Gyroscopic Investing

madbean2 wrote:

MediumTex wrote: I always figured that the writer of Revelation was under the influence of mushrooms or something like that.

You can try to interpret Revelation in countless ways, but honestly it's just a bunch of scary incoherent symbolism that is like an Armageddon-themed Rorschach Test for Christians.

Did some of those mushrooms in my day so I hear you.

Revelations starts out claiming it is about things that "must shortly come to pass". I think you have to stretch the meaning of "shortly" to put it off into the future the way that Christians have. You can say "shortly" means something different to God than it does to us but it seems to me that it was written to us. If not, what was the point?

Having said that my sister died in a canoe accident when she was 21 and I was still a believer and I remember the whole family sitting around the room and I read the last couple of chapters about the New Jerusalem with no more sickness and no more pain and it just seemed to lift everyone's spirit in a way that was palpable. So go figure.

MediumTex wrote: A good analogy might be musicians who had played together for a long time and almost intuitively knew what the other players were going to do no matter what was being played.  If one of them died, part of the pain might just be disbelief that their instrument would not be producing any new notes.  I used to be a huge fan of Hunter S. Thompson (imagine that), and when he died it was a terrible blow to me because I couldn't conceive of a literary voice so strong and distinctive simply ceasing to exist.

Xan wrote: MT, nobody has EVER been saved by following Jewish law, simply because nobody ever succeeded in following it.  People are saved by trusting God, particularly in his Messiah, whether that was in the future or in the past.  So there really isn't a discontinuity.

Desert wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: All of this would make so much more sense to me if Christians said something like, "look, I didn't make the rules, God did, and if He says that people who don't follow the rules go to Hell and burn forever, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. He's a wrathful God who wants compliance and isn't above a little torture and unfairness but hey, if you want to avoid being tortured in a lake of fire forever, you'd better do what he says!"

This would make perfect sense to me. Instead, I hear a lot about God's love and how He's so benevolent and kind, but none of the metaphysics of the way He set up the universe seem to correspond to any definition of love or benevolence that I've ever heard satisfactorily expressed.

PS, the Bible does not say that.  God, as king of the universe, went to amazing lengths to save us from that fate.

Pointedstick wrote:

Desert wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: All of this would make so much more sense to me if Christians said something like, "look, I didn't make the rules, God did, and if He says that people who don't follow the rules go to Hell and burn forever, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. He's a wrathful God who wants compliance and isn't above a little torture and unfairness but hey, if you want to avoid being tortured in a lake of fire forever, you'd better do what he says!"

This would make perfect sense to me. Instead, I hear a lot about God's love and how He's so benevolent and kind, but none of the metaphysics of the way He set up the universe seem to correspond to any definition of love or benevolence that I've ever heard satisfactorily expressed.

PS, the Bible does not say that.  God, as king of the universe, went to amazing lengths to save us from that fate.

So then why, according to the Christian doctrine I hear around these parts, are the vast majority of humans, past and present, doomed to Hell? And how does this square with God's omnipotence? Why would He have to go to "amazing lengths" if he can do anything at will? And if He didn't want this in the first place, why did He set up the metaphysics of the universe this way in the first place!?! It's no fair putting a landmine in someone's path, warning them about it through extremely vague, subjective, difficult-to-understand methods, then claiming it was their own fault if they get blown up.

MediumTex wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

Desert wrote: PS, the Bible does not say that.  God, as king of the universe, went to amazing lengths to save us from that fate.

So then why, according to the Christian doctrine I hear around these parts, are the vast majority of humans, past and present, doomed to Hell? And how does this square with God's omnipotence? Why would He have to go to "amazing lengths" if he can do anything at will? And if He didn't want this in the first place, why did He set up the metaphysics of the universe this way in the first place!?! It's no fair putting a landmine in someone's path, warning them about it through extremely vague, subjective, difficult-to-understand methods, then claiming it was their own fault if they get blown up.

God may just be a sadistic being, and I don't say that with any judgment or vitriol.

He was sadistic in the Old Testament, and even if he says he is kinder now actions speak louder than words, and condemning most humans to eternal suffering, no matter how devout they are in their non-Christian religion, simply strikes me as sadistic.  I would NEVER do that to creatures who were inferior to me and where the nature of their existence was often hard for them to comprehend.

To me, it's simply not possible to read a book like Job and not conclude that God is one sadistic MFer.  And think about the last 2,000 years--almost all Jews who have lived during that period will spend eternity in Hell.  Those are God's people.  How can that be characterized as anything but sadistic? 

If I knew that my child was going to ignore my advice and make a mistake that would doom him for eternity and every generation after him was going to make the same mistake for 2,000 years, I could not sit in the clouds and watch that happen.  Whatever theory of justice and so forth that I might have started with would give way to compassion pretty quickly.  I mean, really, what's the point of setting up the game so that most will lose for all of eternity?  Do people like Anne Frank and all of those people who never heard about Christianity all through history really deserve that?  Why?  The only answer is that if God exists, he is a sadistic being, and as I said above, that's merely an observation, not a judgment.  If that's the nature of God, the sooner we come to an understanding of it, the better off we will all be.

Part of God's nature may also be that he backs losers like King David no matter how much they turn out to be adulterous murdering thugs.  Again, no judgment, but the way a being behaves tells you a lot about its nature.

It God is simply a sadistic being, I wonder what he thinks about humans who figure that out.  I would think that he would love them the most since they were the ones who were really paying attention to his work.  Think about how dissonant it would be to go to the scene of a terrible storm that had killed thousands and say: "Rejoice!  We are seeing God's true nature on display!  He must be pleased with us to reveal himself in this way!  Praise!  Glory!  Gooneygoogoo!"  That would probably bother people a lot, but then God seems putting believers in positions where they are scorned and ridiculed because of their faith (which is sadistic), so maybe every terrible storm is actually just God seeing if there any believers down here who have the courage to speak the truth.

I may be wrong.  Tell me if I am.  I would rather know the truth about God than be deceived by what I want the nature of God to be.

Desert wrote: The short story is that "Lucy" was a tree-dwelling chimpanzee.  Now for a scientist who wants fame and fortune, a fossilized chimp isn't going to do it.  So the story was concocted that this is a "transitional" form.  The following arguments and controversy are fun to read about.  Always remember that evolutionists are (rightly) obsessed with finding transitional forms.  Logic says there should actually be MORE transitional, unrecognizable forms than there are recognizable ones.  But sadly, for the evolutionists, they simply don't appear in the fossil record.  It's a huge problem for evolutionary theory. 

Pointedstick wrote: And that's just the old testament. in the new testament, it turns out he's created an elaborate metaphysical deathtrap that he KNOWS most people are going to fall victim to and suffer an infinitude of torture.

If someone can illuminate the love in any of this, I would be very interested to hear it.

MachineGhost wrote:

Desert wrote: The short story is that "Lucy" was a tree-dwelling chimpanzee.  Now for a scientist who wants fame and fortune, a fossilized chimp isn't going to do it.  So the story was concocted that this is a "transitional" form.  The following arguments and controversy are fun to read about.  Always remember that evolutionists are (rightly) obsessed with finding transitional forms.  Logic says there should actually be MORE transitional, unrecognizable forms than there are recognizable ones.  But sadly, for the evolutionists, they simply don't appear in the fossil record.  It's a huge problem for evolutionary theory. 

The study of human evolution involves MANY scientific disciplines: physical anthropology, primatology, archaeology, paleontology, ethology, linguistics, evolutionary psychology, embryology and genetics.

Lucy lived 3.2 million years ago!  Do you realize how hard it is to have a fossil preserved for that long?  It requires a perfect storm.  And then to find it?

Yet, the so-called gaps are largely irrelevant as the predictions for a lineage transition from past to future forms has been successfully made anyway!  And corroborating evidence is in other fields than archeology.

Perhaps the most damning evidence against humans being extraordinary is we have many DNA coding sequences in the genome from our ancestors in the primordial soup.

Thank gawd for molecular and genetic biology or we'd all be stuck thinking dinosaur bones really were just planted there to test our faith.

MediumTex wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:

Desert wrote: The short story is that "Lucy" was a tree-dwelling chimpanzee.  Now for a scientist who wants fame and fortune, a fossilized chimp isn't going to do it.  So the story was concocted that this is a "transitional" form.  The following arguments and controversy are fun to read about.  Always remember that evolutionists are (rightly) obsessed with finding transitional forms.  Logic says there should actually be MORE transitional, unrecognizable forms than there are recognizable ones.  But sadly, for the evolutionists, they simply don't appear in the fossil record.  It's a huge problem for evolutionary theory. 

The study of human evolution involves MANY scientific disciplines: physical anthropology, primatology, archaeology, paleontology, ethology, linguistics, evolutionary psychology, embryology and genetics.

Lucy lived 3.2 million years ago!  Do you realize how hard it is to have a fossil preserved for that long?  It requires a perfect storm.  And then to find it?

Yet, the so-called gaps are largely irrelevant as the predictions for a lineage transition from past to future forms has been successfully made anyway!  And corroborating evidence is in other fields than archeology.

Perhaps the most damning evidence against humans being extraordinary is we have many DNA coding sequences in the genome from our ancestors in the primordial soup.

Thank gawd for molecular and genetic biology or we'd all be stuck thinking dinosaur bones really were just planted there to test our faith.

And don't the similarities between human and chimp DNA tell us that we must have shared a common ancestor, which means there were probably many transitional species in our line as well as in the chimps' line.

MediumTex wrote: And don't the similarities between human and chimp DNA tell us that we must have shared a common ancestor, which means there were probably many transitional species in our line as well as in the chimps' line.

Mountaineer wrote:

MediumTex wrote:

MachineGhost wrote: The study of human evolution involves MANY scientific disciplines: physical anthropology, primatology, archaeology, paleontology, ethology, linguistics, evolutionary psychology, embryology and genetics.

Lucy lived 3.2 million years ago!  Do you realize how hard it is to have a fossil preserved for that long?  It requires a perfect storm.  And then to find it?

Yet, the so-called gaps are largely irrelevant as the predictions for a lineage transition from past to future forms has been successfully made anyway!  And corroborating evidence is in other fields than archeology.

Perhaps the most damning evidence against humans being extraordinary is we have many DNA coding sequences in the genome from our ancestors in the primordial soup.

Thank gawd for molecular and genetic biology or we'd all be stuck thinking dinosaur bones really were just planted there to test our faith.

And don't the similarities between human and chimp DNA tell us that we must have shared a common ancestor, which means there were probably many transitional species in our line as well as in the chimps' line.

Or perhaps a common Creator?

... Mountaineer

Response: The fact that some transitional fossils are not preserved does not disprove evolution. Evolutionary biologists do not expect that all transitional forms will be found and realize that many species leave no fossils at all. Lots of organisms don't fossilize well and the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are not that common. So, science actually predicts that for many evolutionary changes there will be gaps in the record.

Also, scientists have found many transitional fossils. For example, there are fossils of transitional organisms between modern birds and their theropod dinosaur ancestors, and between whales and their terrestrial mammal ancestors.

Pointedstick wrote: That's more or less my conclusion as well, MT. Every time I try to read the Bible again, I simply can't get through it. God seems like a sick fuck to me, the way he toys with people and torments them, makes them do horrible things, kills them on a whim, forces them to make bad decisions so they suffer terrible consequences, or pits people or groups against one another and then favors one side. I simply don't see the love in any of this. From my human perspective, what I see is playful contempt, not unlike a cat that casually torments a crippled mouse it's about to eat.

And that's just the old testament. in the new testament, it turns out he's created an elaborate metaphysical deathtrap that he KNOWS most people are going to fall victim to and suffer an infinitude of torture.

If someone can illuminate the love in any of this, I would be very interested to hear it.

MediumTex wrote: There was definitely some First Cause to the universe we see around us.  I don't have a problem with the idea that there was some sort of creator of the Universe that is beyond our understanding.  What I have a problem with is the idea that the Bible provides the best guide to the nature of that being if he (or it) does, in fact, exist.

Desert wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: All of this would make so much more sense to me if Christians said something like, "look, I didn't make the rules, God did, and if He says that people who don't follow the rules go to Hell and burn forever, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. He's a wrathful God who wants compliance and isn't above a little torture and unfairness but hey, if you want to avoid being tortured in a lake of fire forever, you'd better do what he says!"

This would make perfect sense to me. Instead, I hear a lot about God's love and how He's so benevolent and kind, but none of the metaphysics of the way He set up the universe seem to correspond to any definition of love or benevolence that I've ever heard satisfactorily expressed.

PS, the Bible does not say that.  God, as king of the universe, went to amazing lengths to save us from that fate.

Libertarian666 wrote: And here I thought he was all-powerful, 

madbean2 wrote: The best dismantling of the Christian religion in a few short pages that I think I have yet read....

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter16.html

If Jesus is the son of the one true God, why is his origin so pathetically unoriginal that we could have easily predicted it using a random religion generator that contained aspects of preceding superstitious myths?