Sunday, July 24, 2011

Sunday Psalm: 1 -- How Well God Must Like You!

Dewberry flowers. Note the multiple pistils, e...                      Image via Wikipedia
How well God must like you— you don't hang out at Sin Saloon, you don't slink along Dead-End Road, you don't go to Smart-Mouth College.

 2-3 Instead you thrill to God's Word,
      you chew on Scripture day and night.
   You're a tree replanted in Eden, bearing fresh fruit every month,
   Never dropping a leaf, always in blossom.

 4-5 You're not at all like the wicked, who are mere windblown dust—
   Without defense in court, unfit company for innocent people.

 6 God charts the road you take. The road they take is Skid Row.

-- The Message
Enhanced by Zemanta


SDC said...

Is a tribalistic superstition that encourages gullibility something to be proud of, Richard?

Kit said...

Faith is a singularly human quality, why would you mock it? My faith in no way diminishes you? So why do you diminish me with your lack of faith?

Anonymous said...

What translation was that? I liked it. Thanks.

RkBall said...

The Message by Eugene Peterson. Click on the link in the post.

Joe said...

My favourite translation, Jerusalem Bible, refers to the 'wicked' as chaff. Of course an old farmer explained that the chaff is blown away only at the harvest because it is vital to the production of healthy grain during the growing season.

Just think, petty little annoyances like SDC are good for those of us who believe even though he spouts nonsense and broods his two big buckets of nothing hoping for a universe to evolve.

SDC said...

Because it's based in nothing more than gullibility, Kit; the "faith" that convinces you that your superstition has some basis in reality is no more than the "faith" that convinces a muslim, or a mormon, or a scientologist, or any other fruitloop that THEIR superstition has some basis is reality. "Faith" is simply another word for believing something without a reason, and I don't see that as something that SHOULDN'T be mocked, because it shows how primitive some people are. If you don't care enough about whether or not what you believe is true or not to try to find out, that leaves you in exactly the same position as those who used to sacrifice their children to volcanoes to appease the "volcano gods", to the sky to appease the "rain gods", to caves to appease the "earth gods", and so on.

Anonymous said...

I dont think reading the bible over and over again is a preriqiste to pleasing the creator.

I'm sure he's familar ebough with it himself and that he would put its memorization above you knowing how to think for yourself in its abesense. Its a book of guidence and examples more than a strict code of laws as it is intended to hdlp us avoid hardships of our own making.

Just as church is meant to be place of fellowship and encouragemrnt, not a bi-weekly sitting contest of who can out bore who.

If he created large creatures (dimosuars etc) to roam and fertilize the land ahead of us, you'd think he had more in mind for us then sitting about reading the same book over and over again. "for his pleasure"?

Clever jokester, indeed.

SDC said...

Reality is always annoying to the superstitious when it's shown that reality doesn't match up to a superstition's claim, isn't it, Joe?
And Richard, is there any particular reason why you chose not to post my reply to Kit, or does your superstition not allow rebuttals?

Joe said...

You know Richard I think that SDC and I finally came to an understanding!

He wrote, "Reality is always annoying to the superstitious when it's shown that reality doesn't match up to a superstition's claim", and he echoes my own experience exactly. The atheistic superstition that I once believed to be true was completely shattered by the Reality that actually created all I once thought just was!

I must admit that the atheistic superstition was the stupidest superstition I ever believed. Throwing spilt salt over my shoulder to bring good luck makes more sense that believing that two big buckets of nothing will evolve into an entire universe.

Anonymous said...

And how does a self-contradictory set of fairy tales, written no sooner than 2 first-century lifetimes after the events to which they were supposed to relate, go any way towards giving us any evidence at all for your superstition, Joe? Your fairy tales contradict themselves on their own face, Joe, so they can't be taken any more seriously than any other cult's fairy tales.

Joe said...

So tell me Caveman-Annony-SDC-Meaningless-Nothing have you ever watched Law and Order? I have watched it on occasion and I love the hear the witness statements. If you combine them you get a description of the perp as "He was a white, black man with large breasts, wearing work boots and an evening gown last seen running on a tricycle east and west". What I really like about the show though is the times when all the witnesses stories line up exactly. The instant that happens the police or the lawyers know that the account is false.

That being said the New Testament does have some contradictions in it. In one Gospel account Judas hanged himself. In another account Judas fell down and his abdominal wall split open. Obviously there is no way both could have happened. Unless the Judas hanging tree is a the top of a cliff and Judas picked limb too weak to support his body weight....

Now if you want to see real contradictions you need to look at Scientism. They can't keep their story straight from one week to the next. You should know all about it tending those buckets of nothing. There has been no evolving universe in them yet has there. None Zip Zilch Nada. Too bad so sad. You better go back and check just in case. K XOXOXO

Anonymous said...

No, Joe, fiction doesn't really interest me (in either books or TV); that may be one of the reasons why your little magic book of fairy tales doesn't make any sort of a convincing case. If you think about it, your line of argument goes AGAINST your cult's version of events, because so much of each of the 4 versions are directly PLAGIARIZED from one another; 92% of the account in Mark are repeated verbatim to one degree or another in the following 3 versions, which you simply DON'T SEE in any other sort of supposed "eyewitness account". Where they DO DIFFER, they differ to the extent that it's clear that these accounts where in no way written by "eyewitnesses"; 2 of them have this crucifixion happening BEFORE Passover, the other 2 afterwards, and at different times of day. They give differing accounts of what this character's last words were supposed to be, all of which are so different that it's again clear that these couldn't be "eyewitness accounts". You have to be willfully blind to ignore discrepancies like these, but most "christians" either haven't read their little magic books enough to run across them, or they pretend that these contradictions don't matter. Well, if you care about the truth, they DO matter.

Joe said...

First of all Caveman-Annony-SDC-Meaningless-Nothing I don't base my belief system on the Bible. My belief system comes from personal experiences that are bolstered by the Bible and by the millions of other witnesses who share similar experiences. I have at least one experience that I share with Moses. Several other experiences that I share with St Paul. Another experience that I share with St Augustine. Some of the experiences I read about but didn't understand before I had them and others I had experience then read that others shared them.

So lets compare shall we? A few weeks back you claimed that apes and mankind have the same genes. Have you actually looked at the genes? Have you actually mapped out the genes? Have you actually compared the genes or are you simply taking someone's word for it? If you are simply taking someone's word for it then you are not a real scientist you are just a cheerleader for scientism. Your high priest, the guy in a lab coat, said it is thus therefore it is thus forevermore! Well that is until another guy in a lab coat contradicts the first guy in a lab coat. Then all bets are off! Witness the wide acceptance and now rabid debunking of the 'string theory'.

Ah yes Caveman-Annony-SDC-Meaningless-Nothing please get back to us when YOU have done some actual experiments because as of now you are about as informed as the squawky little budgie I keep for a pet.

BTW how are those two big buckets of nothing coming along? Any singularity forming yet?

Anonymous said...

In other words, Joe, you simply prefer to IMAGINE that your imaginary god exists, because you point to unspecified unrelated events as some sort of "evidence" (no differently than any other nutcase, such as Camping, Garrido, Koresh, and too many others to name). When any OTHER cult does this, you can recognize this for the nonsense it is, so why do you expect me to give you a pass when you do the same?
As to your second point, yes, I have looked first-hand at much of the research carried out in this field; unlike your cult, scientists are happy to provide evidence when asked for proof, because they realize that scientists all over the world working in the same field are going to call them out on if they can't. That evidence is available for study by anyone anywhere, and all you need to do to understand it is do some reading. Have you got any explanation yet as to why the supposed "eyewitness" accounts proffered by your cult can't even agree on simple matters such as who, what, where, when and how?

Joe said...

Isn't it funny how Caveman-Annony-SDC-Meaningless-Nothing can seemingly see a fault the size of a sub-atomic particle in someone else's belief system but can't see the mountainous fault in his own?

His belief system hasn't even produced a the 'singularity' demanded by his belief system. NO ONE has ever seen, heard or otherwise witnessed such a thing but that's OK according to Caveman-Annony-SDC-Meaningless-Nothing.

Now millions upon millions through out millenia have witnessed what I have witnessed but that is of no consequence to such towering intellects like Caveman-Annony-SDC-Meaningless-Nothing 'cause he sees a 'contradiction' in eyewitness accounts.

Do you suppose the strain of looking after two buckets of nothing is causing mental a breakdown in Caveman-Annony-SDC-Meaningless-Nothing? Hmmm. Nah! Couldn't happen. Caveman-Annony-SDC-Meaningless-Nothing apparently isn't intellectually inquisitive enoug to begin with. If he did he would be questioning his high priests (guys in lab coats) first.

As a former atheist I know I did. I questioned the guys in the lab coats and they came up wanting. I questioned the Creator of all that Exists and He was found fulfilling.

In the meantime lets all sit and watch Caveman-Annony-SDC-Meaningless-Nothing as he stares endlessly into his two buckets of nothing helplessly waiting for a singularity to evolve. Maybe if we all cheer him on.... Caveman-Annony-SDC-Meaningless-Nothing you can do it yes you can! If you can't do it no one can!. Yay Caveman-Annony-SDC-Meaningless-Nothing!!!!

SDC said...

Joe, that's because science is smart enough to know it shouldn't CLAIM it has an answer when it doesn't yet have enough information to reach a conclusion; this is in direct contrast to what your cult does ("I don't know, but it sounds like magic, so it must be the work of an invisible magic man in the sky!") And I actually DO question what I believe and why, unlike your cult (where questions of any sort are treated as evidence of "a lack of faith", and thereby to be discouraged at all costs). Science is happy to provide evidence to back up its claims, while cults like yours sooner or later devolve to "believe or else, heathen! You'll see one day, when you're burning in hell!" Sorry, but BS threats aren't very convincing, not when they come from you, and not when they come from anyone else. So, once again, it comes down to whom I should believe; someone who can't give me any evidence except a discredited collection of contradictory fairy tales, or someone that is happy to provide evidence that can be investigated and replicated at will.

Joe said...

science is smart enough to know it shouldn't CLAIM it has an answer when it doesn't yet have enough information.

Do you even read what you write or do you just spout gibberish? Science has since its rise to state religion has CLAIMED to have the answers. Why do you think nations the world over are trying to cut down on the production of plant food AKA CO2? SCIENCE! Why did the Soviet Union hang a pendulum in a church doorway? They believed science when science claimed to have all the answers! Take a look at you. You won't even harbour the scientific inquiry that maybe the universe is a product of intelligent design because 'science' has the right answer.

I always knew you weren't the sharpest knife in the drawer but really Caveman-Annony-SDC-Meaningless-Nothing you have truly slipped on the green weenie this time.

"science is smart enough to know it shouldn't CLAIM it has an answer" AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Pray for me Richard my sides feel like they about to split from laughing so hard. ow

SDC said...

Wrong again, Joe; science claims to know the answers on things that it has evidence for, and which can be tested. Your cult, on the other hand, claims that it knows ALL the answers, because an imaginary invisible magic man in the sky told all the answers to a semi-literate group of superstitious desert nomads 2000 years ago, all without conveniently providing any evidence that such is the case. I'd have to think that if your superstition actually had any such useful and vital information, some of it might actually turn out to be right for once, instead of being shown up time and time again as the primitive blatherings of people who believed that you could breed striped livestock by keeping them in striped pens; maybe you'd care to explain the conundrum of the dual "ten commandments" and which set your imaginary invisible magic man in the sky expects us all to follow? Your cult was set up by savages that have absolutely nothing at all to teach (most) modern humans, yet mental defectives like yourself still slavishly adhere to this nonsense as if it was real. I have a simple standard for believing something; "where's the evidence?" The only "evidence" that your cult offers doesn't even agree with ITSELF, let alone observed reality, fool.

Joe said...

And so Microsoft works and Microsoft office just organically evolved because they have the same code. Which is the 'scientific' proof you offered for evolution. Please Caveman-Annony-SDC-Meaningless-Nothing go back to tending your buckets of nothing. You are so helplessly out of your league you can't even see the contradictions in your own tall tales. Next thing you know you'll be telling me you can see the aurora borealis from the southern tip of Chile. Or that giving a bigger ball glove to an outfielder who has 100% catch rate will increase his catch rate. Well that's the AGW theory in a nutshell. Ah Science. The best known escape hatch for those who are mad at God.

SDC said...

If you're going to claim you have an explanation, Joe, it has to be better than "I dunno, so it must be magic"; your superstition has been proven to be a pile of nonsensical lies everytime it has made a pronouncement so far, so why should anyone believe you THIS time? The fact that Microsoft products share common code shows that they are RELATED to one another, just as in biology and zoology. I don't have the time or inclination to give you a course in statistics, and, you CAN see the southern lights from the southern tip of Chile; don't you think you should do a little research before you make such uninformed comments? Have you come up with any sort of explanation yet as to why your imaginary "god" gave us 2 contradictory sets of "10 commandments"? Was Moses just bullshitting about the first set (you know, the common ones), because your little magic book claims that the second set was written "with the finger of god" and which pays great attention to things like animal sacrifices and not cooking a lamb in its mother's milk, but don't even bother MENTIONING things like murder, theft, slavery, lying, etc., etc? I'm waiting.

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"