• In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

What, In God's Name? by Michael Barry

This forum is devoted to conversations about your favorite NON-FICTION authors, books, and genres.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: What, In God's Name? by Michael Barry

Unread post

That was a good exchange - it appears BookTalk and Michael Barry understand one another better...
However with so many new ideas tossed about in 60 pages, one must trudge onward through them...
Individual identity brings me to what I believe to be God’s ultimate golden rule. God does not duplicate identities. A cloned human is out of the equation, because it’s an identity that has already been taken. A duplication of a human’s identity can’t happen. p30
That is a strange idea - why would a prohibition on cloning humans be "God’s ultimate golden rule?" We have cloned sheep so it's unlikely there are technical reasons why we can't clone humans. It is probably possible to do so, but that may never happen due to legal and ethical restrictions. Cloned humans would grow up very differently if raised in different environments - they would not be duplicate identities. Therefore I see no reason to imagine a divine restriction against it.
Religious beliefs tell us that we originate from Adam and Eve, and science tells us that we originate from Adam and Eve. Your body cells came from Adam and Eve. It’s not open to any debate, that’s how it is. p32
You are mighty certain about that, but I already covered how the "original human" couldn't exist due to the gradual long time line of human evolution. Elsewhere you mention no humans existed prior to the specific date of 4026 BCE. Are you a Young Earth Creationist? :P
Before human beings, no mammal had any instinct to kill and eat another mammal. In my opinion, the serpent was the ‘first’ mortal mammal to eat mortal mammal flesh. p34

...Prior to humans, every mammal on Earth had no instinct to kill and eat another mammal. p55
Whew that's a doozy! If you've ever watched a nature documentary of life on the African plains showing, for example the drama of cheetah and gazelle, you know mammals have been killing mammals since time primordial. And...um....cough-cough...snakes are not mammals, they are reptiles! :slap:
Our solar system is the last quarantined solar system in the universe. Access into our solar system (Earth) from outer space is extremely hazardous, and requires advanced technology that we simply don’t have. p38
Fortunately we do not require that technology because we are already in our solar system! :?
I hope you’re not a human being fooled by all of that Nasa moon landing nonsense? The evidence we’re shown for men landing on the moon is insulting. The evidence we know against men landing on the moon is overwhelming. Time means nothing to the everlasting kingdom, other than the beginning and the end of timing something. The everlasting kingdom wait for the ‘completion’ of the whole universe. p38
I don't have time or energy to deal with the first part of that statement. I'll focus on the second part in italics (my emphasis) since it's an example of another problem with your writing style. Notice the italicized second part has nothing whatsoever to do with the first part - it's just plopped onto the end, evidently because you happened to have those random thoughts when writing that paragraph. You do this several times in the book.
It is absolutely ridiculous to believe that the Earth, and everything upon it, was created in seven of our days (168 hours). p41
You are correct because YahWeh rested on the seventh day. Therefore he actually created everything in 6 days X 24 = 144 hours! :chatsmilies_com_92:
Geologists know that the Earth’s mountains and highlands have all been formed by water pushing them up and moulding them into peaks. p43
Noooooooooo! Please do more research in general, but in this case especially on volcanoes and subduction zones.
Hell means nothing more than ‘below’ the Earth’s surface. Your drains are in hell. Tree roots are in hell. Moles live in hell. Heaven and hell are two old words. Heaven means above the Earth’s surface and hell means below it. You can’t go to heaven because you’re already in it, and you can’t go to hell because it doesn’t exist in any form, other than the concept of being underground. p43
Gotta hand it to you, that's a unique interpretation. I wonder what it means to say "She died and went to heaven"?
Period five is obviously the age of the dinosaurs. This non-sentient, non-mammal world is putting forth in and out of water. p46

...Adam and Eve cooked and ate non-sentient (non-mammal). They had a head start because the Neanderthals cooked and ate non-sentient (non-mammal). p55
BookTalk has had several discussions on the word "sentience". You use the word quite a bit, but it doesn't appear that you know what it means. You seem to equate sentience with mammals, but it's much different than that as described in the quote below. Clearly sentience applies to much more than mammals!

"Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia"). In Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights, because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, and thus is held to confer certain rights."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience
God had a deep sleep fall upon the man. The people of 1500BC (Genesis) knew nothing about surgery under anaesthetics. If we know how to put someone to sleep before surgery, you can be sure that God knows too. p. 53
That is eery. We had a recent author post about his book claiming in part those verses in the Bible showed humans how to do anesthesia. :crying:
I’m short sighted, so I wear contact lenses. This comes from a gene mutation caused by the first human to mutate that gene, by eating pig flesh. We know this. p58
Noooo we do NOOOT knoooow this! It's ridiculous. :no:

Well that's 'bout it for now. I may come back later to discuss the strange ending to this imaginative book.
_______________________________________________________
When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you; even though you multiply your prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood.
Isaiah 1:15

But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 21: 23 - 25
Michael Barry
The Great Gabsby
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:35 am
7
Location: England
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: What, In God's Name? by Michael Barry

Unread post

Chris, thank you. Yes, I'm starting to understand BookTalk now, and I quite like being ripped apart (figuratively speaking). At first, my defence mechanism kicked in. I've had sixteen years of explaining myself. I've tackled them all: devout followers of every persuasion known to humankind. I can tell when someone is being enlightened, I can see it in their eyes. There is a great plan; far too magnificent for us to ever figure out completely. And I don't think any of us actually have the intellectual capacity to fully understand; I don't think we're meant to. If teleportation or shape shifting or quantum leaping could be explained to us as 'possible', we would then consider it? As I've said in the book, a missing 24th human chromosome would be a lot of genes. If there are animals on Earth that can grow a new leg from one gene, then I believe that one gene can grow a new human leg? Same principle? And I think that without Moses' account I would be in the dark completely. It's the taking of the fruit from the tree of life and living to time indefinite that convinces me that the tree is a human organ. And in human anatomy there's only one place it could be attached: the place that has no known function?
I haven't seen a dollar bill since I played in America back in the eighties, and I know it's a cliché from a movie, but did it not say, "In God We Trust?" Some things are impossible to prove, and we can only accept them or not? A modern version of what Moses tells us in Genesis is my key point. So I reckon it's just a case of: does one believe the Genesis account or not? Religious beliefs believe in the first days of Genesis, which equates to billions of people past and present.
I hope you will allow me to continue with this adventure? I think it has legs, so to speak. I'm looking forward to responding to other posts, especially my new friend, Landroid, who is going to make me work hard by the look of it? How do I put the boxed quotes in a post?
Michael Barry
The Great Gabsby
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:35 am
7
Location: England
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: What, In God's Name? by Michael Barry

Unread post

Taylor, thank you for pumping up my deflating sanity. I truly appreciate the advice and help given by everyone here. I needed the criticism, which surprisingly makes me feel stronger and even more determined to get it right?
Michael Barry
The Great Gabsby
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:35 am
7
Location: England
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: What, In God's Name? by Michael Barry

Unread post

Oh Landroid, you certainly believe a lot of things that you seem to have accepted from other writers, even going back through the centuries. Don't get me started on some of the lunatic philosophers this world has produced? I'm chomping at the bit to get stuck into your observations (in a nice way). I'll do that after I've learned the boxed quotes manoeuvre.
If anyone fancies correcting the structure and abbreviations of W, IGN you are welcome. I obviously have it in Word, and I would pay handsomely to see that.
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: What, In God's Name? by Michael Barry

Unread post

Here's a link on how to use BB Code, the method of formatting on this site.
http://www.booktalk.org/faq.php?mode=bbcode

Here's one example for quoting.

Code: Select all

[quote]That was a good exchange - it appears BookTalk and Michael Barry understand one another better...[/quote]
Typing the above (ignore the "code") produces the following.
That was a good exchange - it appears BookTalk and Michael Barry understand one another better...
Here's how too reference who you're quoting.

Code: Select all

[quote="LanDroid"]That was a good exchange - it appears BookTalk and Michael Barry understand one another better...[/quote]
Typing the above, note the = sign and quotation punctuation, produces the following. (Again ingore the "code".)
LanDroid wrote:That was a good exchange - it appears BookTalk and Michael Barry understand one another better...
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: What, In God's Name? by Michael Barry

Unread post

Chris OConnor wrote:We discuss our books while we're reading them and we literally rip them apart.
It is just grammar. We don't rip the books apart like Mike Tyson tearing a phone book in two, but rather rip ideas apart.
Michael Barry
The Great Gabsby
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:35 am
7
Location: England
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: What, In God's Name? by Michael Barry

Unread post

Yes, thank you Robert Tulip. Chris, Landroid and others here have got through to me; I understand now. I can see that just declaring unprecedented theories without explaining how I reached the conclusions, and expecting everyone to accept them just because I say so, was a big mistake. BookTalk has made me realize that I need to be more specific, and provide more information. I'm rewriting W,IGN with much more detail now.
Michael Barry
The Great Gabsby
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:35 am
7
Location: England
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: What, In God's Name? by Michael Barry

Unread post

Landroid Wrote: That is a strange idea - why would a prohibition on cloning humans be "God’s ultimate golden rule?" We have cloned sheep so it's unlikely there are technical reasons why we can't clone humans. It is probably possible to do so, but that may never happen due to legal and ethical restrictions. Cloned humans would grow up very differently if raised in different environments - they would not be duplicate identities. Therefore I see no reason to imagine a divine restriction against it.

Michael Barry Writes: Every human being is an individual identity, Landroid. That's how we discovered forensic DNA fingerprinting. Dolly, the cloned sheep was born with arthritis and died soon after because the nucleus in a cloned cell is the same age as the 'being' who provided the cell nucleus for cloning. A clone 'IS' a duplicate identity. That's the whole point of cloning. My claim is that the identity gene in between each gene (to separate one gene from another) on our chromosomes, is that which we have all come to know as our soul. I thought this was clearly pointed out in W,IGN? That's why the everlasting kingdom are more concerned about your soul than anything else. Again, aren't we coming back to the same thing? You request credentials and evidence for my claims, but where are yours?
I tried to cut and paste a lengthy quote into a quote box, but I was unsuccessful. I'll figure it out, eventually.
Michael Barry
The Great Gabsby
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:35 am
7
Location: England
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: What, In God's Name? by Michael Barry

Unread post

Landroid Wrote: You are mighty certain about that, but I already covered how the "original human" couldn't exist due to the gradual long time line of human evolution. Elsewhere you mention no humans existed prior to the specific date of 4026 BCE. Are you a Young Earth Creationist? :P
Michael Barry Writes: Isaac Newton's looking down on us, Landroid? Take one male rabbit, take one female rabbit. Put them on a deserted island (with no rabbits) and come back one hundred years later. Holy crap, thousands of rabbits! Press rewind on the entire concept and change it to: Take one male human, take one female human. Put them on the Earth. The Doomsday Book recorded 6 million people living in England (1066AD), and now there are 70 million. Ancestry, family trees, the result of the subtraction can only be two, and before that, one. Time Team have established beyond question, many times, no evidence of any cultivation on Earth before 4026BC. And as Moses points out in Genesis, "Because there was no man to cultivate the ground".
Michael Barry
The Great Gabsby
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:35 am
7
Location: England
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: What, In God's Name? by Michael Barry

Unread post

Landroid Wrote: Whew that's a doozy! If you've ever watched a nature documentary of life on the African plains showing, for example the drama of cheetah and gazelle, you know mammals have been killing mammals since time primordial. And...um....cough-cough...snakes are not mammals, they are reptiles! :slap:
Michael Barry Writes: It's only because I like you, Landroid, that I'm not ripping your stuff to pieces. You're right. The way I have explained things in W,IGN are not getting through? Cough, cough, there's no mention of snakes in my book? The serpent was the first mortal mammal to eat mortal mammal flesh. The serpent became a worm. I know my book is difficult to read, but please, try this bit again? I've been answering all of these questions for years. Up against 'experts' in their field. They can't win. Such is my confidence. I just need to be as specific with my writing as I am with my talking.
Post Reply

Return to “Non-Fiction General Discussion”