“I can see through time!”–#LisaSimpson

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on September 19, 2014 by Anton A. Hill

So I got really, really high the other week. This is very rare for me. I’ve only smoked about five times ever. I’ve only gotten high, where I noticed it, twice. The first time was forever ago when I was an intern at a production company in Hollywood. And it was intense. But nowhere near this.

I was at a friend’s for dinner. He had the whole setup. The bong, the joints, the crackers. I don’t do bongs. Not since the first time. I hate the whole process around it, mainly because I’m pyrophobic, so the very notion of turning a lighter upside down and holding it on while I toke sounds awful and dangerous.

I had never smoked a joint. It was awkward. I’ve done cigars and e-cigs and that’s easy. But I got two good drags. I felt pretty much nothing.

Seconds later, my friend busts out the crackers. They seemed perfectly harmless. I ate five. Tasted just like Cheez-Its. I felt nothing again. My friend warned me that though I was not currently feeling it, goddamn would I.

Goddamn did I.

You know all those stories you heard in college, usually from your roommate, about feeling paranoid while high? You know how you thought those were all horseshit? That he, and others, were either being really hyperbolic or just lying through their teeth?

You were wrong.

Within moments of my Uber cab picking me up, I was convinced that my driver was going to murder me and make a lampshade out of my skin. I’m not kidding at all. Except about the lampshade part. I was so afraid of him killing me that I didn’t text my other half to tell her I was afraid because I was afraid he’d notice my texting and kill me.

For about 20 agonizing minutes, I had to repeat to myself that no, he was not gonna murder me, I didn’t recognize where we were because it was a route I didn’t normally take by bus or by car, everything was gonna be fine, and calm the fuck down.

Didn’t work.

Even as I exited the guy’s truck, l was sure he was gonna kill me. It wasn’t till I got inside and closed the door that I relaxed. But that wasn’t the end.

Oh, no.

Within minutes of arriving home and warning the better half that I was high, the shit kicked in. Full throttle. All the way.

For hours my short-term memory was completely blasted and I could not tell what was real, and the difference between what I was saying in my head vs. out loud.

It was so Memento.

I remember literally (yes, literally) sitting there talking to my wife and I couldn’t remember whether what I’d just told her I actually just told her or I just thought I’d told her.

At one point, she suggested I try to distract myself by watching a TNG episode on my iPhone. The next thing I knew, I was holding my iPhone for some reason. I heard her laugh and couldn’t remember telling a joke.


In my racing mind, I had all kinds of thoughts. Some pretty crazy. Which I won’t retell here. The point is, though, I honestly couldn’t tell whether I was just thinking them or saying them. But I couldn’t ask that because that would sound crazy.

I finally came up with a system. I deduced that if, in the immediate past, I’d done or said something truly offensive or dangerous, then in whatever given moment, I’d be experiencing the consequences of those actions. Therefore, the fact that I was not experiencing any negative consequences (other than the wife laughing at me), I could reasonably assume I’d not done or said anything truly awful.


I couldn’t remember this full process from one moment to the next so I had to come up with a single word that I could just repeat which would convey to me, in those passing and forgotten moments, everything I needed to know.


I repeated this to myself over and over. I reminded myself that no matter what fear I had presently, the fact was that were it worthy, “calm” wouldn’t be applicable, and yet that’s what was being repeated.


I soon calmed. And once calmed, I could focus a bit more. And here’s the point of this post. I admitted to the wife that I honestly couldn’t tell what was real or not. Whatever natural separator we have in our brains wasn’t functioning in me.

This led me to wonder, for weeks now, how do we tell what’s real or not? I assume there’s some switch somewhere. Some chemical. Some neuron. Something which, somehow, tells us, “This is real. This is not.”

This is what I found.

I find this fascinating because the religious often make claims of plausibility and possibility, often of miracle-claims or general god-claims. I find these debates useless because many of the standards most of us use aren’t truly objective. So then it gets down to what the individual finds plausible based on his own standards. And individuals believe some pretty kooky shit.

As unpleasant as some aspects of the above experience were, I actually look forward to future crackers.

(The supernatural claims of) #FengShui are #bullshit!

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , on September 15, 2014 by Anton A. Hill

But first, a definition of FS itself:

“Feng Shui is a system of aesthetics that involves the creation of harmony between people and their environment. At its most basic form, Feng Shui discusses how the Universal energy known as ‘Chi’ affects you. Chi enters through your front door, traveling throughout various centers of your home. If there is clutter in your home, the Chi gets stuck, and the energy becomes stagnant. This eventually affects the residents of the home in various ways. For example, feeling lethargic, fatigued, unfocused, or even sick are all results of ‘stuck Chi.’ In order to ‘free the Chi,’ the clutter needs to be eliminated and furniture needs to be moved. A Feng Shui consultant can be invaluable in helping you place items or furniture to maximize harmony in your home. Remember that you are reflected in your home, and your home is reflected in you.”

Let’s get the positive out of the way. A “system of aesthetics” is awesome. I’ve seen pictures of homes and offices that have been organized according to FS principles and it’s a very cool design system. When taken on those grounds alone, I say if you wanna pay for someone to deck out your space according to these principles, have a ball.

Onward… Continue reading

Thank you, #EthanHill, for recommending @PennJillette’s @bigthink video!

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , on September 15, 2014 by Anton A. Hill

My Conversation with Jamie M.

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , on September 15, 2014 by Anton A. Hill

Jamie M.
Nice. I’m sure you got under my skin because I am surrounded by those who chose not to challenge my intelligence and simply go with the flow of life. People who really think things through can fascinate and infuriate me all at once. Ignorance is bliss…usually those who choose to be simple will lash out when you force deeper knowledge on them. So…Thank you for the challenge. While I don’t think you and I will always agree, I find you to be “Awesome” as well.

Jamie M.
As for my beliefs…Its not like I haven’t been driving down the road some days and thinking to myself that as much as I’m certain there is a God and all the stories in the Bible are true, is as certain as the those in the past believed in Zeus and others believe in “Allah” and Mormons in that prophet and baptizing the dead and if they can be “perfect” they can become Gods themselves…I am not devoid of intelligence and find myself seeking out “proof” articles, historical documentation of the places, people and things in the Bible and yet even then, is it simply a very dated glorified book of history? And then I was pregnant a second time and realized that while I could take the side of total ignorance and believe in blind faith, and I could take the total side of demanding impirical proof and believing in nothing…there are people in life who see each other person as just bags of skin, bones and fat. While technically I want my surgeons to see me that way…much like a computer and every single symptom can be resolved biologically, I don’t want anyone else to view me as a human being as void of intrinsic value. I feel that intrinsic value lies within that “light” inside a person and my heart would break at the thought that the soul doesn’t contain that, and that this part of you would die with the body…so…I choose to “blindly” believe there is “more” to life and to death then I honestly can know, or prove, I don’t know what it is for sure, there are convincing sides on each side, but I want to believe in Angels, I want to believe there is a God…but the ultimate truths to me are this: NO ONE will ever know until they are dead. And if there really is a God, if there really is an omnicient being so perfect and so intelligent to create all this, why the HELL are we so sure our primitive, limited brain capacity could POSSIBLY understand, decipher, and interpret all that He/She/It has created and made available? Why on earth do we fight over things we will never know for sure till we either take that eternal dirt nap and nothing else ever exists or cross to the other side and find out well DAMN…it WAS true.?? SO…that dream I was confiding in Jeff? More of a personal want/desire/need…sure my brain synapsis probably fired off a simple dream to convince me of what I already wanted to believe was true…but again who is to say that God, in the whole “infinite wisdom” couldn’t have created that dream because he knew thats what could convince my silly small mind? Who says Big Bang and DNA and Science isn’t all God created and he’s up there smiling and laughing at us for trying to interpret his ultimate design? *shrug* Thats why I don’t judge you for not believing, because hell, you could be right, I don’t judge Jeff for believing because again, he could be right. And as for me? I believe in the Golden Thread…one simple golden truth runs through all religions, faiths, beliefs, and we probably couldn’t pinpoint it if we tried…we all have a small portion right (likely the “goodness morality etc.. part” but we also likely have the majority of it wrong. I’ll know when I’m dead I guess. Meanwhile the subject and the belief systems of others will continue to fascinate me.

Hey Jamie,

To be clear, I never challenged your intelligence. I have no doubt that you’re intelligent. I challenged your claims. It may not seem it, but there’s a very big difference. No, we may not always agree, but I find it’s through discourse that progress is made.

See now, you state both that you’re certain that there is a God and that the stories of the Bible are true. First, how do you know this, and second, are you referring to all of the stories of the Bible, or just the ones that seem reasonable? As in, do you believe that the entire universe was created in six literal 24-hour days? Do you believe that Noah literally built a boat capable of holding at least two of every single species on Earth? In both cases (and more), we know the earlier origins of these stories. I think they’re both Sumerian. In the case of Noah, I think there’s an almost 1:1 correlation between it and some parts of the Epic of Gilgamesh, though I’m not sure on that one.

You mention the historical documentation of the Bible. Are you aware that places mentioned in the Odyssey literally existed and exist? And yet I feel safe in assuming that you don’t think that Athena literally spoke to Odysseus. Also, though there are accounts in the Bible that can be corroborated by external sources, do you thus believe that such corroboration is sufficient evidence of the supernatural claims made? If you do, I refer you to the Odyssey and other semi-historical epic literature.

I take issue with your assertion that to rely on empirical evidence is to “believe in nothing.” We atheists believe in a large number of things, including, but not limited to, the value of life, love, happiness, compassion, etc. To suggest that a value of compassion, for example, necessarily arises from a belief in the supernatural is demonstrably false.

Your suggestion that to understand that humans are biological machines and thus devoid of intrinsic value is a false dichotomy. It’s obviously possible to find intrinsic value in lots of things without the hand of the supernatural.

I don’t understand why you say it would break your heart to consider that a “light” isn’t contained in a soul. First, I don’t honestly know what you mean by that and second, we know from biology and neurology that all that we are is defined through brain activity. This has been demonstrated. Why is it such a terrible thing to find value in what we have in our brains?

What convincing ideas are there in support of life after death?

If you consider yourself an honest person, which I’m sure you do, don’t you want to believe in things that are true rather than things that you want to be true? I want it to be true that if I were to leap off the top of the Empire State Building that I would land safely without a scratch, but the evidence for gravity is overwhelming. To deny such is completely delusional and useless.

Why do you want to believe in angels and God? What about those ideas is attractive to you? We actually know exactly what happens upon death. Brain activity ceases. End of story.

I understand what you mean by the possibility of an omni- God, but the question is, how do you prove this? By that same reasoning, I could justify a belief in Zeus and leprechauns because I want to believe in them. At least Zeus has direct, physical evidence of His power. I’ve seen lightning.

Assuming that “damn it was true” is logically equivalent to assuming that there is a Valhalla and that the ancient Norwegians were right. Why not assume that the Egyptians were right and that the area outside the Nile is the land of the dead? Better start building that pyramid. According to them, it’s the only way by which you get to Heaven.

I understand your feelings on your dream, but even by your own admission, you recognize that you employed the Confirmation Bias fallacy. You sought that which would convince you of what you wanted to be convinced and, surprise, you were convinced. You already recognize the testable possibility that it was generated by your brain. Thus, acknowledging the inherent flaws in your dream hypothesis and the inherent value in an empirical explanation, why even bother with the dream hypothesis?

The problem with suggesting that the Big Bang, DNA, and Science are the products of God is that they include a whole host of ethical questions which the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent,
omnibenevolent god doesn’t answer. For example, why would God implement a system that requires that sentient beings devour each other? Where the vast majority of all living things have gone and will go extinct? Where most of those living won’t live past the age of 20? Where most living will die of starvation, disease, and worse? And God knew all of this would happen before He created it. A God laughing indeed. The cruel, cosmic jester.

I appreciate the lack of judgement, but honestly, there’s no need and it’s a bit of arrogant presumption on your and Jeff’s part. You don’t take the notion of Zeus seriously and I wager you’d find the idea of someone who does laughable. Yet the amount of evidence for Zeus and Yahweh is identical. Zero. It’s only by sheer chance and government backing that your chosen belief system is socially acceptable.

I also find it pretty intellectually dishonest to suggest that *anyone* could be right. You don’t actually believe this. You don’t believe that leprechauns might exist. You don’t believe that Osiris may have died for your sins. And you don’t for exactly the same reason that I don’t believe in Yahweh or His family. No evidence.

I disagree with your assertion on the Golden Thread. That compassion exists is not a result of religion. This is demonstrable in the least in the historical appearance of religion occurring after the historical appearance of compassion. How do I know this? There’s evidence that pre-historic man took care of its elderly and weak at no benefit to itself. Compassion, kindness, good will, whatever you’d like to call these things, all have group benefits that outweigh self-promotion.

In short, all things that you’ve asserted to be good and attributable to a god are demonstrable through science. As for the rest? No evidence.



My Conversation with John G. (on #biblicalmarriage & @chickfila)

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , on September 15, 2014 by Anton A. Hill

Names have been masked. No formatting added.

Anton Hill Could someone please cite the specific Bible verse(s) that explicitly (not couched in other context) define marriage? I often hear the “biblical definition” of marriage, yet never hear the citation. Last I checked, Solomon had multiple wives & rape victims must marry their rapists.
Tuesday at 2:44pm via mobile · Like · 1

John G. Since you asked:
Matthew 19:4-5 (very similar in Mark 10:6-8):
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which amade them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 1 Corinthians 7:2:
2 let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Tuesday at 4:57pm · Like

John G. Ephesians 5 also talks extensively about the relationship between husband and wife.
Tuesday at 4:58pm · Like

Anton Hill ‎@John So when I said “explicit” and “not couched” I meant where the Bible says “Marriage is…” and so on like any dictionary. The reason I asked for this is the claim is “biblical definition”, and yet what you cited isn’t a definition without at least some

Now, if you’re going to make claims of “the interpretation of what the Bible says about marriage in an indirect, not wholly applicable kind of way” then yeah, you got me. But that’s not what you said.

You see, nothing in the verses you cited said “only one man and one woman” and said nothing prohibiting “one man and one man or one woman and one woman.” My point is that it is (presumably) your
interpretation, and nothing else, upon which the assertion of the “definition of biblical marriage” rests.

If you feel Ephesians gives an actual, no-need-to-interpret
definition, by all means lay it on us. :)

But even if you do, that still wouldn’t answer why it was acceptable for Solomon to violate the “biblical definition” and why it’s acceptable for rape victims to be for ed to marry their rapists. Tuesday at 6:24pm via mobile · Like

John G. With all due respect, Anton, I think you read only my second response regarding Ephesians, a postscript to the first set of references I gave (dang failure to hit Shift-Return to put it all in to one comment!). So I’ll point out just one of those already referenced: “let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” There’s absolutely no interpretation of that; it’s very clear, designating a man and a woman.
Now… you can disagree with that all you want, but the definition is crystal clear.
Now regarding Solomon and other Old Testament references, you’re completely missing the point that with Christ (as Christian teachings go – again you can believe that or not) a new higher law was brought in, and hence the Old and New Testaments are actually vastly different. But even in the Old Testament, they speak of wives and concubines, and though I am certainly no scriptorian, I don’t know of any references which speak of rapees marrying rapists. If you could point to a reference, that would be great.
And THANK YOU for keeping this dialogue respectful – everybody can actually learn from this type of discourse.
Tuesday at 7:39pm · Like

John G. Thanks, for your thoughtful commentary. I’m glad the sober Ben chimed in. :-)

Since you are interested in thoughtful commentary, I’ll address a few of your points here, and we can learn together and better understand one another’s viewpoints.

1. You think that the biblical definition is utterly irrelevant here. I have a very hard time seeing how this is irrelevant, because it is THE very issue that the CEO commented on, and the start of the whole thing.

2. And yes, I have known many a CEO to not impose his/her personal views on the organization he/she presides over. I have done so myself. And there is apparently no evidence of it in this case: thus far, I have not seen a single instance of where Chick-fil-A has discriminated against anybody.

3. I clearly misread your racist analogy, and thought you were saying Chick-fil-A is a racist organization. I apologize.

4. Just to clarify, you see no difference at all between a completely law-abiding, non-discriminating fast food restaurants and
similarly-law-abiding strip clubs, adult stores, pot dispensaries and the like? First of all, in the latter, there are usually zoning laws that govern this – these are already established in most cases. Secondly, I challenge you to drive down a street with the
latter-referenced establishments and NOT discover that the surrounding real estate has depressed values compared to where these
establishments are not. Thirdly, I think there is no denying that the latter-referenced subjects have at least some seedy elements to them, and indeed many parents do not want their children to be influenced those elements; the greatest influence a Chick-fil-A is going to exert over a child is that they eat like crap.
So YES, many right-wing Christians as well as left-wing liberals have been known to, I believe very appropriately, petitioned local leaders to not have such establishments in their neighborhood. On Planet John, these establishments cannot be any more different than night and day. On Planet Ben, they appear to be the same. :-) Which admittedly leaves me scratching my head.
There is no dis-ingenuousness in this; they are apples and oranges comparisons.

5. So all of THAT being said, points 2 and 4, above, I feel that it is absolutely wrong for a government official to use that power entrusted to him/her to ban a completely legal, non-discriminating,
unskilled-labor-hiring restaurant, based solely on the opinion of its CEO.

6. THAT being said (point #5, above), if a consumer wants to boycott such a restaurant, that’s completely fine. Likewise, if anybody wants to show impassioned support for the same, groovy. I mean, it’s not like we live in a country that forces consumers to purchase a good or service. Uh oh… I just opened another can of worms. :-)

7. Lastly, in my view, I think boycotts, for whatever reason, are a waste of time and energy at best, a self-inflicted punishment at worst. So long as a legal entity is providing a good or service that has value, I would absolutely make the purchase if it was something I wanted/needed, irrespective of whatever the employees may have. An example I like to give is that I absolutely cannot stand some of the causes Johnny Depp supports. However, he’s not in the business of said cause, policy, etc.; he’s in the business of entertaining, and he does that extremely well. It’s silly of me to not make the investment in his product, because he’s a great actor. Personal beliefs are irrelevant, at least in my book.

So there you have it. Thanks for the thoughtful commentary, as I said. I hope we both at least saw and understood a different viewpoint, even if we don’t agree with it. And oh… yes… I really DID try to understand your viewpoint that restaurants equal strip clubs/adult stores/pot shops… I saw it; just can’t understand the logic in the viewpoint. But that’s just me…
Tuesday at 10:46pm · Like

Anton Hill ‎@John Let’s get our mutual due respect on! :)

I understand my following point is ultimately one of semantics, but it seems to me that the clauses regarding “…every man have his own wife…” don’t mean “exclusively.” “Own” is a possessive adjective designating “wife” to “man.” The word contains zero connotation, implied or otherwise, that should a man have a wife, he should not have a husband or more than one wife. The phrase gives no instruction. It gives no prohibition. It only makes clear the indicative fact that a man does have a wife. It’s also not a definition in the sense that everyone means when everyone says “definition.” Of course feel free to disagree.

I’m so glad you brought up the Jesus-changed-everything argument because this is what Jesus said about that. “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

I’m surprised you’re unaware of the law commanding rapists to marry their victims. “If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.” (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

There are also several narratives in which God commands his people to attack towns, kill the men, take the women, children, and livestock, and enjoy the spoils. One is: Deuteronomy 20:10-14.
Wednesday at 2:26pm via mobile · Like

John G. Wow. What the heck version of the Bible are you quoting from??? The most commonly accepted version of the Bible, though still full of translation errors compared to original manuscripts, is the King James Version. And what you quote from Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is VASTLY different from the KJV. It reads, “(28) If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; (29) Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” That is, again, VASTLY different from “rape”. I can’t believe how many whack-job versions of the Bible are out there. And again very different versions of the other passage of Deuteronomy you quoted. The version you quoted conveniently leaves out going unto cities to declare peace on to them, but if they do not, then it is justified to have battle with them, and then to take care of the conquered people.
Wednesday at 2:56pm · Like

John G. Ben, that’s because liberals like to just do whatever they want to do, and never be obligated to take any responsibility for it. Instead of actually taking on any accountability for ones actions. :-( Wednesday at 3:24pm · Like

John G. The truth is painful sometimes. :-(
Would you feel better if I quantified that to say “most” liberals just do whatever they want to do without taking any responsibility for it? :-)
Wednesday at 4:43pm · Like

John G. Isn’t it true, though? Doesn’t the evidence suggest that it’s OK to go sleep around, and if anything bad happens as a result, there’s a liberal program out there to take care of you so you don’t have to be responsible for your own actions (even Obama by executive decree scrapped the work-for-welfare reform that Clinton brought in)? And isn’t it true, too, that evidence points to the fact that if you throw the bad guys in a country out of power, the liberals want to abandon that country and leave them on their own to go forward? History of such seems to be pretty supportive of not taking
responsibility for one’s actions. :-(
Wednesday at 4:53pm · Like

Anton Hill ‎@John I didn’t translate from the original Hebrew & Greek, so I can’t comment on the translation (though I can certainly find the KJV stuff later–though it itself is only what we’re used to, not inherently superior in translation), however I can question the divine wisdom of the verses I quoted.

Are you saying that a guy “laying hold on her”, banging her, and paying for her are acceptable social behaviors?

Are you also saying that if a foreign entity doesn’t immediately accept an offer of peace, genocide is justifiable? I question your rationalization of “take care of.” If such action were the goal, I fail to see the purpose of conquest in the first place.

I notice too, that you had no comment on my citation of Jesus maintaining the old laws and commandments.

My point is that whether the English “rape” is used is similar to how Christians claim that the lack of “have sex with” in Lev. 18:22, but rather “lay with…man as if woman…” still means “have sex with.” Wednesday at 6:43pm via mobile · Like

John G. Anton… Are you guys writing from London? You guys should DEFINITELY be competing in the Olympics, with the incredible leaps you guys are taking. Congratulations on your newfound physical prowess! :-)
Wednesday at 7:51pm · Like

Anton Hill ‎@John Interesting. I quote Jesus himself, your Lord & Savior, commanding that the old laws do not change, not even the least of them, and you have nothing?

You had quite a bit on the relative linguistic merits of rape and the social merits of genocide, but not one iota on what The Man Himself said about the ancient laws.

This is what I don’t get about Christian theology and apologetics. The Bible is either the God-breathed, infallible, inerrant Word, or it isn’t. You either can eat shellfish or you can’t. The old laws either still are in effect or they aren’t. Seems to me, according to the Son of Man, they are. So whence comes the modern, blasphemous doctrine that Jesus’ arrival changed everything?

Oh, and why was it okay for Solomon to violate the “biblical definition” of marriage?

23 hours ago via mobile · Like

John G. As I said previously, I’m not a scriptorian and don’t have scriptures memorized. And I’m now on the road, and can’t look up specific references at the moment. Christ himself, though, said that in him all things were fulfilled, in the context of Hebrew law. I’ll look it up for you at some point, if you’re really going to have an open mind about it. Meanwhile, you quote from multiple versions of the Bible, some that are vastly different from each other.
22 hours ago · Like

John G. Ahhh… I see. You’re quoting from Matthew 5, the Sermon on the Mount. Christ is preaching to the people, and he is saying that everything he is teaching will come to pass. But nice job taking it completely out of context. Perhaps another scripture in Matthew 7 is more relevant here.
22 hours ago · Like

Anton Hill ‎@John Pardon my lack of context. I’m not a biblical scholar. I’ll have to look all that up later.

As for translations, I’ve been quoting from the New Living Translation and others. If you have an issue with the NLT’s translation, I suggest you take it up with the publishers. Though I do question the basis of your (implied) assertion that the KJV is more valid than other translations. More popular doesn’t equal more valid. Certainly not in linguistic theory.

No word yet on Solomon’s violation of the “biblical definition” of marriage? 20 hours ago via mobile · Like

John G. Actually, people who ARE biblical scholars pretty much universally agree that the KJV is the most correct translation, though it is still full of errors. There are numerous versions that have been “modernized” to supposedly be easier to understand. The problem is, though, that so many verses are interpreted completely differently in these versions (ie. sex being interpreted as rape). Anyway… why are we debating the biblical definition of marriage??? It’s really clear: a man and a woman. There’s even a verse that says he shall take a woman to wife and to cleave unto her and none else (I’m paraphrasing, and not looking at the actual verse on my BlackBerry). Can it be any more clear?
And Solomon? Again, Christ himself said (in just a few verses before the verses you quoted) that he came to fulfill the law. The Old and New Testaments have different laws, as Christ came to fulfill the law. But no matter what I say, you seem to trample it, so I’m not really interested in continuing this dialogue.
19 hours ago · Like

Anton Hill ‎@John I agree that we could debate the relative merits of various Bible translations forever, but I’m neither equipped nor interested.

I took you up on your point on context. I read the Sermon on the Mount. I’m seeing what you were pointing out, but it’s still very confusing. Yes, in M 5:17, Jesus first says he didn’t come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. But then in M 5:18, he says not one bit passes the law until it’s been fulfilled. But if he’s come to fulfill it, what’s the point of mentioning the old law he’s now fulfilled? Then, in 19, he also says that we still have to obey all the old laws and if you break the least of them, you’re the least in Heaven (though, oddly, you don’t go to Hell?). And there are other
problematic verses like L 16:17 which seem to suggest that Jesus’ arrival is irrelevant to the need to keep the old law. See? No trampling. :)

My point on Solomon is simply that obviously one of God’s chosen didn’t find it particularly necessary to follow the law. That Jesus allegedly changed the law is irrelevant to Solomon’s life as Solomon lived before Jesus and was thus bound to different laws.

I’ve debated the “biblical definition” of marriage because, while it’s not wholly inconsistent in the Bible, I’ve not yet heard convincing evidence that supports the strength of your or any others’ absolute convictions. The conviction is “The biblical definition of marriage is one man to one woman” yet nowhere in what you’ve quoted does it actually, literally say that. No commandment. No instruction. If it were so important to God, tantamount to respect for parents, no lying, and no stealing, you’d think there’d be a specific commandment. All that you’ve said is your (and others’) interpretation. The facts are that yes, many examples of marriage are given that include only one man and only one woman, but so too, as you’ve admitted, do marriages to more than one person exist, etc. So to claim an absolute morality based on a non-absolute moral law is at least inconsistent.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 330 other followers

%d bloggers like this: