gnumatt.org: Comments

Wow. very interesting. but why...

Benimation — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 12:43:13 GMT

Wow. very interesting. but why is U = 1/0 called an absurd number nowadays?

A comparison of religions is...

Lola Celibataire — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:54:45 GMT

A comparison of religions is good even if it can be dangerous. But it's always interesting to have such a good point on it. So i guess, thanks!

Posted to: Intelligent design doesn't jive with the Torah and Quran

I read that article as...

Sandra Kinderchat — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:25:37 GMT

I read that article as well and found it really interesting becase the author make you think about the differces among relaigions and show the reader the real meaning of them...

Posted to: Intelligent design doesn't jive with the Torah and Quran

Wow what an interesting little...

Joe — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:19:46 GMT

Wow what an interesting little post! Never knew the origin of absurd before... a fact to whip out over dinner no doubt.

Posted to: Absurd Numbers

I have always wanted to...

Luke — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:27:53 GMT

I have always wanted to see the High Five interchange, it seems so magnificent. I like David's description, he depicts it well.

Posted to: David Byrne meets the High-5

Really interesting post. Thx...

Freelancer München — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:13:15 GMT

Really interesting post. Thx

Posted to: Intelligent design doesn't jive with the Torah and Quran

I LOL'd. Many people have...

Freelancer München — Fri, 15 May 2009 10:14:18 GMT

I LOL'd. Many people have ugly logos though ;-)

Posted to: Make My Logo Bigger Cream

Yes it was very interesting...

Freelancer München — Wed, 13 May 2009 12:02:51 GMT

Yes it was very interesting to read tis great post - keep on blogging!

Freelancer München

Posted to: The pro-patriarchy censorship of the Hayes code

I also think so......

Freelancer München — Mon, 11 May 2009 08:22:58 GMT

I also think so...

Posted to: Saving humanity one virus at a time

Hi. I really love the...

Lawrence — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:29:58 GMT

Hi.

I really love the way your posts express themselves in a way that we don't see enough on blogs nowadays.

Anyway, I know this is really off-topic, but I wanted to ask you about freshblogs - if you really don't want to continue it, may I use your domain? I love the way it sounds..

Thanks for your time, and sorry I couldn't find an email address - maybe delete 'Anyway' onwards?

Posted to: Intelligent design doesn't jive with the Torah and Quran

For further evidence of monism,...

Michael Pruitt — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:27:28 GMT

For further evidence of monism, check-out [a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalom]shalom[/a], [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaam"]salaam[/a].

I can't find a convenient wiki link for the Christian version, charis kai eirene (KJV: "grace and peace" WGGV: "the gifts that give you reason for joy and the wholeness and completeness that comes with them")

For a Christian monist view, I'm listening to Bruce McLaren's [a href="http://marshill.org/teaching/index.php"]"Which Story Do You Live In?"[/a] (McLaren is seen by some accumulation monotheistic fundamentalists as the anti-christ. You have been warned.)

Posted to: Intelligent design doesn't jive with the Torah and Quran

Michael, I agree with you...

Matt M. — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:34:23 GMT

Michael, I agree with you that Christianity and Judaism are not as black and white as she makes them out to be. That's why I mentioned the Mormons. I think she could have been more specific about which Christian, and Muslim groups fit into her bigger point.

I like her argument that ID fits in an icon heavy monotheistic religion. I'd never considered iconography or iconoclasm as traits that shape a religion.

Posted to: Intelligent design doesn't jive with the Torah and Quran

Remind me not to write...

Michael Pruitt — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:50:38 GMT

Remind me not to write pre-coffee.

Restating the first paragraph: it is less than completely correct to imply all of Christianity is non-monistic; similarly, it is less than completely correct to imply all of Islam and Judaisism are monistic.

If one were to construct a two-by-two square, with the top two columns labeled "Objective" and "Subjective" and the left two columns labeled "Absolute" and "Relative", one would find that the close-minded belief systems can be placed into either the Objective-Absolute or Subjective-Relative boxes.

A similar Johari window can be composed with "Truthful - Untruthful" and "Honest - Dishonest" as the axes.

ID strikes me as truthful, yet dishonest. ID as seems to be practiced in America truthfully presupposes that all that is could have been made by an intelligent designer, but dishonestly hides their assumptions that there *is* an intelligent designer and that this intelligent designer is their personal flavor of God behind their truthful "we don't know."

Posted to: Intelligent design doesn't jive with the Torah and Quran

It is good to point...

Michael Pruitt — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:24:26 GMT

It is good to point out that certain forms of Islam and Judaism view God the same way. It is, however, equally fallacious to imply that all of Islam and Judaism share this belief while none of Christianity does.

The better line to draw, I believe, is between inerrancy and infallibility.

Proponents of ID seem to be all in the inerrantist camp, religion notwithstanding.

Inerrantists throughout history have been, IMO, Pharisees, Wahhabists, and Fundamentalists.

There are some Christians who espouse omninescience. (Or should that be "divine nescience"?)

From the wikipedia article: "...God knows everything that has been determined as well as what has not yet been determined but remains open. As such, he is able to anticipate the future, yet remains fluid to respond and react to prayer and decisions made either contrary or advantageous to His plan or presuppositions."

Posted to: Intelligent design doesn't jive with the Torah and Quran

Huey, Faith may be inspired...

Matt M. — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 16:58:49 GMT

Huey,

Faith may be inspired by truth but faith isn't the same as truth. You can have faith in something that is false (Imagine faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster versus faith in the Christian God.)

Think about Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. He proved that in any simple algebraic system there are statements that are true (absolute truth) but can't be proven true (require faith to believe).

Getting less abstract think about this in terms of the law. Imagine someone who may have killed his wife. You don't have her body since he's hidden it somewhere. It may be absolutely true that he has murdered her, but you can't prove it's true. You'll have doubt (perhaps even a reasonable doubt) that he murdered her because you can't prove it absolutely. Carly Gammill's notion of law doesn't seem to allow for this grey area. As I read her she would say he is a murderer because she believes that is true. That's not how the law works.

Also I would point out that our law and justice system is written in English. The meaning of words change over the years (just look at how faggot or gay have changed over the centuries for a trivial example). You can not call that an absolute truth. The flexibility of the English language is what has made it so useful.

Posted to: Truth and Faith

excuse my ignorance but it...

janey — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:01:54 GMT

excuse my ignorance but it reads like the ink could have been made from ingredients that could cause a menstrual cycle?

Posted to: Biblical Reality Hacking

Dude, I like what you're...

Leslie — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:28:21 GMT

Dude, I like what you're thinking until the last leap—it's a little too general to work in an exciting way. But try this, to go with the first part, about words being magic: "In the beginning there was the Word. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were made by him, and nothing was made without him."

That's how the New Testament book of John begins. Word. Word = Jesus. But he's called Word.

Your pal, Word-not-Jesus

Posted to: Biblical Reality Hacking

We're psyched to see you...

Leslie — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:22:15 GMT

We're psyched to see you and Julie on Saturday!

Posted to: Peace for a Change

I'm glad to see that...

Scott Hendrix — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:38:52 GMT

I'm glad to see that you're still surfing the waves of cyberspace, and still looking for the Edenic paradise that never was—but might still be. I'm also glad that you're plugging for Obama, along with the rest of the rational world.

Hang tough Matt.

Posted to: Peace for a Change

I find it hilarious and...

Huey — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:26:40 GMT

I find it hilarious and ironic that you called the last statement "naive" when clearly your understanding, or lachthereof, of faith is as naive and infantile as it gets. Faith is based on TRUTH, not on blind feelings or imagination. If there is no absolute TRUTH, there is nothing to have faith in, and this applies both in the natural and the spiritual. When we can have a law and justice system that recognizes absolute TRUTH and is based upon it, we have something rock solid, unlike today where everything is relative.(emphasis, TRUTH)

Posted to: Truth and Faith