Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Friday, October 10, 2008

He lasted awhile, but...

Rex Mundane finally broke; this is his comment from Ray's latest end of the world post:

Rex Mundane said...

As absolutely predicted in the Bible! The Dow Jones Industrial Average represents the highest performing stocks, or put another way, the stars of wall street, and the way they have so drastically fallen is foretold directly in the Biblical prophecy... which states... alright, I give up.

I completely give up.

I can't keep pretending to have been "converted" any longer. I can't keep trying to parody the insanity. There's no point. Everything I could possibly say to intentionally make the Fundies look like inconsiderate, self-righteous, loathsome misanthropic sociopaths, they are, I have come to realize, only to happy to say such things themselves. There's nothing I can possibly say in jest they wouldnt say in earnest, and I just can't keep the act up. I don't hate the world enough to be able to convincingly pretend to be "converted" anymore, and I can't bring myself to hate science and reason enough to keep twisting logic and rhetoric to make pathetic arguments, and indeed, I don't even need to try, since given enough time, those insane arguments will appear independant of my intervention.

And the truly wretched thing of it all is how many people I successfully convinced of my "conversion." I know from comment posts and private messages how many people I successfully convinced, and there were as many Atheists as "Comfort Christians" in the lot of them. I won't name names, as I know full well how many will say they were never fooled and I'm lying as I did then, and would use the opportunity to ask themselves the honest question: If they were convinced when I was acting intentionally insane, what does that say about how they themselves percieve their own faith?

But, as I say, I can't even be bothered anymore, its all too depressing to get myself into that mindset. I dont hate women as much as Mark does to tell them all they have to do is keep their legs shut, that is unless their overwhelmed with their sin of fornication.

I dont despise doctors as much as Dawn does to actually buy an old and obviously false urban legend about doctors at an abortion clinic ready to perform the operation at, apparently, the end of the 9th month, then deliver the twins, then drown them both.

I cant pat myself on the back as nigh does when he fantasizes about all the people who will, in heaven, thank him personally for saving a guy who saved a guy who saved a guy who saved them, nor can I even fathom the ego necessary to be capable of as much.

I cant insist, as Keith has done repeatedly, that calling all other religions a lie is not intolerance, but that disputing a particular interpretation of the Bible actually is, because its actually true, nor that every other religion invented its "Gods" to help them justify their disbelief in the only Real God, who is not invented because I believe as much to be true.

(It was incidentally funny to me that I basically made the same claim as Keith had, and before he had made it too, and that Keith's comment, rambling and incoherent as it was about medicine and mathematics, Ray made as a full on Post, ignoring mine. Mayhaps he could tell I was insincere, but again, what does it say when this kind of madness is so easy to mock?)

And finally, I cannot hate, I cannot despise my fellow man with anywhere near the fury nor passion that Ray Comfort does, to insult the intelligence, reasoning, motives, personal lives, ethos, morality, and general humanity of anyone who dares, with malice aforethought, to not automatically believe that Ray's particular interpretation of scripture is both the only correct one, and absolutely true.

I can't handle it any more. I'm completely spent.
October 10, 2008 10:27 AM

84 comments:

  1. Rex,

    You have returned from the abyss.

    You had a good run. I was laughing one day when you made a comment and some atheist newbie was arguing and another older comenteer said, "Don't worry, he is one of us."

    It is apparent that when the depression hits, you could start a ministry. You had the lingo down pretty good!

    I remember your conversion, it seems like quite a long time ago and I made a comment here somewhere to the extent that you had gone bat shit crazy!

    Welcome back!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Glad to be back. And actually not a bad business idea, I've actually been ordained. Over the internet, sure, but still...

    On a breif aside, I do have to wonder how many more people I might have convinced if I didn't keep getting called out there. I do note that, in spite of it, I did have the inimitable Mr. Burton buying into it, like bragging about it everywhere, like I saw the light so why cant you all kind of nonsense.

    ...speaking of, the hell did happen to him anyways?nkjngx

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rex:

    Have you let Terry Burton know that your conversion was false? I seem to recall he was quite pleased with it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rex,

    I honestly can't remember and I am too lazy to go through all of Ray's posts, but did I ever say anything to you?

    ReplyDelete
  5. rex,

    Can I call you rex?. I thoroughly enjoyed your posts. I wondered how close to the line you could go without tipping your hand. I soon realized there is no line. Thanks for the laughs.

    p.s. You do know somewhere deep, deep, deep down in your soul everything you typed is true.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yeah, Rex, thanks for the laughs.

    And, might I say, that comment was beautifully put.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What was the point of it all and what did this pretense prove? That you are good at telling lies? Ok, you are. Are you trying to say that all of us are liars also? That we are pretending also?

    Froggie you were going to do the same thing. Why? I just don't get it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The point Freed, is that he attempted to say the most outrageous over the top claims he could and was still a convincing Ray type fundamentalist. To the point of saying something he thought was going to expose him, just to see another fundie say the same thing. That their fanaticism is so crazy you can't honestly parody it as they are parodies of themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Freed here is a link, with an explanation.

    http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ok, thanks Rocky. I understand your explanation.

    I had been meaning to ask what a 'Poe' was, but was laughed at when I asked what AiG is so...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rex,
    oh, thank the FSM! I was irritated about your conversion, but you played your part so well, that I nearly believed you. Especially after the Christians started to celebrate you.
    Welcome back

    ReplyDelete
  12. Freed,
    You said,
    " Freed said...
    What was the point of it all and what did this pretense prove? That you are good at telling lies? Ok, you are. Are you trying to say that all of us are liars also? That we are pretending also?

    Froggie you were going to do the same thing. Why? I just don't get it."

    In answer to the last sentence, we know! :>

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rex,
    Let us know if you need any de-programming.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Freed asked-
    "What was the point of it all and what did this pretense prove?"

    St. Thomas Aquinas said-

    “The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”

    It is correct to ridicule Ray Comfort and others who maintain silly and childish dogma that has been shown to be false. Aquinas knew that before we had even a fraction of the knowledge we have about the universe today.

    Why do you continue to believe in fairy tales?

    ReplyDelete
  15. They obviously aren't fairy tales to me.

    Satan has been tempting man with intellectual delights since the garden of eden.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Rex,

    Congratulations on a well run Poe; I was surprised that you lasted as long as you did but I'm glad; you gave us all a lot of laughs.

    The fundie mindset is clearly impossible to parody, no matter how much fun it is to try.

    Welcome Back.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Freed, I'm actually dismayed that they don't see the implications of Rex's Poe. All it takes is the right language, and you're accepted as being a Member of the Club.

    It's a total lack of quality control!

    ReplyDelete
  18. W.E.M.

    What you said - or someone who is willing to lie his butt off for his own selfish reasons, and have no qualms about it.

    Hope I never have to do business with Rex (shoot - hope I'm not doing business with him now! where's he from..... gotta trust that his profile isn't a lie as well)

    ReplyDelete
  19. What was the point of it all and what did this pretense prove?

    Honestly it didnt even start out with me wanting to. It began with Ray making a post out of, I think it was Kaitlyn, saying something on the order of "Criminalizing wont decrease abortions, which we both agree are unpleasant, only make them less safe inevitibilities, so why can't we work together to minimizing unwanted pregnancies, for instance?" Which Ray then rephrased as "I are a Nazzi! Grar!" so I, disgusted, posted a comment that said "Yeah! She are a Nazzi! Grar! You Make'm much sense Comfort-man!" or something to that effect, with other nonsense to back it up. Then the other fundies started saying basically the exact same thing. By accident I had managed to prove Poe, and just had to see how far I could take it.

    After a while I actually was hoping I could say something so repugnant that it would force a "Comfort Christian" to just say "Whoa Rex, um, I don't think The Bible actually did predict that John Lennon would fake the moon landing in order to crash Neptune into Israel, where did you come up with that?" and they never did. Often, in fact, and this was another accidental discovery, the "Real" Christians would say fundamentally the exact same thing. I was spouting the exact same views the "believers" were (often before they did, so lets not pretend I was just copying) in spite of (because of?) my intent to just spew the most hateful garbage imaginable.

    People could only tell I was faking if, I think, they knew me from previous comments. Everyone else, I'm forced to imagine from reactions, had no (or else very little) idea. Its been said here before, but if a belief system cannot be distinguished from intentional parody, how legitimate is it?

    Then it just got exhausting and pretty pointless. I seriously was going to make a post about "falling stars" meaning the DJIA and such, but figured someone else would say the same thing eventually, and whats the point.

    I dont like lying, Freed. I hated doing it, and minimized it wherever possible during the farce. Its part of why I had to stop in the end. Was it wrong? To say the things that others legitimately believed, absurd as they were, and convinced as they were they would be rewarded for believing them?

    As far as fairy tales, how exactly do you distinguish them from stories in the bible? Both contain fantastical elements, magic, moral parables, frequently, a nugget of truth, what is it that makes them widely different? The fact that you believe one to be "true?"

    ReplyDelete
  20. Yes Whateverman, I get what you are saying.

    Can that be said of atheists too?

    An example: couldn't someone have the mindset to follow what his college professor throws out?

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Rex:

    "I dont like lying, Freed. I hated doing it, and minimized it wherever possible during the farce. "

    Yet, you seem to have done it quite effortlessly, at least in the posts that I was able to follow.

    And you return to the fold here, figuratively 'smiling' and doing something akin to gloating.

    That's OK Rex. You're "home" now.

    Columbia Md.? Let's hope you don't work at 'The Agency' at 'The Fort'.

    ReplyDelete
  22. So, pretending, acting, is just lying. So, when Kirk Cameron acts like a fire fighter, he's really just lying. Thanks for pointing that out.

    By the way, LAOF, do you get "intellectual delights" from Chandler and Hammett?

    ReplyDelete
  23. I'm late to the game, per usual lately.

    You had a good run, Rex. I knew you were Poeing all along, though. Your emotional leakage was showing. You have to keep it tucked in.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Rex,

    I'm sorry to say I didn't read anything you wrote at AC after you started your pretense. I never believed you were converted, so I just ignored whatever you wrote, as I do some of the others there.

    Maybe I should go back and read some examples of your poeness because I wonder if I would have caught it. I know I was not about to believe "the stars of wall street" tale.

    The thing that tipped me off about you is that one day you didn't believe and the next day you had all the answers to the mysteries of the Bible.

    People always want to believe in the goodness of others and therefore many are gullible, and not really paying attention to what is being said.

    The emergent church is a good example of that. These days a Christian has to really know his Bible compared to what someone is preaching and teaching.

    I trust my pastor but don't agree with everything he says...not meaning that he is wrong and I am right. I have to search it out for myself.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Yet, you seem to have done it quite effortlessly, at least in the posts that I was able to follow.

    How did it seem easy? I'm telling you it wasn't, and was honestly really difficult to force myself to think like that just long enough to say something in character. Is it that it only "seems" easy because you're pre-disposed to think ill of me for some reason?

    And you return to the fold here, figuratively 'smiling' and doing something akin to gloating.

    Yeah, admitting defeat and confessing to an extended, ultimately valueless lie. Gloating. Totally. Totally akin to gloating. I'm not bragging about what I did, I'm not even proud of it. Not ashamed, its just something I decided to do to see how long I could maintain what I was sure would be a ridiculously transparent front. Turns out quite a while.

    What does that suggest to you? I'm not shouting "Poe!" from the rooftops because I'm ecstatic that I fooled those gullible so and sos for so long. I really didn't enjoy forcing myself to type horrible things about muslims, women, homosexuals, etc., and yet so many over there do so happily, and "quite effortlessly" at that.

    Columbia Md.? Let's hope you don't work at 'The Agency' at 'The Fort'.

    ...crap, he's on to me!

    Anyway, no, I'm not NSA. They don't let non-christians work for the Gov't anymore. A need for evidence before action is kind of at odds with policy these days.

    ReplyDelete
  26. It would be lovely to think that the really brain-achingly retarded AllFiredUp might be a Poe too, but I rather suspect that's too much to ask.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hey Rex,

    Hum, since I actually tend to forget names and such, at first you caught me. I was surprised that your blog was so thoughtful and made sense. Yet you made some fundie comments that I answered to. Then I read that note about "Rex is one of us," then I started to note some very strange posts of yours, completely out of sync with your blog, and often a bit disconnected within. Then, I have to tell you, I started feeling pain when I read your stuff. It was somewhat obvious to me now that you were pretending, yet it looked painful for me to imagine myself doing it (too much empathy I guess). So, I understand perfectly what you said when you "confessed." It was not funny to me. It was sad (because of the true fundies saying the very same things). Thanks for stopping it. (No, I am not judging you. You must have learned a good deal.)

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Freed:

         Ah, but if a "bible scholar" had presented the "stars of Wall Street" falling, you would believe it. I accept that you didn't trust the source, as you were familiar with the source.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @Rex,

    Great job with the posts. My favorite was the one concerning purity balls.

    ReplyDelete
  30. LAOF,

    Do you think jokes or pranks are wrong because they involve some type of deception? I think you should give Rex a break. His posts provided everyone with some good laughs.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Poor Rex. Good show and welcome back!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Freed said-
    "Satan has been tempting man with intellectual delights since the garden of eden

    Nonsense

    You can not provide any evidence of that whatsoever without the circular reasoning that it is said so in the bible.

    Besides that, you really ought to study your bible a little more. You are believing a Sunday School story that it was Satan that tempted Eve. It does not say that in the bible. It only refers to "the serpent", not Satan.

    Further, God did not command against knowledge, but only eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.But these are just more of the same fairy tale.Satan as tempter and deciever is strictly new testament interpretation from Revelation.

    According to old testament, Satan (Ha Satan) was more like God's prosecuting attorney, The accuser, who worked for God, not against him.



    Wake up! its 2008. Do you think a catscan is Satan's creation?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Wee,

    Yes, Rex travelled to the depths of hell to for the cause.

    I think he actually started to convince himself...... hope not....

    ReplyDelete
  34. BaldySlaphead said...
    It would be lovely to think that the really brain-achingly retarded AllFiredUp might be a Poe too, but I rather suspect that's too much to ask.

    BSH,
    I fear that Allfiredup is beyond Poe-able. Yes, it is that bad.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Freed said: Yes Whateverman, I get what you are saying.

    Can that be said of atheists too?

    An example: couldn't someone have the mindset to follow what his college professor throws out?


    That's a good question (imho).

    I would suggest that very few people treat their college professors as Ray's supporters have done here in this blog. I hesitate at accusing ray of having a cult - but you have to admit that those who often chime in to agree with him seem to be willing to do so no matter what was said.

    College professors, on the other hand, often directly challenge their students. They don't want the young (<-- assumption) to merely parrot the knowledge being offered - they want it to be tested and digested and accepted only if it seems valid.

    That's an ideal, but the examples of it really happening are plentiful. Evangelism, on the other hand, offers its knowledge as absolute; unable to be challenged by mortal man.

    To be fair, I'll address your question directly. There really isn't much evidence of all atheists believing the same things beyond not believing in God. Otherwise, they all come to that conclusion for different reasons - I don't necessarily see a common thread.

    Some do indeed hate the ideas of God they've encountered. But the majority simply will answer, when asked "Do you believe in God?", say "No".

    And that's really the only thing they have in common.

    Sure, Dawkins and Hitchens are popular; this might be a commonality. But not all atheists read these two authors.

    ---

    In short, it may be a valid point to suggest that there are sheep on both sides of this debate. However, as a non-atheist, I'll submit I don't see many sheeple amongst the atheists. If anything, I see rugged individualists; by the very dictionary definition of the terms, they do not gather with like-minded people. They think what they think, and the commonalities are only coincidences.

    Just my $0.02 (which is worth, well, much less than that)

    ReplyDelete
  36. I fear that Allfiredup is beyond Poe-able. Yes, it is that bad.

    However, I don't find the intellect behind the posting capable of the satire such a Poe would require.

    I too wish he/she/it were simply an invention...

    ReplyDelete
  37. I think he actually started to convince himself...... hope not...

    Thats one of the things that got me worried in the later stages, that I would get so accustomed to shutting half my brain down to say these ridiculous things that it just wouldnt come back on or something and I'd end up convincing myself that there is some legitimate reason to hate everyone who doesn't share my mental infirmity. (No, not saying faith at all is stupid, but Comfort's brand of it is most definately ridiculous)

    ReplyDelete
  38. Whateverman said-
    "Just my $0.02 (which is worth, well, much less than that)"

    At least according to Ray "Friedman" Comfort it is!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Benjamin Franklin

    Besides that, you really ought to study your bible a little more. You are believing a Sunday School story that it was Satan that tempted Eve. It does not say that in the bible. It only refers to "the serpent", not Satan.


    Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 confirm the identity of the serpent -
    it says..."dragon, serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan"

    ReplyDelete
  40. benjamin franklin

    Satan as tempter and deciever is strictly new testament interpretation from Revelation.

    In Zechariah 3:1-2
    Satan is the actual Hebrew word in the text and "could be translated"
    the accuser or the prosecutor but nowhere does it say he was working for God. Maybe you can show me where it does.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Poe's Law relates to fundamentalism, and the difficulty of identifying actual parodies of it. It suggests that, in general, it is hard to tell fake fundamentalism from the real thing, since they both sound equally ridiculous

    Parody: humorous imitation

    Fundamentalism: The interpretation of every word in the sacred texts as literal truth

    theist:believes in God or gods

    atheist: denies the existence of God



    Ok, I'm looking at all these descriptions and the only thing that comes to mind is that Rex pretended to believe and was accepted.

    Ultimately, what was proved? Nothing. A lie is always a lie, no matter who does the telling or the reason for it.

    A pretense was accomplished. So what? Some people were fooled. So what?

    Why would anyone believe anything any of you say now?

    ReplyDelete
  42. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  43. The biggest risk in Rex's action, as humorous as it was in a perverse way to those who knew, is that he could well have assisted the opposition.

    When we see parody on TV comedy shows, we can laugh along as we see something pushed to extremes. Those of us who could see through Rex's conversion (his blog was a bit of a give away - as was his favourite book list) could laugh along with Rex for the same reason - we knew it was parody.

    But any newcomers to the blog who were ready to be swayed to Ray's side would have just seen one more person arguing FOR Ray than they would have if Rex had remained skeptical.

    Having said that, it was an educational exercise and did prove a point.

    Freed, I've seen people on this blog welcome people of faith before and express support for them believing what they choose to believe, so you shouldn't take any of it personally.

    But what Rex did was not just a simple case of pretending to believe and therefore being seen to believe. It wasn't a simple question of lying.

    Rex pushed his comments way beyond common sense. He purposely chose to be vitriolic, bigoted, sexist, racist and to demonise people of other faiths and no faith - presumably expecting that any right-thinking people would tell him to stop.

    It seems Ray's supporters accepted him because of his over-the-top evangelising. That's the point that's being made.

    ReplyDelete
  44. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Freed said: A pretense was accomplished. So what? Some people were fooled. So what?

    Why would anyone believe anything any of you say now


    I wont belabour the point; it seems there's a fundamental difference of opinion, so there's no need to keep hammering at it.

    My final word on it: if I'm fooled by someone, the very first thing I do is ask myself "How did this happen?". The objective is to find the thing in me that made me susceptible to the lie.

    The is the only constructive purpose for a Poe.

    EDIT: deleted and reposted to address lame forum skillz

    ReplyDelete
  46. In my opinion rex's postings were high satire in the tradition of Swift's "Modest Proposal". He took the Rayist "worldview" to rediculous and humorous extremes and Ray's apologists not only didn't speak out, they upped the anti. Shocking. Rex was using a literary device to great affect. At least to some.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Like any of Ray Comfort's fellow believers, or Ray himself, have read Swift.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Andy,

    I didn't take it personally.

    Also, I haven't read any of Rex's statements at AC and might have to go back and do that.

    While posting I should have said that I would like to know what Rex said that was over the top that someone agreed with him on, who didn't already believe in what he was saying. (Hope I said that right)

    I don't understand a lot of things said here, so I look it up. I'm not college educated so your words keep me hopping in the dictionary and in the Bible when someone says something I don't agree with or never heard of.

    I have a clear understanding of Poe's Law and parody now. Yay.

    Thanks Andy and Whateverman.

    ReplyDelete
  49. rufus said...

    Like any of Ray Comfort's fellow believers, or Ray himself, have read Swift.

    Maybe mark w. He can't be for real.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Freed said: I don't understand a lot of things said here, so I look it up. I'm not college educated so your words keep me hopping in the dictionary and in the Bible when someone says something I don't agree with or never heard of.

    My Mom never went to college, but because she attempts to understand everything she encounters (by reading, looking it up, asking question, etc), I consider her an intellectual equal. More than that, I respect her mind - and would do so even if we weren't related.

    In other words, Freed, you're doing more than most people. Cheers :)

    ReplyDelete
  51. I don't understand a lot of things said here, so I look it up. I'm not college educated so your words keep me hopping in the dictionary and in the Bible when someone says something I don't agree with or never heard of.

    I have a clear understanding of Poe's Law and parody now. Yay.


    I don't have a college education either so no need to worry there :) The main thing is that you're willing to actually investigate the things you don't understand. That's what we should all do. I've learnt more about Genesis AND evolution since I discovered Ray's blog.

    There's no downside to education unless the education is one-sided and ignores genuine facts and evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Thanks for the "I give up" post Rex: it made it all worth it.

    I've actually tried out Poes law once in the past, with a difference: I set up a thread on a forum explicitly stating that I wanted to be the 'devils avocate', and tried arguing for the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) position (and against evolution).

    Eventually, I could take it no longer: I'm normally good at pretending, twisting the truth and in general being a lawyer, but the YEC postition required me to lie directly. There was no other way to support it without commiting a logical fallacy. I gave up.

    Reading your Poests over at AC was painful. Like Get_Education said: too much empathy.

    ReplyDelete
  53. @ Freed

    You wrote "Satan as tempter and deciever is strictly new testament interpretation from Revelation."
    The book of Revelation has nothing at all to do with the book of Genesis. It's writer's identification of Satan is merely an interpretation on his part.

    Then you wrote "Nowhere does it say he [Satan] was working for God. Maybe you can show me where it does."

    Perhaps I may be of assistance. This is a quote from 'The Oxford Companion to the Bible'.
    Satan
    The name may derive from a semitic root stn, but the primative meaning is still debated, the most popular suggestions being "to be remote" and "to obstruct".
    In the Hebrew Bible satan could refer to any human being who played the rle of an accuser or enemy (1 Sam. 29.4; 2 Sam. 19.22; 1 Kings 5.4; 1 Kings 11.14). In Numbers 22.32 satan refers to a divine messenger who was sent to obstruct Balaam's rash journey.
    In Job 1-2, the satan seems to be a legitimate member of God's council. In Zechariah 3.1-7 satan may refer to a member of God's council who objected to the appointment of Joshua as chief priest. The mention of satan without the definate article in 1 Chronicles 21.1 has led some scholars to interpret it as a proper name, but one could also interpret it as "an adversary" or "an accuser" acting on God's behalf." End quote.

    Hope that helps.
    Chris

    ReplyDelete
  54. @ Freed
    You also wrote "I don't understand a lot of things said here, so I look it up. I'm not college educated so your words keep me hopping in the dictionary and in the Bible when someone says something I don't agree with or never heard of."

    Those who recognise a lack of knowledge within themselves & then seek knowledge show [in my opinion] both wisdom & humility.

    I salute you!

    NEVER let anyone tell you any different. "To recognise ignorance with ourselves is the beginning of wisdom" Socratese.

    ReplyDelete
  55. The first principle {of science} is that you must not fool yourself--and you are
    the easiest person to fool.


    Richard P Feynman
    Caltech commencement address
    1974

    http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cargocul.htm

    ReplyDelete
  56. Chris said...
    @ Freed

    You wrote "Satan as tempter and deciever is strictly new testament interpretation from Revelation."

    Chris, that was poster benjamin franklin that said that.

    you said:
    In the Hebrew Bible satan could refer to any human being who played the rle of an accuser or enemy (1 Sam. 29.4; 2 Sam. 19.22; 1Kings 5.4; 1 Kings 11.14.

    I looked at these references and there's nothing concerning Satan in any of these verses. The word advesary was used a lot, but I didn't see that it refered to Satan.


    You said:
    In Numbers 22.32 satan refers to a divine messenger who was sent to obstruct Balaam's rash journey.

    It was not Satan that came to Balaam. My Bible says it was the Angel of the Lord.

    You can see that in Genesis 16:7, where the Angel of the Lord is mentioned, He is confirmed to be the Lord in Genesis 16:13. The Angel of the Lord is never Satan. It's Christ.

    You said:
    In Job 1-2, the satan seems to be a legitimate member of God's council.

    This is true. Satan did come in, from the earth, and sat among the sons of God (God's angels).

    "Satan" is the English spelling of the Hebrew word meaning "adversary" or "opponent".

    He is the adversary of all of us.


    Hope that helps.

    ReplyDelete
  57. @ Feed

    You wrote "I looked at these references and there's nothing concerning Satan in any of these verses. The word advesary was used a lot, but I didn't see that it refered to Satan."

    This is merely your interpretation. Do you have evidence to back it up? Why do I ask for evidence? Allow me to explain.

    Let's say that I was a muslim & I gave you my interpretation of the Gospel stories only I filtered everything I read in the Gospels through a moslem set of beliefs. Would you agree with me? No! You'd argue that all I was doing was reading my own presuppositions into the Gospels rather than trying to understand what the writers actually meant.

    Same is true of a christian trying to interpret a jewish text through a christian filter. I would argue that all you are doing, unless you can back up your interpretation, is just reading your christian beliefs into the texts rather than trying to understand the writer.

    So how do we back up our interpretation with evidence you ask? Good question.

    I was trained as a historian. I was taught that first we try to understand what the writer meant NOT what we want him to mean. i.e. the writer was a Jew from the ancient near east writing for his people. He WASN'T writing to a gentile audience 2000 years later. Ok?

    Next put the text into its historic context. That means you find out what was happening to the Jewish people at the time the works were written, the problems they were going through, etc [that means history & archaeology].

    Next you find out the common beliefs of the people [history again]. And finally you learn the original language the text was written in. All of that will influence your interpretation.

    But what is NOT permissable is to go to a second text to interpret the first. Why? Because you are dealing with another writer & you're back to just reading something to reinforce your presupposition rather than trying to find out what the original writer meant.

    Example:
    One popular Greek philosopher is Plato. Some portions of his text are hard to understand. But no philosopher would ever consult another platonist [they were known as neo platonists], who lived hundreds of years later, on what Plato really meant. Why? Otherwise your just going from you interpreting a text to you interpreting someone else who is interpreting a text. Now the chance of you getting the interpretation wrong has doubled.

    That is the same problm of your statement that the term 'Angel of the Lord' ALWAYS refers to Jesus. Cn't you see how that is reading a christian nterpretation into a text rather than trying to understand what the writer meant?

    Sorry I was so long winded.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Chris, you said That is the same problm of your statement that the term 'Angel of the Lord' ALWAYS refers to Jesus. Cn't you see how that is reading a christian nterpretation into a text rather than trying to understand what the writer meant?

    Are you saying that every time a Biblical author uses the term 'Angel of the Lord', it refers to a different person each time?

    Actually what I posted to you earlier was not my interpretation. I showed you where the Bible explained itself, as I have always maintained that it does. No interpretation was needed. She named in Genesis who she was talking to. There was no guess work or interpretation on my part on my scriptural example.

    Now, I understand the word ALWAYS is a hangup for a lot of people, but you would need to prove to me that 'Angel of the Lord' is someone other than Christ which you wont because the onus is on me to prove my statement, etc, etc, etc.

    Thanks for your posts. I hope I don't sound snippy because I don't mean it that way at all.

    Cynthia

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  59. Sorry for the late reply. I took the weekend off.

    Rufus said:

    "So, pretending, acting, is just lying. So, when Kirk Cameron acts like a fire fighter, he's really just lying. Thanks for pointing that out.

    By the way, LAOF, do you get "intellectual delights" from Chandler and Hammett?"

    I think that most people would be naive to think that Rex was 'acting' and that you can compare this to any actor's work. Why bring up KC's? Why not someone else? Oh, that's right... perhaps you're thinking I'll get emotional and lash out verbally because you feel I have some personal 'adoration' (sorry, a more appropriate word escapes me right now) for Kirk.

    I guess if I had to define it (and this is my personal belief, not a 'google-able' definition) I would have to assess the intent in which Rex so (seemingly) whole-heartedly tried to deceive.

    Again, this is JUST BASED on what I observed from Rex's posts as 'the other'. Perhaps his intentions were less intended to ridicule and deceive and more for the all-around enjoyment of the audience. I guess only Rex can know totally for sure. But I wouldn't trust anything he said, personally.

    As far as your comment or question about my reading Chandler and Hammet - I'm not sure how to take that question. Perhaps I see a bit of sarcasm, perhaps not. I'm not sure what you mean by 'intellectual delight' (being as stupid as I am). If this was just an honest question, please rephrase it. Otherwise I think I'll just let it pass.

    Thank you all for allowing people to post their views and questions here, even when they may not agree with your own.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Freed wrote: Perhaps his intentions were less intended to ridicule and deceive and more for the all-around enjoyment of the audience. I guess only Rex can know totally for sure. But I wouldn't trust anything he said, personally.

    That's your call. Personally, he had me fooled especially at the beginning of his parody; I remember responding to some of his posts, wondering how someone could be so mind-boggling dense :)

    ReplyDelete
  61. W.E.M. -

    For the sake of avoiding confusion, perhaps continue to call me 'laof' since 'Freed' has no other option.

    :-)

    We did not get together on that to confuse people here. Just a coincidence.

    ReplyDelete
  62. @ Freed
    [warning...long winded post]

    You asked "Are you saying that every time a Biblical author uses the term 'Angel of the Lord', it refers to a different person each time?"

    Answer: Not at all! See what you did there? Not intending to, and with the best will in the world, you stll interpreted my words the wrong way. See how it can happen? What I am saying is you interpreted the text [on no basis except your opinion] to declare that a Jewish man who lived hundreds of years before Jesus was refering to Jesus. That interpretation is highly doubtful. All you are doing is interpreting text through a christian filter. Can't you see that?

    You then wrote " Actually what I posted to you earlier was not my interpretation. I showed you where the Bible explained itself, as I have always maintained that it does. No interpretation was needed."

    My answer: Actually all you have done is give your interpretation of the text with no supporting evidence except more of your interpretations of texts.

    I have news for you. If you read a text you interpret it. It NEVER interprets itself. Want proof? Close your bible & put your ear to it. Hear it saying anything? No! You have to open & read it. & when reading it you are interpreting it. There really is no alternative.

    Let me put it this way. If you just look at the letters in a book without trying to make sense of the letters then that is all you are doing. But once you try to make sense of the letters you are engaged in interpretation. It is impossible to avoid.

    Perhaps this will help. The oxford dictionary defines the word 'interpet' as:
    "explain the meaning of". In other words when you were 'explaining the meaning of' those texts to me you were interpreting them. See? Sorry if I'm waffling on a bit. I do that sometimes.

    Then you wrote "She named in Genesis who she was talking to. There was no guess work or interpretation on my part on my scriptural example." Yes & you interpreted what that name signified. You would have to understand Hebrew to understand determine whether your interpretation is or is not supported by the text.

    Finally you wrote "Now, I understand the word ALWAYS is a hangup for a lot of people, but you would need to prove to me that 'Angel of the Lord' is someone other than Christ which you won't because the onus is on me to prove my statement, etc, etc, etc." Correct! The burden of proof is on you. This is unavoidable.

    If you can bare with me a little longer I'll explain why.

    Let's say I claim raindeers can fly. "That's silly" you say. You take a raindeer up to the top of a tall building & push it off - splat! "See no flying raindeer" you declare. I just reply "I didn't say they could all fly".
    So you take every single raindeer up to the top of that same roof & push them off. Splat to the lot of them. "Ahh" I reply. "That proves nothing becaue they chose not to fly." I mean how can you prove a negative?

    But it's easy for me to prove a positive. I only need to point to one flying raindeer & I've proven my point. Get the picture?

    Then you wrote "Thanks for your posts. I hope I don't sound snippy because I don't mean it that way at all."

    Not at all & hey I'm sorry if I'm coming across as angry I'm very sorry.

    Take care
    Chris

    ReplyDelete
  63. LAOF:

    Kirk Cameron "pretended" for a reason. Rex Mundane pretended for a reason.

    For Cameron, I guess it was something like, Jesus can save your marriage, only Jesus can save your marriage.

    For Rex Mundane, it was showing that no matter how outrageous and over the top the statements and claims, there are at least some Christian, Evangelical, Fundamentalists, who will agree with them, not knowing it's "pretending".

    You wrote something about, I think, Satan ensnaring mankind with intellectual delights. I wondered why you read Chandler and Hammett. One of the main reasons I read is for intellectual delight.

    If I wanted to get sarcastic, I would have written something like "I know you don't read Ann Coulter for intellectual delight. Good Night, Moon gives more intellectual delight than Ann Coulter."

    ReplyDelete
  64. Rufus -

    I think your argument about whether Rex was 'acting' rather than 'lying' is weak (IMO). However I don't see us agreeing in the near future so I guess we'll just leave it at that.

    If Rex want's to say that he was 'acting' and not 'lying' then so be it. I can only take him at his word - or choose not to believe him (which of course is my choice). Since the venue of his 'role', so to speak, was not the stage, screen or television, and he did not receive (to the best of my knowledge) any monetary recompense for this 'role', I would classify it as a lie.

    As far as 'my' quote about:

    "You wrote something about, I think, Satan ensnaring mankind with intellectual delights"

    ..well, unless I am beginning to get Alzheimer's, I don't remember saying (writing) that at all. Perhaps you have me confused with the person posting as 'Freed' (Cynthia, I believe?)

    If you found this in some relatively 'old' post of mine, I would like a reference/source. I have forgotten things in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

    To answer your question - in the case of Chandler, et.al - I read for enjoyment.

    ReplyDelete
  65. @rufus:

    "If I wanted to get sarcastic, I would have written something like "I know you don't read Ann Coulter for intellectual delight. Good Night, Moon gives more intellectual delight than Ann Coulter.""

    We all have that wonderful freedom of choice, don't we?

    Mine - to read what I wish (and not necessarily list everything I read as my 'favorites' on my profile).

    Yours - to make sarcastic remarks about another person's choice of reading material

    ReplyDelete
  66. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  67. @rufus -

    Actually, rufus - our argument (whether rex lied or was 'acting) is moot.

    Re-reading rex's posts here - he admits when replying to Freed/Cynthia):

    "I dont like lying, Freed. I hated doing it, and minimized it wherever possible during the farce."

    1. He didn't like doing it (which means he did do it and regrets it).

    2. He minimized it (implied: his lying) whenever possible during the farce.

    ((Original post/reply deleted, reposted to edit for clarity.))

    -laof

    ReplyDelete
  68. Rufus, if you want to complain about "intellectual delights", you can make fun of me since I'm the one that posted those words. LAOF didn't.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Chris,

    Honestly, thank you for your reindeer example of critical thinking. I understood what you said.

    you said Chris said...
    @ Feed

    You wrote "I looked at these references and there's nothing concerning Satan in any of these verses. The word advesary was used a lot, but I didn't see that it refered to Satan."

    This is merely your interpretation. Do you have evidence to back it up?



    Well, I've decided that you can all jump on me at the same time. I just don't care any longer.

    If being a critical thinker means I have to tear every word apart that is said or written, then I'll remain the dumb cluck that I am. I could not function where I believe no one or anything ever at face value.

    I could never take anyone's word for anything, ever, and without proof from my mother, I'm not sure what that would be, but I'm guessing I shouldn't believe I'm her daughter. I've seen my birth certificate, but I really have no proof that she was actually the one giving birth or that Dr. Nesbitt exists and actually assisted my mother in child birth or that it was his signature on the birth certificate, since everyone involved is now dead, and the name of the hospital changed, so now I'm wondering, without a mirror, if I even exist. I'm probably even delusional but I don't have proof of that either.

    Nope. Can't live like that.

    Sorry, Chris. You gave it your best and it's appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  70. LAOF:

    I confused you with Freed. I enjoy Chandler and Hammett myself.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Freed:

    When I thought that LAOF wrote about intellectual delights, I wondered why he read Chandler and Hammett. Or read at all, if not for intellectual delight, or intellectual enjoyment. Since it wasn't him I don't guess it matters. But does anything give you intellectual delight? Are all intellectuall delights from Satan?

    ReplyDelete
  72. LAOF:

    You certainly can read whatever you choose. I'm not a censor.

    And I can be quite sarcastic; so what does that make Ann Coulter?

    ReplyDelete
  73. Rufus, you asked me

    But does anything give you intellectual delight?

    Yes, I have read some intellectual delights. I just heard that description once and liked it so I stole it. I can see it's fascinated you too since you've used it about 10 times here.
    :P


    You asked:
    Are all intellectuall delights from Satan?

    Don't know. I haven't read his works yet.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Chris,

    Your "long winded" comments were illuminating and useful. Thanks for taking the time.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  75. By the way, LivingAsOneFreed - my "loaf" comment was only meant humorously. I hope it didn't sound too serious.

    I really do respect people who openly admit they're looking for answers (and haven't quite found them yet). It's rare.

    ReplyDelete
  76. @ freed

    You wrote "Well, I've decided that you can all jump on me at the same time. I just don't care any longer."

    Whoa! I hope I didn't make you feel like you were being victimized. I never wanted to make you feel bad & I am very sorry if I have.

    The last thing I want to do is jump on anyone - too squishy for a start. :D

    ReplyDelete
  77. @ G.E

    You wrote "Your "long winded" comments were illuminating and useful. Thanks for taking the time."

    You're very welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Chris, you wrote:

    Whoa! I hope I didn't make you feel like you were being victimized. I never wanted to make you feel bad & I am very sorry if I have.


    No, I didn't feel victimized at all. You were very patient and nice. I am just no longer able to tolerate the "critical thinking" way of destroying God's Word. I hate it and I've seen what it's done to some very educated people.

    A true Christian always begins by establishing the Bible as the supreme authority for knowing God's Gospel. God has put His Word above all things.

    The Bible does not refer us to any other rule of faith because everything we must know,understand and believe in order to be reconciled to God is found in Scripture.

    When a true believer is faced with two or more opinions, then he must always ask, "But what does the Scripture say?"

    I would never look anywhere else to judge God's Word other than in His Word. Circular reasoning? Just two words that have no place in the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Rufus -

    Sarcasm is a tool employed by most people (who are sometimes 'tools' themselves - but not directed @ you).

    As far as your question:

    "And I can be quite sarcastic; so what does that make Ann Coulter?"

    It makes Ann Coulter quite a bit richer than you, for one thing...

    :-D

    But enough of that, I'm off-thread after a couple more posts.....

    ReplyDelete
  80. whateverman (W.E.M.)

    No offence taken. I've been called worse.

    Besides - who would find offence in the changing of 'laof' to 'loaf'?

    I "loaf" quite often.

    You & me - we have an understanding. As long as you don't mind me abbreviating 'you' as W.E.M.

    -laof/loaf

    ReplyDelete
  81. I write way too much as it is - I think I owe my readers anything it takes to make them want to write back. Abbreviate away :)

    - WEM

    ReplyDelete

Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.