http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2013/02/26/the-game-changing-open-line Comments On: The game-changing open line by Lindsey Millar en-us Copyright 2013 Arkansas Times. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Arkansas Times readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Arkansas Times. robert@arktimes.com (Arkansas Times Webmaster) Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:00:01 -0500 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 21:30:00 -0500 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
On humanist assumptions [the assumption that there is no God and life has evolved by time and chance alone], life leads to nothing, and every pretense that it does notis a deceit. If there is a bridge over a gorge which spans only half the distance andends in mid-air, and if the bridge is crowded with human beings pressing on, oneafter another they fall into the abyss. The bridge leads to nowhere, and those who are pressing forward to cross it are going nowhere. . . It does not matter where they think they are going, what preparations for the journey they may have made, how much they may be enjoying it all . . . such a situation is a model of futility (H. J. Blackham et al., Objections to Humanism (Riverside, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1967).)
Posted by SalineRepublican]]> Fri, 01 Mar 2013 14:43:56 -0600 Arkansas Times
– Bertrand Russell, “A Free Man’s Worship”

Given Russell’s worldview and presuppositions, his conclusions seem to be right on target.

http://greatcloud.wordpress.com/2009/10/06…
Posted by SalineRepublican]]> Fri, 01 Mar 2013 09:09:24 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by SalineRepublican]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 09:43:45 -0600 Arkansas Times
I am glad that there are some on this blog willing to talk about the big questions in life. Many secular thinkers have concluded that life is heading no where and there is no lasting meaning to our lives.

Poet Czeslaw Milosz wrote, "Exile accepted as a destiny, in the way we accept an incurable illness, should help us see through our self-delusions."

Tennessee Williams said, "We are threatened with eviction, for this is a point of entry
and departure, there are no permanent guests! And where else have we to go when we leave here? We’re lonely. We’re frightened." Cited in Os Guinness, The Journey: Our Quest of Faith and Meaning (Colorado Springs: The Trinity Forum, NavPress, 2001), p. 19.
Posted by SalineRepublican]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:20:27 -0600 Arkansas Times
Breaking News; CNN:

Atlanta, GA confirmed to exist. Officials extend heartfelt apologies to descendants of Rhett Butler who, heretofore, was thought to be fictional. Video of great great grandson responding that he, "doesn't gave a damn", goes viral.
Posted by Olphart]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:03:41 -0600 Arkansas Times
The answer to that question is subjective and cannot be proven or backed up.

Rest assured, my life has "lasting meaning", Saline. I suspect Olphart's does as well.
Posted by the outlier]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:37:36 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by YossarianMinderbinder]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:24:43 -0600 Arkansas Times _____________
THE FIRST QUESTION is to make sure you understand the weight of the dilemma and you do.

"1. How could Judah have removed his troublesome mistress from his life without killing her and avoid being thrown in jail and losing his marriage?"

THE SECOND QUESTION calls for a judgement call on your part and you merely just cast doubt on Aunt May's intelligence. She actually was a pinko liberal atheist and made a calculated moral judgement about "might being right" if a person has no problems with his conscience (i.e., Hitler). This is where the rubber hits the road because a person either agrees with Judah and Aunt May or they don't. You do not address this except to say, "There were other characters in the movie with different viewpoints." You know that you don't want to answer that because I will ask you on what basis do you condemn Hitler and you don't want to go there.

You also said, "You've grossly mis-characterized this movie." I have not and you remind me of that reviewer in NY that said Judah could have smoothed thing over with his mistress and all would have been okay. That is a person that "grossly mis-characterized this movie."

2. "Does Allen have a valid point that a person with a strong belief in the afterlife would have turned himself in but if there is no afterlife then why turn yourself in because you got off "scott free" like Aunt May said in the movie about Hitler?
_____________

YOUR ANSWER TO QUESTION #3 is "yes" and that is acceptable if you can back it up, but frankly with a impersonal cold universe out there I don't see how any secular person can back their assertion that there is a lasting meaning to their lives if God does not exist. That is the reason no one gets on and tries to even make that assertion. I salute you for doing so because you are one of the few brave people I have come across that will assert what they believe concerning this.

3. "Is there any way to find lasting meaning to our lives if God does not exist? "

Yes
________
AGAIN THANKS FOR ANSWERING QUESTION NUMBER 4, but I don't think anyone from a secular point of view can back that answer up.

4. "Does might make right in an impersonal universe?"

No
__________________________

Olphart you are a real gentlemen and I truly do respect your point of view. I recognize that you are a very well educated man that cares deeply about the important issue of our day. We need more people to leave their apathy behind and get involved. Thank you for your attempts to help others find their way.
Posted by SalineRepublican]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:07:14 -0600 Arkansas Times But tell me my friend, which version of the Bible is today’s reference?

Judaism claims that a fetus is not a full person.

“If people are fighting with each other and happen to hurt a pregnant woman so badly that her unborn child dies, then, even if no other harm follows, he must be fined. He must pay the amount set by the woman’s husband and confirmed by judges. But if any harm follows, then you are to give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”
Exodus 21:22-25 (CJB)

The Talmud contains the expression “ubar yerech imo – the fetus is as the thigh of its mother,” i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant women’s body.


“Each age tries to form its own conception of the past. Each age writes the history of the past anew with reference to the conditions uppermost in its own time.”
Frederick Jackson Turner
Posted by Zatharus]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:52:51 -0600 Arkansas Times
Judah's rabbi suggested that he confess all to his wife and, with God's help, his marriage would be made stronger over time. I agree with the rabbi except there will be no help from God. Judah and his wife might have a faith that could help them however. I know you probably disagree with the Rabbi who, obviously, has not been born again. The suggestion is right there in the movie. Why don't you mention this in your summation of the movie?

2. "Does Allen have a valid point that a person with a strong belief in the afterlife would have turned himself in but if there is no afterlife then why turn yourself in because you got off "scott free" like Aunt May said in the movie about Hitler?

The question was not answered in the movie. The question was presented overtly as a moral choice. Aunt May gave her answer and Aunt May was not portrayed as being particularly bright. There were other characters in the movie with different viewpoints. I guess the only answer which would have satisfied you would be a depiction of Judah dying, then his soul thrown into Hell and then about an hour of him screaming, gnashing his teeth and begging Jesus for forgiveness. Woody Allen didn't do it that way, he left the question open. If you don't like it, make your own movie but leave "Crimes and Misdemeanors" alone. You've grossly mis-characterized this movie.

3. "Is there any way to find lasting meaning to our lives if God does not exist? "

Yes

4. "Does might make right in an impersonal universe?"

No

There, that's it. I've answered all the questions on one page. All of these have probably been answered better by others but, perhaps, not all on one page. Having said that, this is my last supper with you on these 4 questions. I won't be breaking bait with you anymore regarding this issue. I'm gonna be watching for you, too. You, no doubt, will again say that nobody has answered these questions. When you do, I will provide a direct link to this page. Always remember that "Thou shalt not bear false witness."
Posted by Olphart]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:21:48 -0600 Arkansas Times
I have read lot of material from skeptics and liberal believers too. This list includes people like Paul Kurtz, Rob Boston, Antony Flew, George Wald, Carl Sagan, and many other writers who do not accept the Bible as the word of God have corresponded with me too.
Posted by SalineRepublican]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:20:39 -0600 Arkansas Times "II Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right."

In other words, the Bible is true because it says so right here in the Bible. I've heard of circular reasoning before but this must the smallest circle possible.
___________

The Old Testament prophecies in Isaiah 53 and Psalms 22 are powerful and as are the ones in Daniel 2, 7-11 and of course you have the amazing prophecy about the city of Tyre. http://thedailyhatch.org/2012/04/05/john-m…

These are researchable. I understand how skeptics love to take pot shots at the Bible, but let us take a look at some of the facts.

Craig L. Blomberg records a number of archaeological finds that coincide with events recorded in the gospel according to John:

Archaeologists have unearthed the five porticoes of the pool of Bethesda by the Sheep Gate (John 5:2), the pool of Siloam (9:1-7), Jacob’s well at Sychar (4:5), the ‘Pavement’ (Gabbatha) where Pilate tried Jesus (19:13), and Solomon’s porch in the temple precincts (10:22-23)… Since then, discovery of an ossuary (bone-box) of a crucified man named Johanan from first-century Palestine confirms that nails were driven in his ankles, as in Christ’s; previously some skeptics thought that the Romans used only ropes to affix the legs of condemned men to their crosses. And less than five years ago, in 1990, the burial grounds of Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest, and his family were uncovered in Jerusalem. These and numerous other details create a favorable impression of the Gospel’s trustworthiness in the areas in which they can be tested.

Sir William Ramsay, famed archaeologist, began a study of Asia Minor with little regard for the book of Acts. He later wrote:

I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now seek to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it,… It did not then lie in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.

http://thedailyhatch.org/2012/12/11/atheis…
Posted by SalineRepublican]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:13:15 -0600 Arkansas Times ________
If you want a bunch of silly writings that can be proved to be false then read the Book of Mormon that claims that in north America 2000 years ago we had goats, wheels,swine, wheat and chariots. I have done over 30 posts both showing how the Bible has been accurate about the historical facts it gave and how the Book of Mormon has been inaccurate.

Goats http://thedailyhatch.org/2011/04/01/is-the…
Swine http://thedailyhatch.org/2011/04/03/is-the…



Archaeologist Bryant Wood stated:
Over the years there have been many criticisms leveled against the Bible concerning its historical reliability. These criticisms are usually based on a lack of evidence from outside sources to confirm the Biblical record. Since the Bible is a religious book, many scholars take the position that it is biased and cannot be trusted unless we have corroborating evidence from extra-Biblical sources. In other words, the Bible is guilty until proven innocent, and a lack of outside evidence places the Biblical account in doubt.

This standard is far different from that applied to other ancient documents, even though many, if not most, have a religious element. They are considered to be accurate, unless there is evidence to show that they are not. Although it is not possible to verify every incident in the Bible, the discoveries of archaeology since the mid-1800s have demonstrated the reliability and plausibility of the Bible narrative.

Here are some examples:

The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep”) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.
•The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.
•Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon’s wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon’s prosperity was entirely feasible.
•It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon’s palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
•Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus’ son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://thedailyhatch.org/2011/06/22/book-o…
Posted by SalineRepublican]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:06:41 -0600 Arkansas Times
In other words, the Bible is true because it says so right here in the Bible. I've heard of circular reasoning before but this must the smallest circle possible.
Posted by Olphart]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:45:48 -0600 Arkansas Times
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1-ip47WYW…
Posted by JunctionJack]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:39:17 -0600 Arkansas Times
There's your problem right there, Saline. You can quote scripture day in and day out and you won't convert people who don't consider that to be true.

I was a pretty small child when I realized that the story of Noah's ark couldn't be true. That Jonah spending 3 days in the belly of a fish couldn't be true. That talking serpents couldn't be true. That Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt couldn't be true. The list goes on.

I was a pretty small child when I was told that I could only have eternal life by accepting Jesus Christ as my personal lord and savior, and not doing so meant an eternity burning in hell. The wheels in my mind started turning and the questions came and were never answered. "What about all the people in the world who have never heard about Jesus Christ? What about my Jewish friends?"

I was a pretty small child when I decided that if God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, he did a crappy job of getting the word out so everyone had a fair shot at paradise.

Your problem, Saline, is that you can't live with radical doubt because of the existential despair it might cause you. So you sooth yourself with stories that even a child can see through.

You speak as a child, Saline. It's time to put away childish things.

I got my moral bearings from my parents who showed unconditional love and treated me justly and expected me to treat others that way. They were a lot better at love and
justice than the god of either the old or new testament. They loved life and I learned to do the same from their example. If you truly love live, you don't murder. They also would never have asked their only beloved son to die for the sins of the world.

Why don't you read a serious theologian like Paul Tillich? Jesus said "none come to the Father except by me". I don't think that means what you think it does.

Come on in to the water of radical doubt, Saline. It's just fine here.
Posted by the outlier]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:22:16 -0600 Arkansas Times II Peter 1:21:
"...because no prophecy ever originated through a human decision. Instead, men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
_________

Doc are you able to tackle those four moral questions in an impersonal universe? By the way the Christian Scholar Ravi Zacharias is in my opinion the finest Christian apologist in the world today. His cd's from the 1990's include the forum he had with Harvard students and the question and answer sessions were as good as the ones I heard from Francis Schaeffer in 1960's.

I am not saying that I am more brilliant than any of you. I know for a fact that many in this audience are very smart and highly educated. I just want a secular person to step forth and tell me 1. How could Judah have removed his troublesome mistress from his life without killing her and avoid being thrown in jail and losing his marriage?
2. Does Allen have a valid point that a person with a strong belief in the afterlife would have turned himself in but if there is no afterlife then why turn yourself in because you got off "scott free" like Aunt May said in the movie about Hitler?
3. Is there any way to find lasting meaning to our lives if God does not exist?
4. Does might make right in an impersonal universe?
_______
Posted by SalineRepublican]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:44:03 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Verla Sweere]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:40:58 -0600 Arkansas Times Francis Schaeffer in The God Who Is There
Phillip E. Johnson, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds
The Christian Scholar Ravi Zacharias
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH

BTW, who wrote the bible? Silly old question, I know.
Posted by Doc]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:15:22 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by SalineRepublican]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:44:54 -0600 Arkansas Times
It's interesting that Christian viewpoints regarding this have varied over the years, not to mention, the differences between denominations.

The Roman empereor Constatine, whose conversion to Christianity, made it, instantly, the official religion of the empire, believed that once you were baptized and, susequently, commited a mortal sin then there was no absolution possible. Therefore, knowing that as emperor, he would be sending many men to their death, that he would be guilty of violating the comandment not to kill, he was not baptized until he was on his death bed. Highly risky behavior considering his death could have occured at any time, without warning.

Later the Church changed their rules on this. Church "authorities" seem to be always painting themselves into corners with their dogma but, conveniently, will readily change the rules if they need an excuse for their own behavior.
Posted by Olphart]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:43:35 -0600 Arkansas Times
1. How could Judah have removed his troublesome mistress from his life without killing her and avoid being thrown in jail and losing his marriage?

A reviewer in NY said that just a weekend away with the mistress would have made thing blow over but Allen set up the plot in such a way that a quick polite fix would not be possible.

2. Does Allen have a valid point that a person with a strong belief in the afterlife would have turned himself in but if there is no afterlife then why turn yourself in because you got off "scott free" like Aunt May said in the movie about Hitler?



3. Is there any way to find lasting meaning to our lives if God does not exist?

4. Does might make right in an impersonal universe?


So far I have received these thoughtful answers to my four questions:

The outlier, "Saline, anyone who needs the hopes of heaven or fears of hell to not murder is one sick #%$&!"


Verla Sweere, " Saline has more problems than faith to worry about."

Norma Bates:
Further, it exposes the hideous worldview of human beings by these hateful, idiotic mouthpieces for "God," including Huckabee, Robertson, Graham, et al. Turns out they actually believe that without superstitions men and women will "revert" to their "true" state--which is murder, rape and mayhem.

In psychology, that phenomenon is called "projection."

Maybe that's true for Saline, Huckabee, Robertson, Graham, et al., but certainly not true of humankind as a whole, by any historic scientific measures.
___________________

Verla Sweere and the outlier both have no moral basis for telling Judah that he should not kill his mistress but deep down they know it is wrong because of their God-given conscience.

The basic question Woody Allen is presenting to his own agnostic humanistic worldview is: If you really believe there is no God there to punish you in an afterlife, then why not murder if you can get away with it? The secular humanist worldview that modern man has adopted does not work in the real world that God has created. God “has planted eternity in the human heart…” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). This is a direct result of our God-given conscience. The apostle Paul said it best in Romans 1:19, “For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God has shown it to them” (Amplified Version).

It’s no wonder, then, that one of Allen’s fellow humanists would comment, “Certain moral truths — such as do not kill, do not steal, and do not lie — do have a special status of being not just ‘mere opinion’ but bulwarks of humanitarian action. I have no intention of saying, ‘I think Hitler was wrong.’ Hitler WAS wrong.” (Gloria Leitner, “A Perspective on Belief,” The Humanist, May/June 1997, pp.38-39). Here Leitner is reasoning from her God-givne conscience and not from humanist philosophy. It wasn’t long before she received criticism. Humanist Abigail Ann Martin responded, “Neither am I an advocate of Hitler; however, by whose criteria is he evil?” (The Humanist, September/October 1997, p. 2.). Humanists don’t really have an intellectual basis for saying that Hitler was wrong, but their God-given conscience tells them that they are wrong on this issue.
Posted by SalineRepublican]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:27:38 -0600 Arkansas Times Norma and Outier both recognize that, but the guy does push buttons. He has more problems than faith to worry about.
Posted by Verla Sweere]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:09:59 -0600 Arkansas Times
You're wasting your time. Saline can't think. He just parrots, cuts and pastes.

His old bromide about how "God" and religion, and ONLY "God" and religion (Saline's religion, naturally), stand between "Good" men and "Bad" has long been disproved by research and science.

Further, it exposes the hideous worldview of human beings by these hateful, idiotic mouthpieces for "God," including Huckabee, Robertson, Graham, et al. Turns out they actually believe that without superstitions men and women will "revert" to their "true" state--which is murder, rape and mayhem.

In psychology, that phenomenon is called "projection."

Maybe that's true for Saline, Huckabee, Robertson, Graham, et al., but certainly not true of humankind as a whole, by any historic scientific measures. Not remotely true.

Quite the reverse is actually true. Humans who believe these superstitions, who have "faith" in other words, historically exhibit the WORST human behavior. Witness the Inquisition, the Holocaust, Catholic child sexual abuse, torture and witch-burning from yesteryear in New England to today in Ghana, and on and on ad infinitum.
Posted by Norma Bates]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:52:00 -0600 Arkansas Times
Saline, anyone who needs the hopes of heaven or fears of hell to not murder is one sick fuck!

You need to expand your reading to include more than the bible. You could start with evolutionary biology and altruism to start. I'm not going to waste my time pointing to specific articles for you. Everything you read is through the prism of the bible anyway.

Everyone is not a psychopath or even a sociopath. Maybe most xtian fundies are if they can't behave themselves unless threatened with eternal damnation. Even then, they give themselves an out by allowing for 11th hour come to Jesus confessions.
Posted by the outlier]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:25:08 -0600 Arkansas Times