Sat behind a kid in 2nd grade who could lift the back of a car.
Really!
All by himself, without the aid of machinery, he could lift a car!
I saw him do it.
…actually, that’s not right.
I was present when he told our class he could do it.
We were all eager to see the phenomena and pressed him for a demonstration.
In the parking lot, we asked him to lift one of the teacher’s cars.
He responded by saying:
“I could but I don’t want to”
“Besides, I’ll get in trouble for lifting a teacher’s car.”
And that was the end of it.
I’ve encountered that boy again recently.
He’s become openly religious.
The internet allows him to brag to a larger audience.
He says stuff like this, and this and this.
He doesn’t claim to lift cars anymore.
He claims that he can explain his faith…
…but he doesn’t want to.
It’s more righteous to disengage.
Don’t ‘argue’.
Avoid conflict.
Be ‘meek’.
A tight-lipped shrug is his humble testimony.
He could share the gospel…
…he just doesn’t want to.
He is convinced that debating doesn’t do any good anyway.
Debating is a waste of time.
In fact, debating actually drives people away from Jesus!
Everybody should just stop arguing!
Everybody should follow his example.
He’s become an apologist for being a non-apologist.
He’s advocating instead for ‘love’, ‘patience’ and ‘peace’.
As if…
…you can’t do those things AND disagree with people.
As if…
…choosing to love your neighbors means you CAN’T tell them your motives.
As if…
…’love’ without action has any impact on anyone, anywhere…ever.
I’m suspicious.
Just like I don’t believe that boy could lift a car…
…I don’t believe ‘non-debaters’ can defend their faith.
I think they’re making excuses.
I think they’re lousy debaters…
…so they’ve decided that debating is a waste of time.
…Or worse…an exercise in sinful, self-aggrandization.
Outside the Gospel, there are no answers to life’s important questions.
When Christians ‘disengage’ from culture…
…culture descends into darkness.
It’s true that debate sometimes gets heated.
So what?
Guess how we know which ideas are best?
Bad ideas burn up in the heat.
“For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And the discernment of the discerning will I bring to nought,’
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God’s good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe…” 1 Corinthians 18ff
278 Responses
I still have a lack of belief in some people’s brains.
Jonathan Edwards wrote something called “Men Naturally are God’s Enemies” that I found interesting. It certainly stands the test of time, as there is nothing new under the sun.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/enemies.htm
I continue to pray for the Lord to work on the hearts of men, that they will seek Him.
Dave
Romans 5:10 (ESV) – For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.
Because it is historical fiction and she pitches it as truth which makes deceitful disingenuous and if she also teaches the Christian doctrine of eternal damnation(Hell) she is a child abuser.
Need any more reasons, John?
I disagree with you.
Now what?
What do you disagree with?
I disagree that teaching Bible is bad.
On what grounds?
Ah… That’s the question isn’t it?
Is the light coming on, or do you start calling names now?
Tell him the story about Grandpa…before he went crazy…
,
You have some serious issues you need to deal with and based on the above comment alone, you really ought to seek professional help.
Ark, she cannot help herself. She’s been brought up in a ‘male headship’ environment, must submit to her husbands’s wishes, and honour (and endorse) her daddy. It comes right from the ‘top’. THIS is the kind of brainwashing that is evident in so many of the religious – it keeps the hierarchy intact ( men at the top of course ) and gives the compliance of women a godly role. It’s the kind of bullshit that really gets under my skin. I cannot have any polite discourse with someone who disrespects half the population.
Silence, woman!
There are males speaking here!
What you and Carmen either won’t understand or won’t admit to understanding is that the “serious issues” come from TILDEB’S worldview. Not mine.
And, yes, we all can agree that people need professional help when they take naturalism/materialism to its logical conclusion. We’ve been built to recognize goodness to the point that we take our for granted. And most of us still love compassion even when people like Tildeb try to tell us that things like love and compassion are JUST base instincts.
Who believes that?
Hell is locked from the inside.
No one who’s in there actually wants to be with God. They’re doing fine by themselves, thank you very much! Sound familiar?
Oh, so you do not believe some scruffy little shit rose from the dead 2000 years ago and is claimed by Christians – like you – to be the creator of the universe?
This is false it it?
A scruffy little shit? lol.
I think I figured out your strategy, Ark. You’re still trying to figure out which buttons to push to get yourself blocked, right?
You know I don’t believe a “scruffy little shit” rose from the dead, so why would you even ask it like that unless you’re not actually interested in what I believe?…
But you a Christian, are you not, so you must believe in the resurrection, surely?
Men know about God. He has made it plain to them. Men cannot say they do not know God. From the beginning of the world, men could see what God is like through the things He has made… they DID know God, but they did not honor Him as God. They were not thankful to him and thought only of foolish things. They said they were wise, but they showed how foolish they were… Romans 1:18-20
So you don’t believe in the scruffy little escatological character called Yeshua ben Joseph then?
It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom.
So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense.
So are young going to continue with this childish tirade or are you going to put on your big girl pants and behave like an adult; for I have no idea what on earth you are trying to achieve with this bullshit you keep shoveling.
I am pretty sure there must be one of two of your daddy’s 14,000 followers who by now believe you are little more than a silly little churl.
Nobody is still reading this, Ark.
They have long since figured out that you have nothing to offer.
Oh, trust me …. they are, my dear.
Now let’s test your integrity once and for all…..
So, do you believe in the resurrection of the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth, yes or no?
“Now, let’s test your integrity once and for all….” HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Don’t bite the hand that feeds you, Ark.
So, Jesus of Nazareth? Physically Resurrected or not?
They traded the truth of God for a lie. They worshiped and cared for what God made instead of worshiping the God Who made it… Because of this, God let them follow their sinful desires which lead to shame… Because they would not keep God in their thoughts anymore, He gave them up. Their minds were sinful and they wanted only to do things they should not do.. They hate people and are jealous… They do not like other people and talk against them. They talk about people, and they hate God. They are filled with pride and tell of all the good they do. They think of new ways to sin. They do not obey their parents. They are not able to understand. They do not do what they say they will do. They have no love and no loving-pity. They know God has said that all who do such things should die. But they keep on doing these things and are happy when others do them also.
–Some Fictional Guy Who Still Managed To Hit The Nail on the Head
So you are a churl after all.
Oh, and a lousy Christian.
My mother would turn her back on your hubris.
But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you; or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you. Who among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this? In his hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind. Does not the ear test words as the palate tastes food?
You done embarrassing yourself?
Why? Are you ready for a change of pace?
Maybe you’d like to hear a story?
How about some honesty?
It would make a nice change.
Do you believe in the physical resurrection of the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth?
Last time of asking.
HEY ALL 14,000 OF YOU WHO ARE STILL READING! ARK SAYS THAT WAS HIS LAST TIME ASKING! What are the odds he was being “honest” when he said it?
Bye … I’m outta here. You can play with daddy.
Going to find someone else to take from–without offering anything in return?
Gee, I hope we can manage without you…
PeeEss. I don’t know any gods. Neither do you for that matter. I know of plenty make-believe gods, literary works of fiction; Osiris, Hercules, Baal, Yahweh, Dick, Jesus of Nazareth.
And plenty more besides.
All make believe.
I would never pronounce any of these were real. I mean what sort of person would actually believe these characters were ever real? Let alone make such a pronouncement?
Yeah, I think you might be right. Something rational is rather sporadic from Amanda’s ability to understand what others are saying.
Mrsmcmommy states as if true …people like Tildeb try to tell us that things like love and compassion are JUST base instincts.
I never said any such thing.
You said love and compassion are just cascading chemicals.
That doesn’t make them instincts.
Now, you said you studies evolution in school, which I presume means you took biology. What you didn’t tell us is how badly you must have failed it to come away with such silly and rather ignorant conclusions.
(*rolls eyes*) No, of course you didn’t say that…
My summary was WAAAAAAY too short to be something you said.
What are love and compassion?
Love and compassion are emotions that people who care about others have. People like those who work in hospice.
And emotions are….?
You mean you don’t know?
Ugh. Carmen. It’s late. I’m trying to make a point. You can answer the question, or you can just wait for Tildeb to answer mine and tell him how smart he is.
Your call.
I suggest you just make your point instead of the cat and mouse game. I’m sure Tildeb would appreciate it. 🙂
No–Tildeb said I misrepresented his views. No doubt, he’s constructing a million-word treatise at this moment, explaining why love and compassion are not JUST “cascading chemicals” (as he said elsewhere), but are actually these important and deeply meaningful processes…
Just wait. He’ll use so many words that he’ll make you think it’s smart, and you’ll miss the double-speak completely.
Please don’t sidetrack us anymore by trying to answer for Tildeb, when you have no idea what’s going on.
You’re going to have to spell it out. She’s not getting it.
Not sure if my comment will be seen way down here after the melee. It was a busy week in the restaurant I cook at, so I am late to the game.
One of the main not-really-veiled anti-apologists, oh, let’s call him Oel Jostein to keep us out of trouble (I think that may be a Jewish Viking name), declines to defend the faith for a reason: it does not fit his agenda.
Oel avoids apologetics like the Zika virus because to do so would involve him using a word he really hates saying: sin.
He is not offering Christ as a means of ultimate salvation from sin and the judgement of God as much as he is offering Christ as a means to “your best life now”. Hank Hanegraaf put it so well, that I would rather quote him than try to be as succinct on my own. He said “…Joel Osteen is the prime provocateur of a seductive brand of American Christianity that reduces God to a means to our ends. A message that beckons multitudes to the table of the Master, not for the love of the Master but for what is on the table. He is the de facto high priest of a new brand of Christianity perfectly suited for a feel-good generation.” ( http://www.equip.org/article/osteenification-and-what-it-portends/ )
Hank pulls no punches. Makes me wish their were true church councils like in the days of old who would stand for or against the orthodoxy of what modern preachers are saying.
This is not just a sort of “denominational distinctive” that Oel (hey… Hank said a name… I am sticking with my Oel Jostein) has made in avoiding — heck, just call it what it is — abandoning defending the faith. Oel is ignoring the mandates of Scripture for the man of God.
————————-
1 Peter 3:15-16 (ESV)
“but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.”
————————-
What Oel fails to consider (if we give him the benefit of the doubt as being naive) is that there is no “Good News” of the Gospel without the “Bad News” of sin and eternal separation from God. Some of us may remember the “Wordless Book” (I really use quotation marks a lot… I may need to have that checked). That great evangelical tool is something I use in grown-up ways when I share the Gospel. I remember the song someone wrote to go with the book. My mom used it in the little neighborhood VBS-like clubs she did in old Keansburg, NJ in the early 70s, when I was but a wee bairn.
– “Wordless Book” Song by Frances M. Johnston
(Use a Wordless Book or Gospel Fuzzies Glove to show the colors as you sing.)
(Black) My heart was dark with sin
until the Savior came in.
(Red) His precious blood I know
(White) Has washed it white as snow.
(Gold) And in His Word I’m told
I’ll walk the streets of gold.
(Green) To grow in Christ each day
I read the Bible and pray.
Simplistic, but a springboard I have used to share the essence of the Gospel.
I got a bit far afield from the apologetics angle, but the avoiding of the idea of sin is why Oel must avoid defending the faith. That, and because apologetics is hard work. One has to know his stuff and deal with opposition. I can’t think of anyone who opposes living “your best life now”. That sounds just dandy an rather innocuous, But defending the historicity, the logic, and the cosmology of Scripture can open one up to ridicule, vitriolic comment, dismissal, and more.
Now that all being said, I have been rather passive in the comments when it comes to apologetic arguments with the unbelievers around. I will not say that “I could, but I don’t want to” (there go those darned quotes again…), but I don’t get the sense that the atheists here are interested in the defense of the faith that I have, other than to seek to disabuse me of the notion that God is real and has created all that is. They will not succeed in shipwrecking my faith, and, I have no illusions that my stumbling prose will be used by the Almighty to bring them to faith. It could, but my goal in being here is to interact with the blog post and nerd out over being posted on a page of my favorite comedian. (Please don’t tell Tim Hawkins, but part of the reason I am an avid Poddy Break fan is in the hope of finding out that “racist Farmer John” with his boy chickens will be on the podcast.)
Alas, I have been overly verbose again. I tell you, John, that I am considering creating my own WordPress blog, because you are inspiring me to share my faith. Not sure if I have the time and discipline to be as faithful as you in regular posts. My “thing” (aaaahhhh! Quotes again!) would be geared toward believers and issues that are near and dear to my heart like doctrinal purity (talking to you, Oel!), things I learn while studying Scripture, my thoughts on current events and how they affect (not a typo) the believer, and other random thoughts that weave their way through my mind. We shall see.
But for now, I am content to take up John’s space where I may. and offer my meager mite where I can. (Meager Mite… I could name a band that… maybe a Hipster Christian band that uses mandolins and banjos and accordions)
And for those of you who have survived my loquacity to the end, I pray a crown in heaven for your persistence and endurance.
Dave
Romans 1:16-17 (ESV)
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith,e as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”
For Amanda & John
1. Can you prove that Yahweh (not a generic Creator god) exists?
2. Can you prove that your warm, fuzzy feelings about your god are proof that he exists?
3. If you regularly and repeatedly pray to God for blessings and health healings, isn’t it very possible that the few times that your prayers are “answered” that these answered prayers and simply coincidences/random chance?
For Ark:
1. Are you SERIOUSLY trying to start another thread again?
2. How many times are you going to ask your questions?
3. What do you call a thing that has a bird body a bird head and two bird feet?
Serious question: Do either of you have evidence for the existence of Yahweh?
Serious question: why won’t you refer to the God I worship as “Bill”?
Well, I believe Yahweh even as a work of fiction was a serious Dick so maybe that would be even better for you?
And, you’re very concerned with what people believe about Dick because….why?
Because based on the evidence Dick is … well… a work of fiction for one, and also a Dick; a meglomaniacal, egotistical genocidal son-of-a-bitch, ( no matter what form he is portrayed as) and nobody in their right mind should believe in such a character, especially if they have been coerced in any shape or form …. like you have for example.
And where did you get the idea that egotism and genocide and coercion are “wrong?”
What are you building this criticism on?
Oh, I’m terribly sorry, I did not realise you were a proponent of Divine Command Theory.
You will probably get on like a Maison Flambe with William Lane Craig. And guess what? He is a Dick as well.
A match made in Heaven(sic)
No idea what “Divine Command Theory” is, so I have no idea whether I’m a proponent. (Actually, I think William Lane Craig would be a “Bill.” HAHAHA!)
You have a problem because the outrage you feel when people talk about spirituality is basically the same outrage as certain dogs when another dog eats their food.
It’s just blind, instinctual rage, meant to further your survival. And that’s it.
If you really think certain things are “bad” and others “good”–like, truly objectively bad/good–then you’ll have to explain how you got there.
Is it God or survival that causes your hunger for this thing we know as “goodness”?
Really? No idea? And there I was thinking I was engaging with an educated Evangelical Fundamentalist.
Oh, well, Yahweh’s earthly administrators do prefer the ignorant ones – so much more malleable.
Here , let me help… You can listen to this disgusting Fundamentalist Idiot yourself.
https://youtu.be/ePc2tHtxC-k
What outrage? Did you miss the ”fun” comment previously?
What’s this, dear. A little projection on your part?
Tut tut…
If it’s just “survival,” then how do you feel about Tildeb trying to comfort people who are dying with “artistic” words?
Isn’t that just blowing sunshine?
Who said anything about survival?
Why do you keep moving the goalposts?
What evidence do you have for Yahweh ( ”Dick”)?
I said something about survival when I asked whether your hunger for goodness and your outrage over genocide comes from a mindless instinct to survive or from God’s design?
You said you don’t know.
So I’m insisting that you think about it…and weigh the two options…and ask yourself what can/should/would happen if humans realize that all of the stuff we think we care about is just survival instinct.
You really need to stop this habit of thinking you get to ask all the questions and never answering any.
We have not established there is any ”God’s design”.
I thought about it for about two blinks.
So, evidence for Yahweh .. sorry … Dick. You got any?
And you really need to stop this habit of thinking you may be very intelligent. Try to show a little honesty and humility.
Jesus would appreciate the gesture.
It’s really fascinating, Ark. Almost like Jekyll and Hyde. I spent all afternoon yesterday giving you thoughtful, patient examples of how I see the world. And you managed to stay relatively civil.
As long as I was playing by your rules.
As long as I was graceful enough to keep giving answers, you’d keep taking…and taking…
Like a thirsty camel.
But the moment I ask for your perspective–as soon as I turn the tables and suggest that you provide even a THEORY of life that makes more sense than what I’ve laid out–your mask comes off.
Out comes the profanity. And personal jabs. And the utter refusal to offer anything of substance, except ridicule and demands for more water.
All of it is evidence for Bill.
The Canaanites detected part of him. The Jews recorded pieces. The Greek philosophers reasoned their way toward him. The tribes in the most remote parts of the world build statues in his honor. And literally ALL OF HUMANITY is working together to build a more complete picture of Bill…
We look at what has been made, including ourselves, and we learn a little something about the Maker. And, the more we discover, the more life makes sense. The more it works.
Further more (and probably even more compellingly), we can look at what happens to the people who reject Bill. We ask ourselves, “Do the godless men seem like reasonable, stable, functioning humans? Or do they seem like black holes…sucking all the life out of everyone?”
Truly fascinating.
You want the Truth, just like all of us. But your pride won’t let you actually help with the mission. Some of the most brilliant and honest scientists and philosophers and mathematicians and theologians have added bricks to the foundation and concluded we’re made in the image of a beautiful, infinitely-intelligent, creative God. But you reject that in order to obsess over a Dick.
(With his mouth the godless man destroys his neighbor, But through knowledge the righteous will be delivered. –Proverbs 11:9)
What profanity?
So do you have evidence of Yahweh?
Every time you post a comment.
And that is about as ignorant and bitchy a a comment as they come I guess.
Par for the course, for you.
I am sure the day will come when your children will simply turn around and say:
”Mum, you are a sanctimonious indoctrinated old fart. For once, just shut the hell up.”
I am only disappointed I won’t be there to hear it.
“The sinful man in his pride does not look for God. All his thoughts are that there is no God. Your laws are too high for him to see. He laughs at those who oppose him. He says to himself, “I will not be moved. For all time, I will never have trouble.” With his mouth he swears and lies. He makes it hard for other people. Trouble and sin are under his tongue. He lies hidden in the towns, waiting to kill [metaphorically] those who are not guilty. His eyes are always watching for the weak. He lies in wait like a hidden lion. He lies in wait to catch the weak, and they become caught in his net. The weak are hurt and they fall. They cannot stand under his strength.”
See? It’s amazing!
(Psalm 10:4-11)
I never lie.
I am not Christian.
Blowing sunshine? Oh, Amanda, if you only knew what death and dying involved… in so many of its facets… you wouldn’t be quite so ready to be flippant regarding what others do to exercise real world compassion. And the most useful element of hospice? No bullshit.
I can’t tell you how often the dying and their families tell us (‘us’ because I’m just one of many) how important, how refreshing, how useful, how invigorating, how meaningful it is to be someplace where all of us deal with end of life challenges and pleasures honestly and directly right here and right now without any of the usual other-worldly bullshit. Laughing at the absurdity and inevitability of it all is usually a real breakthrough that finally starts to dismantle all the carefully constructed metaphysical but demeaning bullshit and we can get down to the hard but courageous business of dying a meaningful and, strange as it sounds, a life affirming death.
“If biology is mindless then therefore anything it produces MUST be meaningless.”
Well, at least you understand what I’m saying.
And–yes–that IS what I’m saying.
You go on and on and on and on… But, ultimately, you’re only here typing words into this forum because your brain has decided to derive some type of meaning from it. That’s your thesis.
So, yes, I’m going to keep insisting two things: that intelligence CANNOT come from something unintelligent, and that meaning CANNOT be derived from something that is meaningless.
Regardless of what your brain is telling you, nothing ultimately matters.
Funny how when someone else’s brain derives meaning from spiritual reality, then they are spouting “bullshit.” But when YOUR brain assigns meaning to the concept it calls “reality,” then your sermons are compassionate and artistic.
I hate to break it to you, Tildeb. But–unless God was intentional about coding a world of right and wrong–your “compassion” for dying people is just more emotional bullshit.
Nope. No god is necessary and if god has ‘coded’ for so much suffering then He’s a got a lot to answer for to a lot of people who are mightily pissed at the deal they got from this ‘benign’ pervert who heaps unbelievable pain and suffering on the innocent… especially if one has sucked at the teat of belief in Hell. Nothing warms the cockles than worrying one’s self sick about which level of Hell their loved one is going to. That’s why I say you haven’t a clue but speak as if knowledgeable abut God’s ‘code’. The pig of your ignorance is not improved by the lipstick of your faith-based certainty.
You assume all I do is use words. Nope. Wrong again. Probably less than 5% is me talking. Active listening, maybe 75%. The rest is mundane but important things – family stuff, usually: how things unfold, what to expect, what needs doing, services utilized, planning facilitated, that kind of stuff. But the details matter and getting them right even more. Remember, honesty and directness. All the Big Questions you think answered by religion? Nope. Just unanswered questions trying to look like ‘answers’ and letting people down at their most vulnerable. Nice trick.
Aha!
Called it, JB!
I told him earlier that–if you fancied yourself some type of end-of-life counselor, I would call your bluff. Glad to know you recognize that the majority of what you do is detail stuff.
I’d be happy to let you bring us a meal and give us the phone number for an estate lawyer.
But, if you even hinted at your self-righteous position that people get to define their own reality, I’d throw you out on your ear.
Thanks for your “help.” But no thanks.
I don’t hint at anything. I work completely in the present and the real. I don;t say anything about someone’s religious beliefs and will facilitate whatever I can to help my clients and their families. You seem to think I do something other than what I do. I’m not there to judge; I’m not there to criticize religious beliefs. I honestly don’t care. What I do care about is suffering and I’m pointing out that at hospice for a pretty large city complex grief really is robustly correlated to religiosity. I know this for a fact because I help prepare yearly statistics for needs funding. I also know the files for hundreds of volunteers and the surprising number of atheists who donate their time, money, energy and compassion to help not because it earns them brownie points with some god but because they are able to help. Our clients are from across the religious spectrum, BTW. It’s a multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-racial city, multi-religious city. Why you want to criticize me for providing these facts is truly bizarre and rather than learn when an opportunity presents itself and consider informed opinions based on real world evidence to help shape your own, you seem determined to guard your negative opinion as if it is equivalent, as if you are in some position to judge my hospice efforts and effects knowing absolutely nothing about it but filling in your ignorance with your incorrect assumptions about me and believing this approach accurately describes reality. That’s just whacked..
“Not because it earns them brownie points with some god, but because they are able to help…”
There is no such thing as “help” Tildeb. That’s a human-invented term to describe a chemical response. It’s subjective. And this idea you have that being helpful is “good” while trying to please god is “bad” came from nowhere credible.
I don’t care whose CAT scans you’ve been reading–you’re the one who keeps assigning meaning to one and not the other.
You didn’t make yourself. You didn’t make this reality. So none if it is yours to “accurately” describe. This topic is your pet peeve for the same reason that cats chase laser lights: instinct.
So–if it makes you feel good to meditate on things like “help” and “compassion,” then go for it. But unless you recognize objective truth OUTSIDE of human assignment, then I can’t take you seriously….because you won’t be as skeptical of your own foundation as you are of mine.
Things like “social conditioning” and “compassionate behavior” are exactly the explanations dogs would give, if they could talk and someone asked them about sniffing each others butts.
So–yes–blowing sunshine. Just because.
In your own definition of “reality” it’s ALL explained by matter. Material. All of us are really–at the core–just molecules. Sorry. If you tell people anything else by using “artistry,” then you’re a willing participant in religiosity, too.
As I’ve suggested in the past, mrsmcmum – your derisive, caustic responses point to one conclusion. You are out of your league here. I suspect even the believers following this thread realize it.
Time for one of you ‘big league players’ to address her points. Pitch something that doesn’t get blasted over the fence!
That’s just IT, John. They have been addressed -over and over – and hand waved away. Well, I should say hand waved away with SNARK and belligerence. Here’s what I am marvelling at: the basic inhumanity being revealed by individuals who profess to be CHRISTIANS. That statement about patriarchy of yours; have you any idea how much that stinking, rotten system has hurt women and children since time began?? ( you might just want to check out a few websites – Homeschoolers Anonymous, for instance, or other sites run by CHRISTIAN women, discussing the cesspool of patriarchy – Wartburg’s Watch, Spiritual Sounding Board are two ) By the way, that statement of yours – more than any other thing you have said – has cemented my opinion of you.
Right. We’re terrible, horrible people.
We’re awful, belligerent reprobates. We suck!
Understood.
Time to demonstrate the strength of your big league philosophy! Here’s a softball question:
Explain why Tildeb is ‘good’ for doing hospice care and McMommy is ‘bad’ for teaching her kids the Bible.
Thanks, Carmen!
Don’t you have a meme or video you’d like to share?
Thanks for the invite – yes, I do.
“There’s no immense, eternal, perfect being watching our every move, elated at our triumphs and devastated by our failures. We matter because we matter to each other, in our own short time, on our own small scale. We make each other important.”
– Great Christina, The Way of the Heathen. (I stole it from Victoria’s recent post) 🙂
Yes, some things in life are just that simple.
No offense, Carmen. But mattering to you isn’t a big goal of most people.
It may make YOU feel good that Victoria claims to care about your life. But…it’s still sunshine being blown up your skirt.
Mrsmcmommy really is quite clueless, Carmen. More importantly, she doesn’t care why you might offer that comment and quote and so she loses out yet again. The point is and to your credit, you tried. And that’s all of us can do.
Two things:
unless you recognize objective truth OUTSIDE of human assignment, then I can’t take you seriously….because you won’t be as skeptical of your own foundation as you are of mine
Show me this objective truth.
Right. Not ‘there’. It’s a metric you borrow or create to compare and contrast. It’s only the common unit that gives your ‘objective’ truth any meaning. That doesn’t make it useless any more than agreeing to use imperial or metric to measure length, width, weight, distance speed, height, and so on. You keep making this same mistake because you do not, will not, question your assumption that an objective truth is necessary. You’re stuck with… nothing. There simply is no objective truth independent of relativity.
Understanding how reality operates by allowing reality to arbitrate one’s beliefs about it is not a failed method of inquiry but a rich one, a productive and insightful method. Just because you are neither willing nor able to utilize this method when it comes to your own understanding of human well being is not my problem. It’s yours. You want to insert an imaginary third party and then try to give it predominant consideration. That’s whacked. Altering the language about various consideration related to aiding the well being of another – to try to maintain this third party by maligning this method as immoral or unethical or just ‘blowing sunshine’ without it – is a demonstration of just how far out of kilter, how far you are willing to vilify others on behalf of including this third party, is your base assumption. I think you are filled with anger and resentment at those who don’t need any belief in some punitive god – specifically your religious beliefs – to aid others in meaningful ways when people are at their most vulnerable. This is prime real estate for the religious who use the misfortune of others to advance their own third part preference. It’s actually rather perverted. And I see this vulture-like willingness by many pious people to use the vulnerability of others to advance their religious agenda… in the name of God, of course.
The existence of an absolute ‘right’ doesn’t ‘vilify’ your actions but legitimize them. A transcendent morality means that your ‘goodness’ is bigger than yourself.
Suppose, in the future, the law dictates that hospice workers are to mercifully, and with dignity, exterminate cancer patients. The majority of people agree that it is an act of mercy to reduce the suffering of those patients. There is the added benefit of reducing the financial burden on the survivors.
Would it still be ‘good’ to care for these patients even if it meant breaking the law?
John B states The existence of an absolute ‘right’ doesn’t ‘vilify’ your actions but legitimize them. A transcendent morality means that your ‘goodness’ is bigger than yourself.
This is a central flaw in religious methodology regarding moral and ethical issues, issues of what we often call ‘right and ‘wrong’, good’ and ‘evil’. The religious are often quite baffled by disagreement. The disagreement itself is then framed to be ‘evil’. This is another diversionary tactic the religious use for being held accountable and responsible for thier moral claims. The sentence I have highlighted in bold demonstrates this very problem the religious seem immune from understanding. Nevertheless, after an appropriate amount of time and effort parsing what this sentence in bold actually means in action to the religious person, we find it already well known as Divine Command Theory. The problem of this ‘legitimacy’ used on behalf of the religious claim to moral authority is that it is no different in principle than Because Hitler Commands It Theory. Simply put, it is not a legitimate justification.
At the risk of being told the following is just another ‘diatribe’ or ‘rant’ or John’s favourite descriptor ‘Blah, blah, blah’, I will endeavor to explain why… on the off chance anyone actually gives a damn:
Goodness is not a thing but a metric. We use the term ‘good’ to mean some action that produces something on the favourable side of that metric (the number of metrics is very large and situation-dependent)… not by the action itself but by whether the intention to achieve or produce something on the favourable side of the metric was undertaken. That means the metric is open to reasonable examination and criticism.
Dictates by some god in the form of a moral pronouncement do not meet this basic criteria but are often immune from good reasons and beyond accounting for intention. (Cloven hooves mean the critter is ‘dirty’ and should not be eaten? Don’t argue with me; take it up with Yahweh.) That’s why it – the Just following orders justification – was deemed insufficient reasons for mitigating personal responsibility for committing war crimes at Nuremberg. In the same way, justifying ‘good’ or ‘evil’ actions cannot be passed on to some other authority by fiat but means first accepting personal responsibility for one’s actions in order for ‘good’ or ‘evil’, ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ to have occured… a responsibility too often shrugged or waved away by religious folk who assume DCT is morally and ethically legitimate.
It’s not. It’s an avoidance tactic to excuse, not legitimize. It a means to claim that ‘good’ is not dependent on anything other than authority. It is a means to avoid personal responsibility. It is a means to excuse actions from personal accountability, from having to produce reasons specific to personal intentions. Expanding morality away from the personal and pretending that doing so makes them ‘transcendent’ and ‘bigger’ than one’s self turns an action done in the name of morality into an action done because one is Just Following Orders. That’s not morality; that’s the absence of morality because it’s missing both reasons and accountability of intent.
Just Following Orders is not legitimate because it transfers personal responsibility for personal actions to a third party… in this case God, in the case of Nazi atrocities Hitler. This is also a transfer out of being a moral position and becomes one simply of obedience, subservience, submission. It is unethical because it excuses personal responsibility and places it somewhere beyond the reach of reason and accountability of both the person committing an action and responsibility to the recipient of the action.
So, no, there is no existence of absolute moral standard. That’s why religions themselves make incompatible moral claims between them. The method used to determine what is and is not moral or right or good is broken. It doesn’t work. All this belief does is create the conditions for irresponsible rationalized excuses no matter what the action might be.
Nice job avoiding the question.
Your question wasn’t addressed to me.
Why is Tildeb ‘good’ for doing hospice and Mcmommy ‘bad’ for teaching Bible to her kids?
Working at a hospice doesn’t mean I’m doing good; helping to increase the well-being of people undergoing (and their families) end of life is. That’s their call to describe my actions, not yours. My intentions arbitrated by reality through my actions are good.
Teaching vulnerable children to believe in magical thinking and grant confidence to faith-based thinking is not good. And we know this. It certainly reduces the rate of well being in religious populations and so the likelihood of harming your children’s well being through such actions – and doing it knowingly – I think is properly described as intentional abuse of their dependency. Just look at how poor are the critical thinking skills, trouble comprehending, insistence on unsubstantiated beliefs about reality and granting them near of not total certainty demonstrates the damage done to Amanda’s developing neural circuitry. She has a lot to overcome and a long way to go because of this intentional indoctrination. Your intention is to indoctrinate children with a religious meme using their vulnerability from a trusted source to fool them, to make them credulous, to teach them to be gullible enough to assume scripture is a source of moral and ethical authority. Your intention has been to indoctrinate and not teach. That makes ‘teaching Bible’ not good by either intention or action. And I haven’t even gotten into the particulars from ‘teaching Bible’ that are clearly aimed at causing psychological trauma. What you are doing is perverse and pernicious.
I disagree with you that what I’m doing is perverse.
So now what?
Now nothing. You asked. I answered and explained my reasoning. What you do with it is entirely up to you.
I figure you asked because you had your reasons so I spent the time and effort to do as you asked. Of course you would disagree because if you thought my reasons were sufficient you wouldn’t ‘teach Bible’ to children nor advocate for it. But you do, so obviously you disagree with my opinion. Whereas I lay out my reasons for holding the opinions I do and make them available for critical examination, you are loath to answer even the most basic questions about your religious belief that motivates your actions. You and yours expend your efforts making extraordinary claims and then use nebulous explanations invoking superstitious nonsense and then avoid and divert any criticism by repeated use of that tactic. You also spend an inordinate (in my opinion) amount of time trying to paint those who criticize your reasoning and explain why in as negative a light and rudeness as you feel comfortable doing so.
I am losing hope for you, JB.
Your opinions about right and wrong are just opinions. ‘Tildeb’s Big Book of Ethics’ is of no use to me. Your accusation of ‘perverse’ behavior is not LINKED to anything but personal outrage. So I will dismiss your finger-wagging sermon as ‘noise’ and leave you to whine about my ‘rudeness’.
Oh, so you didn’t read it. Your loss.
Oh, so you’re not responding to my comment. Your loss.
Your comment doesn’t indicate that you read/comprehended it. Responding to the incorrect content of your comment doesn’t further the discussion. The least you could do is try again and see if you can do better this time.
The old, reliable, “Your comment is beneath my dignity so I will not respond.”
Why do you bother commenting here? It’s unlikely that you’ll ever encounter anyone as smart as yourself but surely there are millions of bloggers smarter than me. It must be frustrating to be consistently misunderstood.
Beneath my dignity? Where do pull this bullshit from? Oh right… from your own anus and then try to smear me with it. Don’t you ever get tired of just making stuff up?
You have a biological need to feel like the things you do are actually important, Tildeb. ACTUALLY important. Not just what the majority of upright-animals have agreed to call important.
If you derive meaning from taking care of the sick just because that’s what humans evolved to do, for no reason, that’s fine.
But shame on you for suggesting it’s wrong for other people not to join you in that tiny, overly simplistic, self-perpetuated “reality.”
Sorry, Amanda, you’ve completely lost me with that comment. I should feel shame for… ?
It’s funny how you tell Christians they can’t just wish something into existence.
And yet, you advocate making humans valuable by just telling them they are.
Fascinating.
You see, Carmen he only gives a crap about other nonsense.
But as he is so full of shit he probably doesn’t give much crap about anything really.
Oh, it’s so nice to be out moderation.
I have several issues with this post. I’ve already mentioned upthread about the irony of accepting testing and demonstration for extraordinary claims but demanding a special exemption for believing in extraordinary religious claims and then vilifying anyone who similarly asks for a demonstration and testing and, failing to get any, does not believe (the latest is from Mrsmcmommy on another thread that says And I don’t care whether Davies identifies as an Atheist. That’s just another way of saying, “Small-minded.”
The next point is the claim Outside the Gospel, there are no answers to life’s important questions.
Sure there are… if by ‘answers’ you mean self-appointed reasons for meaning. We fill our days, years, generations, with just these and the Gospel has absolutely nothing to do with this production of meaningful goals.
You also claim When Christians ‘disengage’ from culture… culture descends into darkness.
If by ‘disengaging from culture’ you means not evangelizing, not setting forth to recruit others to join your religious cause, then reality doesn’t support this claim. At all. Reality offers incompatible evidence to this claim: specifically, many states that have low to very low populations of religiosity do not demonstrate this. Yet, according to you, these irreligious populations should be societies that have fallen into ‘darkness’ which, I presume, should equate with all kinds of social dysfunction and depravity.
They don’t comply with your claim.
The opposite is actually true. The correlation is robust in that countries with lower levels of religiosity have lower rates of all kinds of social dysfunction, lower rates of economic inequality, higher standards of living, higher rates of happiness and life satisfaction, longer lengths of peace and prosperity and longevity and social order… everything, in fact, that many religious people claim to want to attain but who insist that these ‘answers’ can only be achieved through religious means!
Now let’s see if I go into moderation again…
You don’t need religion to have meaning, folks!
You can be like Tildeb and derive meaning from posting long diatribes on blogs and taking it personally when some of them wind up in the Spam folder.
For about 70 years.
Until you die.
Ah, glorious life.
Seeing ongoing pernicious effects of religion in my hospice work motivates me to try to reduce its influence… in my case one word at a time. I see this causes you enough angst to have to alter the meaning of words in order to criticize my points. The latest is ‘diatribe’. And here I thought I was demonstrating ‘God’ in action to you.
I’m not the one who has to keep choosing words carefully to avoid sounding “too religious.”
All of you have been given plenty of chances to pick the words YOU want to use.
I’d love to hear what non-religious words you use to comfort people who are dying. I hope it’s as wonderful as the physics eulogy someone shared a couple months ago.
Honest, open, helpful, and compassionate words, Amanda. No platitudes. No magical thinking. You know, real life concerns, real world issues, that kind of stuff.
There really is a very strong correlation between complex grief and religious observance. You might also be surprised that over 3/4 of hospice volunteers are atheists. Many of these folk are the people who have gone through the wringer that is part of end of life experiences and want to help others navigate the challenges. Religion doesn’t do it nor does it bring much real world comfort; dealing with real world issues in real world ways does.
“There is a strong correlation between grief and religious observation.”
Yes, I know. That’s why I maintain that EVERYONE is religious. (It’s just that some of us have to choose our words carefully in attempts to sound LESS religious.)
Compassion, for example, is religious.
And “helpfulness” isn’t something science can define. It’s the families you’re helping who get to decide whether you’ve helped.
And, if you encourage them on the journey to peace, then you’ve helped.
…and also stepped FAR outside the realm of mere “evolution,” unless you believe a professor of biology does the exact same job you do, every day, in his or her classroom.
You missed a very important word in your quote of me. That word is ‘complex’ and it has a important meaning when it comes to defining grief. The complexity of grief is greatly expanded when you include a third (and divine) party into some two party relationship. This is what produces the associated dysfunction. Reduce the complexity, reduce the borders of grief to something much more manageable.
You can’t claim compassion is religious when the behaviour we use to determine when compassion is exercised crosses the species boundary and includes such critters as rats and crows, whales and lemurs.
And yes, we have a very good working explanation why our biology through evolution favours this social trait. It’s one of the main reasons why we ARE social critters. And yes, we can map compassion to the predominance and activation of mirror neurons and then chemicals associated to emotions they produce in the host brain.
Understanding the biological foundation for this kind of stuff in no way alters the artistry in how to apply it, when to know what to do, what to say, how to share (com-) the suffering (-passion) in life affirming and enriching ways especially during end of life times.
…and now that we have evolved to the point we know that (mindless) biology has favored things like “compassion” MINDLESSLY, then why should we continue with the cycle?
It’s meaningless. It doesn’t matter. If it happened for no reason, then there’s STILL no reason to do hospice care.
Mrsmcmommy, you have a real bugaboo about this idea, that if biology is mindless then therefore anything it produces MUST be meaningless.
This is the connection you keep making in comment after comment after comment. YOU associate the two – a mindless process means a meaningless product – two and then pretend it’s true, assume it MUST be the case.
Did your father insert a mind into each of tens of millions of his sperm and your mother insert a mind into all of her eggs to fertilize the one arbitrary egg and the one arbitrary sperm (those odds for that pairing were 1:100,000,000+ that eventually produced a new mind that is you? Or is your life now meaningless because the sperm and egg that precipitated your life was mindless?
The process of fertilization is as mindless as it is ongoing. It is simply a chemical and physical process of local units that has the mindless ability to differentiate and develop according to local rules. If you think there is a mind guiding each cellular division and the mind is ‘god’ then you have to explain why ‘god’ aborts nearly 70% of all these new human minds. In addition, you have to somehow incorporate into this guiding ‘mind’ every act of reproduction – human or otherwise – on the planet including nast stuff that also reproduces. If you’re going to claim that DNA contains the mind, then you have to show why it has included viral simian damage in your DNA that is identical to my own.
Our brains are meaning-making organs. That’s how we process all sensory information… symbolically associating meaning to the input, to every input. Without anything that resembles a mind doing 95% of the processing of sensory information, our brains sift and sort and then send what it deems important stuff to those parts of our brains that can further work with it using a variety of means. That’s how we sleep, for example, by allowing our brains to just chug along, regulate, adjust, infuse – function in other words – all kinds of physical and chemical processes and yet raise no alerts, for example, to almost every sound it receives and does not send along to those parts of our brain that require conscious thought. It produces chemicals to assist in this process without any ‘minds’ intervening. It regulates all kinds of stuff in all kinds of locally meaningless fashions… because that’s what its function is. Yet if your heart stops pumping blood, all of sudden we have an event that contains great meaning for the liver even though the liver possesses no mind and may not understand or care in the least if the heart alters what it’s doing. The liver’s function or impairment, however, has great meaning to our kidneys even if our kidneys don’t much care locally, and so on… right up to the organ that appreciates just how catastrophic to the whole is the first event, the heart dysfunction. that’s the only organ that processes meaning and very often does a terrible job at that. Just consider how much you elevate the meaning of a simple tooth ache – but the tooth couldn’t care less. Does that make the event meaningless? Does that in some mitigate or make less real the overwhelming nerve pain? Does that make the dentist’s work meaningless and are you going to tell him or her just how meaningless is the aid about to be offered?
We assign meaning all the time. It’s absolutely natural to continue assigning our meanings outwards, beyond our selves. We (usually) learn not to trust this tendency in that maybe someone else really doesn’t like the food we adore, hates the music we love, doesn’t find the same humour nearly as funny, is irritated by the fragrance I think is wonderful, and so on. Our personal meanings do not necessarily extend beyond ourselves. Does that make our meaning meaningless?
Not to us. The meaning you assign throughout your life in ten thousand different ways has nothing to do with me telling you what is and is not meaningful to me. The absence of the mind in the functioning of your liver does not reduce the meaningful importance of its role to the whole that is you, and no amount of mind is going to affect its functioning. For that to happen you have to take meaningful action.
So I hope you better appreciate now why a mindless process in no way determines a meaningless product. Your mind is what your brain does.
Thank God you’re out of moderation!
We’ve certainly missed your succinct, insightful commentary.
I was given administrative privilege about 5 minutes ago, and I found the missing comments.
They were in “spam” again.
Three from Tildeb. One from our new friend, Dave. And…drum roll….two quarantined comments were from Mrs. McMommy!
Here’s a simple plan for the future: if you post a comment that doesn’t show up, tell someone. Don’t immediately assume foul play and sulk in a corner.
Did you return the glorious comments to the forum so mankind will be blessed?
Yes, and I expect the earth moved a little on its axis when I dropped those weighty truth bombs back in their place. 🙂
Thank God!
John, little tip – use the term ‘humankind’. Much more inclusive.
Carmen, little tip – I don’t give a crap about that nonsense.
What was it you said to Matthew, above?
“Comments reveal much about the contents of the heart”. Patriarchy’s still your favourite dogma, isn’t it John?
Yep. Mankind thrives under the Patriarchy.
. ..and now you’re deliberately trying to piss me off. What a winner.
I was expecting this to be a forum among Christians constructively discussing either of the following categories in relation to this post:
Category A: Controversial topics- how to address them
1: Truth, love, political correctness, and offending others
2: Personal stories about apologetics
Category B: Preparing youth for the future (with apologetics)
1: Should youth in churches be tested on the basic truths of the Christian faith?
2: The “controversial” ideas that Christian Universities are teaching now.
Category C: Effectiveness of apologetics
1: Different gifts/talents among Christians
2: Should we all be apologists?
3: Personal stories about instances where apologetic discussions (even among different groups of Christians) did get to the point of “ineffectiveness”.
I would still enjoy discussing any of these topics that were related to the post with its intended audience. Hopefully it isn’t so far downstream that it doesn’t get noticed by those who have something to add.
Hey Matthew,
This forum is, for the most part, open. Anyone can comment. That includes the unhinged rants of heathen.
I don’t delete or modify comments, no matter how outrageous, incoherent or mean. Comments reveal much about the content of the heart.
I realize that John. My point was that I didn’t expect atheists to have much to say about evangelism, the Church, nor apologetics or living like Christ taught how to live. I did, however, expect Christians discussing these things. But I do realize that you are very good at evangelizing and have a very loyal audience 😉
I was just trying to start a thread that was both constructive and on topic. I was just recognizing the fact that this comment would most likely get overlooked in the midst of all the other conversations taking place.
I’m a bit frustrated by the format for discussions. The dialogues get fragmented and hard to follow in the comment section of blog space.
I don’t know what other options are available. I’ll do some investigating.
Do you think there would be interest in a ‘by invitation only’ discussion group? A magical place inhabited by people who encourage genuine conversation and ask earnest questions…? What do you think?
You mean THIS isn’t ‘genuine conversation’? I can’t speak for others, but it seems to me that the only way to sharpen your own opinions is to come up against others who don’t have the same ones. Surely you can understand the ‘heathen’s position when you consider that you are speaking about an INVISIBLE, UNPROVABLE entity. (which you have designated as being the arbiter of intelligence in the species)
Or, as I suspect, you need a way to isolate christians and confine conversations among yourselves. Good luck with that, John, as there are – how many?- all sorts of people who think of themselves as christian. 🙂
Genuine conversation requires information to travel in both directions.
I fully understand the heathen position. The problem is, heathen don’t understand the heathen position.
I’ll keep the comment section open and respond accordingly. I’m suggesting a separate dialogue for people who want to participate instead of irritate.
Hopefully, there will be a few heathen in the new group! Time will tell.
The only reason they irritate is because you don’t happen to agree with them. Problem is, many do. Many more every day, I should add.
Disagreement does not irritate me.
I disagree with family and close friends frequently. Disagreement actually deepens relationships in my world.
Irritation happens because the heathen trolls are good at what they do. They’re trying to irritate. They can’t contribute to the conversation because ‘a void’ has nothing to offer.
ahhh . . accusing people (like me) of being trolls. The ultimate insult. As if we aren’t entitled to disagree with someone on a public blog, and offer our ‘take’ on your suggestions. It’s really quite amusing when you think of it. Yet you get to constantly assert your own bizarre and completely irrational suggestions about atheists in every post; I really don’t know why you think you’re not going to get some pushback.
John, here’s why any of us bother. You are an intelligent man, there’s no question in my mind. Someone as intelligent and inquiring as you are really ought to know better than to believe there’s some invisible mastermind. I cannot believe that you have actually read and thought about evolution/adaptation, etc.
I’ve got my three grandchildren here today and right now they’re plugged into the ‘boob tube’ (they don’t have one at home). I will be in trouble with my daughter and son-in-law if I let them veg in front of it much longer. 🙂
You believe me intelligent and have no use for the ideas generated by that intelligence.
Carmen, there was a post just a little while back entitled ” First Line of Defense is Nerds” that had nothing to do with Christianity, yet you still took the opportunity to mock the Christian faith.
I know if I stopped at that paragraph a possible response would have been “I was responding to Dave” who used scripture, why is it okay for him to go off topic?” And I would say that “Dave was using an encouraging scripture in context of a encouraging comment- you were just seeking out something -no matter how little- to criticize and demean- even in an entirely unrelated post.”
People can distinguish between those who listen and read with the genuine intention of understanding different walks of life and those who just read with the intention to reply and mock. I could give other examples- some within this post and some that are in other posts, that also do not exemplify active listening- but I’ll refrain from doing so.
John, I think there would be interest for those who are earnestly seeking discussing hot-topics of Christianity. I believe “I’m not Broken, I’m Sinful” had a lot of potential- and you see how that turned out.
However, I also enjoy your apologetics. I have learned quite a bit from them. I also do not mind having religious conversations with atheists, nor having political conversations with those who disagree. I have plenty conversations on my on time, in my group of friends and acquaintances. There is a mutual understanding that we may never agree, but we’ll speak in a respectful manner. I respect your willingness to have open conversations with any of those who also disagree with you.
I believe there is a balance between discipleship and evangelism here. Of course, I don’t know whether you initially created your blog with the intention of evangelizing or discipling others ( or being a discipled by another)- who would have thought this type of thing would’ve been addressed a couple years ago with the topics you discussed ( how you know you are a man, the use of “quick” by women, etc. ) It’s amazing how God works.
Anyway, I will keep reading whatever you post, and whatever you decide to do with your blog ( or new one) is up to you- either way, I’ll look forward to your next post- as always.
Matthew,
I looked back at that post and I can see why you thought I was being critical and demeaning. I take ownership of that; it was deliberately rude. I won’t delve into any kind of excuse but I will try to explain my stance.
You see, I was involved in church activity for a long time. I went to church and our children were brought up ‘in the church’ because that’s how I was brought up; it’s what my parents modelled for me. So I followed suit. I honestly didn’t think about the why’s for many years, I just ‘did’. Until I was challenged by one of our children (all of them are atheists). She said to me one day after church, “You don’t believe all that, do you Mum?” I was taken back, a bit incensed, and a little angry to tell the truth. So I started to read – everything I could get my hands on – and do online research. I was (and still am) particularly struck by the poignancy of former believers and read their insightful stories of how they became atheists – all for intellectual reasons. Their sensible, logical progression from believers in the supernatural to skeptic made sense to me. I gradually became enlightened.
What has become crystal clear to me is that religion is a giant hoax, a deliberate attempt to deceive. What started out as myths – stories to explain what primitive man didn’t know about science – has become a money making scheme that knows no limits. I understand your personal investment, though. I have read about the psychological comfort one gains from having an imaginary, benevolent father-figure; I can understand the desperate hope that you’ll ‘live forever’ and I know, firsthand, about the social benefits of being on the same ‘team’. I was there once, so I get.
But the thing is, belief in invisible spirit(s) is no different than any other bad idea in life – it cannot be immune to scrutiny just because it’s religion we’re discussing. Its adherents cannot expect preferential treatment just because they are religious.
Understand, too, that my attacks (as I’m sure you view them) on your ideas – the intimation being, “How could you be so gullible/foolish/stupid?” – are indicative of my own gullibility/foolishness/stupidity for so long. I am embarrassed that I was sucked in so thoroughly. My fervent hope (in lieu of prayer) is that you will also come to see that you’ve been hoodwinked, just like many others.
As I said in the beginning of the post, this is an explanation – not an excuse. Some days I do better at diplomacy. 🙂
Carmen, since you delved into your past a little, I’ll delve in mine. I am a pastor’s kid. I have never known my father to have less than two jobs at a time. He has held three jobs at the same time for five years in the past. My mom has also held multiple jobs at a time. To say that religion is a money-making hoax is a false stereotype- pretty comparable to saying “all blacks are criminals, all whites are racists, etc”.
Also, there always comes a point in a Christian’s life where their faith becomes their own. I have personally seen and heard several things that could only be explained by the supernatural. I have also heard other stories that could only be explained by the supernatural as well. There really is nothing that will cause me to reconsider- it isn’t closed- mindedness as much as it is ” natural causes cannot explain these things”. Now, I can be called a liar or a lunatic, but that mostly falls on others denying the truth. For I know I am not lying- and I certainly hope I am not insane. Other wise I have been insane for the majority of my life- only in rare occurrances though. I also trust that Christians in my life are not lying to me nor are insane either.
Ark, here’s something that might shed a light on John’s ‘offerings’.
http://www.wired.com/2004/10/evolution-2/
I have stated that I am okay with a deity. I merely want to know how we get from a deity to Jesus of Nazareth being the Deity in question.
Sadly, there seems to be a concerted effort by both Amanda and John to avoid answering this question.
If I were a believer and felt I had a sworn duty to spread the word this would be the first question I would have asked whoever taught me.
But for some reason they both seem reluctant impart what they know.
Surely John as a dad must have told his kids something when they asked?
When kids ask about sex you dont hide and tell them the stork brought you.
So why the coy attitude about Jesus of Nazareth?
As one of John’s kids, I can tell you what he says when we ask questions…
He almost always asks another question. (Seriously. That’s what he does.)
He believes the truth can stand on its own and that it’s more valuable when a person finds it for themselves.
He has never once said “Jesus is God; just because.”
All my life, he has “answered” me by asking, “What do YOU think?”
Of course he asks another question straight back, that way he avoids having to face reality. He has shown himself to be as disingenuous as the day is long.
And his modus operandi has now been taken up by you it seems?
Although you are not quite as schooled in the area of subterfuge yet …. but give it time.
Children will often initially mimic their parents in an effort to gain approval.
I suspect we are all like that at first.
Check out Piaget.
Some of us are later able to stand on our own two feet and make rational judgment calls where we do not seek our parent’s approval.
Others look for it all the time.
Such approval seeking is another side effect of religious indoctrination. ( though not exclusively)
Fear and insecurity.
”What will Jesus think if he sees me doing this?”
”Remember child, Jesus watches over you all the time.”
Don’t believe me?
Ásk a neurologist or even a Christian deconvert.
The latter have ( in the main) all been in exactly the same position you and your father …er.. John … are in right now.
I suspect when you were asked this or any other god-type-evolution-sort of question you would lean toward a theological response of some sort or another, that way gaining daddy’s approval, a smile, a hug or kiss or similar.
Why do you really think you are a fundamentalist leaning Christian and not a Catholic or a Jehovah’s Witness, or a Mormon or 7th Day Adventist or Church of England Anglican, never mind another religion entirely?
Oooh, let me guess, as a kiddie when daddy said,
”What do you THINK Mandy?”
you sat and reasoned and researched all by your little self, didn’t you?
And it turned out that your god of Truth just happened to be the same one Daddy believed in as well. The gods!
Amazing, the power of the Lawd and how He works His Miruckles.
WTF! Truly fantastic. Well, that proves it.
Did Daddy also ask you to figure out for yourself that you are a Rotten Sinner and that you will be separated from Jesus in Heaven ( go to some form of Hell) if you don’t ‘fess up?’
And did you compliment this sudden realisation by reading the oh-so truthful Bible where Jesus of
NazarethNowhere is on record as saying all these things pertaining to you being in Sin and your imminent need of Salvation?Because you can trust the bible, right?
God-breathed according to some half- fit writer called ”Timothy”. *smile*
And did he suggest you read really smashing books and articles by wonderful, genuine scientific folk like Hugh Ross?
Or maybe you ”stumbled ” across these people – guided by the god of Truth perhaps?
And you thought of this all by your self without any sort of prodding or pushing or influence whatsoever.
Well who’s a clever girl , then?
He’s got you now!
A solid answer using science, history and reason. That’s what you get for taking him seriously!
What do you think now, Lil girl?
Ooh look, Daddy the moderator is pulling out the really big sarcastic guns.
WordPress’s very own Theological Tag Team here to wrestle Life’s Big Questions: How Did Yahweh get those darn dinosaurs onto the Ark and not chow the baa lambs?
And How did Noah and his family manage to get away with incest after the kind loving god liquidated the rest of humanity?
How do they get the filling inside Twinkies?
Goddidit?
Tell me, John, at what point did you realise Jesus of Nazareth was guiding your life?
Was it after you rationalized through careful examination of the evidence that he …sorry… He was a real live historical character and that he …shucks … He was the answer to curing your Sinful nature?
Apparently you’ve forgotten yesterday’s conversation completely.
I’ve got lots of stuff to do today so I don’t have time to talk to walls, houseplants or you.
Your haunting issue is that evolution doesn’t explain the rise of intelligence yet you claim evolution caused the rise of intelligence.
You have the last word again. This time, try an ‘F-bomb’. That’ll show me!
I actually do believe that evolution caused all that we see around us. Except for cars on buildings, of course.
However, if your true question pertains to the Origin of Life we might be able to nudge this conversation onward and upward.
Your call, John?
Oh, and are you going to release Tildeb from Moderation?
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t moderate anyone.
‘Gotcha’ questions don’t work here. You’ve shown your true stripes multiple times. You’re disingenuous with a mean streak.
Moving this conversation ‘onward and upward’ will require you to state a position.
You know my position.
Atheist. Period.
Ark, since it appears John is not going to release Tildeb’s comment from moderation, perhaps you could pass it along? I, for one, quite enjoy the rants of the heathen. 🙂
I don’t know what you’re talking about, Carmen. I don’t see any comments in moderation.
Remember when I found your comments awhile back and I immediately released them? Remember that? It was an honest mistake. I owned it.
I don’t suppress anyone’s comments.
It was a simple suggestion, John. And, yes, I do remember – John Zande was the peacemaker in that situation if I remember correctly. . . 🙂
Right. John Zande had to vouch for me because you wouldn’t take me at my word.
I’m pretty sure that I apologized to you for thinking you might have done that on purpose, John. If I didn’t, please accept my apologies now. As John Zande stated, you are not one to do that sort of thing. (he, at that time, had interacted with you more often)
I appreciate that, Carmen. Thank you.
He says he does not moderate. I don’t know what to say to that?
This is the point where Carmen could speak up and tell you about the time I accidentally sent her comments to moderation and corrected the mistake as soon as it was discovered.
I don’t see any comments in moderation from Tildeb. I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Repost them. Sometimes weird things happen on the internet.
I am only relaying what he said. I cannot see your moderator box.
Your position on the origins of life…you need to state a position on the origins of life if that’s what you want to discuss now.
You need to make a statement about the origins of life.
Talk about the origins of life.
You must explain your position on the origins of life.
Explain your position on the origins of life.
You mentioned the origins of life in order to move onward. You need to explain your thoughts on the origins of life.
Make a statement about the origins of life.
I have no position on the Origins of Life.
My belief, if you wish to call it that, begins with the Big Bang.
If yours is Goddidit then you have all your work cut out for you, don’t you, John.
Should be an interesting chat. But do proceed. I am all ears.
BTW, I thought you were too busy to chat to plants walls and … me?
You’re right.
My mistake was trusting AGAIN that you sincerely wanted to continue a conversation. I took your words as earnest.
I will not make that mistake again.
Your comment about ‘no position on the origins of life’ is indescribably stupid. Your doctrine is void and useless. It doesn’t warrant another second of rational discussion.
Stupid? Really?
I consider it as honest as one can get.
I suppose believing a smelly little itinerant 1st century escatological Rabbi of no fixed reality found in a collection of stories put together at the express order of brutal despotic Roman Emperor who is regarded by indoctrinated half wits as being the Creator of the Universe is the Intelligent Option, is it?
Oh, well, John, if this is the way it is I’ll settle for ”indescribably stupid” every day of the week.
Oh and you haven’t written a siongle sentence that could be called rational.
Feel free to start though.
And remember, you are not writing down ideas for your comedy routine, even though those following along probably think you are.
You’re ranting, Ark.
Do you feel it?
I’ve addressed every one of these points in the past, and lumping all of them into one, giant tirade doesn’t give them any more weight…
Everybody is religious–because science doesn’t answer the most important questions people ask: WHY? Everybody is religious because everybody takes for granted how much of our beliefs come from things other than a peer-reviewed article.
Anyway, if you want me to demonstrate that you’re religious all over again, we can go back down that road. But I’ll be asking the questions. (FYI, asking questions to guide another person to the most sensible answer is called the “Socratic Method.” If it makes you want to rant, then here’s a declarative sentence: chill.)
Do you feel like answering questions like the ones I’ve posed to my dad, or are we finished until he posts the next topic?
Rant? Are you serious? LOl
Do you have any idea just how much fun this is?
Theological double speak. The tried and trusted method of Indoctrinated. And you don’t even realise what you say anymore.
It is like listening to one of my kids recite from the back of a Cornflakes packet.
And you will do almost anything to avoid direct reference to your true beliefs. Almost the same methodology used by proponents of ID.
Let’s test this honesty shall we?
We can call it How Much Integrity Has MrsmcMommy Really Got.
Here goes …
If you think you have reasoned your position through logic etc, to arrive at your god of Truth. tell me,
Do you consider yourself to be a Sinner? Yes or No?
Do you consider Jesus of Nazareth to be divine? Yes or No?
And do you consider him to be the Creator of the universe? Yes or No?
Three very simple questions that require nothing but a yes or no answer.
Shouldn’t tax you one iota.
Bet you 5-1 you won’t answer a single one with any honesty.
Okay, since you’re continuing the conversation, I’ll assume you want a question.
When you say “I love my kids” what do you mean?
(You remember that question I asked a couple days ago and didn’t get an answer, right?)
See, I knew you wouldn’t answer.
Hypocrite.
That’s just what Jesus said!
I’m not sure how it’s hypocritical to announce “I will be asking the questions today” BEFORE you posed your super scary ultimatum, and then following through with what I said.
I’ll be asking the questions today.
If the Big Bang produced everything we see now, and it was completely unguided, then how do you explain things like “love” to a child?
I don’t , I demonstrate it.
How did you explain it to your kids?
Did you ask you little ones to read from a card? Or did you tell them about Jesus!
As I said, you’re lucky your children didn’t ask too many questions…
You know exactly why you can’t answer this question, Ark. Because you want to tell yourself the love you have for your kids is more than swirling chemicals causing an instinct to survive.
So–IF your children took what they learned in school and did what I would do…which is ask “What’s the point?”…then what would you tell them?
WHY do you love your kids?
WHY do you take photographs?
WHY do you cheer for Liverpool soccer. (No, sorry, football.) 😉
Why?
I dont believe my children ever asked what is the point?
You see, the difference between them and you on this issue is I consider they were brought up properly and never felt the need to ask such ridiculous questions and then be left to wallow around around until some half wit came and announced. ”Have you heard about the saving power of god?”
Being brought up “properly” means not asking the wrong questions?
Scary.
Being brought up properly means hopefully a child never being put into such a position where he/she feels the need to ask such asinine questions.
And if it does happen, ensuring the response is not some half-cocked answer that includes make-believe deities and stories of a barbaric death cult and how sinful the child is.
In other words, not like the way you were raised.
LOL!
Curious about this: Have your children ever been put in the position of asking ‘asinine’ questions?
My kids know know that “All sincere questions are good ones.”
But I’ve been brainwashed. 😉
What an asinine response…
When you concede evolution doesn’t explain intelligence, we can continue.
But it does. Have you not read anything about evolution?
Yep. I’ve read a lot about evolution. It was mandatory reading in public school. Further required reading in college.
It doesn’t explain how intelligence rises from chaos. If it did, you would have jumped at the chance to lay it out for me. You are balking because even evolution proceeds in an orderly, intelligent manner. Natural selection is not chaos. Evolution doesn’t work without the assumption that life operates with a goal. That goal is ‘survival’. Chaos does not set goals.
Is any of this incorrect?
By chaos you mean … could you be more specific?
So you read evolution and rejected it?
Therefore if you do not believe in it you obviously consider creation is the only viable alternative. Am I correct?
I can’t be more specific than ‘chaos’. Complete lack of order. Irrationality.
You don’t get to ask me questions until you answer mine. We’ve been through this many, many times.
Sorry, I meant are you referring to the chaos of the universe in general or are you specifically referring to earth and the chaos of evolution?
What I said, is that evolution is not chaos. It is the opposite of chaos. It is the systematic organization of information. Evolution sets goals. Evolution cannot be the source of intelligence because evolution employs intelligence.
(…and you already admitted all this when we agreed about the car on the roof. It unsettled you that a theist agreed with you.)
Ah, sorry, misread your previous comment.
How does evolution set goals?
Are you referring to adaptation?
The goal of evolution is the survival of a species. That’s chapter one in the textbook.
How much longer do you want to keep kicking this down the road? You know this is correct. Do you have the integrity to admit it?
Who defined this as a goal?
I always thought species adapted due to outside influence.
If they didn’t adapt they went extinct like practically every species has already done.
I guess when/as the environment changes life will adapt accordingly. Is this not what happens?
Yes, species go extinct if they don’t adapt. Adaptation is also an indicator of intelligence. The entire evolution theory reeks of intelligence. Not chaos.
…and you’ve kicked it a little further down the road.
So you are alluding to a creator then I take it?
When you concede that evolution doesn’t explain intelligence, we can continue.
I cannot answer that question with any serious degree of honesty as I am not a scientist of any description.
And neither are you, as far as I am aware ( please correct me if I am wrong)
So all we have is our understanding/acceptance of what scientists tell us.
But I am quite willing to accept that you believe a creator was involved. How could I gainsay you?
What I would like to know is how you arrived at the belief that Jesus was that god?
If you’re not a scientist, then you can’t claim that evolution explains intelligence either.
You’re at a dead end.
I prefer the idea of evolution as it appeals to my way of thinking.
You believe differently. That’s okay. And you have reasoned this belief by examining the data.
What data did you examine that led you to believe that Jesus was the creator god you believe was responsible?
I prefer the idea of Jesus because it appeals to my way of thinking.
Based on what source?
If you don’t need a source, neither do I.
It sound as if you are ashamed or embarrassed to identify the source, John.
And that you are back t being snarky and reveling in oneupmanship.
I was under the impression the bible is the only source for Jesus of Nazareth.
Other than what was passed on to you by family etc.
Did you not learn about Jesus by also reading the bible?
If you don’t need a source, neither do I.
I did not say I did not need a source and have read a little on the subject. Not as much as you I suspect.
Are you being obtuse on purpose?
If the bible is not your source what was?
Evolution.
Is this another joke?
Is it a joke when you say it?
I’m sorry you’ve lost me again?
Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth is the creator god you refer to. Yes or no?
Is it a joke when you say evolution is your source for intelligence?
You are balking because even evolution proceeds in an orderly, intelligent manner. Natural selection is not chaos. Evolution doesn’t work without the assumption that life operates with a goal. That goal is ‘survival’. Chaos does not set goals.
Is any of this incorrect?
Evolution does not proceed in an orderly, intelligent manner. Just look at 2 billion bird deaths by cats… who still get a meal at home. natural selection is all about fitness… and this can cause chaos. Just look at zebra mussels in the Great Lakes. There is no evidence for any ‘goal’ in evolution other than the cumulative effect of fitness that only latter does the human assume is must have been a ‘goal’. Evolution is naan expression of fitness and fitness means reproductive success over two generations and not ‘strength’ as it is often sold by those wishing to paint it as contrary to compassion.
So yes, all of what you said is incorrect. You do not now, nor seem willing to, understand what evolution is or why it is properly understood to be a mindless, unguided natural process that is true… not because I say so but because 1) all – and I mean ALL – the evidence in the life sciences points to it being the right explanation, 2) this explanation is the platform from which new knowledge and insight into biology is regularly and consistently occurring, and 3) nothing – and i mean NOTHING – in biology makes sense except in the light of this explanation.
Maybe Tildeb’s busy? I’ll have a go at answering.
No. It would an utterly ridiculous conclusion to draw.
I agree completely.
I sense a catch.
How is it possible that an indoctrinated Christian fundamentalist (likely (Young Earth) Creationist agrees with an atheist?
Did I miss something, John?
I’m not a fundamentalist, Young Earth Creationist.
But I can agree with anyone who says something true. Doesn’t matter how they self identify.
Oh, Mea culpa.
May I ask what sort of Christian you are , John?
No.
I don’t discuss religious specifics with atheists because you have nothing to contribute to that conversation.
And mean and snarky too, it seems. Dare I say, how very Christian of you, John.
Then do you at least accept evolution?
If evolution doesn’t explain the car on the roof, how does it explain the rise of intelligence in the universe?
I don’t follow your lime of thinking? Are you being serious or is this part of one of your comedy skits?
If you can’t follow this, then you’ve proven my earlier assertion that you’ve got nothing to contribute to the conversation.
I’m not joking and I can’t make it any clearer.
You said evolution doesn’t explain the car on the roof.
How then could evolution explain the rise of intelligent life on Earth?
Do you seriously want a treatise on evolution on a blog post?
Heavens no.
YOU said evolution doesn’t explain the phenomena of the car on the roof. So your answer to the question “How can evolution explain the rise of intelligence on Earth” should be:
“It can’t”
Sorry, LINE of thinking
As always – it’s like watching kittens chase a laser. Kittens are probably atheists too.
Not ‘probably’…
Have I not raised a good point worthy of some consideration by John and others who assign to atheists all kinds of stuff?
No.
You have not raised a point worthy of consideration. To repeat, nobody has been vilified. I’ve afforded some latitude to follow-up on your initial comment. If you’re not going to answer the questions posed then I’ll consider your comments to have been satisfactorily addressed.
Would you consider ‘evolution’ to be an acceptable evidence for the mythical car on the roof?
A kid claims he can lift a car. You want a demonstration before you invest any confidence in such an extraordinary claim. I thought that interesting because you do not apply the same suspension of belief to extraordinary religious claims you hold.
Don’t know why.
So I took it further and applied to you many of the vilifying associations you’ve had no problem self-righteously spreading over many posts on to atheists because they dare to exercise the same suspension of belief you do towards the car-lifting kid towards your religious claims.
Yeah, that’s worth you and other people here taking a moment and thinking about.
So, this little exercise demonstrates 1) not just the double standard you like to shield your extraordinary religious claims with against legitimate criticism and the same lack of belief until demonstrated otherwise you yourself exercise towards the extraordinary car-lifting claims but also show 2) the ridiculousness of your applying to atheists all kinds of assertions and traits and motives and behaviours and justifications for their lack of belief in your religiously-inspired claims that you do towards the claims of the car-lifting kid.
But – surprise surprise – you do not grasp the hypocrisy of doing unto others – apparently because they are atheists – as you will NOT allow others to do to you – apparently because your beliefs don’t deserve equal skeptical treatment but a special exemption and there’s something wrong with anyone who doesn’t agree with your special exemption.
All I’m doing, John, is pointing out that you’re the one here failing to see the log in your own eye. That has NOTHING to do with evolution or whatever other diversion you’re desperately seeking.
John, wouldn’t it more virtuous if you had simply taken the kid’s word for his claim about being able to lift a car? I’m surprised you see nothing wrong with asking for a demonstration…
Shouldn’t you accept, honour, and respect his belief that he can do so? Why are you a lifting-car denialist? Did a car-lifter once do something to you, hurt you in some way, make you angry and hyper skeptical? Why do you refuse to admit the possibility that car-lifting is something some people – even some kids – can do? Why are you such an angry and militant anti-car-lifting activist? Why can’t you just get along with others who choose to believe differently than you?
So much hate, so much anger, John…
Nice try, Tildeb!
Do you want me to fix your analogy or do you want to do it yourself?
Oh, please, fix it.
Ok. But this is off topic. I’m not going to go back and forth with you about atheism because it’s boring to the majority of people.
Your analogy claims that it is virtuous to accept a testable claim as true without testing it. “I can lift a car by myself” is a claim that can be tested. “I lifted a car by myself” is a claim that cannot be tested because the event is past. Surely, even you can agree with this important distinction.
So…to fix your analogy:
The second grade class discovers one of the teacher’s cars on the roof of the school building.
How did it get there?
Many theories are suggested including gorillas, cranes, cyclones, pulleys, gremlins, roaming packs of UAW workers and kids with the strength of Hercules. Some seem more plausible than others but none can be proven beyond ALL doubt.
The atheist kid says, ‘All your theories are bullshit. Evolution explains it. Stop adding unnecessary complexity!’
Some precocious 2nd graders ask how, specifically, evolution accomplished this feat. The atheist labels them as ‘science-deniers’ and tells them they should never reproduce.
Oh John… that’s a really poor criticism.
The analogy is whether or not to take extraordinary claims at face value… without any evidence to do so… or to test them. I think testing extraordinary claims before granting them any confidence is something you would do regarding such claims about the present or the past or the future… everything, that is, except your religious beliefs.
That’s the analogy.
That you would do so for such a kid making such an extraordinary claim is eminently reasonable – not as you suggest because the car is in some established extraordinary position but – because the claim itself is understood to be extraordinary and in need of demonstration. Asking for a demonstration about a claimed ability is as reasonable as asking an evangelical today for evidence for their extraordinary claims about an intervening creative causal agency called ‘God’.
Sure, Tildeb.
Removing intelligence from the explanation for the Universe doesn’t make your claim any less extraordinary.
And there’s no way to demonstrate your ‘evolution’ claims. ‘GodDidNotDoIt’ is as much of a faith claim as ‘GodDidIt’.
And we’re still off topic…
I’m not trying to move it off topic. I’m simply pointing out how reasonable it is to ask for testing of extraordinary claims. That you would do so for a supposed car-lifting kid is reasonable. Vilifying those who would dare ask for evidence is not, yet here you go again doing just that. That’s the point I’m making.
Nobody has been vilified.
Would you accept evolution as reasonable evidence for the car on the roof?
What I’m showing is that you asking for a demonstration of the extraordinary claim doesn’t mean all the stuff – the vilification – you assign to atheists for daring to ask theists such as yourself for evidence for YOUR extraordinary religious claims.
Sounds like they made decisions to defend the Christian faith by first being good Christians, not passive aggressive Jerks. good on them. Makes a bigger impact when people actually ‘walk out’ and live the Spirit of “peace, love, gentleness and self control”, a la gal 5, that they are advocating for. Unfortunately, there will always be those on the Amateur Internet apologetics sites who will defensively and ruthlessly mock them as well as anyone else who disagrees.
But yeah, good on them for actually trying to be Christ like while sharing Christ. Have a great day brother john
Don’t let Ark or Club hear you say it’s good to be like Christ!
They say it’s insane to aspire to the example of a “mythical god.”
If it were more common among Christians on the Internet blogs, it would be great to see more kindness, compassion, empathy and respect for others. Alas… what we see is more sarcastic passive aggressive slaps in the face like you just displayed. Have a great day
Darn, I was hoping you’d say, “Yes, there are amateurs who don’t practice what they preach on BOTH ‘sides.'” Or maybe, “all of us would do well to check our motives now and then.”
Then we’d agree entirely!
But I guess it’s only vogue to police the Christians. (Sometimes a person might even accidentally be short and rude to a”good guy” Atheist, thinking his blog post sounded kind of Christian-y!) It happens sometimes when you’re fighting the good fight of assuming all Christians have issues, but Atheists never need to be corrected.
Oh, well. Maybe we’ll find somewhere to agree next time!
I hope someday you will understand. It doesn’t seem to be today
Actually I think his example is quite refreshing. How nice it would be if all Christians simply kept it to themselves and let the holy spirit do the work.
I have often wondered why an omniscient god need puny humans to spread His word. Never made any sense to me.
Do you think you could keep it to yourself and let your god do the rest?
…weird!
I was just praying that God would bring you here today!!!!
Oh, well I am one of your god’s special little people, right?
I’m just teasing you, Ark. 🙂
But, seriously, if you want me to “keep to myself,” you should stop showing up here–where you know I’ll be.
I know. But in a serious note , why don’t you allow the Holy Spirit to simply do your god’s work?
Doesn’t he he get to decide who will be chosen?
The Holy Spirit IS doing work right now. And you’re being used in the process.
I don’t know what percentage of the responsibility is God’s and how much he allows us to control. I don’t know whether you’re a lost cause–like Pharaoh. (I know, I know… “AGH! THE EXODUS WAS FICTIONAL!!!!” Please spare us the lecture.)
But, even if you have a hardened heart and no interest in seeking God, conversations like ours are still encouraging for God’s people who may be reading.
So thanks for playing your part–whether you’re a truth-seeker or an example of what not to be. 🙂
You miss the point. Your god is claimed to be omnipotent so why would he need puny humans and poor examples of Christians to spread his word ( which I have no idea what that is for what it’s worth – maybe in lieu of your god not turning up perhaps you could tell me?), especially in light of what that bloke wrote on that post that evangelizing as per what you do, tends to drive people away from Crispyianity rather than toward it.
No, I didn’t miss the point, Ark. You, once again, think you’re asking this really deep, probing question–but, once again, you’re not the first person to wrestle with it.
I’ve considered it before.
And–just as Calvinists and Wesleyans have disagreed about exactly how much free will God gives people–there are different interpretations.
If you’re ready to admit that there’s a God and you’re trying to learn more about his character, then we can continue with the conversation.
No I do not think I am the first to ask at all. I am not that arrogant.
Of course I am wanting to know more about the character of your god,and you can tell me if you’re up to it?
But there is nothing wrong with me asking a straight forward question without you giving me the brush off with snark.
What is your view on why he doesn’t simply use his omnipotence to reach out to everyone via the holy spirit. He reached you and your dad didn’t he?
Why do you think he doesn’t reach out to me as he did with you?
Surely he has the power to do so if he chose, yes?
Forced compliance isn’t compliance.
I believe he has given you a fair opportunity to see what I see.
We live in the same Universe with the same obvious problem: how did we get here, and how should we live now?
But you have also been given the choice to make your own decisions. Free will comes into play. And entire books have been written on the subject.
Here’s a question you won’t answer: If you had the ability to MAKE your children feel love for you–would you do it? Or would you know, every time they said, “I love you, Dad” that it doesn’t really mean anything because they had no other option?
You are avoiding the question.
I understand perfectly about free will. I would still have the opportunity to acceptpor reject your god.
My question is: As he is claimed to be omnipotent why does he not simply reach out to me directly? Or anyone for that matter?
For the record, there are several billion who are not Christian, largely because they were born and brought up in a different country and culture.
He reached out to you, why not me?
This is the question I am asking and has nothing to do with free will.
I’M avoiding the question?
You’re still assuming he hasn’t reached out to you.
I reject that question, because God HAS reached out, and is still reaching. Maybe not showing up on your door to shake your hand (as I mentioned in another thread). But a God who asks “how high?” when someone says “jump” isn’t really God.
Here’s another question you won’t answer: What would God need to do to “reach out” by your definition?
How the hell would I know, and why would you think I would be dare to be so arrogant to presume on an omnipotent deity?
He reached out to you. If you aren’t willing to answer on my behalf then think of the millions of Muslim and Hindu kids, blissfully unaware of your god’s munificence and quite likely being indoctrinated right by their parents to hate or at least dismiss your god as false.
So why do you think he does not invoke the holy spirit to intercede on his behalf for me and more importantly, all those millions of kids?
What is your reason for him not doing this?
You can’t answer the question for an omnipotent God–but you expect ME to?
My answer for Muslims and Hindus is the same as for you: God IS reaching out to them. They have the same basic problems we do: how did we get here and how should we live now. And anyone who is seeking the truth will find God. Because the Truth IS God.
You seem to be assuming that everyone will become Christians if/when God reaches out. You’re afraid that the Muslims and Hindus who have remained Muslims and Hindus (and your children–who, presumably, are Atheists based on what they learned from you) haven’t had the opportunity to change their minds.
And I’m suggesting to you that EVERYONE has sufficient opportunity to ask the questions which lead to God.
And I am asking why do we need to ask questions when we are dealing with an omnipotent god and why did he manifest in some way to you and your dad and not to me or the millions of Muslim and Hindu gods?
Ark, you said your question had nothing to do with free will. But do you see now that it does?
Also, my question about what type of “manifestation” would be sufficient to you matters.
God gave all of us minds that are capable of asking questions. Some people simply refuse to ask and seriously consider those questions…which is their right.
There have been thousands of Muslims and former-Atheists who have converted to Christianity. Most of them say, “I started to doubt that what my parents told me was really true.” And then they went from there.
But–unless you can tell me HOW God needs to “reach out” then I can’t give you my opinion for why He hasn’t. My opinion is that he’s already given you, and everyone else, everything you need to find him.
Fine, then tell me how he reached out to you and your dad.
He gave me a mind.
And?
And that’s all a person needs to find Him.
So how do you explain the fact that there are still people who are not even aware of your god let alone believing in other gods?
Everyone is aware of my God. Because, as I’ve explained to you, my God is truth.
But there are people who refuse to follow the trail of Truth to more complete details because that’s their choice.
I don’t understand why some people are more interested in staying comfortable than seeking the truth. But we’ve all met people like that. And God allows them to plug their ears and sing, if they want to.
But, here’s the thing: no one said everyone has to believe exactly the same things about God that I do before they can be “saved.” That’s not my view of God.
He wants a relationship with people individually, and their stories will look different from mine. So, am I willing to consider that maybe there are tribes somewhere who believe in a Creator (but never had the chance to learn about Jesus) who will still be in Heaven because they sought God as much as they possibly could? Yes, I’ll consider that… I really don’t know.
There are still a few tribes in South American Jungles and maybe Papua New Guinea( don’t quote me on the last one).
How are they supposed to know your god and why do you think he doesn’t simply alert them?
How difficult would that be?
And how does one know or get to know what is the ”trail of Truth”.
How would I know for example?
What do consider would be the fist three or four steps?
HOW would He alert them, Ark? I already asked that question. He gave them minds–and if they recognize some type of creator (which pretty much everyone does, except for those in the West who have been taught that denying God is somehow intellectual)–then they’re acknowledging God as completely as they can.
He gave them the same Universe and the same minds he has given everyone else.
What else do you want him to do? The door-knock thing?
Well, yes, we have minds. But if we all have the potential to see something different what went wrong with me and billions of others who are not able to see what you and your dad saw?
This is what I am struggling to work out which is why I asked how did he reach out to you and your dad?
You’re never supposed to see God exactly like my dad and I do. Just like the things you know about your wife are not the exact same things her parents know/knew. And your relationship with your kids will be different from hers. You’ll have different things you like about them; and different things that bother or annoy you. 🙂
I think–what goes wrong with some people–is pride. Ego. Some people expect God to be and act a certain way. And then, when he doesn’t meet our expectations, we get angry. Some of us are willing to adjust our idea of him and keep dancing toward Truth.
I’m going to answer your other question here, too, because I hate having two threads going at once.
“All I want to know is how he reached out to you… How did your god communicate his message, Word to you ,specifically…”
I’ve already answered this with “He gave me a mind.” I reasoned my way to him. I started with the problem of intelligence coming from unintelligence. AND I have a problem with the fact that morality is built into all of us. (As I’ve already explained to you: either God wired us to believe in right/wrong OR it’s just a random instinct. But no one lives as if right and wrong are instincts. We believe there really is such a thing as good/bad and right/wrong.) So, if we have the ability to ask why and we have the “instinct” to see TRUTH–and not just survival–then there must be a God.
It has been a journey since then to figure out more about who God is, and I use science, philosophy, atheists, Christians, and everyone in between to color that journey.
I’m positive I have many more things to learn and unlearn. But it all starts with “There HAS to be a God.” It starts with my mind, using logic.
Now, I’m sure other people have found God other ways, but that’s the abridged version of what steps I’ve taken.
So you looked around and began with a presupposition which you called God.
Fair enough. I accept that.( I don’t agree, but I accept it)
Now explain how you arrived at your god
Actually, I think I’m done answering questions for today, Ark.
Nothing personal. I’m leaving for the gym soon, and I’ve already broken my standard rule of engaging with Atheists about “specifics” before they are willing to admit what is written on their hearts…that there is a God.
My arrival at the various particulars about my understanding is way, way, way too complicated to put in a flow chart. For some reason, God saw fit to give me Christian parents and internet access and a love-obsession with reading. All of it factored in… But more importantly, I’ve already explained that you don’t have to think of Him the same way I do. So, it doesn’t really matter.
If you admitted you are a Deist who is exploring Christianity, then this could be an interesting give-and-take as we walked toward Truth together….instead of somewhat of an interrogation. 🙂
What concerns me is that you are treating a relationship with God like he’s a car salesman handing you a contract. You want to read everything about him (and the car) before you’re willing to sign on the dotted line. So I can’t stress enough that you’ll never understand EVERYTHING about him, because you’ll never understand the WHOLE Truth. That’s what makes God the Supreme. (Multiple times today, you’ve alluded to not wanting to be “arrogant.” It’s because we all know, by design, that being a know-it-all is morally wrong. Pride/arrogance is trying to take God’s place because only HE can know it all.)
No, I am simply asking you that after deducing that intelligence (a god) was behind creation and was not due to evolution how did you arrive at the conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth was that god?
It is a reasonable question to ask.
The only real question is whether you are you willing to answer?
No, it’s not a reasonable question to ask–because my worldview is more complicated than a one-word answer.
(Sorry, but you do remember answering “evolution” to a why question, remember?)
Not everything is a math formula, Ark. Not everything is black and white.
If you admit there’s an Intelligent Designer behind the Universe, then we could explore the options for his character from there.
Until then, please don’t forget that I’ve said (transparently and honestly, multiple times) that there is no silver bullet.
As I said to your dad I cannot deny ther possibility of a creator deity.
I dont believe it,'( based on my understanding of the evidence I have seen so far) but I cant deny it either.’
You take this one step further and assert that this creator god is Jesus.
My question is simple: How did you arrive at this conclusion?
So…I’ve been answering questions literally all afternoon, but we’re going to focus on the one I said I’m not answering.
Fine.
Even though I have NOT said the creator god is Jesus. I’ve said that God is logic and reason–and that it’s fascinating to me that the Bible says “In the beginning was the Logic/Meaning/Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God.” I believe the Bible most clearly describes what the Intelligence demanded by science/philosophy HAS to be.
Now…
When you’re able to answer as many questions–and as completely–as I have, using just “evolution,” then we can start examining the thousands of little, bitty baby steps that make Jesus the most attractive example to people who are looking for God…and not just looking for reasons to dismiss him.
So your source for your belief in your creator god is the bible? Would this be fair to say?
Nope.
So, you must understand everything about other people’s belief and the Bible before you’ll submit God. Is that fair to say?
So the source is not the bible? What is the source then?
Go to bed, Ark.
The fact that people don’t stay up until 1:00 in the morning wrestling with Apollo is a small piece of evidence for me.
Are you really afraid to say the word: Faith?
Yeah, terrified…
No, wait. You’re the one who has to believe that one “side” is reasonable and the other is “blindly faithful” in order to keep your perspective.
I’ve said everyone is religious. So, I have no problem with a little faith, when it applies. 😉
Also, my worldview allows me to trust others as basically honest and basically hungry for truth. So I can with WITH my fellow humans. I don’t have to categorize millions of them as crazy or indoctrinated.
I’m not religious in the least. What on the gods’ earth gave you that impression?
Walk me through it
Everyone has been given sufficient opportunity to search for Truth.
If they are seeking Truth as completely as they can, then a God of justice would either credit them as righteous (as the Bible says)…or appear to them in a vision…or send a missionary… or something else I haven’t considered.
Anything else you want to ask the finite Mrs. McMommy about the Infinite, just to hear my best guess? 😉
All I want to know is how he reached out to you. I presume you didn’t bother with the bible and wot not as you stated you didn’t care if the bible was 100% fiction.
Obviously the bible is not the key – and wasn’t for you.
So what was?
How did your god communicate his message, Word to you ,specifically
Thanks! You have a great day too.
Certainly plan to. The wife’s birthday, her 29th… again, is tomorrow. I have to get the house cleaned and ready