Slapdown at the Kos Korral

Via Michelle Malkin we find this fascinating thread in the comments at Daily Kos.

It seems that Mother Sheehan was feeling a tad put-upon by recent news that took some of the spotlight off of her grandstanding grief, and posted thusly:

i am watching cnn and it is 100 percent rita...even though it is a little wind and a little rain...it is bad, but there are other things going on in this country today...and in the world!!!!

by CindySheehan on Sat Sep 24th, 2005 at 06:29:15 PDT

In case you missed the news, Hurricane Rita was just "a little wind and a little rain," and it was monopolizing CNN for a little while.  Poor, neglected Cindy.

There you go, folks.  That's Mother Sheehan in all her grief-stricken glory.  I can't add a thing.

But what's truly remarkable is the response she gets from her fellow Kossacks:

it is 100 percent rita...even though it is a little wind and a little rain

I'm in Southeast Texas with family on the coast and in Lake Jackson, LA.

I'd like you to tell us it's just a little wind and rain. They've lost their homes, jobs and businesses and gone through fear and panic while you bask in your fan's adulation, party with your celebrity friends and play the star.

Shame on you, you're jealous of media coverage of other's suffering. You've become a caricature and I no longer support you. I'm ashamed I ever did.

Incredible.  She receives a smackdown worthy of the WWF.  It goes on and on, if you care to read it.

Real common sense from the left!  Will wonders never cease?  There may be hope for the Democratic Party yet.

Or not.  We'll see.

Comments

[Rob]

A little wind and a little rain? Maybe Cindy should quit her freeloading and come work our claim call center here at the insurance company I work at. There is a very real death-toll resulting from Rita. So glad this "grieving mother" can trivialize that as a "little wind and a little rain". You go Cindy. No, really, go.

[Phoenix]

How in the hell did she manage to escape Darwin's waiting room?

[Obi-Wan]

Dang, Phoenix, you had to bring up Darwin.

And the only joke I can think of about that would be in such poor taste that even I won't make it.

[Phoenix]

I'll make it for you. That photograph of Cindy Sheehan smiling with her head smashed against JJ's back? They both look like apes who missed the train to Evolution Central. How's that? That image so revolts me that I refuse to worry about who I insult with my lack of 'grace'.

[Rob]

I'm surprised Obi didn't take the opportunity to use that picture as iron-clad evidence against Intellegent Design. I mean, what All-knowing All-powerful designer would allow those two to happen? (there's a simple answer, of course, but I'll let Obi have a point after the severe beating I inflicted on him in our last debate) ;-)

[Phoenix]

Severe beating over I.D.? How can that be? Reason trumps all religion.

[Obi-Wan]

but I'll let Obi have a point after the severe beating I inflicted on him in our last debate) ;-)

Huh? Beating? I don't remember no beating. :o) And I'll bet you don't have that circle down to Planck length yet, huh, dooya? Well?

[Rob]

Planck length? Not yet.. :-} I DO have a CD with 1.6 billion digits and I even made a mini-cd with 400 million digits of pi for those emergency "Area of a circle" problems that always seem to crop up.

Still working on "Rob's theory of gravitational anomolies". Desperately trying not to hijack this thread since the subject of the original post is so lothsome. Maybe you can post a new subject, like maybe the one where Harvard University is funding a study on the "Real Origin of Life". Or maybe "Scientist disagree over amount of Dark Matter in Universe, or if there even is any". Or something like that.. :-}

Reason trumps all religion
Are you serious? Where do you think reason came from?

[Steel]

Rob ... I suppose you are going to say GOD pulled it out of his ass? If THAT'S the case then perhaps you can tell me why he had stupid humans write HIS book and run the risk of losing a bit throught the translation. Is THAT the action of a 'reasonable' BEING?

[Obi-Wan]

[Moderator mode]

I welcome debate of nearly any kind here, but if we're going to get into a religious (or any other kind) debate, please keep it civil. No profanity, no ad hominem, no "feces flinging" please. Just the facts, ma'am. Or sir.

[/Moderator mode]

[Rob]

Check the history. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found there was a copy of the book of Daniel. It predated the previous oldest copy know by about 700 years. When compared against eachother, there were only 7 letter differences found. ie, colour instead of color (in Hebrew, of course). Other than that they were letter perfect. Doesn't seem like anything was lost to me....

[Phoenix]

Reason trumps all religion. REASON: The power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways. Something that supports a conclusion or explains a fact - a piece of information presented as having objective reality - in fact: in truth. A priori knowledge. Now, nothing here can explain GOD. You cannot get to truth without reason. Truth is reality.

[Obi-Wan]

(My apologies for this being much later that I meant to answer you guys here!)
_____________________________

(Phoenix) Reason trumps all religion

(Rob) Are you serious? Where do you think reason came from?

Now that was an interesting statement (given in the form of a question). I'm interested in what you meant by that, or exactly where you are saying that reason came from.
_____________________________

(Rob) Check the history...When compared against each other, there were only 7 letter differences found. ie, colour instead of color (in Hebrew, of course). Other than that they were letter perfect. Doesn't seem like anything was lost to me....

This is true, for this particular case. Of course, it doesn't address what may have happened before or after that particular time period. What it does demonstrate is that it was quite possible for the scriptures to be faithfully transcribed over this 700-year period.

But to be fair, Steel was talking about losing information in translation, not in transcription over time (which is another issue). But I'm not too worried about translation--that's why everyone who gets a theology degree learns Greek and Hebrew.

So, since I've already hijacked this thread beyond all recognition, let me throw out another question regarding possible "changes" in the bible over time: why are there two different creation stories in Genesis, and why do they contradict each other? (cf. the first story in Gen. 1:1-2:3 with the second story in Gen. 2:4-25.) For example, was Adam created before or after plant life? Before or after animal life? Was Eve created at the same time as Adam, or later, and was that before or after animal life was created?

In short, how can the second story be reconciled with the first one? Is this an example of a story/legend being added later to the original story?

I hope I've asked these questions in a non-contentious manner, because it's VERY important to me that debates in this forum be respectful, civil, rational, and something that we--and others--can learn from.

Remember what TheMasterTimekeeper said:

"Oh my stars and garters. An honest, polite, and intellectually sound debate about the origins of the universe... and there's no name-calling or feces-flinging! I'm bookmarking this."

That's what I want to happen, over and over, at Forward Biased! And I thank everyone who has commented so far for their help in reaching that goal.

(Sorry for the rant. I'm not criticizing you all--only emphasizing the "rules.")

[Obi-Wan]

Oh--forgot these:

I DO have a CD with 1.6 billion digits and I even made a mini-cd with 400 million digits of pi for those emergency "Area of a circle" problems that always seem to crop up.

Dang. I can't even come close to competing with this. As I said before, I bow before your Alpha Geekness!

Desperately trying not to hijack this thread

Heh. That's my job, dude. Haven't you noticed? ;o)

Maybe you can post a new subject, like maybe the one where Harvard University is funding a study on the "Real Origin of Life"

Do you have a link for that? I haven't heard of that one yet. Thanks.

[Phoenix]

Here's a biblical story that stops me. Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel. Cain killed Abel and Adam and Eve sent him away. So, Adam and Eve are the first humans. But Cain comes across a tribe in the desert and they become the Israelites. If Adam and Eve were the first two humans, where did this tribe come from?

[Obi-Wan]

Phoenix, do you happen to remember where (chapter and verse) that is in the bible? Or anything else about the story that might help me locate it? Thanks.

[Rob]

If Adam and Eve were the first two humans, where did this tribe come from?

Genesis 1:28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.."
They did just that. Do you know how long Adam lived?

Genesis 5:1 ...So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.
Time for quite a few children. And grand-children. And on and on. No big stretch there.
As for Genesis 1 and 2 being inconsistant, Try this. (which I found via Google) The main source of most alleged inconsistancies seems to be in the english translations. The original text is inerrant, but the translations provide all manner of opportunity for these things. One thing I learned from googling this topic is that most serious Bible apologists won't even acknowledge you unless you cite from original texts.

As for the Harvard story, google for it.. I found a ton of stories on it. (I see 2 era's in the Internet... BG and AG. Before Google and After Google) :-}

[Phoenix]

"Genesis 1:28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.." They did just that. Do you know how long Adam lived?" Who is God talking to here? Adam and Eve? The first two humans on earth? 'They did just that.' So, that would mean we all have the same DNA? Cool. But where did that tribe in the desert come from. The tribe Cain joined up with? "Genesis 5:1 ...So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died. Time for quite a few children. And grand-children. And on and on. No big stretch there." I see Adam lived 930 years. "No big stretch there." Sounds like quite a stretch to me considering all his progeny lived from 30 years per life span to the current 79.5 for modern man. Did Eve live 930 years? If I am to believe this story, I have to accept that incest promulgated the population of this planet. I choose not to believe that. If we had a planet with no people on it, it would take FOUR couples to populate the planet without inbreeding. As well, if Adam 'filled' the earth, how does the Bible account for the different races?

[Rob]

Look at all of the "Generations of Adam" (hint, do a google search on that and look for a chart). All early generations lived that long. Methusela being the most famous at 969 years. It wasn't until after the flood that God cranked down the life expectancy to under 120. In fact, Adam and Eve had Seth when Adam was 130 years old. Lots of room for lots and lots of kids in the meantime and their kids and on and on. That's where the other tribe came from. And if all mankind coming from 1 couple bothers you, after the flood it happened again, with the earth re-populating from Noah and his 3 sons and their wives.

Different races came from mans attempt to build a tower to Heaven. God smacked down that attempt by "diversifying" men so that they couldn't understand eachother.

Genesis 11 6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. 8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. 9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

[Obi-Wan]

Rob, I looked at your link to the "Bible Difficulties" page. Unfortunately, it either does not address the problems I mentioned, or it outright misstates what scripture says.

Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made.

really close look at what the bible actually says).

Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created.

Oh, oh. The apologist says the animals merely weren't mentioned until 2:19. Let's take a close look at what it says. (Gen. 2:19-20 NASB, which is what I have handy)

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them...but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.

Note the phrase "will make him a helper," not "will find him a helper" out of creatures already made. Looks to me like the plain meaning of the text is that this is when the animals and birds were created, specifically in response to Adam's need for a "helper." To say the animals were merely "mentioned" here, and had already been created earlier, looks like a severe case of twisting the words to make them say what you want them to say, not what they naturally mean. This page, found when googling for the Hebrew text, is no better--it glosses over the "difficulties" without really addressing them at all.

What it does do is "eliminate" the difficulties, sort of, by claiming that the words "planted" in 2:8 and "formed" in 2:19 should be past perfects instead of past tense, reading "had planted" and "had formed" respectively. This would indeed solve most of the problem.

The thing is, if that is indeed the proper rendering of the Hebrew text, why don't any of the accepted bible translations that are respected for accuracy render it that way?

Maybe it's because the claim that the original Hebrew reads like this is based less on real scholarship, and more on a (desperate?) need to make the problem go away.

[Phoenix]

How very pluperfect of you, Obi. Rob, your story confounds me deeply. Broken down into what little 'reality/reason' I can glean from it, God let people live almost a thousand years each and then said, 'Aww, this isn't going to work.... Now man will only live thirty years.' Why? As for Cain, by your account, he hung around the homestead, the Garden of Eden, for almost 800 years after Adam banished him? Cain didn't take orders very well, did he? So, Cain hung around while his parents made him a tribe to meet in the desert so he could establish the Israelites? Then God got tired of them misbehaving and produced the second-chance generation out of Noah having sex/babies with his sons' three wives while the wives were supposedly having sex/babies with their respective husbands. How utterly disgusting. I can't buy into the Tower of Babel thing. Sounds as if political correctness has been around a lot longer than I thought. And worse, that racism has been around a lot longer than I thought and that it was sanctioned by God. Sounds to me as if God messed up some stuff. In the long run, with that Tower of Babel thing, God made it so that cultural diversity, a huge component of many wars throughout history, would guarantee people would kill one another. Nice. Considering all that is going on in today's world, why hasn't God created another flood to wipe out everyone and do a third-chance generation to get it right?

[Rob]

Wow, now that was confusing. :-} I don't think I'm going to be able to help you. You're reading way too far into why I typed. Can I suggest something? Read the Bible yourself. You're arguing against my summary of the Genesis account and that's not doing us any good. I am the mother of all Straw-men. (that didn't sound good) You don't have to read the whole thing, don't think I'm trying to pull something over on you. ;-) Just read the first 8 or 10 chapters. (they go fast). Here is one online.

[Obi-Wan]

Phoenix,

How very pluperfect of you, Obi.

Heh...I actually don't know how to take that. Mainly because I don't know what it means. ;o)

As to your objections, as Rob said:

You're arguing against my summary of the Genesis account and that's not doing us any good.

Actually, that's true. Just as I complain that some people don't actually read and understand something we're debating (e.g. evolution), you should read the actual text for yourself before drawing conclusions about it.

Most of the problems you mentioned don't bother me much. It's the big things that bother me, such as genetics; if we are all descended from one couple, and/or later on descended from a single man and his sons, then all men on earth would have the same Y chromosome.

The Y chromosome is passed from a father to his male children without change, unless there is a genetic defect of some kind. Otherwise each man has the Y chromosome his father had, and they're identical.

Of course, we don't all have the same Y chromosome, far from it. Very far from it.

And it's pathetic how far this thread has drifted, isn't it? Some moderator I am... ;o)

[Phoenix]

Rob, I took a course in the three major religions of the world and another course on the history of western civilization. I also have a book that breaks down the Bible for easy interpretation. But, for my above comment, I went on exactly what you stated, line by line. I thought your commentary was REALLY confusing; you thought mine was. :) The question still remains: Are Adam and Eve the sole ancestors of every person on the planet? That would include Noah and his three sons and three wives. And... why did he let them live almost a thousand years? I remember singing a song in Sunday school that had the refrain: "Because the Bible tells me so." I don't want to go read the Bible. I want you to tell me. Obi - threads are supposed to wander far afield. :) It's because of this fun thing our minds do called association. Pluperfect is a tense. It was in response to you pointing out the matter of future and past tense in your commentary above. Here is it right out of the dictionary: "Main Entry: plu·per·fect Pronunciation: "plü-'p&r-fikt Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English pluperfyth, modification of Late Latin plusquamperfectus, literally, more than perfect Date: 15th century 1 : PAST PERFECT 2 : utterly perfect or complete - pluperfect noun" I like the part about 'more than perfect'. :)

[Phoenix]

Boy, that lack of paragraphing sure messes up my writing. I don't know how to insert those

things. If I don't need the dot, whydya put the dot in there? I'm a computer doltess. Big time.... :)