Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

MisterSwig

Regulars
  • Posts

    2783
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    107

Everything posted by MisterSwig

  1. If you want God to show himself to you in a tangible way, then I suggest you alter your theory a bit so that he has a body to go along with his consciousness. At least then it will be possible, in theory, for him to tickle your bum--or whisper sweet nothings into your ear. I am pleased to see that you do indeed have some idea of God. However, I have no desire to turn this particular thread into yet another full-fledged debate over the existence of God. Instead, I'll point you to another thread on this forum if you wish to read my argument against God as creator of the universe.
  2. To be clear, I'm operating under the assumption that midniterequiem is a theist, because he said that he believes in God. I don't believe he is an agnostic. And, yes, I opt for not having a God. Besides, Pippi Longstocking is much more inspiring, if anyone is looking for someone to worship.
  3. Yes, that's irrational. But it is more irrational to base one's God on nothing whatsoever. At least the theist who defines his God has a little respect for words and concepts. To him, the word "God" is not entirely meaningless. His irrational definition is unprovable, but at least it is a starting point for a debate. In your case, where do we start? I have no clue what you mean by God. Is it a person, place, or thing?
  4. *** Mod's note: Post moved from another thread *** An undefined God is meaningless. Until you define or describe your conception of God, he is neither possible nor impossible. He is meaningless. Rational theists tend to realize that the moment they begin defining their God, he in fact becomes impossible. This is why they rarely define their God. They settle for the belief that God is "unknowable," i.e., meaningless.
  5. I voted for religion being the bigger threat, because religion is a fundamental evil, while socialism is merely a political application of a fundamental evil.
  6. My view is that there is nothing inherent in nakedness that makes it sexual, unless by "sexual" one simply means exposing the sexual organ. But even genital exposure is not inherently arousing or related to sex. It depends on the people involved and their particular circumstances. As for exposing oneself to others, this is only controversial because of the existence of so-called "public" property. In an ideal society, where all land is privately owned, allowing nudity would be a private decision for each land or business owner to make on his own. The market would dictate the amount of nudity that is allowed in open society.
  7. Thanks. The earlier lists are inferior to the later ones because I had the wrong mindset in the beginning. I didn't take the lists as seriously as I do now, partly because of my initial belief that most people were already well-acquainted with the books of Moses, and therefore I didn't need to spend a lot of time on them. Because of that erroneous belief, I also set some artificial limitations on the first few lists, such as arbitrarily limiting the number and length of the stories. My goal at that time was to keep them short, like a David Letterman top ten list, when I should have been focused on making them clear, informative, and funny, regardless of how many words that required. Genesis, I think, is by far the weakest list, and I plan to redo it before I start on Job. Several people now have requested that I put these lists into a book. My brother is in the printing business, so it will be rather easy for me to self-publish the Bible stories once I am done with the whole thing. If I maintain my current pace, I should be done with the Old Testament sometime around New Year's 2008. Then I will start on the New Testament, which should take another five months or so.
  8. My Five Favorite Stories From Ezra Through Esther 1. Ezra 1 through 6 - I guess someone really admired the last two verses of Second Chronicles, because they are repeated word-for-word at the beginning of Ezra--which is the very next book. I understand that this sort of recapping makes sense for serial TV shows like Lost, but why use it in a book? If some brain-dead reader can't remember what happened only one paragraph ago, then let him flip the stupid page over and read it again. Geez Louise! Fortunately, the rest of Ezra offers new content that does in fact move the overall plot along. And let me tell you, compared to the recurring nightmare of First and Second Chronicles, reading the book of Ezra was like having a vivid sexual fantasy. Well, maybe not quite a vivid sexual fantasy. Maybe more like a weird dream about a sexy gorilla. But, hey, even a weird dream about a sexy gorilla is ten times better than reading Chronicles. Ezra begins with the Israelites being held captive in Persia. The Persian king is actually a very cool cat named Cyrus; he lets the Israelites return to Jerusalem so they can rebuild the temple that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed. He also gives back the Israelite treasures that were plundered from them, further proving his coolness. Back in Jerusalem, the Israelites rebuild the altar and start laying a foundation for the new temple. After completing the foundation, they all shout and cry for joy, making such a great commotion that they can be heard from very far away. As a brief aside, I think it's unfortunate that the Israelites didn't make better use of their wonderful whooping abilities. Considering how their magical vocal chords once caused the walls of Jericho to collapse (Joshua 6), I'm positive that one really good, sustained yell could have prevented the entire Babylonian captivity. Anyway, the rest of the temple construction takes many years and suffers some delays, partly due to shifting attitudes among the Persian leaders--not all of whom are as cool as the late, great King Cyrus. Ultimately, however, the new house of God is completed in the sixth year of King Darius' reign. You might also be interested in the fact that while reading chapter two, which is another boring genealogy, I invented an awesome two-person game called Bakbuk or Kubkab? To play this game you only need two items: a copy of the Bible and a large bottle of your favorite vodka or other adult beverage. Here are the rules: (1) Open the Bible to any page and select a name on that page; (2) Figure out what the name spells in reverse; for example, if the name is Bakbuk (2:51), then the reverse name is Kubkab; (3) Now, using our example, you would say, "Bakbuk or Kubkab?" and see if your opponent can guess which name is actually from the Bible; (4) If your opponent gets the answer wrong, then he must take a shot of vodka and then slap you across the face; however, if he gets it correct, then you have to drink the vodka and then slap him across the face; (5) Whoever laughs or passes out first loses the game. (Note that if you are facing a smart opponent, then you should consider periodically switching up the order of the names, so that the real name isn't always given before the fake, reverse one.) 2. Ezra 7 through 10 - The Bible now introduces us to a man named Ezra, whom we should probably assume is the author of the book of Ezra, because, after all, he does have the same name as the book. Notice also that Ezra initially writes about himself in the third person (7:1), but then he suddenly switches to the first person starting at 7:27. This "problem" has perplexed many great Biblicists over the centuries. But Mister Swig has thoroughly considered this issue, and I am pleased to announce that the matter has finally been resolved. For, if you think about it, it should be obvious that Ezra simply did not know about the existence of the first person narrator until he had already written several chapters of his book. In fact, he was so ignorant of writing in general that it took him six chapters just to realize that a book called Ezra should include stories about someone named Ezra. As it turns out, Ezra is an Israelite priest being held captive in Babylon by the Persian King Artaxerxes. Artaxerxes fancies himself a friend of God, and one day he decrees that Ezra and his followers may return to Jerusalem to judge the Israelites and freely practice their religion. He also pledges much of his own silver and gold to be used for the temple's expenses. And, as if that weren't enough generosity, he kindly puts a stop to all taxes on the servants of God. Yep, those foreigners were absolute slimeballs, deserving of death. When Ezra reaches Jerusalem, he learns that his people have intermarried with heathens and have not "separated themselves from the peoples of the lands." In response to this news, he first tears up his clothes in "astonishment," then he pulls out hair from his head and beard. Given the Israelites' rich history of sinning, I find it very hard to believe that Ezra was actually surprised by his people's harlotry against God. Did he forget why God punished them in the first place? Either Ezra is a total moron or a sick trichotillomaniac who enjoys ripping hair out of his face. In any case, to make a short story shorter, Ezra prays to God, and the Israelites end up swearing an oath to "put away" their pagan wives and children--an oath which, for the time being, they actually fulfill. Exactly how this oath is fulfilled we are not told. Indeed, where does a man put his women and children once he is done with them? Because this is not explained, I have to assume that by "put away" the Bible means that these women and children were thrown into prison--or possibly stuffed into a large closet or attic space. Incidentally, one would think that--after centuries of intertribal heathen-humping--all of these Israelite males should have at least one Canaanite strumpet in their family history. If that's indeed the case, then why aren't they also stuffing themselves into closets and attic spaces? 3. Nehemiah 1 through 13 - The book of Nehemiah is written mostly in the first person, and the beginning reads: "The words of Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah." Thus, I am almost certain that this part of the Bible was not written by God. Nor could it have been dictated by God, unless we are prepared to accept the idea that God and Nehemiah are one and the same person--or that when God dictates a narrative, he likes to pretend that he is the person to whom he is dictating. As for the alternative notion that God inspired Nehemiah, I shall counter by merely pointing out that, if that is true, then the Lord is a remarkably dull muse compared to some other, much more inspiring ones, such as Homer's Calliope, da Vinci's Experience, and Lennon's Yoko Ono. Like Ezra, Nehemiah also starts out in captivity. In fact, he holds the glorious position of cupbearer to King Artaxerxes. One day he learns about the "distressing" situation in Jerusalem, and so he requests the freedom to travel to Judah so that he can help rebuild the city. The king, being the cool (Persian) cat that he is, makes Nehemiah governor of Judah and sends him on his way to resurrect the City of David. In Jerusalem, Nehemiah and his people first rebuild the city walls. Then the priest Ezra does his thing, convincing the Israelites to confess their sins and "separate" themselves from all the foreigners. After this, Nehemiah takes a short trip back to Babylon, and when he returns to Jerusalem he discovers that, in his absence, the Israelites have started majorly sinning again, constantly breaking the Sabbath and marrying all sorts of harlots. Obviously this causes Nehemiah's blood to boil. He charges through the streets, cursing at and striking all the sinners. He even pulls out their hair. And after he is done assaulting his people, he makes them swear to God that they will stop marrying foreigners. Uh, yeah, good luck with that, Nehemiah. I'm sure that will work. While reading this pretty lame book, I noticed that chapter 7 contains the same genealogy found in Ezra 2. And, yes, there are the expected nominal and numeral inconsistencies between the two lists. In this case, however, these mistakes are unusually odd, because Nehemiah claims to be quoting from a document that he found. If Nehemiah is indeed quoting from Ezra 2, why then are there so many troubling inconsistencies between the two genealogies? Is copying text really that difficult? If, on the other hand, Nehemiah did not quote from Ezra, then to what document is he referring? And, furthermore, where did he find this mystery scroll? Might we have here another case of the crazy schoolchild's homework assignment being deviously transformed into a sacred text? (For an explanation of this point see my First Chronicles commentary.) 4. Esther 1 and 2 - The book of Esther takes place during the reign of King Ahasuerus of Persia, whose kingdom stretches from India to Ethiopia. Ahasuerus is a partier, and one day, after much merrymaking, he develops the urge to show his beautiful wife to his drinking buddies. He summons Queen Vashti, the beautiful wife, to his chambers. But Vashti refuses to come when called, for she is not only beautiful, but also a pre-feminism feminist. Such female insubordination naturally irritates the king, and so he decides to give Vashti's royal position to another woman. Submissive queens don't grow on trees, so Ahasuerus requests that beautiful virgins from all across the land be sent to him, so that he can select from them a new queen. One of his servants, a Jew named Mordecai, sends his cousin, Esther, to be considered for the queenship, and they both conceal the fact that she is a Jew. But before Esther can see the king, she must endure twelve months of beautifying preparations. As I understand it, ancient women were all hideously ugly, and they therefore required many months of de-uglifying procedures before they could be allowed to appear before the king. Also, I read somewhere that these girls smelled like skunk anus, and the only way to get rid of their horrible stink was to repeatedly drench them in all sorts of perfumes and oils of myrrh. (2:12) Luckily, Esther is not a lost cause and can be made beautiful enough to appear before the king, who, of course, instantly falls in love with her and makes her his new queen. While this story is sexy enough to keep my attention, I cannot, despite my best efforts, figure out why it is included in the Bible. I thought the biblical message was clear: don't marry foreigners! Yet, here we have a quaint, romantic tale about a Jewish virgin leaping at the opportunity to marry a foreign king. Why does Esther get to play the harlot and then have a book of the Bible named after her? Don't get me wrong. I'm 100% in favor of Jews being encouraged to marry non-Jews, especially heathen kings who expect their women to come when called. But I'm also 100% in favor of scriptural integrity. And it seems to me that the story of Esther conflicts with the overarching theme of the entire first half of the Old Testament. Shouldn't God be promising to torture Esther's children right about now? 5. Esther 3 through 9 - After marrying Esther, King Ahasuerus makes some Agagite named Haman his right-hand man, but Mordecai the Jew refuses to bow down to Haman. As payback for Mordecai's disrespectful behavior, Haman issues a decree to exterminate every Jew in the kingdom on a certain date. When Mordecai hears about this scheduled genocide, he tears up his clothes and puts on sackcloth and ashes--because, as we all know, when you are threatened by genocide, the natural thing to do is dress as cheaply as possible and roll around in yesterday's fire pit. Later that evening, Haman builds a gallows and prepares to hang Mordecai the next morning, because that's what his wife and friends think he should do. Meanwhile, King Ahasuerus is having difficulty getting to sleep. So he picks up the record of chronicles and reads about the time Mordecai uncovered a plot to assassinate the king. Ahasuerus is thus conveniently reminded that Mordecai still needs to be rewarded for this good deed, and in the morning he orders Haman to parade Mordecai through town and treat him like a hero. Doh! No Jew-hanging for Haman. Later that same day Esther finally reveals her Jewish heritage to King Ahasuerus and tells him about Haman's holocaust plot. And, to my personal surprise, it turns out that the king is not actually gung-ho for genocide and was apparently unaware of his second-in-command's decree to kill all the Jews. How this could be, since everyone else in the kingdom knew about it, is beyond me. Nevertheless, the king is very angry at Haman and promptly has him hanged on the very gallows that he had built for Mordecai. Oh, the irony! But, wait, it doesn't end there. Due to a little loophole in the law (concerning a signet ring), the king cannot revoke Haman's anti-Jew decree. (I guess it was also impossible for him to simply order everyone to leave the Jews alone.) So, to fix the situation, Esther issues a counter-decree, decreeing that the Jews can rise up and protect themselves from all of their enemies, including any "little children and women" who might have a thirst for Jewish blood. In the end, the Jews save themselves by killing 75,000 Persians. And all of this is, of course, what people actually celebrate during the Purim holiday. NOTE TO MY READERS: I have now completed a little more than half of the Old Testament. Before venturing into the black hell of the second half, I will take a two-week break from this project.
  9. Swig,

    *Please* keep up the Bible reviews. I always anticipate the next "episode" like a favorite new TV series. Your sense of humor is right up my alley.

    Thanks!

    --Dan Edge

  10. Personally, I see no point in arguing whether a 450 x 75 x 45 foot ark could contain all the animals, when the Bible can't even agree on how many animals there were. Were there two of every animal? (Genesis 6:19) Or were there seven of every clean animal, and two of every unclean animal? (Genesis 7:2)
  11. Many people believe in fantasies. They fantasize about "nothing," and sooner or later they start to believe that it actually exists. When confronted by someone who believes that "nothing is something," I suggest agreeing with him. Say: "I agree. It's a figment of your imagination." Then it will be up to him to prove that "nothing" is not a figment of his imagination.
  12. Pretty much the entire Creation myth. And that's merely the beginning. For more biblical absurdities, you can read my lists of Bible stories in the Literature section.
  13. By "same sense" I mean the same type of entity. I am an individual entity. Microsoft is a collection of individual entities. I am a solid thing with a perceivable shape. Microsoft is not. It is a collection of solid things with perceivable shapes. Microsoft might have rights, but only because the people that make up Microsoft have rights. I only brought this up because I thought the original questioner was confused about the difference between an individual and a collective entity. A baseball card exists individually, on its own. A baseball card collection does not. It needs individual baseball cards in a box or binder to exist. Break up the collection and you have all the individual parts, but you no longer have the collection. Break up Microsoft and you have all the individual people, buildings, and computers, but you don't have Microsoft anymore. That's all I was saying.
  14. In my experience the so-called "puritanical Objectivists" are confused intrinsicists who believe they are Objectivists. They don't really understand what the "objective" in objective values means, so they fall back on their habit of intrinsicism, which they probably picked up from religion. Hence their similarity to Puritans. Unfortunately, there's not much you can do to help these people, except to point out instances where the same thing (value) is good for one person yet bad for another. They need to see a concrete example that exposes their intrinsicism and lack of objectivity.
  15. Ayn Rand discusses this in more depth in ITOE if you are interested. Microsoft does not exist in the same sense that you do. Microsoft is a business. You are a person. Microsoft is composed of people, buildings, computers. You are composed of flesh, bones, mind. You are an individual entity. Microsoft is a collection of individual entities. Are there any existents that aren't composed of anything else? I don't know. It would seem that some subatomic particles might qualify, but then I'm not a physicist. What is outer space composed of? If you figure that one out, maybe you'll discover the fundamental existent.
  16. In OPAR, Peikoff describes entities, in the primary sense, as "solid things with a perceivable shape." But since there are all sorts of things that exist, I'm not sure what you are asking. There are elements, molecules, bacteria, animals, rocks, trees, spoiled hotel heiresses. Yes, unfortunately, even Paris Hilton is a sort of thing that exists.
  17. This feature has created links in some of my posts, and it must not be working properly because the links do not match the item linked to. Just because my sentence contains a few words similar to some book title, that doesn't mean that the context of my sentence has anything to do with the book. For examples, see here and here. Look at the first link in each post. I think Amazon Context links is a good idea in theory, but it doesn't seem to be working properly. I hope the site does not become cluttered with useless links such as these.
  18. It is a fact that people have a body and a mind. You might be attracted to the body very much, but not so much the mind. If you can change the person's mind, then you have a match. If you can't change their mind, then I think you should walk away and continue searching. Trying to change someone's mind is often much easier than searching and searching for a pre-existing match.
  19. I don't think the person who won the fight (over the lifeboat) would have negative emotions toward the other, if they later met at a mall. He would probably feel relieved that the other person managed to survive, because he might have been living with the thought that he killed a man.
  20. If you truly love this woman and care about her, I think your primary goal should be to de-religionize her. Religion is a vicious plague upon the mind. The longer you let it eat away at her, the shorter your happiness with her will be. You are already suffering in this relationship, as evidenced by your initial post. Imagine what it will be like in a year, five years, ten years. How much evading will you be doing then? Personally, I think going to the "Christian" meeting is a big mistake, especially if you are doing it to "support" her. She doesn't need you to support her mindless religious activities; she needs someone to convert her to rational self-interest. Think long-range. She might be good in bed. But are you going to be intellectually happy with someone who believes in religious fairytales? If not, then your immediate goal should be to debunk those fairytales and cure her mind.
  21. Well, since this is a different thread, I'll throw in one more thought. Notice, Sophia, that your context appears to change once you begin discussing war. When it is you against one attacker, then you have no problem with maintaining the context of the emergency: it is that one attacker attacking you, and you are right to do whatever is necessary to end the threat he poses to your life. However, once you move to a war scenario, you do not maintain the context that the threat is a nation that is attacking you, and you are right to do whatever is necessary to end the threat that nation poses to your own nation. Our soldiers are dying every day in this war; we at home live in fear of another terrorist attack that might topple another one of our skyscrapers and kill thousands. That is the emergency of war. The emergency of war persists, even if a terrorist isn't holding a gun to your head right this minute. Wars are national emergencies, not personal emergencies. Also, nobody here is arguing that during war all of our actions suddenly become amoral. What becomes amoral are your actions that are directed at the threat to your life, which is the nation that threatens you. To risk damage to your own nation by limiting the amount of force you use against the enemy nation is self-sacrifice.
  22. In this context of emergencies, a "not normal situation" is an "amoral" one. When you are dealing with a situation such as war, which is inappropriate to human existence, that, by definition, makes it outside the realm of morality. I think I have made my position clear enough. Thanks for the debate.
  23. I nominate this as the most important exchange of the thread. I think it explains the problem here. Some of us consider war to be abnormal in nature. Sophia considers it to be not necessarily abnormal, possibly normal. War is not appropriate to human existence. It is not normal. It is an emergency situation. If you do not view war as an emergency situation, then you will not advocate for the end of war being the primary concern. You will choose "morality" or some such notion over restoring normal conditions.
  24. I'm not suggesting cosmic randomness. I'm recognizing volitional acts as undetermined and causal events in the universe. Initial conditions determined that a mountain would form in South Dakota. But initial conditions did not determine that humans would choose to carve four faces into it. Man, on account of his volition, has the ability to alter, if only so slightly, the normal, determined course of the universe.
×
×
  • Create New...