Comments for Freethought Almanac

Comment on Reply to Jakub by reverendjeremiah

reverendjeremiah — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 20:24:31 +0000

Jacob may as well claim that Hesiod also wrote about his singular god, even though anyone who has read Hesiod knows that he clearly spoke of a multitude of divinities. You dont get to point at polytheistic arguments and say “See! Monotheism is scientific”. It only makes you look like an unread buffoon. Could someone tell Jacob that aristotle spoke of “Unmoved moverS” with an “S” on the end, as in PLURAL. His concept was a sort of pluralistic deism/pantheism and clearly not a group of gods and goddesses that were concerned with the affairs of mortals. They were more concepts than deities, such as .. MEH! wikipedia explains it much better than I could: “In his first philosophy, later called the Metaphysics, (or “after the Physics”), Aristotle discusses the meaning of being as being. He refers to the unmoved movers, and assigns one to each movement in the heavens; or more prosaically, he tasks future astronomers with correlating the estimated 47 to 55 motions of the Eudoxan planetary model, by his estimates, with the most current and accurate observations. According to Aristotle, each unmoved mover continuously contemplates its own contemplation; they have no knowledge of the cosmos, nor do they participate therein. The planets and stars, which have their source of motion within themselves (by virtue of aether, Aristotle’s fifth element) aspire to emulate the uniform circular motion of their particular mover. Thus captivated, their tireless performance is entirely the result of their own desire. This is one way in which the movers are said to be unmoved. Also, because they are immaterial eternal substantial form, they lack any aspect of magnitude or volume and occupy no location; thus, they are physically incapable of moving anywhere, or of moving anything. Likewise, they must have no sensory perception whatsoever on account of Aristotle’s theory of cognition: were any form of sense perception to intrude upon their thoughts, in that instant they would cease to be themselves, because actual self-reflection is their singular essence, their whole being. Like the heavenly bodies in their unadorned pursuit, so the wise look, with affection, toward the star; and hence as a role model, they inspire those who look up to them, and by whom others still, will yet find themselves enthralled, and so on, they muse… the enduring natural order of aeon, season, animal and plant.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_view_of_God

Comment on Did Jesus Really Change the World? by reverendjeremiah

reverendjeremiah — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 05:16:37 +0000

Damn good blog Ron. You will surely burn in H – E – double hockey sticks for that one!!!1!!1ELEVENTYONE!!!

Comment on Quick Comment: Political Chicken by Ronald Bruce Meyer

Ronald Bruce Meyer — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:26:36 +0000

A smart businessman would have kept his mouth shut. On the other hand, I saw the crowds come out for “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.” Imagine if similar crowds ran soup kitchens or homeless shelters! What hypocrisy!

Comment on Quick Comment: Man to Man by reverendjeremiah

reverendjeremiah — Sun, 12 Aug 2012 18:26:36 +0000

I too have kind of cringed at the “man to man” talks. I tend to expect fists flying. Personally I dispise the whole “macho” attitude. It is a modern invention. that macho shit doesnt work out in the wilderness or when survival is key.

Comment on Quick Comment: Political Chicken by reverendjeremiah

reverendjeremiah — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:12:04 +0000

Are we suprised the owner, a known religious zealot, has come out to voice his hatred…er…I mean “family values” upon the masses? Im not.

Comment on Do conservatives want America to become a third world nation? by Ronald Bruce Meyer

Ronald Bruce Meyer — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:48:03 +0000

Thanks for reading!

Comment on April 28: Churches v. Divorce by Ronald Bruce Meyer

Ronald Bruce Meyer — Sat, 12 May 2012 11:39:47 +0000

“But there were always ways around that, if not by legalisms making the marriage null and void in the first place, which became a vast profit center for the Church; then by lack of ‘internal consent.’” Making divorce contrary to God’s law was the IPO of the immorality industry. So, yes, the RCC historically “upheld” the indissolubility of marriage, and will continue to do so — so long as circumventing the ban remains a profit center for for the Church.

Comment on April 28: Churches v. Divorce by A simple Catholic

A simple Catholic — Tue, 01 May 2012 16:39:31 +0000

I’m sorry I just couldn’t pass this up. Now I am a firm Catholic and I just had to do something to help clear my Church’s name. If you do a little more research you’re right the local Bishops did grant him a divorce. But dig a little deeper my friend. You’ll find that Pope Saint Nicholas I condemned this and even deposed two archbishops who came to argue the issue with him. Clearly the Church held up the inviolability of marriage.