Comments on: Why my bud Pee Zed Myers is so cool http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/02/why-my-bud-pee-zed-myers-is-so-cool/ I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog. Thu, 08 Jan 2009 08:38:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: tom sevigny http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/02/why-my-bud-pee-zed-myers-is-so-cool/#comment-13584 tom sevigny Tue, 18 Apr 2006 21:29:45 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/02/why-my-bud-pee-zed-myers-is-so-cool/#comment-13584 Suit yerself Suit yerself

]]> By: Irishman http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/02/why-my-bud-pee-zed-myers-is-so-cool/#comment-13585 Irishman Tue, 18 Apr 2006 16:15:20 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/02/why-my-bud-pee-zed-myers-is-so-cool/#comment-13585 >I’m going to try to keep discussions relating to astronomy or evolution as not to alienate too many people. That's a good idea. >If you wish to continue this dialogue I really don't see the point. >I’m going to try to keep discussions relating to astronomy or evolution as not to alienate too many people.

That’s a good idea.

>If you wish to continue this dialogue

I really don’t see the point.

]]> By: tom sevigny http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/02/why-my-bud-pee-zed-myers-is-so-cool/#comment-13593 tom sevigny Mon, 17 Apr 2006 23:28:39 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/02/why-my-bud-pee-zed-myers-is-so-cool/#comment-13593 Irishman, If you wish to continue this dialogue : tsevigny423@aol.com I'm going to try to keep discussions relating to astronomy or evolution as not to alienate too many people. Irishman,
If you wish to continue this dialogue : tsevigny423@aol.com
I’m going to try to keep discussions relating to astronomy or evolution as not to alienate too many people.

]]> By: tom sevigny http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/02/why-my-bud-pee-zed-myers-is-so-cool/#comment-13594 tom sevigny Mon, 17 Apr 2006 22:39:45 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/02/why-my-bud-pee-zed-myers-is-so-cool/#comment-13594 Irishman, FYI Isaiah 43:25 and Mark:2:5-9 Daniel 7:13-14 and Matthew 26:63-64 Deut. 6:14 1 Kings 8:60 Isaiah 44:6 Phillipians 2:5-10 Collosians 1:15-17 John 8:58 John 10:25-30 John 17:24 John 20:28 1 Peter 1:19-20 Rev. 13:8 This should help Irishman,
FYI
Isaiah 43:25 and Mark:2:5-9
Daniel 7:13-14 and Matthew 26:63-64

Deut. 6:14
1 Kings 8:60
Isaiah 44:6

Phillipians 2:5-10
Collosians 1:15-17
John 8:58
John 10:25-30
John 17:24
John 20:28
1 Peter 1:19-20
Rev. 13:8
This should help

]]> By: Irishman http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/02/why-my-bud-pee-zed-myers-is-so-cool/#comment-13595 Irishman Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:46:15 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/02/why-my-bud-pee-zed-myers-is-so-cool/#comment-13595 tom sevigny said: >All of the instances that you cited can be explained by an understanding of complimentary texts. Without going into great detail on an astronomy site I’ll choose one. The account of creation implying that there was a plurality of persons present in the process is not that difficult to understand if you look at John chptr.1 and the many references to Jesus’ equality with subjection to the Father. The texts support the Trinity. The Hebrew’s strict adherence to monotheism is in no way contrary to this doctrine. Nice bit of interpretational sleight of hand. The Trinity itself is one of those nonsensical concepts held as doctrine. God is simultaneously himself and his own son. That makes him simultaneously a we and an I. So he can speak of himself and his alter ego and thus describe themselves as a "we" yet simultaneously hold that he is a jealous god and wants you to worship no other god, and not to make graven images or idols (except for crucifixes and crosses and those car emblem fish and statues of saints, especially Mary). >The arguments you are making are worthy from a simplistic secular view point, using a Reader’s Digest or National Geographic for reference. What a nice way to blow me off. >Check out 2 Timothy 4:3 and you will understand where I’m going with this, my friend. >2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. Interesting. You know, that is a very good description of the ID proponents. "To suit their own desires". "teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." I also like this verse: >4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. How ironic! tom sevigny said:
>All of the instances that you cited can be explained by an understanding of complimentary texts. Without going into great detail on an astronomy site I’ll choose one. The account of creation implying that there was a plurality of persons present in the process is not that difficult to understand if you look at John chptr.1 and the many references to Jesus’ equality with subjection to the Father. The texts support the Trinity. The Hebrew’s strict adherence to monotheism is in no way contrary to this doctrine.

Nice bit of interpretational sleight of hand. The Trinity itself is one of those nonsensical concepts held as doctrine. God is simultaneously himself and his own son. That makes him simultaneously a we and an I. So he can speak of himself and his alter ego and thus describe themselves as a “we” yet simultaneously hold that he is a jealous god and wants you to worship no other god, and not to make graven images or idols (except for crucifixes and crosses and those car emblem fish and statues of saints, especially Mary).

>The arguments you are making are worthy from a simplistic secular view point, using a Reader’s Digest or National Geographic for reference.

What a nice way to blow me off.

>Check out 2 Timothy 4:3 and you will understand where I’m going with this, my friend.

>2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

Interesting. You know, that is a very good description of the ID proponents. “To suit their own desires”. “teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”

I also like this verse:
>4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

How ironic!

]]> By: tom sevigny http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/02/why-my-bud-pee-zed-myers-is-so-cool/#comment-13592 tom sevigny Sun, 16 Apr 2006 00:39:40 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/02/why-my-bud-pee-zed-myers-is-so-cool/#comment-13592 Happy Easter Everybody! He has risen! The first fruits of the resurrection! Happy Easter Everybody!
He has risen!
The first fruits of the resurrection!

]]> By: tom sevigny http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/02/why-my-bud-pee-zed-myers-is-so-cool/#comment-13591 tom sevigny Sat, 15 Apr 2006 23:38:10 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/04/02/why-my-bud-pee-zed-myers-is-so-cool/#comment-13591 Continued: "Atheists all over the world have... called upon science as their crown witness against the existence of God. But as they try, with arrogant abuse of scientific reasoning, to render proof there is no God, the simple and enlightening truth is that their arguments boomerang. For one of the most fundamental laws of science is that nothing in the physical world ever happens without a cause. "There simply cannot be a creation without somekind of a Spiritual Creator...In the world around us we behold the obvious manifestations of the Divine plan of the Creator". -Dr. Werner von Braun(1912-1977) NASA Director and father of the American Space Program Continued:
“Atheists all over the world have… called upon science as their crown witness against the existence of God. But as they try, with arrogant abuse of scientific reasoning, to render proof there is no God,
the simple and enlightening truth is that their arguments boomerang. For one of the most fundamental laws of science is that nothing in the physical world ever happens without a cause.
“There simply cannot be a creation without somekind of a Spiritual Creator…In the world around us we behold the obvious manifestations of the Divine plan of the Creator”.
-Dr. Werner von Braun(1912-1977) NASA Director and father of the American Space Program

]]>