Posts by Buggman

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Chino High School Teacher Who Learned As An Adult That She’s Genetically Female Goes Public

    03/24/2015 12:40:15 PM PDT · 4 of 68
    Buggman to ConservativeInPA

    If it’s actually a genetic / hermaphroditic condition, she has my sympathies and support. But self-deception does seem more likely.

  • Why Liberals Love the Enemies of Israel

    03/20/2015 5:30:58 AM PDT · 10 of 12
    Buggman to Kaslin

    Simple: Because in their hearts, they recognize that they and Israel’s enemies serve the same god.

  • Luther's Comments About the Jews vs. The Papal Bull "Decet Romanum"

    03/06/2015 9:16:23 AM PST · 10 of 23
    Buggman to Paleo Conservative
    Which at the time was the closest thing we had to chemistry.

    I'd also point out that while Luther got rather more irascible in his later life, he was also responsible for penning, "That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew," which was radically philo-Semitic for its time.


  • Secular Study: No Big Bang?

    02/24/2015 6:12:06 AM PST · 39 of 40
    Buggman to JoeFromSidney
    Unfortunately for the above authors, while the red shift was the initial proof of an expanding universe, it's not the only one. For example, we can measure the flow of time, and therefore the relativistic effects of an expanding universe, by measuring the periods of Cepheid variable stars, the eruption time spans of novae and supernovae, star formation time spans, stellar burning rates, and galaxy rotation periods. Each of these confirm the Big Bang.

    Moreover, we can directly observe that galaxies were closer together in the distant past thanks to a finite speed of light.

    Besides which, a static universe still couldn't be eternal, because there's a limit to the amount of usable hydrogen in the universe. If the universe were infinitely old, it would also be infinitely entropic, having suffered its "heat death" long ago.

  • Prayers to God in wrong spot? (Temple Mount location 'misplaced'?)

    02/24/2015 5:51:36 AM PST · 38 of 51
    Buggman to xeno

    I don’t think it fits. There’s no room for the Court of the Gentiles, Solomon’s Portico, and it puts the Temple right on top of the City of David rather than north of it.

  • Secular Study: No Big Bang?

    02/23/2015 11:24:01 AM PST · 26 of 40
    Buggman to Teacher317
    The only dangers are those to the zealots who have taken a stand on their interpretation of a thousands-year-old book that has been translated through numerous languages . . .

    It's been translated directly from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into English, not from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to French to English, or from Greek to English to Greek again.

    It'd be nice if the critics of the Bible weren't relying on grade-school misunderstandings of what it is and how it's been passed down to us.


  • Secular Study: No Big Bang?

    02/23/2015 11:20:13 AM PST · 25 of 40
    Buggman to fishtank
    Unfortunately, Humphries' work has some serious flaws, as noted on
    The author, Dr. Humphreys, is not formally trained in general relativity or cosmology theory, and his initial article and book acknowledged the tentative character and possible falsity of the new proposal. He also solicited, publicly and privately, feedback from Christian physicists who did have formal training in these disciplines. Starting even before the appearance of Starlight and Time and continuing to the present, such feedback has been forthcoming, and, to our knowledge, it has been uniformly critical of the theory. In fact, Starlight and Time and related writings by Humphreys exhibit profound misunderstandings of relativity theory and cosmology. Humphreys’ theory is irremediably flawed. It is very unfortunate that these writings have been so widely distributed in the young-earth community and have misled so many Christians. . .

    To our knowledge, not one person competent in general relativity and cosmology theory who has examined Starlight and Time has given a "pass" to this theory. Despite the lack of expert corroboration of his work, Humphreys continues to insist on the validity of his demonstrably false theory. . .

    In his latest attempt to defend Starlight and Time, Humphreys actually quietly abandons it. The three central arguments of the original Starlight and Time proposal were:

    1.The alleged physical significance of the Schwarzschild time coordinate of the Klein metric. This is so important in the original Starlight and Time argument that Humphreys called it "the essence" of his new cosmological model.

    2.The gravitational time dilation effects of differences of gravitational potential in a bounded universe which, it was alleged, do not occur in an unbounded universe. Again, this is essential to the original argument.

    3.The alleged profound effects of event horizons in a bounded universe. In Starlight and Time, Humphreys attributed most of the effects of 1 and 2 above to the action of an event horizon, which he claimed would cause Earth clocks to be static while billions of years of time elapsed on clocks in the distant universe.

    It has been shown in a number of articles that all three of these claims are manifestly false. In particular, 1) the Schwarzschild time coordinate has no physical significance at all for the behavior of physical clocks in a bounded universe, 2) the pattern of gravitational field and potential differences is manifestly identical for bounded and unbounded universes (this is sufficiently important and sufficiently simple that we will revisit it below) and physical clock behaviors are manifestly identical for both cases, and 3) the event horizon of a bounded universe has absolutely no effect on the passage of time on physical clocks in such a universe.

    In his most recent defense of this theory, "New Vistas of Spacetime Rebut the Critics", Humphreys gives up so much ground on each of these three central arguments that one can fairly say that he has abandoned the original formulation of his hypothesis.

    Go read the articles on Reasons to Believe to get the citations and the rest of the argument. If even Humphreys has ceded the core elements of his original hypothesis, then it really is dead in the water and we need to acknowledge it as such.

    And yes, I did read the book back in the day. I got initially excited by it, but even in the layperson section there were flaws that the careful reader could discern.


  • Star Blasted Through Solar System 70,000 Years Ago

    02/20/2015 7:59:43 AM PST · 100 of 114
    Buggman to ctdonath2; Mr Rogers
    Well said. I'll add another point: By creating a universe with enormous age and a finite speed of light, God has not only allowed us to verify that the universe itself has a beginning, He has given us the means to backwards-engineer how He did it.

    For example, we know that due to the high concentration of hydrogen gas in the early universe, the first stars were supermassive and super-hot, and that it was out of these supermassive first-generation stars that hydrogen and helium were fused into the heavier elements that make up planets and, well, us.

    I don't know about anyone else, but I find the idea of God using supermassive stars as His forges to create the building-blocks of life to be pretty darn cool.

    Another example: Zinc is highly water-soluable, and originaly all the earth's zinc deposits were dissolved into our oceans. That gives us two problems: 1) Most life can't exist in that much zinc, and 2) we need zinc deposits for much of our technology. God could have just removed all the zinc from the oceans and into deposits, but then we wouldn't have known that He had done it. So instead, He created an organism (I forget the name) that actually ate the zinc and gathered into colonies that eventually died. The oceans became suitable for other life, we got the zinc deposits that we need, and God not only showed us how He did it, but has given us the capacity to backwards-engineer what He did. One day we may mutate or create microbes of a similar nature that we could use to clean up the royal mess we've made of the seas.

    That's just one example of a million of how the universe and the earth had to be carefully designed to support us. My biggest problem with Young Earth Creationism is that it sacrifices such valuable apologetic arguments on the altar of a very shallow reading of the Scriptures.


  • Star Blasted Through Solar System 70,000 Years Ago

    02/20/2015 7:45:39 AM PST · 99 of 114
    Buggman to Mr Rogers
    God has not lied.

    Then before I get to the rest of your post, I'll ask you again: When we see the light of a supernova--the brilliant explosion of a star in its death-throes--in a galaxy millions or even billions of light-years away, did that star ever really exist?

  • Star Blasted Through Solar System 70,000 Years Ago

    02/20/2015 5:55:52 AM PST · 94 of 114
    Buggman to Mr Rogers; ctdonath2
    "Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."

    Which is incompatible with the idea of a universe created with the appearance of age.

    The Bible tells us repeatedly that the heavens declare the glory and the justice of the Lord, and that we can know Him by what He has created. Well then, if He created a universe that has an appearance of immense age according to every scientific and logical test we can put to it, then either a) it is indeed 13.8 billion years old, and that gulf of time demonstrates God's eternality; or b) He is a trickster god who creates illusions for the sake of confounding those seeking the truth rather than a God of truth who cannot lie.

    Let's look at it another way: The Bible is a creation of God, but one composed by human authors. The universe is God's direct creation, and no hand but His is responsible for it. If He created the universe so as to so confound honest interpretation by adding a false appearance of age, then on what basis could we assume that the Bible would be any easier to come to a right understanding of?

    BenLurkin hit the nail on the head earlier in this thread. When asked if God was incapable of creating a universe with the appearance of age, he responded, "Of course God can do that. But why would He?”


  • Star Blasted Through Solar System 70,000 Years Ago

    02/19/2015 12:55:06 PM PST · 90 of 114
    Buggman to Mr Rogers
    The back story for Middle Earth is not real.

    No it isn't. That's the difference between God and the good Professor--the back story of the universe, which we can observe thanks to a finite and constant speed of light, is real.


  • Star Blasted Through Solar System 70,000 Years Ago

    02/19/2015 9:01:35 AM PST · 80 of 114
    Buggman to GodAndCountryFirst
    It's not a science book, though it does indeed contain predictions that we can now test. To wit: The Bible says almost a dozen times that God stretches out the heavens. The same evidence the proves Big Bang cosmology proves the Bible's prediction. However, the Bible does not contain the necessary equations to predict the exact rate of expansion, because it was written to and by a pre-scientific society.

    I will also tell you candidly that the more one learns the Hebrew and the original context of Genesis 1-11, the less one is worried that an old universe contradicts the Bible. The Hebrew words for "day," "evening," and "morning," for example, have broader meanings and different connotations than one would expect from the English translation. Moreover, by the time we get to the end of verse 1, the earth already exists in some form, so there's no problem with the universe being around for billions of years before that.


  • Star Blasted Through Solar System 70,000 Years Ago

    02/19/2015 8:46:14 AM PST · 77 of 114
    Buggman to GodAndCountryFirst

    Tell me, when we see a supernova exploding in a distant galaxy, millions or even billions of light years away, did the star whose dying light we are seeing ever exist?

  • Star Blasted Through Solar System 70,000 Years Ago

    02/19/2015 8:11:06 AM PST · 74 of 114
    Buggman to ctdonath2


  • The Book That Deflated Darwin Day

    02/11/2015 1:25:16 PM PST · 9 of 21
    Buggman to sparklite2

    Didn’t read the article, did you?

  • Sociologists: 'Christianophobia,' Anti-Christian Hostility Infects Powerful Elite Subculture

    01/29/2015 12:24:26 PM PST · 10 of 19
    Buggman to lowbridge

    The phrase, “Duh,” comes to mind.

  • UNRWA Spokesman Chris Gunness Suffers Mental Breakdown on Twitter

    01/29/2015 9:07:26 AM PST · 11 of 14
    Buggman to Slings and Arrows

    lol That’s brilliant. I’m going to start using that.

  • 'Junk' DNA Mystery Solved: It's Not Needed

    01/19/2015 6:03:23 AM PST · 28 of 31
    Buggman to DannyTN
    Heh. A few years ago, a friend of mine had surgery on his coccyx. Basically, it was abnormally long and that, combined with a sedentary career in IT, had resulted in a cyst forming. He spent weeks going on about how his abnormal coccyx was proof that it was a vestigial tail, of evolution from primates, etc. etc.

    Finally, I just said, "Okay, you win! I give! I admit that your long tailbone is proof that you, personally, evolved from a monkey!"

    Even our other evolutionist friends thought that was hilarious.


  • HuffPost Religion's People Of The Year Are The Religious Leaders Of Ferguson

    12/29/2014 1:49:19 PM PST · 15 of 22
    Buggman to chajin

    Introduce them to Kedem—still a sweet red, but not nearly as cloying.

  • Not so secret: New book features 105 documents from Vatican archives

    12/29/2014 5:57:11 AM PST · 23 of 23
    Buggman to MarkBsnr; MrPiper

    I’d also point out that they didn’t just pick 66 books out of the air. The Old Testament canon was perfectly in agreement with what the Jews already regarded as the canon of the Tanakh (Torah, Prophets, and Writings). As for the New Testament, the “vote” was in substantial agreement with what the vast majority already accepted as canonical. Everyone agreed there were four Gospel accounts, the book of Acts, and most of the epistles. Only 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, Hebrews, and (in a very few eastern churches) Revelation were really up for debate, IIRC.

  • Behold, atheists' new Ten Commandments

    12/23/2014 7:25:53 AM PST · 30 of 35
    Buggman to C19fan
    Here, let me translate for you:

    1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence. (Unless the evidence points to an Intelligent Designer, in which case disregard it.)

    2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true. (But see the exception to rule #1.)

    3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world. (But we'll use it to make pronouncements about non-physical realities, from the spiritual to the moral, when it suits us.)

    4. Every person has the right to control of their body. (Unless they are Christians, in which case they must put their bodies to work for us; e.g., baking cakes for homosexual unions.)

    5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life. (Yeah, this isn't a commandment, but since when have we ever been coinsistant when it didn't suit us?)

    6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them. (We'll ignore that without God, there is no reason why this is would be true--all that matters is what you can get away with in this life.)

    7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective. (Unless they're those religious nuts--you should demonize and mock them every chance you get.)

    8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations. (Vote the way we tell you to.)

    9. There is no one right way to live. (Just all the ways we consider to be wrong.)

    10. Leave the world a better place than you found it. (True, this is just repeating #8, but we're running out of things to say and need to end on a sanctimonious note.)

  • Hollywood's Race Problem: "It's a White Industry"

    12/11/2014 9:10:28 AM PST · 9 of 98
    Buggman to Borges

    I remember seeing an interview with Dave Chappell a few years after he got out of Hollywood where he pointed out that if you’re a black man in Hollywood, and you’re not Will Smith or Denzel Washington, they’re going to find a way to get you in a dress sooner or later.

  • For 8 years I helped kill unborn babies. How did I not see the truth?

    12/03/2014 5:42:28 AM PST · 7 of 40
    Buggman to rjsimmon

    Agreed, but what I think she’s driving at is that your common abortion mill worker is more likely to be blind than intentionally evil, and therefore needs to be treated as a person who needs to be rescued into the light rather than as a monster to be put down.

  • Bill Cosby’s Media Lynching

    12/02/2014 5:55:39 AM PST · 6 of 63
    Buggman to LeoMcNeil

    You know, Cosby’s been an outspoken critic of gang culture and poverty pimping for years, as well as a figurehead for the classic family among blacks. In other words, and attractive target for the Left.

  • There’s no getting around Jesus’ teaching on the age of the earth

    11/25/2014 1:48:30 PM PST · 84 of 103
    Buggman to fishtank
    Already addressed back in post 56. In short, Humphries has refused to do any proper peer review and has continued to sell his book mostly to people who don't know enough to check his math. And I'm not saying that as someone who hasn't bothered to read the book--I have, and while I liked it back in the day, there were always problems with it even from a lay perspective.


  • There’s no getting around Jesus’ teaching on the age of the earth

    11/25/2014 12:49:50 PM PST · 73 of 103
    Buggman to MrB
    The Answers in Genesis article is fairly easy to break-down by argument and respond to:

    Argument #1: Speed-of-Light Decay (aka CDK)
    There are literally a dozen different ways to time the speed of light that do not depend on atomic clocks, including the ability to measure the energy--and therefore the speed--of photons at their point-of-origin no matter how far away.

    But there's another much simpler response: E=MC^2. If the speed of light were different in the distant past, we would be able to detect the dramatic (square-function) changes in energy output and/or mass in distant stars. For that matter, even a small increase in C would have resulted in the incineration of Adam by our own sun.

    Argument #2: Time on earth might pass at a dramatically different rate than the rest of the universe
    This is basically just a play on Humphries White Hole Cosmology, which I addressed back in post #56. There are a number of problems with this view that are addressed in the article I linked to, but I'll focus on just one:

    Earth is not the center of our local galaxy, which we know is well over a mere 6000 light-years in diameter. To have the kind of effect that YEC demands, you'd have to have the galaxy rotating around the earth, not the other way around. Morever, we've observed active events like supernovas in our own galaxy at a distance of over 20,000 lightyears, so that invalidates the whole raison d'etre of the theory.

    Argument #3: Assumptions of Synchronization
    This doesn't actually make a difference, since nobody is arguing about how old the universe would seem to be to a photon, and the relative speeds of the galaxies to each other can be measured via red-shift. Moreover, there are certain types of supernovae that have a very distinct time-line in terms of their energy outputs that we use as universal clocks to measure the relative speed of time in distant galaxies.

    So it's true that different parts of the universe have different ages. It's also true that thanks to the finite speed of light, we can watch the whole history of the universe right back to when the light first separated from the darkness--and that history is far older than 6000 years in our local time.

    Argument #4: The Assumption of Naturalism
    It doesn't take naturalistic assumptions to look up, take measurements, and realize quickly that there's no way for the light to have reached us in a mere 6000 years. This argument is just a scare-tactic by the YEC crowd: "If you believe in an old universe, you don't believe in God!" That's utter nonsense.

    Argument #5: The visible universe is larger in radius than the age of the universe
    Already addressed. The continued stretching out of space-time provides a sufficient mechanic to explain this when the difference is 15-17 billion light-years to 13.8 billion years. It is insufficient to explain seeing 15 billion light-years in 6000 years--the speed at which the universe would have to expand would actually rip the atoms to shreds and nothing could ever form.

    As I've said in another post, the problem is not the Bible vs. Science, the problem is an interpretation of the Bible based only on its English translation vs. virtually everything we can observe around us. Those with an ability to read the original Hebrew and understand how it's just plain different from English (very different tenses, for example, which actually resolves the Day 4 problem) generally have no problem at all with an old universe.

    To put it another way, the Hebrew can be read in a YEC way and an OEC way equally well. Why not then use the information God has made available to us in his other direct creation--the universe itself--to break the tie?


  • There’s no getting around Jesus’ teaching on the age of the earth

    11/25/2014 12:10:11 PM PST · 69 of 103
    Buggman to Resettozero; Gideon7
    I would argue that if you have a sequence of events (as you do on days 1-6), you have time. However, it is true that until Adam, there's no reason for the Bible to track time in human units.

    And without going into too much detail at the moment, I would point out that the original Hebrew words for "day," "morning," "evening," etc. have somewhat different ranges of meaning than you might assume from the English translation. As a matter of fact, as my ability to read the Hebrew has increased, so has my comfort with Old-Earth Creationism.


  • There’s no getting around Jesus’ teaching on the age of the earth

    11/25/2014 11:31:51 AM PST · 65 of 103
    Buggman to MrB
    Who’s to say that the rest of creation wasn’t perfect as well (it was).

    Indeed it was. How would an Old-Earth Creationist perspective be a problem for that?

    We’re seeing light coming from far more than the “Big Bang” estimation of the age of the universe as well, so that isn’t a valid argument.

    Actually, it is. The reason we can see light coming from 15 billion light years away when the universe is only an estimated 13.8 billion years old is because it has continued to stretch out, just as Scripture predicted. Basically, the fabric of space-time itself isn't constrained by the speed of light, so light that began travelling when the size of the universe was smaller effectively travels from further away by the time it reaches us.

    As far as the “lying illusion”, I’ve addressed that as well. God told us exactly what happened. How is that “lying”?

    We currently track the detonation of super-novas in distant galaxies. If we see a star explode in Andromeda, 2 million light-years away, and the universe is only 6000 years old, that means that the star we just saw explode never even existed. Therefore, anything further than 6000 light-years away would have no actual existence and the appearance of a universe beyond that point would be a deliberate deception on the part of its Creator.


  • There’s no getting around Jesus’ teaching on the age of the earth

    11/25/2014 11:23:23 AM PST · 62 of 103
    Buggman to Resettozero
    Then someone said to me, you're going to checkmate God?

    I would argue that discerning what God says about his own actions is hardly "checkmating" him.

    No longer do I try to limit God in my daily walk of faith in His Firstborn Son Jesus Christ who said “My Father is working until now, and I am working,” for which He was accused of blasphemy.

    Yeah, but look at the context: Yeshua (Jesus) was accused of sinning by healing on the Sabbath. His response is that God himself does indeed "work" on the Sabbath, since the world continues to exist and children continue to be born, and that therefore doing what was obviously another (if more blatant) miracle from God could hardly be considered a sin.

    That point remains true whether we're talking about the weekly Sabbath or God's cosmic Sabbath.

    Are you an Israelite in whom there is no guile?

    My own Jewish heritage is muddled at best. However, my wife and therefore my children are Jewish (and my son was circumcised on the eighth day by an Orthodox rabbi) and I have chosen to say to her, "Your people shall be my people."

    Are you a believer yet in Jesus Christ as Lord of all Creation?


    Are you part of "the latter rain" that was foretold?

    I know about six different ways Joel 2:23 has been interpreted, so you'd have to be more specific before I could answer in truth.


  • There’s no getting around Jesus’ teaching on the age of the earth

    11/25/2014 10:46:06 AM PST · 58 of 103
    Buggman to Resettozero
    Agreed, but the character of his creative acts has changed, and works mostly through natural processes, like fertilization and mitosis. That doesn't mean that God has ceased to be in charge, just that he isn't creating ex nihilo or by directly forming new creatures. The few exceptions to this have been small-scale and for the purposes of establishing his covenants.

    This is why speciation, which previously happened at an average rate of one new species per year for the past several hundred million years, suddenly stops when Man appears on the scene: The sixth day of creation ended, and God entered his period of rest, which will in turn end when it comes time to create a new heavens and a new earth.


  • There’s no getting around Jesus’ teaching on the age of the earth

    11/25/2014 10:40:17 AM PST · 56 of 103
    Buggman to afsnco
    I actually have his book. Unfortunately, he's never been willing to submit his work for peer-review, which makes me suspicious about his own confidence in his math. Conner and Ross wrote up a good rebuttal of it here: The Unraveling of Starlight and Time.

    It's too bad. When I first read it, I wanted it to be true, but you have to be willing to follow the testable evidence.


  • There’s no getting around Jesus’ teaching on the age of the earth

    11/25/2014 9:17:32 AM PST · 45 of 103
    Buggman to MrB
    He was tall and fully formed, sure, but under closer examination would have proven to be brand-new: No scars, callouses, evidence of internal damage, genetic decay, etc.

    The universe, on the other hand, exhibits many evidences of being billions of years old. Just to begin with, we're seeing light coming from far more than 6000 light-years away, and we know from over a dozen ways of testing it, as well as the ramifications of E=MC^2, that it's speed hasn't changed.

    To say that the universe is only 6000 years old is to say that God deliberately created a lying illusion. I don't buy that.

    As far as what Jesus said, the Genesis narrative is clear that God's works of creation ended with Adam and Eve, not began with them. Ergo, "beginning of creation" must likewise refer to the earliest age of creation being finished, not to day 1, and therefore has no effect on whether we read days 1-6 as being 24 hours or long ages.


  • How Revolutionary Were the Ancient Christians' Views on Sex?

    11/21/2014 5:34:44 AM PST · 38 of 46
    Buggman to Westbrook

    Please do. I’m trying to turn it into a meme. ;)

  • Evolutionary Cosmologies: Religious Endeavor to become like God

    11/20/2014 11:41:16 AM PST · 13 of 29
    Buggman to spirited irish
    The serpent-powered Ouroboros with its astral planes or multiverses is well-known around the world in its' many ancient and modern occult traditions.

    Yeah, there's a reason for that: They're all looking at the line of the Milky Way, with the bulge of the galactic center looking like a serpent's head biting its own tail.


  • How Revolutionary Were the Ancient Christians' Views on Sex?

    11/20/2014 7:04:06 AM PST · 20 of 46
    Buggman to xzins
    The seeds of Jesus' view of monogamous marriage was present at creation, so I've no doubt that it is out of Judaism. That's not to say that Jews practiced it any better than do Christians.

    I never claimed otherwise. :)

    The contribution of Christianity is evangelism/proselytism, an activity Jews were reluctant to pursue for whatever reason.

    Absolutely agreed--and something I routinely point out to my more stuck-up Messianic brethren. Paul's genius wasn't in creating monogamy, but in his ability to communicate an Oriental religion to a Western audience, along with carefully discerning which commandments were universal for all mankind vs. those created as cultural markers for Israel.


  • How Revolutionary Were the Ancient Christians' Views on Sex?

    11/20/2014 6:13:40 AM PST · 11 of 46
    Buggman to xzins

    It was revolutionary in the way it spread through the Gentile world, but Paul’s teachings of course came out of Judaism. A minor nit to pick, but it’s annoying how many Christian articles ignore that.

  • Norway Group Demands Jews Out of Kristallnacht Memorial

    11/14/2014 8:43:05 AM PST · 43 of 45
    Buggman to Eleutheria5

    God, in His infinite wisdom, has prepared a special and particularly hellish punishment for the Europeans who would rather have Muslims in their countries than Jews. It’s called, “Give them exactly what they asked for!”

  • Trouble In Transtopia: Murmurs Of Sex Change Regret

    11/11/2014 1:56:40 PM PST · 45 of 77
    Buggman to BlackVeil; GeronL

    My daughter met one of those kids in the hospital. It struck me as an extreme form of Manchausen-by-Proxy on the part of the parents—and utterly sick that they found a doctor to go along with mutilating a minor. And I’m sure they all wondered why the kid was in and out of the psych ward on a regular basis.

  • Catholicism, evolution and young earth creationism

    11/11/2014 8:43:57 AM PST · 26 of 78
    Buggman to Zionist Conspirator

    What, Hashem can heal a barren womb in a 90-year-old and create life from scratch, but that He would mark the Messiah with a miraculous conception is just too much to believe?

  • Catholicism, evolution and young earth creationism

    11/11/2014 8:37:08 AM PST · 24 of 78
    Buggman to Zionist Conspirator

    Sadly, not everyone does. I’ve been having these discussions a lot with my oldest daughter lately.

  • Catholicism, evolution and young earth creationism

    11/11/2014 7:23:33 AM PST · 9 of 78
    Buggman to Alex Murphy
    4.“There is no compelling reason to read Genesis literally, but there is a compelling reason not to read it literally.”

    I'm going to argue with this one: There is every reason to read Genesis literally as it is written in the original Hebrew. YEC may be the only way to read the English translation literally, but the Hebrew is more ambiguous. "Day" (yom) can also mean any long but finite period of time. "Evening" (erev) comes from a word that means "a mixture" (arav and is probably the closest Biblical Hebrew term to our idea of entropy or chaos. "Morning" (boqer) on the other hand comes from a verb (baqar) which means to till a field, to tend a flock, to discern and sort--in other words, to put into order.

    On the issue of the sun, moon, and stars being created on day four--no they weren't. The verb "let there be" is yihi, from hayah, "to exist," and means simply that the object becomes manifest in a certain context, not that it didn't exist before.

    For example, when Naomi found out that Boaz had protected Ruth, she said, "May he be (yihi) blessed." Obviously, she's not saying that blessing never existed before, or even that Boaz had never been blessed before. She was simply asking that God's blessing be manifest upon Boaz in that particular situation, as a reward for his kindness.

    When the fourth day goes on to say, "And God made" the lights of heaven, the verb "made" is ya'as, the imperfect form of asah. This has two significances. First, though the imperfect form is used throughout the narratives as a literary device, it's also how you would put a word in the past completed action. In other words, the verse can just as easily be read, "And God had made" the sun, moon, and stars.

    Second, it's significant that the passage uses "made" instead of "created" (bara, or yivra in the imperfect tense). When the Bible says "created," it means the creation of something that has never existed before, whereas something that is "made" is manufactured in the form of something that has existed. That's why the animals are "created" on Day 5, and then "made" on Day 6. (This is Gleason Archer's interpretation, not mine, by the way.)

    So take all that together: The heavenly bodies had already been made before Day 4, but were only then manifested to the surface of the earth as the atmosphere became more transparent. This is the interpretation of the rabbis of the Talmud, btw (b.Hagigah 12b if you want to look it up).

    But more interestingly, the author of Genesis makes the prediction that the sun, moon, stars, planets, asteroids, and comets visible to his naked eye would not be the first heavenly bodies God ever created--a prediction that we can only now, thousands of years later, prove.

    Finally, the problem I have with evolution is not religious, but scientific. Evolution predicts that we should see some original lifeform, then a split into two or more species, then the development of genera, families, and only after a long period of time, different phylums. The Cambrian Explosion shows just the opposite: Nearly all the phylums appeared all at the same time.

    That's evidence of top-down design, not bottom-up evolution. Evolution may well have played a role, but there's distinct evidence of direct interference by the Creator in history.


  • 'Gay men are more misogynistic than straight men': Charmed actress Rose McGowan blasts gay community

    11/06/2014 6:52:03 AM PST · 34 of 68
    Buggman to CodeToad
    They are not “gay”, and, in fact, they are rarely actually ever happy.

    Exactly. One of my brothers is homosexual, and while he's a really nice guy and I trust him with my kids (it helps that he's mellowed considerably as he's gotten older and no longer makes being "gay" the centerpiece of his identity), I've also watched him grow more and more miserable with homosexual politics over the years.

    When I or my very Evangelical parents hang out with him and his "gay" friends, we inevitably hear a litany of abuse and rejection as we get their backstories--and every one whose backstory I've gotten has a molestation somewhere in there. The same is true of a transsexual friend; he spent years insisting that being molested by his uncle hadn't affected him, right up to the point where he suddenly decided that he was really a woman.

    The point is that no homosexual just wakes up and decides to be gay out of the blue. You're dealing with traumatized and hurting people, whether because of a predator or abuser in their past, or due to some other mental/emotional factor. Society first marginalized them, then turned around and told them that their molesters were right: they were just born this way.

    So, they feel the shame and self-loathing of the molested, but swallow the lie that it's only because "society"--or to be more specific, Christians--are judgmental. Small wonder that they lash out: They just want to be released from the shame and misery that they've carried their whole lives.

    In short, they've been trapped by a lie that keeps them from the One who could actually release them.

  • Bale Calls Moses 'Schizophrenic,' 'Barbaric'

    10/27/2014 6:06:16 AM PDT · 69 of 84
    Buggman to This Just In
    Well, you know, "Anyone who dresses up as a bat clearly has issues."
  • NY Times reveals secrets of WMD cover-up in Iraq

    10/15/2014 9:30:37 AM PDT · 164 of 224
    Buggman to xzins

    And of course during the Bush vs. Kerry campaign, it was pretty much a choice between Bonesman A and Bonesman B.

  • NY Times reveals secrets of WMD cover-up in Iraq

    10/15/2014 8:54:07 AM PDT · 150 of 224
    Buggman to xzins
    I remember the stories of the WMDs coming up towards the end of the Bush admin. The reason given that they had suppressed them was that they didn't want every terrorist in Iraq targeting the convoys they were using to extract them. When the announcement was made, the press just dropped the issue rather than admit fault.

    Though it was always wierd to me that the Bush admin didn't go around tooting its own horn on this. But then, nothing about the GOP's tactical decisions at the time made sense. Maybe you're exactly right--this was a planned handover of power to the Dems to get certain agendas pushed through. It's disheartening, but it certainly fits the known facts.


  • The Destruction of Mecca

    10/01/2014 9:24:48 AM PDT · 27 of 50
    Buggman to C19fan

    Odd Fact: The Ka’aba is 666 nautical miles from the Temple Mount. Make of that what you will.

  • Greenfield: Science is for Stupid People

    09/30/2014 6:36:08 AM PDT · 18 of 39
    Buggman to Louis Foxwell

    That was one of the best reads I’ve had all week. Please add me to your ping list.

  • Seeking a Same-Sex Marriage Case Fit for History

    09/23/2014 8:46:10 AM PDT · 17 of 20
    Buggman to Beagle8U
    Actually, the combination of "same-sex marrige" and polygamy could be abused hilariously: Groups could go out and create a vast network of interlinking "marriages" and then sue for spousal rights to whatever service they want to share.

    Heck, I think all churches should immediately start working on that: "We're all the Bride of Christ, so we're all married, and you're discriminating against our religion if you disagree!"

    That aside, just wait for the divorce statistics. They should be a source of great fun as well.

  • Pope Believes WWIII Has Begun, Jews In The Past-Christians At Present

    09/23/2014 8:10:27 AM PDT · 19 of 20
    Buggman to Revel

    Huh. We probably ought to make it a point to carry a few pics and videos in our smartphones to show to people. They’ll still try to deny it, but let the imagery sink in anyway.

  • Ancient 'moon god' monument unearthed in Israel

    09/19/2014 5:32:56 AM PDT · 46 of 48
    Buggman to apillar

    The one worshiped as “Allah” today went by a different name in Biblical times: Baal, who was known as Zeus to the Greeks.