Another paraphrase.

I thought about doing a paraphrase of Proverbs 27, but decided I really didn't need to.

Let someone else praise you, and not your own mouth;
    an outsider, and not your own lips.

 Stone is heavy and sand a burden,
    but a fool’s provocation is heavier than both.

 The prudent see danger and take refuge,
    but the simple keep going and pay the penalty.

 Though you grind a fool in a mortar,
    grinding them like grain with a pestle,
    you will not remove their folly from them.

The Russians are coming, well they’ve been here.

I just saw a WSJ article, reporting on a series of pieces in the notoriously right wing publication The Hill with new news on the Russian collusion story.   You’d think more information about American politicians colluding with Russia would be big news, wouldn’t you?  

I guess not.

Interesting

I know that some folk have tried to rationalize Bill Clinton’s dalliance with Monica Lewinsky as being consensual, and therefore less problematic.  

I guess I’d say two things.

1.  If you read the US legal code definition of sexual harassment, there is no possible way to claim that Clinton didn’t engage in sexual harassment.

2.  Monica Lewinsky herself disagrees with you.  

But why would anyone listen to Monica?  Or anyone else the Clintons abused and discarded.

Hiram

Just in case Dan (Mr. I rarely delete comments) decides to get picky about being off topic.  I offer this space for Hiram's question and whatever responses it my generate.





Would I be going too far if I imagine that Dan rejects divine inspiration of the Old Testament? I had that thought while reading this page---

http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/da0_skygod.htm

~ Hiram

Origins

A while back Dan made the claim that "God created us in God's image.".   I was a little surprised to hear him so emphatically declare that God had created us.  So, I asked for clarification.  After some initial misunderstanding and confusion on his part, he finally responded with a statement of sorts about what he meant by using the word "create".   As part of the digression, there was a request that I "point" him in the direction of some resources on creation that might be more recent than his extensive reading from 2-3 decades ago.

I "pointed" him to a couple of options, which he responded to with a degree of derision.  Instead of continue down that road, I've decided to post a brief bibliography with some different views from a Christian perspective on the origins of life.

William Dembski- Mere Creation, The Design Inference, No Free Lunch, Signs of Intelligence, Uncommon Dissent,

Jonathan Wells- Icons of Evolution

Jaques Barzun- Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique if a Heritage

Phillip E. Johnson- Reason in the Balance

Michael Behe- Darwin’s Black Box

John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer- Darwinism, Design, and Public Education

Francis Beckwith- Law, Darwinism, and Public Education

Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen- The Mystery of Life’s Origin

Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards- The Privileged Planet

Rose and Rose- Alas Poor Darwin

Stephen C. Meyer- Darwin’s Doubt, Signature in the Cell

Guillermo Gonzalez- Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design

Alister McGrath-The Dawkins Delusion, Dawkins God

Charles Colson- How Now Shall We Live, Burden of Truth

Denyse O’Leary-By Design or By Chance

Lewis and Barnes- A Fortunate Universe

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exoplanet-census-suggests-earth-is-special-after-all/

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/09/scientists-discover-some-of-the-oldest-signs-of-life-on-earth/541251/

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1017083700096

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/838

http://www.michaelgstrauss.com/2017/01/should-big-bang-be-disdained.html

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/838

https://www.firstthings.com/author/stephen-c-meyer

http://www.discovery.org/a/200


If Dan would like to avail himself of any of these resources, they are here for him.  What will not be allowed is any of the ad hom/broad brush/snobbish attacks on entire groups of people he's chosen at his blog.  Anything of that nature will quickly disappear and never be seen again.   Any, actual engagement with anything specifically mentioned in any of these resources, or any actual refutation will be welcomed.

Shocking

Apparantly the Clinton Foundation thinks it’s appropriate to keep the money they got from Harvey Weinstein.

Really interesting piece.


 https://stream.org/harvey-weinstein-zeus-hollywood-feminists-hera-discuss/

A reference to the questions Dan said he'd answer after I answeder one of his questions. I've now answered him twice. So far nothing on these.

In an effort to be helpful as the comment thread gets longer, these are the questions you said you'd answer.  I thought this might be easier than scrolling through so many comments.




So, are you suggesting that Jesus explicit commandments need to be redefined, or modified, or clarified by filtering the explicit through some amorphous, undefined “way” that only you seem to understand?

Does that mean that you’re not going to clarify your opinions on “creation”?

Again, a clarification, when you said “ God IS NOT MAKING RULES. Period.End of discussion.”, we’re you planning to offer proof of this claim? Could we expect that proof when you explain your opinions on “creation”?

I suspect this might get deleted, so I'm going to post it here for posterity.

Art,

Of course "the best science" would argue (from a purely materialistic worldview), that altruism and love are simply convenient fictions designed to perpetuate the species.  Or they might say that it's just a random combination of genetic impulses.  Or that the appearance of altruism simply masks the selfish desire to make the world "less hellish" for personal gain.  Of course it's also observable that not everyone on the planet accepts this universal truth of love your fellow man.   Clearly, the Tsutsi's don't love the Hutu.  The Boers don't (didn't) love the Keffirs.  The Sunni don't love the Shia.  The Hindus don't love the Buddhists or the Muslims.  I don't think you can argue that the Chinese government/society has been particularly loving toward girl babies.  I don't think the FGM and honor killings that permeate an unknown segment of the Muslim community could be considered loving.

Maybe it's bot so universal.  Maybe not everyone is "craving moral order".    Or, at the very least, maybe by turning morality into simply the expression of the mores of a majority, any sense of morality has been diminished.

Maybe, just maybe, Dan is mistaken.

Love, what Jesus and Paul had to say

But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.

 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’

 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

 “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,

 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”

 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.

 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

  “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”

Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word(teachings, commandments), and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me.

 but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Rise, let us go from here.

 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.

 This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.

 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.  These things I command you, so that you will love one another.

 or the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.

 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.  Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never ends.

I think we can draw some conclusions from the above.

1.  We are commanded to love, even those who we disagree with.
2.  If we don't keep Jesus/God's commandments, then we don't love Him.
3.  Love doesn't sound like this:
" bat shit crazy"
" bigoted, hateful, ignorant and distasteful"
" Ugly, racist, bigoted, hateful, oppressive, ignorant, anti-American, ugly, theocratic, bigoted, hateful, ignorant, distasteful; stupidity, ineptness, insanity; idiot, pervert."
" fucking regurgitated shit"
" I'm meeting vulgar with vulgar"
" dickweeds"
" I don't give a rat's ass what you think"
 "You are defending fucking liars"
 "Shame on you and get the fuck out of here, you pervert-defender. No more of your shit-mouthed defense of the indefensible."
" You're a dick."
" You don't know shit."
" shit-eating pervert-creep"
" oppressors and sexist, racist jackasses"
" you're a pig. A sexist pig who is probably just too damned stupid to know what a pig you are."

Now that's just me, but I don't think any of the above statements align with either Jesus' commandments or Paul's explanation of what love looks like.

One might ask, how do the above comments demonstrate the "Truth that humans should watch out for one another, especially the least of these. Doing otherwise only contributes to making the world (and thus, our own lives!) a hellish place. It's irrational to disagree with this Truth and I think it is a Universal Truth."

Or is "watch(ing) out for one another", just a manifestation of a Utilitarian philosophy, so as to not make the world a "hellish place"?  But isn't making the world a better place (for me) just self interest gussied up as love?

"And for those of us who believe in God and follow Jesus,"

Since Jesus was looking for people to love him and the way He says that we show our love is to follow His commandments, I struggle to understand how denying the existence of commandments is "following" Jesus.

Really, loosing such unloving language at those you disagree with is "following Jesus"?  

  " It's True because it's True,", "People just generally recognize this Truth."," It is at least nearly universally recognized as a good idea", " a good idea.", "Jesus' teachings are just helpful pointer"

So, which one is it?

" Jesus was teaching a Way, rather than a set of rules. A Way of Grace and Love."

I'm shocked that this "Way", includes the kind of statements above, I question how they demonstrate either "Grace" or "Love".


"God is NOT MAKING RULES. Period. End of discussion."

Technically God is issuing commandments, not making rules, but clearly this statement of fact should be proven. 


This is quite a lot for one post, but I thought that I'd summarize what Jesus said about loving others, and what Paul though love looks like.  Then I though it valuable to contrast that with what others might say.

Food for thought.

I thought if something needed to be paraphrased it should be a warning to the Church, not a prophecy directed to ancient Israel.

Let's listen to the words of Peter.  " a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ", one of the "
eyewitnesses of his majesty",  someone who was with Jesus "on the holy mountain", perhaps Peter might have something to say that we can all learn from and apply.

There are going to be people who come around spreading lies!

They will even deny Jesus!

They will swiftly be destroyed!

Lots of people will be fooled by their lies, and seduced by their sensuality.

But, because of them the very notion of Truth will be blasphemed, denied, and redefined!

Their greed will bring about their destruction!

For if YHWH didn’t spare the angels who rebelled, but exiled them in chains to Hell to stay until they were judged.  If YHWH didn’t spare the ancient world (except Noah and his family as a beacon of righteousness).  If YHWH reduced Sodom and Gomorrah to smoldering ash as a result of their ungodliness.  In fact, using them as an example of what will happen to the ungodly!

If all that is true, then YHWH will rescue the Godly as surely as He rescued Lot and Noah.

These liars are bold and willful, it doesn’t even bother them when they blaspheme YHWH.

Even the angels weren’t as brazen in their blasphemy as these spreaders of lies!

These liars are like irrational, feral animals, acting purely in instinct and Reason, also surely to be destroyed like all rabid wild animals.   Strangely enough, for all their bluster and pride, they’re actually ignorant. 

They are like blots or blemishes revealed when the light of Truth shines on them.  They insatiable in their sin, focusing on adultery and greed, they prey on those who aren’t grounded in the Truth.  They’re like Balaam who was so in love with his wrongful gain, that he must be rebuked by a donkey!

These liars are like springs without water, they’re like mists driven before a hurricane, they have reserved seats in a place of gloom and darkness!

Because of their foolish boasting, they attract those who are also living in error!

They promise the freedom of Reason and autonomy, but, condemn themselves and others to the slavery of corruption!   Because whatever a person focuses on, is what he is enslaved by!

Even if these liars once escaped the death and defilement that come from the world because of knowing Jesus, they have become re-entangled and overcome so that they are worse off now than before they heard the Gospel!

In all honesty it would be better if these liars had never even heard the Gospel, than for them to have turned their backs on the holy commandments they have been given! 

The old saying is really true, the dog does return to its own vomit, and the pig (after getting clean) goes right back to wallowing in filth!

Fairness

Donald Trump makes con comment about some sort of sexual contact that might or might not have actually happened, and pretty much the entire country reacts negatively.

Then we find out that Harvey Weinstein has been engaged in a pattern of sexual assault/sexual harassment/ inappropriate sexual contact for years and, we get a lot of excuses.  Oh, did I mention that this guy is a major financial contribute to various Democrat presidential candidates?   Raised and bundled donations for Obama, Clinton, and lord knows who else.  Where are the cries for the candidates to return the donations?  The calls for him to uninvolve himself in political fundraising?

We've seen a recent spate of democrat office holders having to resign for various sexual improprieties, Anthony Wiener and his well documented problems, Jeffry Epstein and his history of pedophilia being intimately involved with the Clintons and others.

It just seems a bit strange at the disproportionate response depending on which side of the aisle and how involved in Hollywood they are.

The horror, the horror

I have an acquaintance who has a coffee shop, in one part of this coffee shop he has a large wall space where he allows people to  post things.  It could be original content, responses to things other people have posted or whatever.   Recently he had someone post something that was absolutely horrific.  According to him, what had been written was the most vile, horrible, racist, sexist, homophobic, vulgar, anti-Semitic, hateful, lacking in grace, and just all around evil that he felt compelled to take it down.   He ripped if from the wall as soon as he read the vile comment.  He felt that he must protect the others who might read what was posted from its rampant evil.  Yet, this guy was persistent, he made copies of what he had written, and he kept posting it.  Of course, the public must be protected from such evil, and heaven forbid people be offended, so these posts kept getting removed.  Then my acquaintance felt the need to post some responses to these comments, then he felt like it would be helpful to enlist others in his crusade to stop the spread of this evil.  He asked the other patrons to denounce both what was written, as well as the writer.  The problem was, that since he'd been so diligent in promptly removing the vile offensive document, that no one had actually been able to read it.  So, no one could really honestly comment on it, because all they'd seen was interpretations of what it said.   This certainly raised a conundrum.  Clearly it is in the best interest of society in general for evil to be exposed and publicly denounced.  Clearly this denunciation must be done in very firm terms.  It's even better if the response includes vulgarity and expletives, that way people will really know how much you are against evil.  

I just want to go on the record to support the immediate removal of anything that even has a hint of evilness to it, innocent people must be protected from this horror.   I want to commend this fine public spirited citizen for protecting the rest of society from this sort of this sort of evil.

I have to wonder, though, if this continued expectation that observers accede to the repeated demands that third parties denounce something they haven't seen or read, is actually a reasonable response and action.

Answers

Dan,

My intent in giving you ample room to offer your thoughts on the questions I've asked you was intended. and still is, as an opportunity for you to offer your unrestricted and unfettered views on a few topics.  I wanted to give you some questions to guide you to be able to give some broad general responses to some sort of specific subjects.  The reason I wanted to engage in this fashion was to avoid having disagreements or random discussions to divert from your having as much space as you wanted to answer what you chose to.  I was hoping that by keeping my views of of things for this "fact finding" part of what I hoped would be an ongoing discussion.    I would have liked to take your responses and have a conversation based on specific items rather than to tackle such a large potentially sprawling conversation all at once.   For some reason, you appear to be suspicious and unwilling to let things develop in more manageable pieces.    This has resulted in your deciding not to respond to any of my clarifiyng questions until you get some sort of quid pro quo.

What I've done is to collect all of your questions here, as a show of good faith I will answer some of them now.  I am hopeful that you will perhaps better understand what I'm trying to do and go along with the original premise.  If you choose otherwise, I will go ahead and answer the rest. 




Well, no one knows the answer to that one, not exactly, not specifically... right?

 How did we get here?

 Do you have some facts on the matter, or just (like me) your opinions?

 I would ask you, what things do you think you "know" as "objective facts..."?

Do you think you "know" that there is a God and this is an objective fact, just one you can't prove?

Or do you think you can prove it objectively?

Do you think you "know" that God created the world in six literal days about 6,000 years ago, or do you think it's not a knowable matter?

Do you think that scientists who estimate the universe to be billions of years old do not know it objectively?

I'm pretty confident that it's impossible to have an "estimate" that is objectively true.   What I do know is that the very fact that the best that can be done is to estimate, doesn't help your cause.  Personally, I've always been comfortable with a wide variety of possibilities regarding the age of the earth.

 With what?

With humanity, with the world, with whatever you choose to make your answer about.  I intentionally left the question broad to allow you as much leeway as possible. 

With humanity?

If that's how you want to answer the question, that's fine.  It's all up you what you think.

 How do you explain it?


 Do you have some other explanation?

Yes.

 Do you disagree?

Possibly, to some degree.

  I think perhaps what you're asking is will there ever be a PERFECT, complete and everlasting setting things to right, is that correct?

Yes, I'm asking; "If things were created good, and now are not good, will they ever get put back to that original state?".  Does that help?

 But does that happen when we die?

Does that happen immediately when we die?

One day, after our death in the future??

 Do you know the answer to it?

Here on earth?

 Do you have other opinions?

Yes

 Will you be answering my questions to you, as well?

As you can see, as well as from past experience, yes. 


I've intentionally not answered some of the questions that might provoke disagreement at this point in the conversation.  As i said,  if you'd be so kind as to just go along with what I'm trying to do and be patient until  you're done and I can break things down into specific limited pieces.  If you can't or are still suspicious then I'll answer the rest.

Fair Enough?