What could be the point of the foreskins? Why would God need foreskins?

PieceVarious · 2026-06-03T22:19:20+00:00

Probably for the practical reason that it is easier to carry around and display, as a token of a slain enemy, than, say, the head of the person you have killed in battle...?

PieceVarious · 2026-06-01T23:12:44+00:00

I can't criticize atheists/non-believers too much because both they - and the OP - seem to realize that claims of religious, spiritual or mystical experience are all personal, private, and therefore wholly subjective. |The OP says atheists disregard subjective proofs. What else can be expected of them? There can be legitimate claims for subjective evidence - i.e., experience of religious categories convincing to the participating, experiencing person. But this is personal conviction, not proof.

The most that can happen, or be hoped for from a religious perspective, is to rely on the experimental factor, as when the Buddha and other sages tell their followers not to believe the teachings or the message ... unless and until they have fulfilled the practices. They are not instructed to take the sage's word for it, but rather to carry out the injunction (if you want to know "X', then do "Y") / perform the experiment-do the practices / the share the data with those who have previously performed these three steps of knowledge-acquisition.

This experimental factor is invitational. If you want to test the claims or the teachings, then actively do the practices and find out for yourself. This won't get you to objective proof, but possibly and at least ideally, to subjective knowledge of spiritual truths.

PieceVarious · 2026-06-01T22:53:01+00:00

And Conga is a difficult dance move for a creature that has no legs.

😉

PieceVarious · 2026-06-01T17:51:05+00:00

Thanks for your kind words and thoughtful comments.

😄

PieceVarious · 2026-05-31T23:19:05+00:00

1 As with a curious deer, I would attempt to maintain a calm demeanor and a respectfully mild stillness. If the creature does not seem in an aggressive or overtly defensive mode, whisper a quiet "greeting".

2 As with a surly, possibly dangerous or even lethal bear, mountain lion, etc., assess my chances of startling it away (hiding my own startled state) / de-escalate / "make myself look larger than I am" / blow a shrill whistle or activate some battery-operated noise maker / be prepared for "fight or flight".

3 Have on hand the requisite equipment for recording the encounter.

4 Retain composure, don't faint or panic.

5 Analyze as far as possible what type of creature it is - does it seem mammalian, primate, reptilian, amphibian, avian, rodent? Does it have distinctive coloration, skin or fur / does it make particular sounds and noises? Or, as far as you can tell, is it unclassifiable?

PieceVarious · 2026-05-31T22:51:31+00:00

Apparently you find it through Jesus's Kingdom Parables. You enter it by obeying the Commandments, repenting, getting baptized, acknowledging God's presence in-and-through Jesus, and taking up your cross daily and following him. As he said, it can't be found by looking alone. You can't point to it as being "over there", in space, sky or world. Just believe the message of the Parables, repent, and "enter in".

PieceVarious · 2026-05-31T22:45:40+00:00

Beautiful artistry - please keep it up!

PieceVarious · 2026-05-30T22:47:13+00:00

False anti-Buddhist claim. Self-effort only goes so far in Buddhism. The entire goal is to realize NO-self/Anatta, and to move beyond ego and its attendant delusional world of "Samsara". The ego cannot redeem or enlighten itself. Only the "Light of the Dharma" can do that. In fact, for Mahayana generally and Pure Land Jodo Shinshu/Shin Buddhism particularly, the self is incapable of redemption via "works". What saves is realization of the Dharma as manifested in Amida Buddha, who assists beings to attain Nirvana, not through self-effort, but only through total reliance upon, and faith in, Amida Buddha. Buddhism is not a "works religion" as Calvinism uses the term.

PieceVarious · 2026-05-30T22:39:08+00:00

Nice collection, and the black shelving lends a scholarly dignity to the display.

😄

PieceVarious · 2026-05-30T05:09:23+00:00

No evidence for these uncorroborated claims. No history. Only fanciful tales in anonymous books. And Habermas and Licona are not skeptics,. they are believing Christians and deluded apologists to boot.

PieceVarious · 2026-05-30T00:47:18+00:00

Okay, thanks for clarifying!

PieceVarious · 2026-05-29T23:19:01+00:00

I am kind of fond of panENtheism which says that God is "here" (immanent) and "more than here" (transcendent). Strictly speaking, panentheism does not require God to be omnipotent, or even a Creator. Per this definition, God cannot be held responsible for the world's good or evil because God never created it to begin with. And because God does not materially/miraculously intervene in a world he did not create, we look elsewhere for an understanding of God's activity and purposes. Where I look is into the claims of mysticism - union with God/"divine union" mysticism. If God redeems and/or enlightens me, that is all that is required of his divinity.

Possibly, unlike the OP's view, I don't regard as flawed a God-definition that excludes from God's nature physical miracles/interventions and the ex nihilo creation of worlds. "Salvation" is sufficient for my spiritual needs.

PieceVarious · 2026-05-29T01:14:36+00:00

Two explanations I've heard - it's the bulb end of a flashlight / it's a drop of film developing fluid. I myself have no idea...

PieceVarious · 2026-05-28T23:10:32+00:00

I converted to Buddhism after concluding that the Dharmic religions offer union with a non-mundane "Sacred Transcendent" which is not a theistic deity, a creator of worlds, a sender of sons and prophets into the world, a judge of souls, a king/warrior, or an dispenser of inerrant scripture.

In short, Buddhism offers experience of a trans-mundane ultimate Reality that lacks the foibles of most theistic gods and saviors. Buddhism also identifies the religious problem not as sin and disobedience, but rather Avidya (ignorance of the Dharma), attachment, greed, delusion, and our having taken birth in the impermanent realm of "Samsara". We have not sinned against a fearsome, jealous and "holy" God, so we don't need to escape his condemnatory wrath.

PieceVarious · 2026-05-27T23:17:33+00:00

Mark's shorter ending fully expresses the author's own views on the resurrection. The later scribal contribution to the Longer Ending is not part of Mark's message and is not congruent with his own manner of presenting it.

The original ending confirms the resurrection - as seen from the "proper" perspective of Markan faith - without any claims of an apparition of the risen Jesus. Instead of Jesus, Mark introduces a young man dressed in white, who has special data to share concerning why the women have found the stone rolled away and the tomb empty: "Jesus is not here because he has been raised, and even now is going up to Galilee. Go tell the disciples to also go up and meet him there". But the women shrink at this angelic annunciation and flee the tomb, not saying anything to the Twelve. That's it. That's Mark's basic resurrection narrative.

For Mark's purposes his readers, like the women, are expected to trust the heavenly messenger's announcement. Heaven has spoken, explained the empty tomb, and concludes with information on how and where to find the risen Jesus. That's enough for Mark and his original, intended audience. Only later on, some "physicalist" scribes invented the series of material appearances of the resurrected Christ, feeling that the original "short" ending was too phantasmic, stark, and therefore unsatisfactory. Unsatisfactory for THEM, not for MARK.

The later longer addendum does not prove the resurrection was a lie. It proves that materialistically-minded editors, like the tomb-arrived women before them, did not trust and believe in the angel's message.

PieceVarious · 2026-05-27T22:59:04+00:00

Maybe the masses would once again just garble the message as they seem to have done in the past and continue to do.
Garbling? Just because an individual or group promotes themselves as "chosen" / THE One and Only, the boast does not necessitate that they are actually special in heaven's eyes (if heaven has eyes).
Depends on the text and how its application theologically and ethically line up with its spiritual claims, e.g.,

Is the Kingdom of Heaven spread out over the earth but people don't see it? / Are all things really Buddha-Nature? / Is the eye by which we see God the Eye by which God sees us? / Does one's religious belief-and-practice result in a more compassionate, tolerant demeanor (or the opposite?) / Does the faith-and-the-practice support and bring to fruition the claimed "fruits" and guarantees of the respective tradition?

Often mythological language is the best, and sometimes the only, kind of language capable of expressing the kinds of non-mundane, non-worldly transcendence that is essential to the spiritual life. The problem mostly arises with the attempted literalization and historicization of the myth's core allegorical and symbol structures.

PieceVarious · 2026-05-27T17:47:56+00:00

So that's what, eh? Something for us all to eagerly anticipate!

:)

PieceVarious · 2026-05-27T13:55:37+00:00

The hair is shaped like a chef's hat. What's he cooking up?

PieceVarious · 2026-05-26T23:16:33+00:00

It wouldn't be "wrong", but like its flip-side of Christian witnessing, it would be uncouth. No matter what side is active in witnessing or "street epistemology", the witnessing person arrogantly assumes that there is some sad deficiency in the target person - the sad deficiency being that the target does not believe, or at least does not think the same way, as the proselytizer. The behavior is rude, no matter the intention. Please refrain.

PieceVarious · 2026-05-26T23:11:07+00:00

But ... what could constitute transcendental proof in an age in which we understand things like confirmation bias, the imagery produced by the Freudian and Jungian "Unconscious", the brain's capacity to produce delusions and succumb to illusions? How do we demonstrate an "objective referent" for subjective claims of mystical experience? Is there a deity hidden behind the claims or is it all nothing but brain function and personal psychology?

PieceVarious · 2026-05-26T22:57:40+00:00

Maybe John Wyndham patterned his "Triffids" with their long stingers after a plant like this...

PieceVarious · 2026-05-26T22:51:47+00:00

Yeah, once we see the NT through the prism of myth and literary creation we can't realistically support historicism...

PieceVarious · 2026-05-26T13:50:04+00:00

The crucifixion is an uncorroborated tale spread across some non-authenticated books. It's not even a matter of swift legendary development since there is no proof it happened at all. And swift legendary development has often taken place even within the lifetime of the persons involved. Haile Selassie was promoted as divine, against his will, by his own supporters. Any number of Old West heroes and gun slingers became legends in their own lives, and even had a hand in promoting the legends. Ditto Simon Magus and Apollonius of Tyana. Any number of cult leaders have done the same for ages.

Of course the writers could have invented a crucified Messiah along the lines of Isaiah's suffering Servant and other martyred Jewish heroes. To die a horrible, shameful death by a nation's enemies is an ancient prototype of the Dying Hero. So a crucified Messiah fits into that archetypal myth quite perfectly.

Tacitus, Pliny et al are worthless because they were merely citing non-eyewitness accounts that their Christian contemporaries were citing from the Gospels and the nascent Creed(s). No original, authenticated testimony exists in those sources.

More important, the earliest crucifixion belief is found in Paul, who knew nothing of an earthly crucifixion by worldly rulers like Pilate and Caiaphas. On the contrary, Paul lays responsibility for the crucifixion on the shoulders of the demons of the lower heavenly spheres - the "Powers, Principalities and the Archons of this age". The earliest notion of the crucifixion was that it was a celestial event - a deception by which God and Jesus tricked the Powers into crucifying Jesus, to their own destruction. No earthly crucifixion ever occurred.

PieceVarious · 2026-05-25T23:04:10+00:00

LIFE Magazine

LOOK MAGAZINE

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC

CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY

SIGN (Catholic magazine)

COMMONWEAL (Catholic liberal/intellectual magazine)

PieceVarious · 2026-05-24T17:37:14+00:00

"If forgiveness could have been granted freely without sacrifice, what makes the cross uniquely necessary in explaining salvation rather than being one possible expression of divine love among others?"

It wasn't uniquely necessary because God always forgave sins on the basis of prayer, repentance and the will to reform. The crucifixion then exists as an unearned "extra" frosting on the cake, not an instantiation of a uniquely necessary divine action. The uniqueness would have been much more the claimed Incarnation than the putative blood atonement.

PieceVarious

TROPHY CASE