tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15861891.post112975516703066228..comments2024-03-28T03:24:03.551-04:00Comments on MYRANT: SRBissettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14426874992235196378noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15861891.post-40094521577231239302010-01-01T01:07:07.624-05:002010-01-01T01:07:07.624-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15861891.post-1131120279743661962005-11-04T11:04:00.000-05:002005-11-04T11:04:00.000-05:00I've effectively shifted continuing conversation o...I've effectively shifted continuing conversation on this post over to today's relevent blog post (for Friday, November 4th), but want to acknowledge (if only for your sake, Jim) receipt of the promised gifts from Jim, for which am indeed thankful. <BR/><BR/>Jim, your comics projects are as beautifully executed and packaged as ever, congrats. FYI, constant reader, Jim sent me copies of his comics <B><I>Christain SF</B></I> #1 and 2, <B><I>The Great Controversy: The Real "Star Wars"!</B></I>, and a later edition of the comic reviewed in the blog text these comments are affixed to, <B><I>A Creationist's View of Dinosaurs</B></I>. If anyone is curious, or shares <B>Jim</B>'s passion and interests and would like copies, jump over to www.Pinkoski.com which features ordering info, special deals, etc.<BR/><BR/>I also received, thanks to Jim, a nifty 1988 paperback copy of <B>E.G. White</B>'s <B><I>The Desire of Ages</B></I>, which was originally published at the end of the 19th Century (<B>White</B> died in 1915). The quote <B>Jim</B> offered in his comments when he mentioned this book are indeed lifted from the introductory pages of this edition. <B>White</B> was indeed a prolific and passionate Christian writer in her day, and the book is an expansive (700+ pages!) interpretative text on the life of Jesus Christ -- essentially, <B>Ellen G. White</B>'s adaptation of the relevent New Testament texts with her own passionate analysis and expansion on those texts and themes.<BR/><BR/>For instance:<BR/><I>"It was God's purpose to place tings on an eternal basis of security, and in the councils of heaven it was decided that time must be given for Satan to develop the principles which were the foundations of his system of government. He had claimed that these were superior to God's principles. Time was given for the working of Satan's principles, that they might be seen by the heavenly universe.<BR/><BR/>Satan led men into sin, and the plan of redemption was put in operation. For four thousand years, Christ was working for man's uplifting, and Satan for his ruin and degradation. And the heavenly universe beheld it all."</I> etc.<BR/><BR/><B>White</B> is interpreting, in exhaustive detail, her understanding of the New Testament and the Bible as a whole -- but this <I>is</I> an interpretive text, scribed by an inspired human hand.<BR/><BR/>I thank you for the gifts, <B>Jim</B>, and will read and enjoy them all. But forgive me for not taking them as being somehow authoritative in and of themself. These are still founded on articles of faith -- I do not question that faith (on your part, much less on <B>White</B>'s), but do not per se expect me to embrace or share that faith, or see my failure to embrace or share it as inherently a rejection of any level of engagement. Faith is faith, and that we each hold our own should not be a cause for intolerance, ire, or anything but celebration.SRBissettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14426874992235196378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15861891.post-1130847504838710362005-11-01T07:18:00.000-05:002005-11-01T07:18:00.000-05:00I'll give this my best shot this morning, Jim, and...I'll give this my best shot this morning, Jim, and give what time I have to a followup response this AM:<BR/>__<BR/><BR/>Re:<BR/><I>"First, I myself am GLAD that you had the currage to leave the Catholic church! There are a million reasons why they are the wrong church to belong to -- Martin Luther correctly identified them as the Anti-Christ back in the 1500s, and they are clearly described in the Bible as being an enemy of God! So I'm very glad to hear that you were hounded out of the church by their behavior!"</I><BR/><BR/>Hmmm, actually, our President's behavior is fitting the revionist details of the Anti-Christ's behavior (as outlined for the pop culture in Hal Lindsey and C.C. Carlson's seminal <B><I>The Late Great Planet Earth</B></I> back in 1970, a book I've read twice but do not subscribe to) to a 'T', including fomenting war in the Middle East. But that's beside the point: my "currage" to leave the Catholic Church extended lifelong into an exploration and rejection of <B>all</B> organized religions, Jim, because any and all I explored were equally dogmatic, authoritarian, and absurd once I began to scratch more than the surface. I am not evangalizing for anyone else to share this view, but for me it's not so much that they're "the wrong church to belong to" as I find all denominations suspect once the superficial similarities (Christianity) are tabled to get to the interpretive ideosyncracies and dogma of each sect. <BR/><BR/>In the end, it all breeds intolerance and the kind of finger-pointing you're exhibiting, and I find all that contrary to Christ's professed beliefs as expressed in every version of the New Testament I've been exposed to (and there are many). In terms of comics (which is, after all, our springboard here), Jack T. Chick has venomously attacked the Catholic Church at every opportunity, too, which just emphasizes your point and my own. Former President Jimmy Carter said it best in the late 1990s when he gave his reasons for leaving the church he'd belonged to all his life, noting that religious intolerance breeding the kind of demonization you're indulging in, Jim, in which (I'm paraphrasing here, as I don't have the Carter quote in reach) "...anyone who believes otherwise is therefore 'less,' and therefore 'other'..." so contrary to the fundamental teachings of Christ that it's tragic. <BR/><BR/>Re:<BR/><I>"You need to see my book that explains how the papacy fits into Bible prophecy -- the Seventh-day Adventists are about the only remaining "Protestant" church on the planet, and all the "Protestant" churches were created to do one thing: PROTEST the behavior of the Catholic Church! But most people nowadays are caught up in an "ecumenical" mode of accepting all faiths no matter how wrong or how evil they have been --"</I><BR/><BR/>Every religion claims to be the "only" something-or-other, and again, that leads clearly to intolerance and demonization of other religious beliefs, which is neither "ecumenical" of me nor intolerant. Believe as you wish; if it helps shape your life in beneficial ways, and prompts you to do good onto others, bless you. But banter about "how wrong or how evil they have been" (choose your "they") implies your belief system is absolute and thus required for all to share, and I'm sorry, Jim, but that immediately does it for me. <BR/><BR/>I've had friends from almost every religious denomination and have read all I come upon that were wellsprings for religious faiths based on individuals having and sharing their visions, including Seventh Day Adventist (and I have read Ellen G. White's <B><I>The Desire of Ages</B></I>, but thank you for the copy coming in the mail nonetheless). Much of this literature is moving and profound, much of it is as risible as George Adamski's UFO travelogue books (another 20th Century faith, that), and it all interests me. But none of it persuades me to tether to that particular church or faith -- it's all human interpretation, subject to misinterpretation, conflation, etc. For some individuals, like White, such visions become beacons, reshaping her life and creating what she felt was a true bond with the holy and divine; for others (like Philip K. Dick) such brushes with the infinite shatter their lives and leave them shaken, not inspired. <BR/><BR/>I'll not pursue this line of discussion further, as I realize White's writings are central to your faith, Jim, and it is not my intention to criticize or inadvertantly attack White or her texts. But understand that this thread is not about my religious conversion, either; you can evangelize all you wish, but in the context of my life and beliefs, I feel no need, nor have I ever, to tether to one church or the other or another. <BR/><BR/>In short, to my mind, all religious texts are filtered through their human agents -- their authors, and those who followed to perpetuate those texts (and thus, via interpretation and even extensive revision, altered the revered wellspring) -- and thus fallably human, not intrinsically divine. There is much that is beautiful and moving, much to be taken from all of those I've been lucky enough to read, but I can't take any as "The Word" of the Divine on faith alone. People are people, and thus fallable.<BR/><BR/>More later.SRBissettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14426874992235196378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15861891.post-1130775617375824282005-10-31T11:20:00.000-05:002005-10-31T11:20:00.000-05:00I've had little time this week to see to this; I'm...I've had little time this week to see to this; I'm not ignoring this conversation, just making time to weigh in with some ability to follow through properly. Stay tuned -- SRBSRBissettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14426874992235196378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15861891.post-1130094693304756392005-10-23T15:11:00.000-04:002005-10-23T15:11:00.000-04:00Howdy, Jim -- A little time to respond, more later...Howdy, Jim -- A little time to respond, more later, promise:<BR/><BR/>Re:<BR/><I>"...but finally Crichton admitted that GOD could exist! Then he clarified that if GOD "did" exist, He used evolution to do it all -- but he admitted that GOD existed!!"</I><BR/><BR/>Well, it's a leap to go from (in your own words) "Crichton admitted GOD could exist" to "he admitted that GOD existed!!," and though I get your point, Crichton is a popular author, neither a scientist nor a theologist. Continuing:<BR/><BR/><I>"Here's what I find so troubling -- why do we have to "twist peoples' arms" to get them to acknowledge that it is very logical from a scientific point of view for people to admit that GOD exists?"</I><BR/><BR/>Logic has nothing to do with it, to my mind, Jim -- faith isn't based upon reason, it's inherently non-rational (as opposed to irrational, please). I have faith in many things, none of it grounded in logic or reason, but rather "faith" in all meanings of the word. This is why faith and science are antithetical by nature -- matters of faith are not demonstratably provable, or (for instance) subject to experimentation per se. <BR/><BR/>That said, a man of faith can be a scientist, and a man of science can be a man of faith -- but that does not meld science and religion, or their respective conditions, realities, and definitions.<BR/><BR/>Re:<BR/><I>"It's my firm opinion that even a 10-year old STAR TREK fan can imagine the existence of a GOD-entity out there somewhere! It's not that big of a deal!"</I><BR/><BR/>No, of course not -- but your use of the word "imagine" is relevent. I have my own sense of God, and my own perspective, shaped in part by the Catholic dogma I was forcefed as a lad, my rejection of that dogma, my experiences with nature growing up in the backwoods of Vermont, and my experiences as a person living in this world. None of them are "provable," but they do make up my personal religious convictions, which are strong but not codified in a manner that aligns with any organized religion I know of. <BR/><BR/>That said, Jim, "the big deal" to me seem to be the ongoing struggle for some factions to attempt to impose their respective religious beliefs upon others, which interests me not at all as either imposer or recipient. Hence my statement, "Freedom of religion also means freedom <I>from</I> religion." <BR/><BR/>In all matters relevent to this -- science instruction, Creationism vs. Darwinian evolution, birth control, abortion, right to life, assisted suicide; choose your poison, so to speak -- seems to me the attempts to impose one religious doctrine upon all is the ongoing problem. <BR/><BR/>If you refute birth control, abortion, assisted suicide, etc., fine, DON'T embrace them. But in a true democracy, denial of services due to religious belief systems is dangerous, destructive, and antithetical to democracy. Those who don't believe in religious doctrines that do not sanction those practices/beliefs should not be the ones struggling with these issues -- those who DO hold devout religious beliefs that condemn such practices should live accordingly.<BR/><BR/>Re:<BR/><I>"Michael Crichton finally admitted that there is room for GOD within the creation of the Universe and the creation of Life! As far as I know, he used to be an evolutionist who did not believe in GOD (but I am not sure) -- maybe you know some info about his past belief system?"</I> <BR/><BR/>I've no idea, nor does it matter to me much -- as I said, Crichton is a popular (and clever) novelist and occasionally clever filmmaker (<I><B>Westworld</I></B>, his first film, remains his best film), but I don't look to writers like Crichton for matters either scientific or theological. Stephen J. Gould, C.S. Lewise, etc. -- now you're talking. Gould wrote extensively in his lifetime on matters to do with evolution (brilliantly), science, and the clash between science and religion. <BR/><BR/>I have also read Gish and many, many others from the Creationist texts, going back to the first published attempts (in the 1880s) to wrestle through the discrepancies between geological science, the fossil record, and the Bible. It's all fascinating reading, some of it quite enlightening, but I must admit I find the contemporary writings lacking in many ways. The adversarial drive behind almost all Creationist and Intelligent Design writing since approximately 1965 fundamentally abandons the integrity of even the earliest texts, once the determination to twist matters of faith and theological thought into biological science began in earnest. It simply isn't <I>science</I>, Jim, once the issue of a creator enters the fray. It's theology, pure and simple, and the attempt to merge the two into something that presents itself <I>as</I> science serves neither.<BR/><BR/>Re:<BR/><I>"Hundreds and hundreds of extremely brilliant scientists around the world are admitting that the Bible's story of Creation is perfectly acceptable within their various scientific fields -- so it's not just "me" trying to say that GOD exists, there are many people with PhDs involved in supporting Creationism!"</I><BR/><BR/>I never said it was just you, Jim, ever. I chose your comic in the context of discussing two other comics (one past, one present) in order to get into this issue via comics. Your comic <I>is</I> unique, though, as one of the few (along with the Jack T. Chick tracts and comics) to engage with this debate, hence its inclusion and my interest.<BR/><BR/>However, while there are indeed "many people with PhDs involved in supporting Creationism," and that's relevent, there are not "hundreds and hundreds," as far as I can determine from all available texts and research, arguing that "the Bible's story of Creation is perfectly acceptable within their various scientific fields..." As I implied in the first of the three parts of this discussion (my comment on the article on the soon-to-open Intelligent Design museum, and the reference in that article to the poll numbers), this is not a matter of masses in agreement, Jim. That is beside the point. The issues of faith, religion, and science are not something to be voted upon -- science is science, religion is religion, and the separation of church and state in these matters is critical. Bringing the Bible into the science classroom is inherently problematic in a democracy; in a theocracy, that's another matter, but we do not yet live in a theocracy, nor would I choose to remain in the US should it become a theocracy.<BR/><BR/>There are many men and women of faith practicing in the sciences, but that does not support your (or other) claims to "hundreds and hundreds" of scientists backing Creationism or Intelligent Design. This kind of hyperbole is unnecessary and undermines the strength of your arguments, Jim, as it undermines that of those writers who have made the same sorts of unsubstantiated claims. <BR/><BR/>Re:<BR/><I>"I let GOD into my life back in 1984, over 20 years ago -- up to that point I would have been reluctant to go along with the biblical version of a Creator/GOD, so I can understand your reluctance, Steve -- maybe you could explain your way of relating to GOD and the Bible ala your involvement with the Constantine character? Do you believe in GOD? Is it just the GOD of the Bible that you disagree with? Which version of GOD do you currently believe in?"</I><BR/><BR/>Well, that'll need more time than I have today to go into. <BR/><BR/>Suffice to say (a)I relate to God and the teachings of Jesus Christ personally, without trying to impose my belief systems on anyone, including my children, save in my attempts to treat others with the same respect I wish to be treated in this world; (b) I have found all organized religions in some manner offensive and their practices contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ as detailed in the New Testament (all available versions/editions), and our current "Christian" government simply appalling in more ways than I can concisely summarize; (c) the Bible is a book, authored by men, not God, and exists in many editions and variations, all in some way effected/altered by the human beings involved in the scribing/translating/publication of those editions. It is also composed of many books and fragments, which belies a strict literalist reading of any coherence. While it is an incredible book by any definition, its archaic roots and language are open to many interpretations, which is inherently counterproductive in any attempt to "live by the word." Much of the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) includes many beliefs, doctrines, teachings, and what I consider parables (after all, Jesus often spoke in and taught via parables) that are often contradictory, proclaiming many rules and laws that are patently absurd and/or sociopathic in contemporary contexts. Thus, a selective 'reading' and application of the Bible is necessary -- which, again, makes any literalist, absolutist attempt to 'live by the word' quite dangerous, in my view.<BR/><BR/>I do not find the need to anthropomorphize God as a deity; the natural world I see all around me, experience in some way daily, is a world of great wonder, great beauty, and terrifying cruelty. In studying nature in many ways, from my childhood microscope explorations of our pond waters to my layman's journey into paleontology while creating <I><B>Tyrant</I></B>, I am stunned by the intracacies and interwoven fabric of nature and the universe. But the anthropomorphized God of the religion I was raised within -- Catholicism -- and that I read of in my admittedly sketchy catch-as-catch-can theology readings (most of which is in some way related to the entire Darwinian evolution vs. Christianity debates since the late 1800s) does not add up to the God most worship. However, I do not find the God I see reflected in the world I live in threatening, per se; but if you argue Intelligent Design, my friend, and believe in a compassionate anthropormophized God, be ready to confront some tough questions when you get into the reality of the life-and-death aspects of our planet's most fascinating lifeforms. <BR/><BR/>As for Constantine -- uh, I have no idea what you're searching for in that regard. As a writer and artist, I feel the need to explore and move with imagination whereever it leads me, Jim. I wear no blinders, and pursue any and all concepts to their bitter ends, particularly when I'm working in the horror genre. Those tales, however, do not necessarily reflect my personal religious beliefs or convictions: imagination, fiction, art are all fields of play to me, and anything goes, however abrasive or over-the-edge. <BR/><BR/>My role in the creation of the character of John Constantine during my <B><I>Swamp Thing</I></B> years emerged from a rather childish conceit -- "Hey, Alan, we're going to keep drawing Sting in the backgrounds whenever we can, so you better make him a character!" I've no direct relation with the character that eventually emerged or the theological underpinnings of <B><I>Hellblazer</I></B> or the film version. I find them neither offensive nor particularly persuasive, but that subgenre of horror fiction does fascinate me considerably (in fact, the <B><I>Constantine</B></I> film is essentially a remake of sorts of the excellent <B><I>Prophecy</B></I>, originally filmed as <B><I>God's Army</B></I>), which is another matter altogether. <BR/><BR/>If you wish, let's stick to what are my creations -- like Tyrant -- and I'm happy to dance those issues around.SRBissettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14426874992235196378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15861891.post-1130008623282224982005-10-22T15:17:00.000-04:002005-10-22T15:17:00.000-04:00Howdy, Jim -- good to hear from you, and thanks fo...Howdy, Jim -- good to hear from you, and thanks for posting your site info here.<BR/><BR/>I'm glad you understood my comments on your work as not being directed personally at you; I've always enjoyed your comics work and art, though we don't share religious/political philosophies. As we say here in New England, "Live and let live," and I'll be sure to visit your site this weekend and get in touch. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for the invite to send the revised edition of A CREATIONIST'S VIEWS ON DINOSAURS... -- I'm at PO Box 47, Marlboro, VT 05344.<BR/><BR/>Since it isn't stated as such in the 1997 edition of your comic, for the purposes of my blog article I didn't identify the comic's narrator as being Ron Wyatt, though that was my impression (prompted, no doubt, by the other comic you sent me in '97 which was co-authored with, and clearly 'narrated' by, Ron Wyatt, concerning his archeological discoveries/beliefs). Is that Ron in A CREATIONIST'S VIEW, or am I incorrect?SRBissettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14426874992235196378noreply@blogger.com