Saturday, April 25, 2009

Deep Wounds, Brian Knep

HT The Artful Manager


Anonymous said...

Plants are made on the third day (Genesis 1:11) before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19)

- And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

- And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

god made light out of nothing, there was no light producing source n light was treated as some kind of substance which can be separated from darkness which is treated as another substance.

if god wanted to make light he could simply make a light producing object, that would be consistent with the laws of physics he placed in place, why would any being create such a mess n does things to contracdict himself even though it could be argued that since he is omnipotent he can do things in reverse or in an illogical manner?

now we all know darkness is not another substance, darkness is simply where there is a lack of light, so darkness as a individual entity is a misconception.

there is no sense in dividing darkness n light since they are no individual substances, if u put darkness in a box, then u remove it with out adding light what do u get?? darkness. therefore darkness is no a substance which u can "divide" n separate n move around without involving light.

-And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

now that refers to the sun n moon, notice that god differenciate between sun n stars, which now we all know are bascially the same thing, if god is really writting the bible, then he would classify the sun and stars as "lights" under the same category n give the same reference.

meaning to say the human scribes of the bible simply cooked this up n since they have no knowledge of cosmic distance n the sun n stars are the same things, they perceive that the sun and stars are different kind "lights" n so, they lied that god created the stars n sun separately.

in effect if god really made the stars, he would have made the stars n sun TOGETHER, n it would be described as so.

interestingly god needed to rest on the seventh day, now thats rubbish, an immortal being that live in a timeless dimension does not need any rest nor need to count "days" for time is meaningless to it, so any need to rest becos it is tired to wanted to rest for any amount of time is meaningless.

if god did exist god would have set the laws of physics in place as well, as evidence shows god does some things in reverse n contradictory to the laws of physics he set in place.

this is strong evidence, the bible is simply cobbled together by scribes in the past with limited knowledge of science n how the world works, they simply cook up all sorts of crap ppl would actually lick it all up.

Anonymous said...

the fact that god rests on the 7th days is pure rubbish


1. he NEEDED to rest


2. he simply wanted to rest

as we all know 1. is impossible since god is omnipotent, ergo god can never be tired, in fact he cannot be tired or feel tired.

as for 2, why should god want to rest?? there is no motivation for god to rest since as described in 1. he cannot be tired, further more there is greater motivation to do good things since he's all good n all powerful, such a being is more motivated to do other thing rather than doing something he does not need.. which is resting.

so 2 is false, 1 is also false n god is trapped.

somebody pls help god.

Cure of Ars said...

Dear Anonymous,

You having issues over the Bible not being scientific is as silly as me getting a biology book and ripping it because it lacks spiritual wisdom. The books are written in two different geners and with different questions in mind.

Your comments have no relevence to the post and becaue of this it's just spam. From here on out I am going to delete comments that are not relevent to the topic. I'm cool if you have comments that disagree with my posts but they have to be relevent.

Anonymous said...

now, do not be silly, if u insist on throwing up illogical arguments, do not complain when i dismantle them.

now i am going to prove your fallacy.

a biology book only claim to be everything that can be observed and verified and deduced from observable data.

since it does not claim anything abt the spiritual it cannot be faulted when it does not contain anything spiritual.

so u are WRONG.

for if a spoon is not intended to be designed to do gardening, it cannot be faulted for no being to execute gardening activities.

the key word here is intention. what is the object intended for.

for example i will never fault harry potter books for lacking in scientific truths, becos it is simply not meant to do so. it is published as FICTION. n it is immune to scientific criticism when it says broomsticks can fly.

in essence harry potter books claim to be fiction n it fullfilled the claim, it does not pretend to be anything else.

for the bible, it claims to be the TRUTH. if u claim to be the truth, u will be taken to task to live up to the billing.

n the truth encompasses EVERYTHING, it cannot be the truth if it cannot even get simple scientific facts right.

on the day the bible claim to be fiction (like harry potter) or semi-fiction, then i will grant it partial immunity for getting somethings wrong.

that is fair enough for u.

if u sell me an electrical appliance n u claim that the failure rate is ZERO, i will take u to task when it fails. simple as that.

if u r humble enough to say that the failure rate is 30%, then u might have some wriggle room.

so, the ball is in your court, can u move down from that pretentious pedestal of yours n eat the humble pie?

admit that the bible is written by human scribes, whom many have dubious identity that the church itself cannot reliably identify. whom motivations are dubious, whom are humans who are as fallible as u n me.

the human scribes who wrote different texts of the bible are not special ppl with some sorta halo behind their heads, they are normal humans just like u n me, they can be tricked, they can be fooled, they can remember things wrongly, hear things wrongly, habour their own selfish intentions just like any human, imagine things, exaggerate things and write fiction and tell lies.

even if i grant u that jesus really lived in history.

many things said by jesus are not really his true words, but rather words the scribes wanted to say themselves but then stuff it into the mouth of jesus to say it for themselves.

many of the events abt jesus are not even real.

the numerous contradictions in the bible abt what he says n what he does is a living proof that the scribes cook up their own events n disagree with each other.

just admit the bible's fallibility n the human scribe's fallibility.

why do u have be be dishonest.

Anonymous said...

on relevance.

almost all your posts contain some sort of hidden apologist agenda, n all my comments are relevant to the post u make.

the only reason u think it is irrelevant is becos of your limited understanding of the underlying concepts of my comments.

some of my responses are indirect and some are not so straight foward, some are metaphorical responses in response to the inherent implications of the hidden arguments in the posts u make.

surely for someone who prides himself in indirect apologetics cannot fail to understand something so simple?

if i did not make a seeming direct response to your post does not mean my comment is irrelevant, it could be very relevant but your limited background in theology n philosophy will cause u to fail to see it's relevance.

they are always relevant.

Anonymous said...

i suggest i can try to read some zen dialogues to break your mental block.

2 zen monks can have a seemingly nonsensical conversation which their responses to each other appear to be totally irrelevant.

for example monk1 can say "who many apple do u have?" n the monk2's response is "pig"

it might seem like an utterly irrelevant answer, but it os entirely relevant.

an individual see it as irrelevant simply becos his mind does not have sufficient understanding of the underlying concepts.

Llyralei said...

wow, so, in any case, i love this piece. brian knep's use of projections is fascinating, and i love this idea. thanks for sharing.