If a medicine bottle has one poisoned pill, what would you do?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2014 3:09 AM GMT
    Assuming all the pills look alike, would you

    A. Try to guess which one is poisoned, toss it out, and take the rest?

    B. Throw away the whole bottle (or return it)?

    C. Pray about it and hope for the best?



    Almost everyone can agree that parts of the Bible are incorrect, and many other parts are ambiguous and open to interpretation. If the Bible is supposed to be our "medicine bottle for spiritual wellness" then it sure does have lots of poisoned pills. This is why I tossed the whole thing out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2014 4:25 PM GMT
    paulflexes saidAssuming all the pills look alike, would you

    A. Try to guess which one is poisoned, toss it out, and take the rest?

    B. Throw away the whole bottle (or return it)?

    C. Pray about it and hope for the best?

    Almost everyone can agree that parts of the Bible are incorrect, and many other parts are ambiguous and open to interpretation. If the Bible is supposed to be our "medicine bottle for spiritual wellness" then it sure does have lots of poisoned pills. This is why I tossed the whole thing out.


    But what if I can poke holes in your analogy? I tend to look at such things in terms of their colander effect. How much water must be continually poured in order for a certain level to be maintained. How much water can push against a dam before it breaks, etc. Does a theory hold water?

    And here's the first hole I'll poke: even a good pill can be poison. Whether taken with contradictory meds or overdosed or ill timed or having become addicted to or covered up symptoms of what might otherwise be cured.

    Is love always a good pill? If someone is abusive towards you, then is loving them good for them or does it simply enable their being abusive? If the good pill is a life saver that I keep throwing out there, will that person ever learn on their own to swim? Is it more compassionate to turn your back and risk them drowning in their own shit that they might figure out how to fix themselves? Do we have to step in their shit or can we even be compassionate for ourselves and avoid their shit?

    Alternatively, sometimes a poison might be required to stem disease: chemotherapy. Or emotionally, if a person becomes very depressed about what someone has done to them or what they maybe even wrongly perceive having been done to them, becoming angry can help overcome depression. While anger itself is a poison pill to take, it can fight the poison of depression or of taking responsibility for bringing shit upon oneself.

    So while religious traditions might be loaded with poison, they might also have a baby in that bath water to further mix that metaphor.

    But certainly you want to filter, purify or dilute the poison as much as possible, to clarify it, to understand it, and to have at the ready remedy as required.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 15, 2014 1:43 AM GMT
    theantijock said
    paulflexes saidAssuming all the pills look alike, would you

    A. Try to guess which one is poisoned, toss it out, and take the rest?

    B. Throw away the whole bottle (or return it)?

    C. Pray about it and hope for the best?

    Almost everyone can agree that parts of the Bible are incorrect, and many other parts are ambiguous and open to interpretation. If the Bible is supposed to be our "medicine bottle for spiritual wellness" then it sure does have lots of poisoned pills. This is why I tossed the whole thing out.


    But what if I can poke holes in your analogy? I tend to look at such things in terms of their colander effect. How much water must be continually poured in order for a certain level to be maintained. How much water can push against a dam before it breaks, etc. Does a theory hold water?

    And here's the first hole I'll poke: even a good pill can be poison. Whether taken with contradictory meds or overdosed or ill timed or having become addicted to or covered up symptoms of what might otherwise be cured.

    Is love always a good pill? If someone is abusive towards you, then is loving them good for them or does it simply enable their being abusive? If the good pill is a life saver that I keep throwing out there, will that person ever learn on their own to swim? Is it more compassionate to turn your back and risk them drowning in their own shit that they might figure out how to fix themselves? Do we have to step in their shit or can we even be compassionate for ourselves and avoid their shit?

    Alternatively, sometimes a poison might be required to stem disease: chemotherapy. Or emotionally, if a person becomes very depressed about what someone has done to them or what they maybe even wrongly perceive having been done to them, becoming angry can help overcome depression. While anger itself is a poison pill to take, it can fight the poison of depression or of taking responsibility for bringing shit upon oneself.

    So while religious traditions might be loaded with poison, they might also have a baby in that bath water to further mix that metaphor.

    But certainly you want to filter, purify or dilute the poison as much as possible, to clarify it, to understand it, and to have at the ready remedy as required.
    I was actually referring to the Tylenol poisonings in 1982.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tylenol_murders

    That incident is what led to tamper-proof packaging for medicine. You'd think if God were real, he'd have figured out a way to make his word tamper-proof as well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 15, 2014 4:16 AM GMT
    paulflexes saidI was actually referring to the Tylenol poisonings in 1982.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tylenol_murders

    That incident is what led to tamper-proof packaging for medicine. You'd think if God were real, he'd have figured out a way to make his word tamper-proof as well.


    But there are still headaches in life and even though we know products we're talked into taking can be tainted, regardless of their cellophane wrapping which makes us feel so secure that shuttle astronauts rely on it for reenty purposes, we risk the potential of that poison pill every day we grab a bottle.

    We can make ourselves only so safe, after that, you either take risks or become a shut-in.

    By free-will, and an awkward sense of humor, God doesn't really tend towards the tamper-proof or the fire-proof or, in general, pretty much any, um, proof.

    Except of course, maybe for the 80 proof. Depending on how much proof you had, you might want some Tylenol.

    And, here, I can illustrate how that works. We just have to put the pope and his entourage in a plastic poncho and you'll see how safe you feel.

    Look, tamper proof bishops...
    article-2040488-0E0A1EC800000578-446_634
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 15, 2014 10:21 AM GMT
    First of all, never take Tylenol after having consumed alcohol, 80 proof or otherwise, as it can destroy your liver.

    http://www.medpagetoday.com/Blogs/InOtherWords/14895

    And furthermore:

    421822_285878154799286_100001313122905_6
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 15, 2014 11:10 AM GMT
    theantijock said
    paulflexes saidI was actually referring to the Tylenol poisonings in 1982.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tylenol_murders

    That incident is what led to tamper-proof packaging for medicine. You'd think if God were real, he'd have figured out a way to make his word tamper-proof as well.


    But there are still headaches in life and even though we know products we're talked into taking can be tainted, regardless of their cellophane wrapping which makes us feel so secure that shuttle astronauts rely on it for reenty purposes, we risk the potential of that poison pill every day we grab a bottle.

    We can make ourselves only so safe, after that, you either take risks or become a shut-in.

    By free-will, and an awkward sense of humor, God doesn't really tend towards the tamper-proof or the fire-proof or, in general, pretty much any, um, proof.

    Except of course, maybe for the 80 proof. Depending on how much proof you had, you might want some Tylenol.

    And, here, I can illustrate how that works. We just have to put the pope and his entourage in a plastic poncho and you'll see how safe you feel.

    Look, tamper proof bishops...
    article-2040488-0E0A1EC800000578-446_634
    Honestly man, it sounds like you're just making stuff up to justify believing something you know is false. If you truly believed that God is all-powerful and truly loves us, you'd question why he's so unable to be proven, and his word is so ambiguous and tainted.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 15, 2014 4:49 PM GMT
    paulflexes saidHonestly man, it sounds like you're just making stuff up to justify believing something you know is false. If you truly believed that God is all-powerful and truly loves us, you'd question why he's so unable to be proven, and his word is so ambiguous and tainted.


    But, um, I've just shown bishops in tamper proof ponchos. I would think it at least difficult if not impossible--assuming, of course, you believe in the impossible, haha--to judge from that what you think I might believe. Fact is you've no idea what I believe, certainly not from anything I've said here. So, chill bud, I get I'm not always so easy to read--I've often a very dry humor and I purposely do not always differentiate whether I'm being serious, though sometimes I'll leave a clue, Poncho.

    But on an admittedly more serious note and to address directly one of your points, being vague and even at times seemingly tainted and even improvable would be characteristics applicable to God or a concept thereof for any number of reasons ranging from simply persuasive argumentation (not unlike how, for instance, a fundie might say that any info to the contrary is the devil's work, thereby negating from the get go further considerations) to the very concept of the free will of mere mortals which most anyone, theists or otherwise, might embrace as true (free will as true).

    Curiously, it is some of the most non theistic who have been speculating as of late that we've not free will but rather that all our actions and thoughts are predetermined.

    Equally, interestingly, seemingly on the surface contradictory to this principal of God, that God created man in his image, and so by that allegory in order for a vessel to be strong enough to accept that light without shattering therefor free will & it's subsequent evils. And should the vessel's light be seen, be known without being obliterated in the all-knowing, all-pervasive light, thus the darkness in the absence of the convenient God.

    So that the argument would follow that if you are a point of light, a soul, then you'd only exist as an individual in the absence of the greater light which would otherwise overwhelm your light. That which would be created from God would not exist in the presence of God is how that thought would go.

    So the argument goes that the absence of God and the existence of evil both would be required of theism. It is neither as you seem to be stating, contradictory nor non-proving. The absence and the evil don't deny God but rather are, well, maybe not so much a negative proof of God but at least negative aspects to the proving of that duality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 15, 2014 4:58 PM GMT
    Un hunh...



    “If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”


    ― W.C. Fields
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 15, 2014 5:42 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    paulflexes saidHonestly man, it sounds like you're just making stuff up to justify believing something you know is false. If you truly believed that God is all-powerful and truly loves us, you'd question why he's so unable to be proven, and his word is so ambiguous and tainted.


    But, um, I've just shown bishops in tamper proof ponchos. I would think it at least difficult if not impossible--assuming, of course, you believe in the impossible, haha--to judge from that what you think I might believe. Fact is you've no idea what I believe, certainly not from anything I've said here. So, chill bud, I get I'm not always so easy to read--I've often a very dry humor and I purposely do not always differentiate whether I'm being serious, though sometimes I'll leave a clue, Poncho.

    But on an admittedly more serious note and to address directly one of your points, being vague and even at times seemingly tainted and even improvable would be characteristics applicable to God or a concept thereof for any number of reasons ranging from simply persuasive argumentation (not unlike how, for instance, a fundie might say that any info to the contrary is the devil's work, thereby negating from the get go further considerations) to the very concept of the free will of mere mortals which most anyone, theists or otherwise, might embrace as true (free will as true).

    Curiously, it is some of the most non theistic who have been speculating as of late that we've not free will but rather that all our actions and thoughts are predetermined.

    Equally, interestingly, seemingly on the surface contradictory to this principal of God, that God created man in his image, and so by that allegory in order for a vessel to be strong enough to accept that light without shattering therefor free will & it's subsequent evils. And should the vessel's light be seen, be known without being obliterated in the all-knowing, all-pervasive light, thus the darkness in the absence of the convenient God.

    So that the argument would follow that if you are a point of light, a soul, then you'd only exist as an individual in the absence of the greater light which would otherwise overwhelm your light. That which would be created from God would not exist in the presence of God is how that thought would go.

    So the argument goes that the absence of God and the existence of evil both would be required of theism. It is neither as you seem to be stating, contradictory nor non-proving. The absence and the evil don't deny God but rather are, well, maybe not so much a negative proof of God but at least negative aspects to the proving of that duality.
    I just LOL'd all the way through that. It's like elliptical semi-circular rounded-on-the-edges reasoning with a touch of redundancy to drive home the point. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 15, 2014 6:59 PM GMT
    D. Give the bottle to someone who annoys me.

    And then call him every day to remind him to take his dose, until the phone doesn't answer any more. icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 15, 2014 7:13 PM GMT
    E. Lol. Switch pharmacies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 15, 2014 9:52 PM GMT
    paulflexes said
    I just LOL'd all the way through that. It's like elliptical semi-circular rounded-on-the-edges reasoning with a touch of redundancy to drive home the point. icon_lol.gif

    The guy sees it as an exercise to stave off potential Alzheimers's...wtf, I'd at least give him that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 15, 2014 10:08 PM GMT
    paulflexes said
    theantijock said
    paulflexes saidHonestly man, it sounds like you're just making stuff up to justify believing something you know is false. If you truly believed that God is all-powerful and truly loves us, you'd question why he's so unable to be proven, and his word is so ambiguous and tainted.


    But, um, I've just shown bishops in tamper proof ponchos. I would think it at least difficult if not impossible--assuming, of course, you believe in the impossible, haha--to judge from that what you think I might believe. Fact is you've no idea what I believe, certainly not from anything I've said here. So, chill bud, I get I'm not always so easy to read--I've often a very dry humor and I purposely do not always differentiate whether I'm being serious, though sometimes I'll leave a clue, Poncho.

    But on an admittedly more serious note and to address directly one of your points, being vague and even at times seemingly tainted and even improvable would be characteristics applicable to God or a concept thereof for any number of reasons ranging from simply persuasive argumentation (not unlike how, for instance, a fundie might say that any info to the contrary is the devil's work, thereby negating from the get go further considerations) to the very concept of the free will of mere mortals which most anyone, theists or otherwise, might embrace as true (free will as true).

    Curiously, it is some of the most non theistic who have been speculating as of late that we've not free will but rather that all our actions and thoughts are predetermined.

    Equally, interestingly, seemingly on the surface contradictory to this principal of God, that God created man in his image, and so by that allegory in order for a vessel to be strong enough to accept that light without shattering therefor free will & it's subsequent evils. And should the vessel's light be seen, be known without being obliterated in the all-knowing, all-pervasive light, thus the darkness in the absence of the convenient God.

    So that the argument would follow that if you are a point of light, a soul, then you'd only exist as an individual in the absence of the greater light which would otherwise overwhelm your light. That which would be created from God would not exist in the presence of God is how that thought would go.

    So the argument goes that the absence of God and the existence of evil both would be required of theism. It is neither as you seem to be stating, contradictory nor non-proving. The absence and the evil don't deny God but rather are, well, maybe not so much a negative proof of God but at least negative aspects to the proving of that duality.
    I just LOL'd all the way through that. It's like elliptical semi-circular rounded-on-the-edges reasoning with a touch of redundancy to drive home the point. icon_lol.gif


    What part or parts, specifically, did you find "redundant" or whatever you might mean by "elliptical semi-circular rounded-on-the-edges reasoning"?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2014 10:38 PM GMT
    B