See something you'd like to change or add, but you've never edited an open encyclopædia before? This overview was written to help absolute beginners get started.

User talk:Philip J. Rayment/Archive 14

From A Storehouse of Knowledge
Jump to: navigation, search

Previous archive

Next archive

Talk page archive
This is an archive of talk-page discussions. Do not add any discussion to this page.

If you wish to reply to comments here, start a new discussion on the current talk page.

If you believe that a discussion was archived prematurely, move it from the archive back to the talk page.


Contents

Australia, USA, Gun Control, etc

This article took me back. I though you might find it interesting.--Unsigned comment by LowKey (talk)

Yes, I've been reminded of such things a few times recently. It's not just Andy-types, though. I had a Facebook conversation with another, otherwise quite sensible, person a while back on the same topic. In the end he got frustrated with me and told me to butt out of expressing opinions on American gun control when I wasn't qualified to speak on it. I reminded him that the discussion started when someone posted a bit about Australian gun control and he and a couple of others started expressing opinions on that.
Thanks for the link; it was worth reading. The headline says (in part) "the US needs to get rid of its guns", but I don't think Howard actually says that, and he seems to suggest that it's not practicable, with his mention of how many guns would need to be bought back.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 09:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Evidence against evolution?

Hi Philip,I have read a lot of your conversations, and you seem to have your thoughts together very well, and be able to communicate logically, on the subjects of creation and evolution, so I wanted to ask you what you think about something. It occurred to me a few weeks ago and seems very encouraging, but of course the truth (or not) of it will ultimately decide whether it is to be hung on to. If it turns out to have merit (in which case there is no doubt that it was inspired by The Holy Spirit) it seems like a pretty good logic argument against evolution, and, especially, molecules-to-man origins.

Here it is: why don’t we find incomplete cells and/or partial building blocks of life commonly today? Wouldn’t there be even more of those things around the world now than there were when life originated, given that so much more time has passed (and time is the key to evolution, right?)? It seems like there would be evidence of evolution's beginnings everywhere in the form of randomly (but properly) formed pieces of dna or other life-enabling structures, all still floating around and still constantly colliding with other crucial, yet also randomly formed, molecules needed for life. I mean, why would the processes that supposedly caused life to come into existence from non-life be stopped after life came into existence? Doesn't uniformitarianism say things are the same now as they have always been? Or is it that these “pre-life” structures are being found today and I have just not heard about it?

All praise to the worthy and sole source of everlasting Joy: Jesus Christ.

Thank you for your time.

ChrisC 15:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting qeustion, ChrisC, but I'm not sure that there's a clear answer. I would suggest that we do find partial building block of life today, such as the amino acids that have been found in meteorites. The problem (for evolution) with these is that the amino acids are such a trivial part (think of having evidence for the start of a Boeing 747 in the form of some electrical wires or a few screws) that they don't really help, but evolutionists grasp onto such things as evidence because they've got nothing better.
Should we find more today than when life originated? Not necessarily. An evolutionist could argue that if anything did start, it would soon be consumed by existing life (whether bacteria or something bigger). Also, how much was there to start with (in the evolutionary view)? Although evolutionists think that life starting naturalistically is sufficiently likely that it should have started on many other planets as well as Earth, they would still concede that it's quite unlikely, in the sense that it's not happening all the time. They have also claimed in the past that life got started because conditions were different then. For example, many molecules will break down (oxidise) in the presence of oxygen, so they once argued that life got started before there was (so much?) oxygen in the atmosphere. Although they've gone off that idea because the evidence doesn't support it, they could still easily claim that, following the advent of life, conditions are now different and not as conducive to life getting started.
They do work on the principle of uniformitarianism, but not as completely as they once did, so I'd say now that they don't let that stand in their way if a contrary argument helps their cause better.
I've mentioned what evolutionists "could claim" a couple of times. This is one of the problems with evolution: it is so flexible that they can claim almost anything, which means that it's not really a valid scientific hypothesis making testable claims. Of course they say the same about creation: they reckon that we can claim that God did whatever it is that the evidence shows. In a sense they are right, which is why we don't claim that creation is any more scientific than evolution (in principle; I did claim very recently that it might be more scientific, but my point there was that it fits the evidence better, not that it's more scientific in principle). But in another sense they are wrong, as creationists have a particular set of claims as part of their framework (i.e. it has to be consistent with the biblical account), so it's not a case of anything goes. Now they could also argue that not anything goes, but the point is that it's still very flexible so that almost anything goes, and is therefore not really a scientific idea.
Part of it not being scientific is that it rarely makes very precise predictions, such as exactly what you would expect to find if evolution was true or life began naturalistically. Would you expect to find x amount of substance y occurring naturally? Nobody would be prepared to say, so how can you test their prediction if there is no prediction to test for?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I consider my question to be well answered, thank you. Some parts of your response I rather expected, but all of it makes sense, and I believe you're right. Thanks again. May God bless you and your ministry.ChrisC 03:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Book of Revelation

Hi Philip, I hope you are keeping well. I was recently reading Rev. 16:13, I thought I might ask for your opinions on some questions I've been seeking answers to. I realise that the interpretation of Revelation is a very complicated topic, with many different schools of thought, so I'm not coming to you thinking you are any sort of expert on the topic (I don't know, but I will assume you are not unless and until you indicate otherwise), just wanting to know what your opinion if any is. So my questions are (0) what is your basic philosophy in understanding Revelation? (hyper)preterist, historicist, futurist, dispensationalist? a-mil, pre-mil, post-mil? pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib? (1) who is the dragon? (2) who is the beast? (3) who is the false prophet? (4) I take it that "three unclean spirits like frogs" (KJV) means, not three literal frogs, or three unclean spirits that literally look like frogs, but spirits that are somehow metaphorically or analogically or symbolically frog-like - would you agree? (5) do you think this passage is meant to recall the frogs of Exodus 8? I would take it that the frogs of Exodus 8 are meant to be literal, while the frogs of Rev 16:13 are meant to be more symbolic, but would it make sense to assume that the Exodus 8 frogs are simultaneously literal and symbolic, and thus the symbolism of Exodus 8 has something in common with Rev 16:13 - would you agree? Thanks for your time. ZackMartin (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2012 (EST)

I don't consider myself an expert.
0: I don't have a strong view, but probably lean towards a-mil because my dad does and I respect his views and that he leant that way after studying the issue.
1: Don't know.
2: Don't know.
3: Don't know.
4: Agree
5: Probably a reference to Exodus 8. I agree that the frogs of Exodus 8 were literal. Not sure what symbolism they might have had though, although there could well have been some symbolism there.
Hmmm. I don't know that that helped much. I once read a book on the different ways of understanding Revelation (at least some of the ways), written by different authors who each made their own case. After reading it I was none the wiser. Although I thought it would be useful in understanding the differences between the different views, I think it assumed more existing knowledge than I had.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 00:27, 27 August 2012 (EST)
Well, thanks anyway :) The funny thing I think about the book of Revelation, is that most Christians seem to fall into two camps with respect to it (1) they largely ignore it, (2) they are completely obsessed with it (and often with one particularly questionable interpretation of it). While there are people in the middle, they are few and far between. BTW, you've broken a lot of links with your software upgrade. Linking to astorehouseofknowledge.info/PageName used to work, but now it gives a 404. astorehouseofknowledge.info/?title=PageName works among others. You probably need to configure some mod_rewrite rules in your Apache config. ZackMartin (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2012 (EST)
I think you're right about Revelation, insofar as the apocalyptic parts are concerned, but there are also parts that are less mysterious and controversial which fewer ignore.
I realise that I've broken external links direct to particular pages (as opposed to the site and the main page), but I was hoping that there weren't too many of them. I don't have access to the Apache config, but I can change the .htaccess file. Is it possible to write Rewrite rules to redirect from (site)/(article) to (site)/w/(article) that won't also convert (site)/w/(article) to (site)/w/w/(article)? If you or anyone can explain how, I'll definitely try and do it. It was a real struggle to get done what I did, to the point that I wondered if I wouldn't have been better off leaving it in the root directory.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 18:58, 27 August 2012 (EST)

Vector?

You installed Vector? Please note that the sign-in page is misaligned. --Colonel Sanders (talk) 04:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I made Vector the default now that I've upgraded to 1.19.1. Thanks for pointing out the problem. I've now used the MediaWiki:Loginstart message instead of the MediaWiki:Loginend message, and it seems to work okay in both skins (Monobook and Vector) (haven't checked the others). Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
No problem. It seems to work just fine now. What exactly is wrong with anonymous editing on the "Leave a Message" page? These site upgrades seem to be a bit quirky.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
See here. Yes, I've had to change a few things with the upgrade, although overall it wasn't as bad as I expected, apart from the problems with moving from / to /wiki/. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see. It appears someone on MediaWiki replied. --Colonel Sanders (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. And I have now replied to them. It didn't help. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 09:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Fixed now. The second problem was a silly mistake of mine. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 10:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Not fixed! Another problem! Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess that is why my old bookmarks such as to Education in the United States did not work, which had me concerned. "Did ASK cease to exist?," but then i went to your homepage and saw the w/ before the title in the link, and was relieved to see all is well. Thank God for your faith, patience and commitment. Daniel1212 (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought that they still worked, although if you tried to edit you would have been told that the site was locked. Unfortunately I was unable to figure out how to do a redirect for every page. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

vandal

I have blocked two users and reverted some vandalism (goatse pics) you will need to extend the blocks if you want to keep them out. Vigilent Hamster - his mark x.

Ta. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
yer welcome. Thats 3 semi vandals I blocked. One was only using his own user page. One had what seemed to be real edits that got reverted, you might look at that yourself. I have just blocked for a day 3 new users with names that you might not like. You will need to extend the block, no edits were done with those accounts. Illustreous Hamster - his mark X. Hamster (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
User:trainmoor blocked indefinate - reverted vandalism but you should check. You may need to lock your wiki since no-one is watching to block vandals when they occur. Hamster (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Hamster. Sterling effort! Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
another user blanking pages, I have blocked him for a week and reverted some of the pages. Toffeeman seems to have done some reversions. I dont have time today to clean it all up, recent pages will show what has been done. Hamster (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. I initially missed it, as when I looked in my browser reloaded it's cache of the recent changes, and didn't have the vandalism (or reverts). Between you and Toffeeman all except one were reverted. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
can you hide some revisions ? a bunch of ascii goatse pics were posted. Hamster (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Done. I have blocked %Markman but not %Ghost, although I am pretty sure they are the same person. LowKey (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
good, I saw ace had cleaned up the pages but figured PJR should clean up recent changes. Of course if you would like to give Ace , sterile and I the authority we could just do it all ourselves ;-) Hamster (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks all. I can't see any actual reason to think that Ghost is Markman, other than the timing of their appearance. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
From memory the system descriptions from Check User were identical or nearly so. I looked into it because something else made me wonder if it was one person, but right now I cannot recall what that something else was. LowKey (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Email

Hi Philip, did my reply to your email get stuck in the spam filter once again? Thanks, Zack. ZackMartin (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the membership, Philip. ZackMartin (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Remove post with swearing

I am puzzled by your removal of a post of mine on Talk:C-decay dated 2013-09-24T08:46:07‎. I don't tend toward using profanity, and I don't remember even a temptation to do so yesterday. Could you send me a copy of my edit by email? I would like to see what line I might have stepped over, and there is probably some clean-cut content that I might want to repost. Thanks. —Awc 07:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, this is confusing. You didn't swear. The issue is the way the MediaWiki software works. The post before yours included profanity, which means that the version of the page with your subsequent post included the profanity. If that's not clear, consider a sequence of edits:
  1. A posts comment 1. This is version 1 of the page.
  2. B posts comment 2. This is version 2 of the page, with comments 1 and 2.
  3. C posts comment 3, including profanity. This is version 3 of the page, with comments 1, 2, and 3.
  4. D posts comment 4. This is version 4 of the page, with comments 1, 2, 3, and 4.
If I (as an administrator) completely removed comment 3 from the history, you would not be able to see the comment 3 edit, but version 4 of the page would still have comment 3 in it. And if you look at the history, you would now see:
  1. A version of the page with comment 1.
  2. A version of the page with comments 1 and 2. A diff between this version and the previous would show that comment 2 was added.
  3. A version of the page with comment 1, 2, 3, and 4. A diff between this version and the previous would appear to show that D posted both comments 3 and 4 (in the one edit), including the profanity.
As a result of this, the only way to remove the text of an edit from the history is to (a) delete the offending edit (or word(s)) (I'll call this edit X), and (b) hide every edit from the offending one to the one before edit X. (You can't hide the latest edit.) That is, hide all the versions with the offending content.
Actually, what I've just described is the way that old versions of the software worked. In those, the edits could only be hidden completely. If that was the case, my edit would appear to be the one that adds your comment, hence my edit comment that it was actually added by you (because I removed the previous edit, but retained yours, which there was no problem with.)
With more recent versions (including this one), however, the content, editor, and edit comment can be selectively hidden. You will see from the history that two edits had their contents hidden, but the editors and their edit comments are still visible. Hence the part of my edit comment about your edit was probably not really needed.
I hope that's clear, and I'm sorry it gave the impression that you were at fault.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Philip talks too much. Short version: I dropped an f-bomb and mother hen here had to protect aSK from course reality creeping in by oversighting it. Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[Edited by an Umpire]
did it not occur to anyone that editing the word out and then hiding the intervening edits would have worked ? rhetorical question actually Hamster (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes Asp, that is a (biased) short version, but it explains why I acted, not why Awc's edit was included.
Hamster, I take it you are pointing out that I could have removed just the word rather than the entire edit. True, and it did occur to me (was that the rhetorical answer you were expecting? Actually, I think that is a rhetorical question). But Asp didn't deserve his post to be there, plus it made the same mistake every other critic did of ignoring the context of the article edit. So even without the swearing, it added nothing to the discussion.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
But Asp didn't deserve his post to be there,... it's your wiki. what makes an edit deserving of being there ? Hamster (talk) 04:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Jesus wept. Philip, you're more wordy than an Oxford dictionary. What's wrong with "Someone swore and I reverted their edit; which made it appear as if your edit was edited out too but if you check the page you'll see it is still there. Sorry for the confusion". This is why talking to you, about anything, is an ordeal. I have this weird vision of you shunting around trains in your head while heading to the office kitchen on a Monday afternoon. A new colleague approaches you and asks, out of politeness, "How was your weekend Philip?" only to meet a head-long diatribe on every little nuance about how you went to a rummage sale. The newcomer wanders away 15 minutes later bewildered while Philips train whistle toots in his head reminding him to leave the station (the hallway) and get to the next stop (the kitchen). Ace McWicked (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks. —Awc 06:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

what makes an edit deserving of being there ? For one thing, being civil.
What's wrong with… Nothing, necessarily. But I like to understand things, and tend to assume that others might like to also. So rather than give a terse explanation that might raise more questions, I try and anticipate those and explain further. But you're right in a sense—many people don't want the longer explanation, and get irritated at receiving it. Like everyone, I have my faults, and giving too much information would be one of them. But I dare to think that for every person who dislikes my longer explanations, there is another person who appreciates the understanding of why something is so rather than just what is so.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 10:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
You mean uncivil like implying someone has a depraved mind because they make an editing faux pas? Sterileevolutionist story telling! 10:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
They are not really comparable. I have now replied on that other page. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Guten Tag

While wikipedia is multilingual and conservapedia maybe too, are there any plans, say for a German language edition of aSK, such as one in Pennsyvania Dutch, as most of its speakers are praciting christians. Would it be EnWisseschaftLager?-- Myrtonos+@ 05:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

No plans, I'm afraid. The main issue would be in ensuring it stuck to the goals, including the biblical worldview, without suitable people to give that oversight. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 07:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
But most PA Dutch speakers (whether Amish, Menonnite or non-Secraterian) are practising christians and surely able to give that oversight. --

Myrtonos+@ 07:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that there would be people who could, but part of what I meant was people that I knew I could trust with that. As I don't know any of them, that kind of makes them unsuitable. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Working on Sunday

I have worked both Saturday and Sunday - have I committed a sin on par with murder as per the 10 Commandments? Ace McWicked (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you subject to the old covenant? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
absolutely he is, no shellfish or mixed fibres either. Jesus said so. Hamster (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
So the 10 commandments aren't really commandments - just kinda guidelines? I am genuinely curious. Ace McWicked (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
No, that's not what I said. I asked a question. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 08:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
You've yet to answer mine. The ten commandments would have me believe that not keeping the sabbath holy is a sin on par with the other nine including murder. Is this so? Ace McWicked (talk) 08:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
My answer depends on your answer, hence my question needs to be answered first. But if you read my link and the Further Reading at that link, you shouldn't need me to answer the question. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 08:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
So the 10 Commandments are not all equal? Ace McWicked (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
No, that's not what I said. I asked a question. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 10:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Now you've piqued my interest, Philip. I would like to know what your answer is for a person who is subject to the old covenant, and what your answer is for someone who isn't. —Awc 11:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't intend to answer until Ace shows some good-faith attempt to read and understand, but you too can read the link and associated external articles and should be able to figure it out for yourself. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh Philip. You look so ridiculous when you carry on like this. He's asking you a simple question about your own position. Do you engage in this childish behavior when someone at work asks a question like this? Your wife? Ugh, dude. Anyway, the Mosaic Law article invites Ace's question. What do you believe? How do you act? Why are you so petty and obstreperous about this? You can certainly say your personal beliefs are none of his business if you wish. But you don't apparently act in a manner that suggests you have high regard for the old law, so I gather we're all curious now.
The Thinktank article is TL;DR for purposes of a question you should answer if you're willing without demanding someone read such a long essay. The others are a little more readable and say something, although I don't think it makes much sense there's enough to justify that Ace was asking a legit question.
The Arial article says none of the Mosaic law applies but that people can follow it if they want. I don't know why someone would follow a law that doesn't apply. I certainly wouldn't. A law that is superseded is implicitly revoked - it's abrogated by new authority and of no effect, the consequences of which these guys don't seem to be grasping very clearly.
I gather Holding's general point is similar. He says the old covenant wasn't officially revoked but it was superseded. He also says "some laws are universal moral laws. This includes do not steal, do not kill, and others. There is no disagreement that these laws should indeed be continued to be obeyed today, so we need not discuss them further." This is puzzling. If the old laws are of no effect, you do need to discuss them otherwise you're making things up as you go along except where your Jesus is explicit about what's lawful and what's not.
But he appears to pick and choose what old law he advocates following - in other words, he's capricious about it. Under the circumstances, at least to the uninitiated, it's difficult to say that there's anything objective about it at all if you can't even claim there's any explicit source. Attempting to discern what the law is under these circumstances seems pretty subjective to me. So Ace is just asking you what you think. That's not hard, is it? Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
this would require an in depth theological discussion. Many Christians hold the position that Jesus himself said the old laws were still in place. ( by not one jot or titel do I change the law) and that Jesus covenant only holds (new laws) when God the father allows him to establish his kingdom (which has not happened yet) You might as well go with big-endian vs small-endian, its just as valid. 14:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
if the mosaic laws do not apply then where is the prohibition against gays and forniication ? chapter and verse please ? Hamster (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's not so hard. It's revolting, but it's in there. My understanding is that, however you call it, Paul is expressing an authoritative view when he talks about homosexuality. Jesus may have said something too. But this just goes to show how absurd it is to claim that christians have some objective basis for morality, not that objective morality is possible or matters beyond their attempts to smear their enemies with absolute garbage like not being able to justify believing rape or murder are wrong. At best, they're surmising what their god might consider unlawful when it's not explicitly stated. Hardly objective. Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I am not subject to any covenant. The ten commandments would have me believe that not keeping the sabbath holy is a sin on par with the other nine including murder. Is this so? Ace McWicked (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh Philip. You look so ridiculous when you carry on like this. He's asking you a simple question about your own position. I disagree. I say that he's not asking a "simple" question, but a loaded question that he should know the answer to.
Do you engage in this childish behavior when someone at work asks a question like this? People at work do not ask loaded questions like this. They have more sense.
Anyway, the Mosaic Law article invites Ace's question. Not in the way he put it, no it doesn't.
Why are you so petty and obstreperous about this? Ask why Ace is so determined to ask something that he should know better about.
But you don't apparently act in a manner that suggests you have high regard for the old law, so I gather we're all curious now. Then I suggest that you understand the situation so poorly that you read things into my manner that aren't there.
The Arial article says none of the Mosaic law applies but that people can follow it if they want. I don't know why someone would follow a law that doesn't apply. I certainly wouldn't. Yet you think it's a fair question to ask if I do!
This is puzzling. If the old laws are of no effect, you do need to discuss them otherwise you're making things up as you go along except where your Jesus is explicit about what's lawful and what's not. That assumes that there are only two bases for such rules. I'll have more to say on that below.
But he appears to pick and choose what old law he advocates following - in other words, he's capricious about it. Or appearances can be deceiving. Or you've not understood him properly.
if the mosaic laws do not apply then where is the prohibition against gays and forniication ? chapter and verse please ? See my further comments below.
But this just goes to show how absurd it is to claim that christians have some objective basis for morality… I think you are confusing the concept of objective morality with being able to objectively say that a particular thing is right or wrong. Objective morality doesn't refer to the clarity of understanding, but to the lack of subjective opinion involved. It's objective because it's from outside us, not because it's clearly written.
…their attempts to smear their enemies with absolute garbage like not being able to justify believing rape or murder are wrong. So how do you justify believing that they are wrong?
I am not subject to any covenant. So you're not subject to the old covenant. Then you are not subject to the punishments that it prescribes, therefore you should not be put to death for it. Why did you think otherwise?
None of the linked articles say that no standards now apply. Further, the Mosaic law was a set of laws with prescribed punishments. That is, they say "X is wrong. If you do X, the punishment is Y". So if the law no longer applies, the punishments no longer apply. But that doesn't mean that X is no longer wrong. Holding's argument is that some of the laws were moral, meaning that X is still wrong. But that others were ceremonial, which means that X is somewhat arbitrary, and there's nothing wrong about X. A couple of modern analogies can be drawn:
  • Murder is wrong. Even if the law against it is repealed, it's still wrong.
  • In Australia, the law says that you must drive on the left. But that's arbitrary. Some countries say that you must drive on the right. Neither is "right" nor "wrong".
Fruchtenbaum is saying that all the Mosaic law no longer applies, but he still agrees that some things are inherently, or objectively, right or wrong. For example, homosexuality is wrong, because God designed us to be heterosexual. The Mosaic laws regarding this (and their associated punishments) no longer apply, but it remains wrong.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
God designed us If he did then he designed Humans to be bisexual and multi-partnered (gangbangs). If he had not wanted anal intercourse he could have made the parts incompatible.
if I come to Australia and drive on the "wrong" side of the road I will be arrested. That indicates wrong. It like every other moral code is relative to the society.
If absolute morality is whatever God commands, and God changes his mind, then how can something still be wrong ?
abortion used to be against the law in the USA. It is now not against the law. It is not wrong in a legal sense. If you argue that something that God does not prohibit is still wrong by what absolute moral standard are you using ? Hamster (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
You still haven't addressed what I am putting to you Philip. 10 commandments contain items such as not to murder, steal covet etc. It also states the sabbath must be kept holy. So is working on the sabbath breaking a commandment and if so is that as bad a sin as murder?
For example, homosexuality is wrong, because God designed us to be heterosexual So it is wrong by design and not by moral virtue? Ace McWicked (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
If he did then he designed Humans to be bisexual and multi-partnered (gangbangs). Err, no. Biologically, we are either male or female. This is consistent with Genesis 1:27
If he had not wanted anal intercourse he could have made the parts incompatible. They are. What you are talking about is akin to banging a screw in with a hammer. That you can do it doesn't mean that they are compatible.
if I come to Australia and drive on the "wrong" side of the road I will be arrested. That indicates wrong. No, that indicates illegal.
It like every other moral code is relative to the society. Which side of the road you drive on is not a matter of morals (although whether or not you obey the law is). But are you saying that slavery, cannibalism, murder, rape, etc. are "relative to the society", in the sense that it is okay (right) in some societies? Note that I'm not saying considered right by that society, but that you would consider right for that society.
If absolute morality is whatever God commands, and God changes his mind, then how can something still be wrong ? Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8.
If you argue that something that God does not prohibit is still wrong by what absolute moral standard are you using ? If you are talking about abortion, it's clear that murder is wrong, and it's clear that killing an unborn human is murder.
So is working on the sabbath breaking a commandment and if so is that as bad a sin as murder? It is not "breaking" a commandment if the commandment no longer applies. What I guess you are asking is, is it wrong to work on the Sabbath. Mark 2:27 NLT tells us that "The Sabbath was made to meet the needs of people, and not people to meet the requirements of the Sabbath". This was in the context of Jesus "working" on the Sabbath. In the Exodus 20:11 (in the Ten Commandments), it says why the Sabbath was to be kept, which is because God created in six days and rested on the seventh. So this supports Mark's reference to it being for our good. Jesus pointed out that some work needed to be done on the Sabbath, and a modern equivalent to his examples would include police and medical personnel. So the principle in this case is to take one day off in every seven, but not to do so as a strict requirement.
As for how serious it is, you could certainly make a case that under the Mosaic Law it was considered as serious as murder, but given that I'm judging serious by the punishment rather than the deed, that may not apply now. But it remains true that in one sense, any sin is extremely serious, as any sin will eternally separate you from God. Except for the fact that Jesus took our punishment, so He will forgive any who ask for forgiveness, and that applies to all sins.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
it's clear that murder is wrong how is it wrong ? society says murder is wrong but thats seculasr moral relativism. Christianity taught the 10 commandments as an absolute moral code given by God, but if those laws no longer apply then why is it still wrong ? Why do many churches still teach the 10 commandments as moral strictures if they don't apply ? p.s abortion is not murder because it is lawful, and murder in unlawful killing. (at least in the USA)
so Jesus will forgive all sins ? so I should rape, murder and steal because aGod doesn't object to them anymore and JESUS will forgive me anyway as long as I worship him ? good to know Hamster (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
What I guess you are asking is, is it wrong to work on the Sabbath. Well, no - that isn't what I am saying. But you have sorta answered me anyway. It is not "breaking" a commandment if the commandment no longer applies. So the 10 Commandments are now out-dated? You can pick and choose can you? Hell, why obey one yet state others are no longer relevant. They are either gods laws or not - by what criteria can you disavow one as anachronistic yet maintain the others must be followed? Coming from a person who decries atheists as having no basis for morals you comment is very revealing. What the hell are you basing yours on? Talk about making [stuff—edited by an Umpire] up as you go along. Ace McWicked (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
how is it [murder] wrong ? Because we have not been given permission to kill other humans, except in certain cases, such as the proper authorities executing criminals.
Why do many churches still teach the 10 commandments as moral strictures if they don't apply ? As the Mosaic law article says, different Christians disagree on how much (if any) of the Mosaic law still applies.
p.s abortion is not murder because it is lawful, and murder in unlawful killing. (at least in the USA) It depends on your definitions. When the Ten Commandments said "you shall not murder", it wasn't referring to a U.S. legal definition. It was referring to the killing of innocent humans.
so Jesus will forgive all sins ? so I should rape, murder and steal because aGod doesn't object to them anymore and JESUS will forgive me anyway as long as I worship him ? good to know Jesus will forgive all sins for those who repent, which means being genuinely sorry. Sinning with the intention of seeking forgiveness doesn't qualify as repentance. And this doesn't mean that God doesn't object. And it's not "as long as [you] worship him". It's as long as you let Him be in charge of your life.
You can pick and choose can you? That doesn't follow.
They are either gods laws or not - by what criteria can you disavow one as anachronistic yet maintain the others must be followed? That's not what I'm saying.
Coming from a person who decries atheists as having no basis for morals you comment is very revealing. What … are you basing yours on? God's design and His standards, not His specific rules to the Israelites.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
where in the Bible does it say only the proper authorities may kill ? In most of the laws it is the person directly affected , like a parent sassed by his child who is expected to drag him outside and kill, the husband who finds his wife not a virgin who is to kill her and dump the body on her fathers doorstep and so on.
God's design and His standards,... do please expand if you are not supporting the 10 commandments and all the other laws handed down to Gods chosen people. From a short distance it seems Gods only standard is "do what I tell you when I tell you" .
A child is not innocent by Gods decree. By secular standards murder has always been defined as unlawful killing. Hamster (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been worried ever since Philip informed us that homosexuality is wrong, because God designed us to be heterosexual. My uneasiness came to a head when he clarified that it was like banging a screw in with a hammer. Now, I have seen a man bang a screw in with a hammer, and I have to admit it is an abomination, but I myself am guilty of lesser forms of this crime, like using a wrench as a hammer or a knife as a screwdriver. I have a lot of reforming to do if it is wrong to use anything in a way for which it was not designed. My only ray of hope is that that only applies if God is the designer. It may be a bit difficult because I not only have to determine what something can be used for, but also God's intent when he designed it. Evolutionists would say that sex is for procreation, but also for bonding and maybe a few other things. Bonding between two people through sex usually is not coupled with procreation, and in fact might occur even when procreation is not possible, such as between homosexuals, infertile couples, and women past menopause. Let's get the word out. Sex over 50 is a sin on a par with homosexuality! I'm afraid though that this principle - that it is a sin to use your body in a way that God did not design it to be used - has even more consequences. There was a guy in high school called Foots because of the immensity and versatility of his pedal extremities. He even used them to open doors, a thing God did not design them for and therefore a sin. —Awc 06:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

using a wrench as a hammer is just wrong , but not as wrong as using a screwdriver as a hammer. Could your high school Foots guy have been a shaved chimp ? And yes, once you wife reaches menopause no more sex for you. Hamster (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
where in the Bible does it say only the proper authorities may kill ? In most of the laws it is the person directly affected… No, it's not. In many cases, it doesn't specify who. In other cases, it is the elders of the community, which at the time would have been the proper authorities.
My comment about God's design was intended to avoid the charge that the standards are arbitrary decrees, but have a foundation in something, i.e. in the way we were designed. However, you've made me realise that mentioning design only was not the best way of explaining it. Certainly God has given us freedom to invent and innovate, but by the same token, although we might use, say, an oven for more than cooking food, some possible uses of it—such as using it as a battering ram—would void the warranty, because it was not designed to be used that way. We have a "warranty" that puts some restrictions on what we can do if we want to look after ourselves. That is the sort of thing I was getting at.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you arguing now that homosexuality is wrong because it's bad for you? Eating too much chocolate is bad for you too, but it's not usually considered a sin. If you feel attracted to the same sex, and enter into a committed, stable, loving relationship with someone, why is that bad for you? I think in that case marrying someone of the opposite sex would be bad for you. —Awc 19:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
1 Corinthians 3:16-17
Most homosexuals don't enter into a committed, stable, loving relationship with someone, and many problems result from this, including the spread of AIDS and other STDs. And even monogamous homosexual relationships still suffer from such problems.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, heterosexuals never spread HIV or STDs and never have problems. Yay, heterosexuality! Steriledepraved mind! 12:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Even monogamous homosexual relationships still suffer from which problems? STDs? How does that work? —Awc 13:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, heterosexuals never spread HIV or STDs and never have problems. I was answering a specific objection; that wasn't the basis of my case.
Even monogamous homosexual relationships still suffer from which problems? STDs? How does that work?

The exclusivity of the relationship did not diminish the incidence of unhealthy sexual acts, which are commonplace among homosexuals. An English study published in the same issue of the journal AIDS concurred, finding that most "unsafe" sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady relationships.[1]

Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
That article (and I assume that much of it is accurate) nicely documents that it is not homosexuality per se that is a health problem, but promiscuity generally and certain specific practices like anal and anal-oral sex. If homosexuals are in an exclusive relationship and refrain from dangerous practices, then they do not have a problem with STDs. On the other hand, a heterosexual who is promiscuous and/or does not practice safe sex, is looking for trouble. If you want to say that anal-oral sex is sinful, regardless of who practices it, then you could build a case, but I don't see a rational case that homosexuality per se is harmful/sinful. —Awc 15:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The Bible (if you regard all of it as still in force) states that the practice of Gay sex is an abomination, deserves death and orders you to kill them. That might be interpreted as sin. Since anal sex done with some consideration of the partner causes no physical harm and introduces no diseases it would seem impossible to show harm. You can show that vaginal sex can cause as much physical damage. There is not even a serious risk of disease with oral sex following anal since its that persons own bacteria. Certainly any contact with a diseased person may allow transmission of that disease regardless of sexual orientation. Hamster (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Is the 'unhealthiness' of homosexual behaviors (or, being frank, certain gay male sexual behaviors, since lesbians and their behaviors are rarely brought up in these discussions) supposed to be evidence of their sinfulness, or what? Can other risky behaviors that have adverse health effects be attributed to the sinfulness of the behavior, or does it not work backwards? Give my the syllogism. Let's talk pork, the eating of which God forbid back in the day. To a 1st century BC Jew the eating of pork would clearly be sinful, and contracting trichinosis would be the obvious evidence that Man was not designed to eat Pig and would confirm the sinfulness and unnaturalness and repulsiveness of porkophagy. Gross. Look at those filthy Moloch-worshippers flaunting their greasy pork chops out in public, licking the juice off their fingers out in front of God and everybody. Bet they eat shrimp and oysters too, the perverts.
"Pish tosh" say the 21st century Christians, "we call that a dietary law, not a moral one, and it doesn't apply any longer. Plus, with sanitation and good hygeine we have eliminated the risk of trichinosis. Eating bacon doesn't make you sick, and even if it did it wouldn't be the wages of sin, it would be bad luck or bad food prep." Meanwhile our 1st Century Jew peers through the time vortex and observes the number of deadly human pandemics that have resulted from the close association of humans and pigs and the resulting viral crossover events. What further evidence could a rational actor need of the essentially sinful nature of consuming pork? Yet we modern degenerates continue to try to evade God's just punishment by cooking pork to 165° F and culling infected animals, as though God's design could be thwarted by such tricks.
Having sex with numerous partners exposes you to increased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Walking out in public and interacting with numerous persons exposes you to increased risk of non-sexually transmitted infections. Getting genital herpes is the wages of the sinfulness of fornication, but is getting chicken pox evidence of anything? What if I get it from touching an unrelated unmarried woman during her menses? What if I spread it because I ignore the color of the hair coming out of the sores on my skin, and don't remove myself from the community or walk around ringing a bell? Would I have have gotten shingles if I hadn't gone against God's design for me at some point; violated my warranty, as it were?--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Martin, just FYI a good part of the nasty response you're going to get from Philip is that his brand of religion doesn't believe that OT laws apply to christians. I reckon he'll use words like "strawman" and accuse you of misunderstanding or even misrepresenting his position. It's fun to watch, but gets nobody anywhere in understanding anything. Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, to the degree that I understand the position he has taken above, he seems to believe that the OT law and punishments do not apply to Christians, yes. So we don't cut hands off or stone witches to death anymore. The punishments are not applied because the law no longer exists to demand the punishment. But the lack of the Law does not mean that the acts are now acceptable; just not punishable by Earthly authorities. An ambassador commits a murder; he is not subject to local law and can't be punished for it by the host nation, but that doesn't mean that murder is OK. We trust that he is punished once he returns to his native land. At least that's what I believe his position is. It seems internally consistent at least.
So homosexuality remains morally wrong (as opposed to morally and legally), maybe because it was explicitly called an abomination in the OT and had clear punishments, or maybe because of a completely independent argument from design in which the teleological purpose of a penis is to go into a vagina in order to try to produce offspring, or perhaps some other argument(s) or a combination thereof. I take it that we are meant to interpret the potential adverse health effects of promiscuous gay male anal sex as evidence that the human body was not designed for it. If you accept that following or not following design has a moral aspect, then it would follow that promiscuous gay male sex is sinful, as opposed to 'unwise' or 'risky' or 'a public health issue' or 'psychologically damaging' or some other term. The same if you accept that the OT 'abomination' terminology still applies even though there is no Earthly punishment demanded. As I understand it.
What I don't yet understand is how you can have a modern Christian interpretation of the morality of homosexuality vs., say, the morality of keeping kosher that is internally consistent. I know that distinctions are drawn between ceremonial, moral, and civil by modern Christians - a distinction that was probably inconceivable to the individuals who wrote the Bible. I appreciate that Paul was interested in converting a lot of Gentiles who were skittish about getting circumsized, and his influence led the early Christian Church away from being a branch of messianic Judaism and toward something different. But if one believes in an extrinsic morality that we are only able to access through revelation in the Bible, there does not seem to me to be Biblical support for that distinction. Focusing specifically on the 'design' argument that I think PJR was making above, it seems that it would apply equally to homosexuality and eating pork or shellfish. The design of a human is not to eat pork, or associate with pigs. The OT has clear proscriptions against such behavior. Yes, a human can eat pork and digest it - it's not an outright deadly poison - just like you can pound a screw in with a hammer. We can interpret the adverse health effects of eating pork and associating with pigs (trichinosis, bacterial contamination, bioaccumulation of environmental toxins due to indiscriminate diet and high fat content, influenza, environmental effects of pig farms, etc.) as evidence that the human body was not designed to do so. So whence the surety that homosexuality is morally wrong but eating pork is morally indifferent?--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
chicken pox is a sign of an unsavory relationship with a chicken ;-) Pigs are forbidden because of the Demons they contain. Shingles is nasty, from chicken pox and a sign of a depressed immune system. Hamster (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Ears up, sinners! The wages of sin is death! Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
but Martin, the laws were given by the ultimate moral authority and were religious laws, not secular. Once God said they no longer applied then they were not punishable and were also not immoral. God never said (as far as I know) that these were no longer punishable and Jesus supported the whole of the law. Eternal punishment seems to come in with Jesus. Many theologists argue that the new covanant with Jesus only comes in with the second coming and his establishment of a kingdom. Hamster (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I do wonder where you got the idea, Most homosexuals don't enter into a committed, stable, loving relationship with someone. Anecdotally, I know plenty of gay and lesbian couples, some with kids from their marriages before they came to realize they were gay, some with adopted kids, some with kids from in vitro fertilization, some with dogs, and some just a couples, and they all seem happy. Some break up, too, just like the miserable straight marriages I know about. Not sure where you get these ideas from. Steriledepraved mind! 00:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I suspect a sexual behavior that is driven underground tends to move in the direction of sporadic and promiscuous contacts. With the legal recognition of gay marriage, relationships are being pushed back in the direction of stability and exclusivity. From my experience and what I know of the research, there is no correlation between sexual orientation and an individual's preference for wild sex or cuddling in front of a fire. —Awc 08:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, yeah. When the major message from society is that you should be ashamed of yourself, it is going to create problems. Steriledepraved mind! 11:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
That article (and I assume that much of it is accurate) nicely documents that it is not homosexuality per se that is a health problem, but promiscuity generally and certain specific practices like anal and anal-oral sex. But what is "homosexuality per se"? Are you drawing a distinction between homosexual preference/tendency and homosexual practice? Aren't one or more of those "specific practices" an integral part of homosexual practice?
I am drawing a distinction between different homosexual practices. Some homosexual practices are dangerous, others are not, just as some heterosexual practices are dangerous, while others are not. —Awc 15:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The Bible (if you regard all of it as still in force)… I don't regard all of it's specific rules and punishments as still being in force, as we've discussed earlier in this section.
Since anal sex done with some consideration of the partner causes no physical harm and introduces no diseases it would seem impossible to show harm. According to the link I gave above (12:47, 14 November 2013), this is not the case.
Is the 'unhealthiness' of homosexual behaviors … supposed to be evidence of their sinfulness, or what? It's supporting evidence of being sinful, as it is consistent with the biblical injunction.
Can other risky behaviors that have adverse health effects be attributed to the sinfulness of the behavior, or does it not work backwards? It can be suggestive.
Let's talk pork, the eating of which God forbid back in the day. And later okayed. Some rules were circumstance-specific.
You'll have to refresh my memory as to when God okayed this. --Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
"Pish tosh" say the 21st century Christians, "we call that a dietary law, not a moral one, and it doesn't apply any longer. I notice that you don't discuss why they might do this, and whether their reasoning is valid.
Where in the Bible is the distinction made? I would hate to rely on human reason to determine this sort of thing, since the Bible is the only current source that we have for objective moral truth. --Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Having sex with numerous partners exposes you to increased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Walking out in public and interacting with numerous persons exposes you to increased risk of non-sexually transmitted infections. So we don't do anything to minimise those risks? Or we only do things that are subjectively acceptable to us?
Of course we do things to minimize those risks. Handwashing, coughing into our elbows, wearing condoms, etc. Some people don't go out in public at all so as to avoid potential infection. But I think that you judge an STI as being morally different from, say, whooping cough or the flu, no? One is bad luck or bad hygiene and the other is the wages of sin.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Martin, just FYI a good part of the nasty response you're going to get from Philip… What nasty responses?
It's fun to watch, but gets nobody anywhere in understanding anything. Perhaps if you were interested in learning you might get somwhere and understand something.
At least that's what I believe his position is. It seems internally consistent at least. Not completely, but you're on the right track.
I take it that we are meant to interpret the potential adverse health effects of promiscuous gay male anal sex as evidence that the human body was not designed for it. No, you're meant to understand why there are adverse health effects: in this case because we were not designed for it.
Nor apparently were we designed for high-altitude mountain climbing, or skydiving, or freediving. Or smoking, or being overweight. Do you attribute the same moral dimension to those behaviors as you do to gay male sexual behaviors? Or are the adverse health effects of those behaviors not the result of our not being designed for them?--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Focusing specifically on the 'design' argument that I think PJR was making above, it seems that it would apply equally to homosexuality and eating pork or shellfish. The two are not the same. See my next point.
The design of a human is not to eat pork, or associate with pigs. The OT has clear proscriptions against such behavior. In a sense you are correct: we were designed to be vegetarian. However, being designed for a particular purpose does not necessarily exclude all other purposes/uses. It takes more to digest plant material than meat, for example, so being designed to digest plants doesn't preclude being able to eat meat. Of course there might well be other factors to consider, but that will illustrate the point. However, we were also explicitly told that it was okay to eat (some) meat. By contrast, we were designed to be heterosexual, and that has never been changed.
Wait. So we were designed to be herbivores but were later allowed to eat SOME forms of meat, contrary to that original design, because design for one purpose does not preclude other uses. But we were explicitly forbidden from eating pork, which was already outside of our original design anyway. Now according to you the law against eating pork is fulfilled or subrogated or some other term, so the punishments no longer apply and good Christians can eat pork without moral consequences, even though this violates our original design and was once forbidden explicitly, with punishments attached. So why, again, are the adverse health effects of raising/eating pigs not seen as the wages of the sin of eating pork? As an aside - in what way does it take 'more' to digest plant material than meat, and why would that be evidence that we were designed to be plant eaters rather than meat eaters?--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
the laws … were religious laws, not secular. No such distinction was made.
ISTM that any law handed to you directly from God is a religious law. If God says not to drive on the left side of the road, then driving on the left side of the road is SINFUL. Just because some heathen says there's no objective reason why you couldn't just as easily drive on the right side of the road doesn't make it morally acceptable to do so. --Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I do wonder where you got the idea, Most homosexuals don't enter into a committed, stable, loving relationship with someone. It's well known.
Well, yeah. When the major message from society is that you should be ashamed of yourself, it is going to create problems. In many parts of the world, including this part, the major message from society is that there is nothing wrong with it and anybody who disagrees deserves to be called names, reported, or locked up.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Wow. Feeling yourself to be a member of a persecuted minority are you?--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
You'll have to refresh my memory as to when God okayed this. See https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=2023.
Where in the Bible is the distinction made? I'm not an expert in this area, but I would suggest that, to some extent at least, it's self-evident. If the law is about food rather than, say, sex, it's a dietary law rather than a moral law.
Of course we do things to minimize those risks. Okay, so then my second question applies: Or we only do things that are subjectively acceptable to us? You didn't answer that one.
Nor apparently were we designed for high-altitude mountain climbing, or skydiving, or freediving. Or smoking, or being overweight. Do you attribute the same moral dimension to those behaviors as you do to gay male sexual behaviors? In those other cases, God has not told us that they are contrary to the way that we were designed. Also, despite what I may have said, the problem is not that were were not designed for a particular activity, but that we act contrary to the intent of the design.
So why, again, are the adverse health effects of raising/eating pigs not seen as the wages of the sin of eating pork? Because eating it is not a sin.
As an aside - in what way does it take 'more' to digest plant material than meat… Looking into this, it seems that there is a lot more to it than what the following quote suggests, but the essence of what I was referring to is this:

Carnivores … have short digestive tracts, good for quickly eliminating unnecessary mass and allowing a high-muscle, low-fat balance. Humans do not fall into the carnivore group.

Herbivores (vegetarians), on the other hand, need longer intestines to break down and assimilate tough-to-break-down plant fibers.[2]

Wow. Feeling yourself to be a member of a persecuted minority are you? Yes (to the persecuted part at least). So do you prove my feelings unfounded, or mock me for them?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 10:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Noahs Ark - edit comment

..."a plaque I saw" is inadequate as it doesn't say who "I" is.) I would seem to indicate the writer. Hamster (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

What's remarkable about that? Philip won't let a single edit stand that doesn't absolutely conform to his particular worldview. aSK cannot in any reasonable sense of the word be said to be collaborative. Philip uses a number of strategies to ensure that. Awc, for example, has been Philip's diligent dupe, writing content for him that he then picks and chooses from without compromise. The implicit reference to the author as "I" is exactly what you'd expect on a site that conforms one single editor's demands. Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Do we know who wrote the Melbourne Museum plaque? Steriledepraved mind! 16:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I would seem to indicate the writer. Yes, but who is "the writer" of a collaborative article?
Philip won't let a single edit stand that doesn't absolutely conform to his particular worldview. Correction: to the declared worldview of this site. So what's wrong with that?
aSK cannot in any reasonable sense of the word be said to be collaborative. On the basis that edits that don't conform to the site policy get removed? That's a non-sequitur.
Do we know who wrote the Melbourne Museum plaque? Does it matter?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Does it matter ? well no, it is simply an unattributed assertion that has no merit. If the author was known then his credentials add some weight as his professional reputation is at risk. Certianly you could argue that the museum curator is responsible for every display but do we know who that is at the time the display was created Hamster (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Does it matter ? well no, it is simply an unattributed assertion that has no merit. False. It's attributed to the museum. Not knowing the individual doesn't mean that it's unattributed, and doesn't mean that we don't know its authority.
If the author was known then his credentials add some weight as his professional reputation is at risk. And the professional reputation of the musuem isn't?
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts

I don't think anyone is getting anything positive out of any of the exchanges on your site that isn't outweighed by the negatives. I learn a lot researching creationist claims, but I can do that on my own and I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that there is no reason for you to engage any of us or vice versa. I cannot imagine what you get out of this. I believe you're constitutionally incapable of agreeing with non-creationists, but regardless of the reason, these discussions rarely go anywhere. More often than not, they lead to conflict and animus. They certainly don't advance your stated interest of having an encyclopedia. I hesitate to say it, but it seems to me that it's time for you to consider closing editing to all but creationists, or even close editing altogether. Just some thoughts to consider. Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

there is no reason for you to engage any of us or vice versa. Then stop.
I believe you're constitutionally incapable of agreeing with non-creationists… What a gross simplification.
…these discussions rarely go anywhere. Then why start them?
More often than not, they lead to conflict and animus. So why start them?
They certainly don't advance your stated interest of having an encyclopedia. I guess that's why you start them!
I hesitate to say it, but it seems to me that it's time for you to consider closing editing to all but creationists,… Why? It's only vociferous anti-creationists who are typically unreasonable; not all non-creationists are, by a long shot. Why are you judging everyone by your own low standards (of discussion)?
…or even close editing altogether. You'd like that, wouldn't you?
Just some thoughts to consider. Then please do. Consider them, that is. And decide that it's a waste of time you being here if you are not constructively contributing.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
What a gross simplification. Throwaway rubbish. Your record is clear, and it ought to be embarrassing how far you'll go just to disagree on principle.
Then stop. ... Err, you invite us here. I come because I care about the truth more than you do and I occasionally find your absurd style funny.
I guess that's why you start them! Ooh zing! Except I'm not responsible for your "encyclopedia" being a failure. I try to advance the truth. The fact that you're impervious to it isn't anyone here's fault but your own. The fact that you argue more than you write is on you. And before you tu quoque as you love love love doing, let me just point out again that you've invited all comers and I have no obligation to write your website with any particular frequency or at all. Implement 90/10 if you want to force people to "contribute," i.e. get reverted.
Why? It's only vociferous anti-creationists who are typically unreasonable; not all non-creationists are, by a long shot. Why are you judging everyone by your own low standards (of discussion)? Sigh. You're completely missing the point. It's the fact that this is even occurring that I'm addressing, not this snot-nosed characterization of the people you invite to your site. But leave it to you to duck and dodge. What if all of us were terrible? What does that have to do with whether you might consider making a decision in the best interests of your site? You got what you got. What are you going to do about it if you even care? Nothing - you'll argue argue argue, just like you did when you were getting inundated with spam for so long.
You'd like that, wouldn't you? Not really. I think it's fun reading as much of your hateful walls of text as I can stand before I walk away shaking my head. But talk about missing the point. I really am suggesting that you self-reflect ... Then please do. Consider them, that is. And decide that it's a waste of time you being here if you are not constructively contributing. Sigh. Oh Philip, don't tell me how to think and what to decide. As long as you leave the site open to editing, the only people who are going to come here to talk to you will be people you think are infected with devils or whatever your religion says about people who disagree with you. With perhaps the exception of Bradley, who rarely comes around despite being the only one you could rely on to be your second in command, you have alienated every single potential co-collaborator you might have had on this project. WP. CreationWiki. Conservapedia. aSK. Disagree with that if you like - but, the proof is in the pudding. I don't see any YECers beating down your doors. Do you? You would be lonesome without all these people to hate, but it's not serving your own interests. Like I said, we're getting more out of this than you are. Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I only just saw this. I thought I should set the record somewhat straighter. I have always struggled to find sufficient time for the likes of aSK but what in particular drove me away for a time was the editing behaviour of some anti-creationist editors. I fully support the ideal of this encyclopaedia, but my time is too valuable to me to waste in pointless arguments. I say pointless because the arguments become more about winning or being right than about persuading. Pointless also because they are old arguments recycled repeatedly as if never answered before. Since falling mostly silent, I have still been reading and occasionally sticking my bib in. The same meta-arguments are still cycling, and some of the same belligerent behaviour is still occurring. I'll still lurk, and speak up occasionally, but I simply won't bend over backwards finding the time for regular substantial input. LowKey (talk) 13:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
@lowkey : The remainig editors are not anti-creation as you paint us, we are pro-science when science is the subject. I am a member of one of the worlds largest Christian sects that are creationists, and the elders would love to strap PJR to the whipping post for his heresies. Its all a matter of opinion isn't it ? PJR on the home page says this wiki is about the world we live in, It certainly does not reflect the world I , Sterile, Awc, Asp or Awc live in, the Pope, the head of the Eastern Orthodox Jews, many Rabbis, Imams, Shamen etc. The Pope as Peters successor holds the keys to heaven, so why do you and Philip not honor his words ? do you claim better knowledge of Gods intent and will than Peters heir ? We in academic teaching in the USA are having to drop students from courses that the are unprepared for simply because they are not taught science in high schools, this site promotes that and encourages ignorance. You chose not to edit mainspace articles, no one says you have to argue on talk pages, simply ignore comment and carry on. The talk pages are really not aimed at yoou or PJR, they are for any serious students who look here for information. PJR told a group of editors they were unwelcome on this site, yet you can count active editors who are not from Ratwiki on the fingers of one hand. Where are all the CMI and other creationists editing ? maybe the views on this site are not very commonly held. Hail Bumba , God of Africa and creator of all , or at least wildebeasts and humans. Hamster (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I respond to this nonsense in the sub-section below, Response to Hamster". Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 00:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Not anywhere did I say that the remaining editors are anti-creationist, so you begin by denying a claim I didn't make. The rest is exactly the kind of belligerent pseudo-logic and poorly veiled personal attack which is not worth my time to address. I am simply pointing out that I, like other evangelical editors, have been driven from aSK by exactly those who now imply that such absence is due to something other than their own behaviour. I speak with knowledge as to why others left or simply stopped posting; I asked them. The reason that it is mostly RatWikians here is because so many of us could no longer stomach their conduct. LowKey (talk) 06:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Then please do. Consider them, that is. And decide that it's a waste of time you being here if you are not constructively contributing. Philip, you have essentially said that none of us can contribute because we will place the current state of science into articles. We mostly place comments on why your articles are faulty from a scientific viewpoint and occasionally why mainstream christianity disagrees with you. We dont vandalize and in fact we have blocked numerous vandals and spent considerable time cleaning up the messes.
where are all the YEC editors ? your CMI contacts and your creationist group dont seem to be supportive. You recently told a new editor that essentially you dont trust anyone to edit this site, thats not a way to attract genuine editors. Maybe the fact that no one seems to agree with your viewpoint is suggestive ? Hamster (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Mercutio. ... Thou! why, thou wilt quarrel with a man that hath a hair more or a hair less in his beard than thou hast. Thou wilt quarrel with a man for cracking nuts, having no other reason but because thou hast hazel eyes;--what eye but such an eye would spy out such a quarrel? Thy head is as full of quarrels as an egg is full of meat; and yet thy head hath been beaten as addle as an egg for quarrelling. Thou hast quarrelled with a man for coughing in the street, because he hath wakened thy dog that hath lain asleep in the sun. Didst thou not fall out with a tailor for wearing his new doublet before Easter with another for tying his new shoes with an old riband? and yet thou wilt tutor me from quarrelling!

—Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act 3, Scene 1

Steriledepraved mind! 03:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll eat my hat if I'm wrong about this, but I am fairly sure that Philip actually is getting occasional informal help from CMI in the form of Sarfati or another "creation scientist" ghostwriting for him. But other than that, CMI endorses aSK as much as it does Ken's Question Evolution blog. Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Throwaway rubbish. As opposed to your comment??
Err, you invite us here. I come because I care about the truth more than you do… I have a general invitation for those who wish to help, not to those who wish to disrupt. As for caring about the truth, I doubt that it's more than me, but the real issue is, what is the truth?
I try to advance the truth. What you think is the truth, but my concern is not with that, but with how you do it.
The fact that you're impervious to it isn't anyone here's fault but your own. Begging the question. Or are you infallible?
…let me just point out again that you've invited all comers… Only those who want to help. Vandals and spammers are not invited, and neither are those who only want to push an ideology that is opposed to this one.
Sigh. You're completely missing the point. It's the fact that this is even occurring that I'm addressing,… The fact that these discussions rarely go anywhere. More often than not, they lead to conflict and animus? People like you come here to argue and disrupt, and blame me for "conflict and animus"?
…not this snot-nosed characterization of the people you invite to your site. Accurate description is a better way of putting it.
But leave it to you to duck and dodge. Or address your points in ways that you don't like.
What if all of us were terrible? What does that have to do with whether you might consider making a decision in the best interests of your site? But is it in the best interests?
…your hateful walls of text… They are not hateful.
I really am suggesting that you self-reflect ... Coming from someone who is so convinced that he is right...!
Sigh. Oh Philip, don't tell me how to think and what to decide. So you can tell me, but I can't tell you? Of course not! You're always right!
…you have alienated every single potential co-collaborator you might have had on this project. I have? Evidence?
WP. CreationWiki. Conservapedia. aSK. Disagree with that if you like - but, the proof is in the pudding. What case are you trying to make by mentioning those other sites?
Philip, you have essentially said that none of us can contribute because we will place the current state of science into articles. Talk about spin! First, I haven't said that you can't contribute. You are very welcome to, if you do so constructively and without trying to oppose the worldview of the site. Second, "the current state of science" is your opinion, not mine.
We mostly place comments on why your articles are faulty from a scientific viewpoint… Pull the other one! You mostly attack me personally, attack other creationists, push unscientific evolutionary ideology, and occasionally bring in real science.
…and occasionally why mainstream christianity disagrees with you. As I've said before, I don't think the views you refer to here are as mainstream as you would like to believe. They are certainly not traditional mainstream Christianity (i.e. the views of Christianity over most of the last 2,000 years), and even only looking at contemporary Christianity, not as widely accepted as you seem to think.
We dont vandalize and in fact we have blocked numerous vandals and spent considerable time cleaning up the messes. With some minor exceptions, I do agree with that point, and that at least is appreciated.
where are all the YEC editors ? your CMI contacts and your creationist group dont seem to be supportive. They are all busy people and have their own interests. In other words, I'm disappointed about that, but I have no reason whatsoever to think that I'm doing anything to discourage them. Their absence is for unrelated reasons.
You recently told a new editor that essentially you dont trust anyone to edit this site,… I would not have said that.
Maybe the fact that no one seems to agree with your viewpoint is suggestive ? Nobody who is here? What does that suggest? Nobody anywhere? That's simply not true.
I'll eat my hat if I'm wrong about this,… I hope your hat is edible.
CMI endorses aSK as much as it does Ken's Question Evolution blog. Which is how much? I'm not sure that you'd know. CMI did promote this site once years ago in a newsletter, but beyond that I've not asked them to endorse it. So I'm not sure that says much.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I can only respond to part of this now. It's a busy day.
I hope your hat is edible. And yet you chicken out by throwing out more vapid garbage without responding to what I was claiming," which was only that CMI people help you with some of your posts. Is that or is it not true? Another example of selective tqing that amounts to nothing more than quote mining.
Which is how much? I'm not sure you'd know. I'm sure I would. (a) In private correspondence, CMI has stated that it does not endorse Ken's blog at all. By its public conduct, it does not endorse your site either. Fair enough on a private newsletter that nobody but members of your church of CMI would get.
but beyond that, I've not asked them to endorse it. Why is that? You're their biggest fan. They're your go-to resource. Not actual science news. Not PubMed. Nothing a responsible researcher would turn to. Just CMI. Teh Terrible Asp (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
You recently told a new editor that essentially you dont trust anyone to edit this site,… I would not have said that.} Remember this exchange ? I'm sure that there would be people who could, but part of what I meant was people that I knew I could trust with that. As I don't know any of them, that kind of makes them unsuitable. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If thats not esentially distrusting anyone I dont know what is.

so every person who reads CMI or is a member of your creationist group is too busy to devote even 5 minutes a week to editing a site promoting their worldview and bringing the true message of God to the unbelievers ? It must be very important stuff they do then.
you really should ask CMI to add your site to their links page, after all they already endorse creationwiki so why not you. Hamster (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
And yet you chicken out by throwing out more vapid garbage without responding to what I was claiming," which was only that CMI people help you with some of your posts. Is that or is it not true? Since I have to spell it out for you: It-is-not-true.
Another example of selective tqing that amounts to nothing more than quote mining. Nonsense.
I'm sure I would. (a) In private correspondence, CMI has stated that it does not endorse Ken's blog at all. Okay (assuming you're telling the truth), I guess you would know.
By its public conduct, it does not endorse your site either. Fair enough on a private newsletter that nobody but members of your church of CMI would get. CMI is not a church, the e-mail newsletter has a large circulation and is available to anybody who asks for it (so in that sense is public, and I'm guessing has a larger circulation that its magazine), and apart from a small body of "shareholders" (except that they are called "members" because it's a non-profit organisation), it does not have a membership list.
Why is that? Biding my time.
Not actual science news. False. Actual science news.
Nothing a responsible researcher would turn to. And yet they do.
Just CMI. "Just"? Only what is probably the leading creationist group on the planet.
Remember this exchange ? [snipped] If thats not esentially distrusting anyone I dont know what is. Wow! Talk about "quote mining"! First, I was not talking about editing. Second, I wasn't talking about this site (although you could dispute that one). I was talking about giving oversight to a different-language version of aSK, not about editing and not about this (English) site.
you really should ask CMI to add your site to their links page, after all they already endorse creationwiki so why not you. Perhaps I should. I expect that one day I will.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 10:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Response to Hamster

This is a response to Hamster's comments in the section above, of 20:54, 24 December 2013.

The remainig editors are not anti-creation as you paint us... This is such complete and utter rubbish that if I swore I'd call it something stronger than just "rubbish".

...we are pro-science when science is the subject. Which falsely implies that I and this site are not, despite the fact that it was creationists who founded science, which is still dependent on a Christian worldview. Rather, you and I have different views on what "science" is. I believe that it's a systematic study of the world we live in (i.e. God's creation). You believe that it's naturalism, a philosophical view that a priori rules out the supernatural, and therefore your version of "science" doesn't try and discover what happened, but tries instead to invent naturalistic explanations rather than correct explanations. But rather than acknowledge a different understanding of science, you prefer instead to misrepresent us as anti-science. Hardly an intellectually-honest position to take.

I am a member of one of the worlds largest Christian sects that are creationists, and the elders would love to strap PJR to the whipping post for his heresies. What heresies?

Its all a matter of opinion isn't it ? No, it's not. It's a matter of whether you actually believe what God has told us, or not.

PJR on the home page says this wiki is about the world we live in, It certainly does not reflect the world I , Sterile, Awc, Asp or Awc live in, the Pope, the head of the Eastern Orthodox Jews, many Rabbis, Imams, Shamen etc. Bluster. Dropping names is not an argument. And having just talked about being pro-science, you now resort to argument by authority-come-argument ad populum.

The Pope as Peters successor holds the keys to heaven, so why do you and Philip not honor his words ? A loaded question. As Protestants, we don't agree with the premise.

We in academic teaching in the USA are having to drop students from courses that the are unprepared for simply because they are not taught science in high schools,... What does that have to do with this? Especially given that home-schooled students taught by creation-believing Christians often have better results than their government-schooled equivalents.

The talk pages are really not aimed at yoou or PJR, they are for any serious students who look here for information. In other words, try and "poison the well". Hardly a pro-scientific approach.

Where are all the CMI and other creationists editing ? Perhaps Lowkey's view is held by more than just him. Perhaps you are actually succeeding in keeping them away with the editing behaviour of some anti-creationist editors, especially when they spout nonsense such as not being anti-creationist.

Hail Bumba , God of Africa and creator of all , or at least wildebeasts and humans. Either this means that the elders...of one of the worlds largest Christian sects... [that you are] a member of... would love to strap [you] to the whipping post for [your] heresies, or that you are (yet again) resorting to ridicule as a form of argument.

Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 00:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Trick or treat

Is trick or treating an American phenom, or do they do that in Australia, too? Steriledepraved mind! 12:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It's become more common in Oz in the last couple of decades. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Much MUCH more common, quite an annoying phenomenon if you ask me. TielecZeroOne (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Interpreting the Bible

Hi there Philip, I assume you are the creator of the site based on reading around a little bit and I wanted to ask some questions particularly around how you interpret (or don't) the Bible. Based on our conversation previously I think I kind-of understand how you read the Bible but I wonder how far you take this 'common-sense' approach. As an illustration: Isiah 5:26 talks about an 'end of the Earth' - I imagine it's a turn of phrase rather than a literal statement of fact, but what do you think? What about Genesis 1:16 which portrays the moon as a 'light'? I know there are apologetic responses for these verses that explain how their meaning is not quite the same as how they are read, but I guess I'm more interested about where and how you decide to draw the line on what amount of interpretation is all right.

If it's all the same to you, can I request that you not do the whole green 'fisking' thing? It makes your responses hard to read and to me comes across as a little more confrontational than I want the conversation to be; I'm genuinely interested here and not really looking to make a point (though if one does rear it's ugly head I'm sure I'll take a swipe). TielecZeroOne (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Another example might be the apocalyptic imagery in Revelations which only an uncharitable reader would consider literal. TielecZeroOne (talk) 08:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
In a nutshell, I understand the Bible in a similar way to any other text. Most writing contains narrative, metaphors, merisms, poetry, phenomenological language, etc. The Bible is no different. One difference with the Bible (compared to modern texts) is of course that it's context was (mostly) ancient Israel. So they had different metaphors, etc. than we have today in English. Another difference is that the meanings of words in different times and languages don't always correspond. And for that matter they don't always correspond at the same time and language. Take "planet", for example? What's the definition? Does Pluto fit the definition? Definitions change. In ancient Greek, "planet" was a "wandering star", because they noticed that these particular "stars" moved about the night sky in a more complex way than other stars. But what was a star? (a) a ball of fire in space? or (b) a spot of light in the sky? By definition (a), a planet is not a star. But by definition (b) it is! Definitions can be somewhat arbitrary (as in "planet"). So today a "bird" is a member of the aves class, creatures that have feathers (not a full definition, but enough for this). But in Bible times, a "bird" was a flying creature, so bats were included in the category "bird". (I mention this partly because critics often accuse the Bible of not knowing the difference, whereas it is the critic who doesn't know the difference in the definitions.)
Yes, Isaiah 5:26 is metaphor. Genesis 1:16 would probably be related to what is meant by (is a definition of) a "light". The moon provides light, regardless of whether it is the original source or only a reflector, so it is still a "light".
Regarding the "green 'fisking' thing", I only do it where appropriate (although perhaps a bit more than necessary), and in your case now I didn't think it was (that is, I wrote all of my reply to this point before I even read your request not to reply in that way.) When I do it, I do it because it make clear which actual point I'm replying to. Sometimes that's possible by the way I started this paragraph, but in doing so I've actually repeated the point that I'm replying to, which is exactly the sort of thing I do when I quote using that template.
I believe that I can tell when someone is genuinely interested (and I could tell you were in this case), and I respond accordingly.
Sorry for the belated response; I've been putting off responding to this page because of the amount of time it would take to respond to everything here (and I'm well past the time I should be in bed now. Fortunately, I'm staying at home tomorrow.)
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 16:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

SVG

Have you considered supporting scalable vector graphics (SVG)? Options of only png, gif, and jpg are not great, although png isn't so bad. Steriledepraved mind! 15:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I have considered it, and would really like to. But I've tried installing it and couldn't get it to work. I've had in mind to enlist the help of my service provider and try and get it done over the holidays (I've started leave from work this weekend), but my holidays are quickly filling up and I might not get it done. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Certainly understandable, just thought I'd ask.Steriledepraved mind! 13:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Take a couple days off

Enjoy a cold drink and your family, meditate, reflect, breathe, and enjoy life. Steriledepraved mind! 15:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
visitor navigation
contributor navigation
monitoring
Toolbox