The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
A relic of the Singularity 300,000 years after Inflation.
From my youth and certainly throughout our time in WCG, the world of us was created 6000 years ago beginning with a man created from the dust of the earth and a woman from a spare rib which the man would not miss. It is significant, to assure that women understood their place in the Biblical scheme of things not originating from any part of a man that would be missed or inhibit superiority. Fortunately for us all, we live near the end of those 6000 years of human experience and the 1000 year rest is soon, shortly and involve a coming quickly.
None of this is literally true. The concept of Deep Time and Geologic time escape the average Church of and Fundamentalist/literalist mind. It is not just that they don't know it but very much that they won't know it because it interferes with the story line they hold so dear.
We can't blame our parents for believing, as taught, that the Universe was just our Galaxy. It took Edwin Hubbell and others in the 1920's and on to reveal that we are just one of billions and now trillions of Galaxies in the Universe each teeming with billions and in some cases, a trillion, stars such as in our closest galactic neighbor Andromeda, visible to the naked eye 12.5 billion light years away if you know where to look tonight.
But if we now know better, we have only ourselves to blame for our ignor-ance, which is that which one ignores.
Like it or not. Understand it or not. Gorillas, Bonobos, Chimps and Orangs are truly our cousins sharing a common ancestor 6-7 million years back in Deep Time. The evidence is in our mutual DNA. While creation and human origin stories in scripture have meaning, they are not literally true. This concept is enough to rankle, terrify and anger any Church of God minister, member or Bible literalist to the core. And yet it is so.
Geologic Time and Deep Time
Personally speaking...
9000 year old flint knife from the bottom of a dry pond near Cornell University in Ithaca, NY
40,000 - 50,000 year old vaporized earth rock and meteorite from Meteor Crater, AZ
2 -16 million year old tooth of Megalodon from South Carolina. Megs could be up to 60 feet long and weigh up to 150,000 lbs. South Carolina seems to have been a haven for them back in the day.
450 Million year old Trilobites from Morrocco
2.5 Billion year old Banded Iron which shows the mix of oxygen creating bacteria with the free iron it rusted out of the early oceans creating our atmosphere
3.5 Billion year old Stamatolites, the earliest of bacteria that ate carbon dioxide from the early atmosphere and gave off oxygen as a waste product creating the previous Banded Iron
Ten lbs of Iron/Nickel 4.5 Billion year old meteorite from the core of an exploded star and/or impacted asteroid that spend most of it's time orbiting the Sun between Mars and Jupiter. I cut this with a water jet to expose the iron through the burn crust and polished it. It saw the formation of our planet and moon out of the dust and debris cloud of an earlier sun that exploded and our newly born Sun.
It is the oldest thing a human being can touch
Truth Matters
“The only thing that scares me more than space aliens is the idea that there aren't any space aliens. We can't be the best that creation has to offer. I pray we're not all there is. If so, we're in big trouble.”
―
35 comments:
Nice artifacts!
I'm no fan of HWA or of all of the HWAcaca gnosticism, but, old Hog Jowls taught "gap theory" creationism. And, that's why we didn't blink in the face of galaxies and solar systems being thousands or hundreds of thousands of light years away. Neither he, nor GTA knew their asses from a hole in the ground about science, but they taught that the Earth was basically refurbished nearly 6,000 years ago. Now, the fundies? That's a different story. Some of those people even teach their kids that dinosaurs lived alongside of man!
BB
PS This posting is just for those so inclined in their interests while more specific COG postings come into view. So relax, chill and be patient. I am not trying to steal crowns or drag one away from their faith I know we are all waiting with baited breath to see if Dave Pack is imploding or if Bob Thiel has posted his Annual Valentine's Day to the faithful warnings! :)
As usual, a tremendously informative post. Fantasies are comforting, but reality is much more practical in the long run.
Dennis,
The age of the earth and population of people is where I feel all moral atheists meet their grand hypocrisy.
Atheists want to believe that love is an inherent part of man, where the bible teaches God is love.
But, when the earth fills up (because there will not be an "end of world") non-moral atheists have no problems culling the population. Some simple math shows that once the earth's population gets to a certain point, we will need a whole new planet, or their will be mass starvation and death worse than anything in the book of Revelations.
Dennis, do you agree with other atheists that we should kill people to save the planet? That people should be allowed to kill their children if they have too many to support and will cause undo harm to future generations?
If you don't, then you are a moral atheist which means you aren't a true atheist. (where do your morals come from? Your self?) A true atheist believes in the "survival of the fittest" which means culling the population for the betterment of the whole.
Not to be perceived as a COG peon, the teachings of HWA are half insane, but I find it odd that nothing makes a hypocrite more outraged than other hypocrites.
If you believe that God created the Earth and Universe only 6000 years ago, then you have a lot of explaining to do. It requires that God created a "patina" to the whole universe, including uranium decay and red shifted light to give the appearance of age. Why would God do that? Wouldnt that be deceptive?
Most Christians, of any faith, have taken scripture and dogma down to "irreducible simplicity" and use them as hammers. Any of us, must be willing to admit that there are many questions unanswered and we should be in awe of the mysteries. Whether of faith or even atheism, we must admit to many fascinating questions!
Anon 9:13, morality is much more complex than your binary point of view regarding atheism. And morality in fact can be present without any god. Morality is complex, and yet it arises from life, to overly simplify it, because it helps continue life.
And Anon 9:13, no one in their right mind wpuld advocate for this things you mentioned, whether atheist or not. There are amoral atheists and theists alike, whose moral compasses are corrupted.
February 3, 2020 at 8:45 AM
' Anonymous said...
Dennis,
The age of the earth and population of people is where I feel all moral atheists meet their grand hypocrisy.'
REALLY? HAD NOT HEARD THAT ONE YET. I THINK THE "I FEEL" PART IS THE KEY
"Atheists want to believe that love is an inherent part of man, where the bible teaches God is love."
YOU SAY THAT LIKE IT"S A BAD THING. GOD MAY BE LOVE BUT IT COMES ACROSS IS CRAZY WAYS AT TIMES
"But, when the earth fills up (because there will not be an "end of world") non-moral atheists have no problems culling the population. Some simple math shows that once the earth's population gets to a certain point, we will need a whole new planet, or their will be mass starvation and death worse than anything in the book of Revelations."
I DON"T CONSIDER MY PERSPECTIVES TO INCLUED CULLING OUT. THEN THE MASS STARVATION WILL NATURALLY RETURN SOME HOMEOSTASIS TO THE PLANET NO? I DON"T KNOW ANY NON-MORAL ATHEISTS
"Dennis, do you agree with other atheists that we should kill people to save the planet? That people should be allowed to kill their children if they have too many to support and will cause undo harm to future generations?"
OF COURSE NOT. YOUR VIEW HERE SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING SOME EVANGELCAL MINISTER BLASTED OUT FROM THE PULPIT ABOUT WHAT AN ATHEIST IS OR WHAT HE"D LIKE THEM TO BE FOR DRAMATIC REASONS AND TO KEEP THE FAITHFUL FAITHFUL AND ON GUARD AGAINST WICKED PEOPLE NOT IN THEIR CHURCH OR HOLDING THEIR FOR SURE TRUE BELIEFS. I CAN IMAGINE SOME CHRISTIAN TYPES OPTING TO CULL ATHEISTS LOL
"If you don't, then you are a moral atheist which means you aren't a true atheist. (where do your morals come from? Your self?) A true atheist believes in the "survival of the fittest" which means culling the population for the betterment of the whole."
I DON"T FIND YOUR "IF?THEN" VIEW TO BE ACCURATE OR MEANINGFUL. MY 'MORALS' COME FROM WITHIN MYSELF, YES AND FROM MY PARTICULAR NATURE AND NURTURE I SUPPOSE. I DON'T NEED TO BE THREATENED WITH DEATH FOR DISOBEYING. I MIGHT BE VERY LIBERAL BY NATURE BUT LIBERAL MINDEDNESS ALSO INCLUDES A MORAL NATURE IN MY EXPERIENCE. I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THIS TOPIC OF THE ORIGINS OF THE MORAL NATURE OF THE NON-BELIEVER BUT I HAVE PLENTY THANKS! :) A TRUE SCIENTIST AND HONEST HUMAN BEING SEES THAT SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON BEING FIT AND TO THE VICTOR GO THE SPOILS. THAT'S JUST HOW IT WORKS IN THE WORKPLACE AND ON THE SERENGETI. OUR KIND ALSO SEEMS TO HAVE A SOFT SPOT TO CARE FOR OTHERS IN NEED.
"Not to be perceived as a COG peon, the teachings of HWA are half insane, but I find it odd that nothing makes a hypocrite more outraged than other hypocrites."
ONLY HALF? SORRY, I DON'T GET YOUR POINT IN YOUR LAST SENTENCE. PERHAPS YOU JUST NEED TO GET OUT MORE? TAKE A BIKE RIDE OR SIT THROUGH THE NIGHT WITH A NICE TELESCOPE ENJOYING THE VIEWS? YOUR GLITTERING GENERALITIES OF 'IF THIS THEN THAT' AND 'IF NOT THIS THEN NOT THAT' DOESN'T RESONATE WITH MY VIEW OF MYSELF OR EXPERIENCE WITH OTHERS OF LIKE MIND. BUT THANKS
(All caps are not shouting in this case. I only needed a way to answer between statements that made it obvious who was sa
oops
(All caps are not shouting in this case. I only needed a way to answer between statements that made it obvious who was saying what)
Some observations:
1. The photo at the top showing the microwave remnants of the Big Bang is a picture of the Observable Universe as an embryo. The structures within the photograph can be identified as smaller, unexpanded versions of structures in the Universe now at its present state of expansion.
2. Most Armstrongists do not believe any longer that the Universe was created 6,000 years ago. Young Earth Creationists believe that. Armstrongists believe that Adam and Eve were created about 6,000 years ago. (6 is the number of Man.) That may be true. But if it is true, that means that most people now in the world are not descended from Adam and Eve. 6,000 years ago the earth was well populated and Cain didn't have to marry his sister.
3. Even though scientists have developed theories about the Universe and how it got to be how it is, we really have only direct evidence consisting of the Observable Universe and some trends that can be extrapolated. We don't know for sure if the Universe is any larger than the small observable part. All of the theories should be classed as meta-science.
The only thing that scares me more than space aliens is people who quote Ellen.
Anonymous 2/3/2020 @ 2:25,
What's wrong with quoting a kind, generous, moral and funny person? And I wouldn't worry too much about space aliens either - maybe Trump's new space force will build a wall and keep them out!
Dennis said:
I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THIS TOPIC OF THE ORIGINS OF THE MORAL NATURE OF THE NON-BELIEVER...
And yet you and your ilk make statements as if you’re experts on the origins of the universe.
Tonto said: “If you believe that God created the Earth and Universe only 6000 years ago, then you have a lot of explaining to do. It requires that God created a "patina" to the whole universe, including uranium decay and red shifted light to give the appearance of age. Why would God do that? Wouldnt that be deceptive?”
That’s where faith comes in Tonto. Do you believe the Word of God even though the word of man contradicts it?
I used to believe in the gap theory, but no longer do. I believe dinosaurs walked with man and were destroyed in Noah’s Flood not Lucifer’s Flood.
Re the appearance of age or maturity it’s not a major issue for me. Some people look younger than their age. Some people look older than their age. Some people don’t act their age either way.
The Bible teaches lots of things - love, genocide, clean foods, purity laws, quarantine, wisdom, beating your children, loving your children, loving your wife, respecting your husband, homosexuality evil, mercy and justice more important than rigid law keeping, stoning sinners, sacrificing animals, new moons, and of course tassels. (To name a very few.)
Which parts of the Bible do YOU want to observe?
I am still seeking answers - and seeking the right questions....
The Andromeda galaxy is not 12.5 billion light years from Earth. It's only 2.5 million light years away. It is also getting closer, and it will collide with the Milky Way in a few billion years.
I'm getting sick of the accusations that an 700 bc Inuit couple cannot experience love, outgoing concern, caring or whatever goodness.
I understand that priorities might have been different due to harsh circumstance. But some of the superiority complex of believers stems from gross intellectual negligence.
Also Armstrongists never claimed the universe was 6000 years old since the armstrongist theory of "cleaning up of the tohu and bohu for man", had been around since the founding of that religion and was accepted by its founder as rational....... as the founder was always trying to find "rational" arguments for the existence of God and even wrote booklets "proving" that existence...... Something the pope or Billy Graham never felt compelled to do.
Nature seems to abide by the rule of the survival of the "one that fits the best for the circumstance" in other words, the most adaptable, not the "Schwarzenegger fittest".
That's why on 15th century portraits, fat women were all the rage and today skinny models are sexy.
The skinny models would ALL die in 15th century conditions.
Nck
Anonymous said...
Dennis said:
I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THIS TOPIC OF THE ORIGINS OF THE MORAL NATURE OF THE NON-BELIEVER...
And yet you and your ilk make statements as if you’re experts on the origins of the universe."
Yes, that's just what me and my ilk do when we agree with those who make such things their life work. I'm not sure that kind of reasoning is worth an explanation. And I can't believe you would have to have that explained to you in the first place. While you are probably not an expert on many things, I suspect you make statements as if you're an expert on the Bible?
Yes, 656, Andromeda is 2.5 Billion light years away. Typo. Thanks! Sat and got a nice view of it in the scope a couple nights ago. Or at least saw it as it was when humans were first evolving on the planet :)
Dennis
You talk like so many others. You do not represent atheists or are their mouth piece any more than anyone else here. To claim so is preposterous. Maybe that is not your intent but that is your affect.
Population culling is very very popular among many people you are just ignorant of it. Maybe you should study this. The people who most support it are powerful and many well educated with PhDs.
Since you have consistently ridiculed so many for not being educated I challenge you to prove you are not he utmost hypocrite and find a highly educated perspective on population control from an atheist and demonstrate how evil it is.
Unless you secretly support this idea and are too ashamed to admit it publicly and lose face here permanantly?
Do you hide your true beliefs out of fear ? Atheists all get to have their own moral code and you have no right to judge anyone else's. Even those that think population control is a necessity. You have no moral authority nor are you an elected representative by any group.
By rejecting God you also reject the one source of power and only have yourself now. Fellow atheists are not under your sway and have no allegiences to your beliefs.
Another article where people judge Dennis by their religious views.
1225, I'm sensing a certain animosity in you for me and my personal journey out of religion along with conclusions draw? Correct? 😁 You in your small corner and I in mine is probably about the best we're going to do communicating.
And too 1225. Before you get to call others hypocrites as if you know , you'll need to reveal who you actually are and your past and current affiliations. Only fair in any meaningful exchange of ideas, beliefs and experiences
Annonymous 12:25: "Population culling is very very popular among many people you are just ignorant of it. Maybe you should study this."
I am an atheist, and I studied population culling. It was taught regularly to me as a good thing, even a righteous act. It was taught to me by preachers who preached out of the Bible books of Genesis and Revelations. I have never heard an atheist espouse the idea of population culling. Just Christians. Weird.
"Atheists all get to have their own moral code and you have no right to judge anyone else's."
Every atheist that I know lives by a moral code best summed up by the word "empathy". You might want to look into that concept. No need for rigid do's or don'ts. No need for human sacrifice like Christianity requires. No need to reject facts because it contradicts your dogma. Just be the best person you can be.
There is a lot of God commanded population culling in the Bible plus genocide and partial genocide plus prophetic genocide.
Christians and Jews do not have the moral high ground here.
Anonymous (6:51)
I have never heard either a Christian or an Atheist support the idea of culling the population. There was a great Eugenics movement in America in the early Twentieth Century supported by scientific types but I am not sure how they would be lumped together as a social or religious category.
The real question is would atheists support such a culling philosophically. I don't see why not. It would be consistent with their beliefs. To materialist (is there any other kind) atheists human beings are organic robots - nothing more than androids - why not cull a few if need be. To a zealous atheist, the intrinsic value of a human being is solely a function of materialist factors such as economics. Atheists may not think this explicitly but this is where their philosophy leads.
You stated: "Every atheist that I know lives by a moral code best summed up by the word "empathy"."
You should be careful how you word this. This idea comes dangerously close to C.S. Lewis' Proof of the Existence of God through Natural Morality (see "Mere Christianity").
NEO still doesn't get it.
Human('s) groupings are only motivated to move through stories and narratives, regardless of them being true.
Not a single human being gets motivated by E=MC2 whilst that is the plain indisputable truth.
Nck
Dennis said: “While you are probably not an expert on many things, I suspect you make statements as if you're an expert on the Bible?”
Like you mean how you once did Dennis as an Armstrongist minister and still do even now as an ex-Armstrongist minister?🙄
Will someone please offer a coherent definition of "moral atheists"? Are you referring to atheists who are moral? Or those who are atheistic in their moral practices? These two possibilities are seemingly opposites. Being from the Echinacean Era, we never learned such terms.
BB
Perhaps a moral atheist is a person who figured that any god cannot be the originator of "objective and universal morality" otherwise he would only be an onlooker to the system of morality that can and could be attained or at least deducted by any rational human being.
nck
Atheists generally mirror the predominant culture in which they live. In the US, it's not uncommon for atheists to subscribe to Christian ethics. In Russia, the habits, attitudes, and behavior of atheists reflect that culture. In Asian nations, atheists behave much the same as Buddhists. In Israel, atheists are still informed by the Talmud.
BB
3:42
Perhaps that is so.
The philosophical question however is the claim to the source of ethics.
Christians need to either admit that they adhere to random morality dictated by a God and they are making thousands of choices in picking even a Christian God over which they cannot agree, or to accept that a system of morality can be rationally deducted, in which case God is just an onlooker and in best case a helper for man to come to a rational conclusion, in which case he is not needed for establishing morality, only perhaps in aiding us to reach "good" conclusions earlier.
Nck
It's a multi-faceted dilemma, isn't it nck?
The argument could also be made that the various surrounding cultures give shelter to the atheists, allowing them to exist because there is a symbiotic relationship present. Atheists are an active part of the societal ecosystem.
We can also see why people like Herbert W. Armstrong insisted on the inclusion of elements of Old Covenant law, without embracing the entire law. He needed extras that went way beyond the rationally deducted system to which you referred, differentiating man's natural logic and goodness from the God-given. That Jesus had already paid man's sin debt past, present, and future for all times was to HWA roughly equivalent to the antinomian nature of the strawman atheist whom HWA created. This is hardly surprising from a man that only understood at best 2/3 of God.
BB
"the various surrounding cultures give shelter to the atheists"
Of course!
Even monkey's "know" that they would die outside of the group.
Humans are social beings and the weakest species of all........in need of about 18 years of nurturing by mommah, by far the longest in the animal kingdom.
In discussions with Miller Jones I have even argued in favor of "darwinistic purpose" for gay people. This purpose may not be readily explained from a "procreation/survival" perspective (even if gay people are able to procreate), rather from a group or population perspective in which I argued that gay people have many general but arguably SPECIFIC purpose for populations groups. Miller hesitated about the specifics at the time but I was just citing the latest scientific research as usual.
To just cite one possible purpose for gays.
It has come to my attention that many gay persons are extremely entertaining, far more than the average redneck. This suits the purpose of social cohesion as in ......hey BB did you see the latest Tom Cruise flick? Also perhaps in hunter societies some men were deemed less "threatening" to the alpha males who needed to be out hunting. Perhaps they defended the left behind children and women "at home", while the rest went out hunting for meat as such ensuring the survival of the POPULATION rather than the "fittest".
I believe that HWA ONLY adhered to parts of the Covenant System that were RATIONALLY deductable. As Joe Tkach noticed in 1987 on his way from Jerusalem at the airport and explained what he did for a job. Then the business man answered. Ah I understand, ....you are the "thinking mans religion".
Tell me what HWA included and I tell you the rational explanation.
For instance. Clean and unclean meat.
Everyone here knows people who ONLY ate unclean meats during their lifespan and turned out to 100 years old.
Health cannot therefore be the ONLY reason for a choice to abstain from unclean meats.
I could cite at least 10 rational reasons to abstain from those meats BESIDES a command from a god.
One of those would be to "set a group apart".....that would be "culture". Others have to do with agriculture and the type of fertilizer pigs produce as compared to cows. Others have to do with the climate of religions origin etc etc etc.
But all in all the Jews survived as a GROUP, because they adhered to all kinds of strange habits and elements. The question today is do WE HUMANS survive as a group? And then I turn the discussion over to you and hop to climate change.
nck
"This is hardly surprising from a man that only understood at best 2/3 of God.
BB"
Which is 66.7% more than you understand God!
4:05 AM said... “ "This is hardly surprising from a man that only understood at best 2/3 of God. BB" Which is 66.7% more than you understand God!”
Well he might’ve known “2/3 of God” but his knowledge was a mile wide and an inch deep!
Post a Comment