believing your particular point of view will explain all the bizarre aspects of this world and this life is simply wishful thinking. When faced with a dilemma, neither should race to figure out how to mold the new information into a preconceive idea of what it means. Nor should either side assume a currently unanswerable dilemma automatically means the other side has failed.
I'm going to step momentarily into the fray long enough to state, however, that creation research is just as guilty as Christian rock in relying on the secular world to produce all the evidence only to repackage it and sell it to Christians. As a former Christian musician, I was appalled that we were merely copying secular music but changing the lyrics to suit our purpose. And as a man interested in how and why things work, I equally appalled that evolutionists seem to be doing all of the heavy lifting while creationists simply follow behind them and find ways to reinterpret the data so they can still believe in a literal Genesis.
Enjoy,
Elroy
| Jump to top |
