My dad is bi-polar.
It’s the polite way to say, ‘crazy’.
That’s the diagnosis.
A diagnosis is the opinion of certified experts.
The experts diagnosed Dad by doing research.
Research is a scientific term that means, ‘ask the family’.
Doctor: How does your Dad behave?
Family: He takes his clothes off and throws money out the car window.
Doctor: I see. Anything else?
Family: He says he can travel through time.
Doctor: *nodding* Anything else?
Family: He stuffs bread in people’s mailboxes.
Doctor: Your father is bi-polar.
Family: Thank God! We thought he was crazy!
Psychology and Neuroscience has a sophisticated treatment for bi-polar disorder.
Handcuffs and sedation.
It’s 100% effective at stopping Dad from doing crazy things.
Doctor: We’ve suppressed your father’s manic behavior
Family: He’s unconscious.
Doctor: Yes. We are trained professionals.
More than once I’ve thought about how Dad acquired his crazy card.
Essentially, the democratic method.
The majority considered Dad’s behavior to be ‘odd’.
The majority of people don’t distribute boxes of margarine to elected officials.
So there must be ‘something wrong’ with those few folks who do.
But…here’s the wacky part…
‘Crazy people’ are only recognized when they’re surrounded by ‘normal people’.
In a culture of cannibals, it’s not weird to eat people.
But bring a cannibal to Indiana and somebody will call a psychotherapist.
Doctor: How does he behave?
Family: He ate the paperboy.
Doctor: Anything else.
Family: …um…he still watches movies on VHS.
Doctor: He’s bi-polar.
Without a fixed standard of ‘normal’, it is impossible to describe ‘abnormal’.
It’s impossible to be ‘bi-polar’ if we can’t recognize the poles.
And if you think everyone should just ‘do what’s right for themselves’…
…you’re crazy.
236 Responses
Oh, and I just read through Swarn’s thread.
Ouch … I mean owweeeechhhh, with a Capital CH. . Did you have to ask Daddy to call the burn unit?
Jesus… he fried your backside!
Not that anyone’s point scoring of course …. lol!
It’s raining here, by the way. Pississsting it down. Has been for two days solid. Bloody cyclone whatever its called.
Can’t you pray to Yahweh and tell him ..oops sorry… Him, enough already?
When a man who says he “doesn’t do philosophy” thinks you’ve made a lot of philosophical sense.
Ouch.
I mean. OwwwwweCH. (With a capital CH.)
(“Sorry, sweets, [you’re talking about] philosophy, and I generally don’t do.”) https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2016/09/08/will-there-be-guns-in-heaven/comment-page-1/#comment-4435
Oh, as a rule I don’t do philosophy … but others do.
Did they give you a shot of humility as well as lashings of cream for those burns?
I noted your Ted Bundy line again.
You really do have a morbid predilection with these off the wall psycho types Mandy. It’s quite …. er, odd.
“I don’t do philosophy…but I know when someone does it well!!!” –Ark
“I don’t do philosophy…but I saw a guy say some stuff, and I already know he is an Atheist, so I thought I’d let everyone know it was BRILLIANT!” –Ark
🙂
I’ll stop bringing up Ted Bundy when an Atheist can explain his error without appealing to their own personal opinion.
Swarn did… what happened, did you skip that part?
Nope.
He didn’t.
You never have.
Philosophically speaking, lots of words isn’t an answer.
Yes, he did. He is cleverer than me so he must be waaaay cleverer than you.
Just apply the burn cream judiciously and when you swallow your follow up dose of humility try some jam after, it will take away the bitter taste.
learn to recognise when you have had your backside handed to you.
It will help you try to formulate a better argument next time.
Honestly: I would feel MUCH more uncomfortable if you said anything else.
Formulating a “better” argument, as defined by a man who can’t think rationally, would be a bad idea.
You seem to believe that you position is unassailable.
From the perspective of challenging an ”invisible deity” … well yes.
Very much like Russel’s Teapot.
But, as always you never actually produce the teapot(Yahweh)
And when it is pointed out that Yahweh is a monster you say …
”Weeel not the Yahweh I worship”
”My Yahweh is love and mercy and peace and justice…”
Then you confirm the belief that you are simply delusional… or an idiot.Or both.
I just found this comment in our spam folder:
How nice! It says, “This article couldn’t bee wditten mmuch better!”
Now both Swarn and I have been complimented by robots…
@Amanda
List them … and identify chapter and verse of at least six.
Do it yourself.
So you have no real idea or you are afraid to be caught out in a lie or a contradiction?
You know the concepts of “mercy, justice, love and joy” are found SOMEWHERE in the Bible, Ark. There is no reason for me to look it up for you, except you’re doing that thing again where you’re trying to ask question until I finally cut you off. And then you can declare some kind of victory.
I’m not giving you chapter and verse of the many places God’s standards appear in the Bible…and the Koran…and literally anything that has to do with “morality” ever written by anybody.
And what about the Genocide?
And slavery and abortion and homosexuality?
And human sacrifice?
Offhand I cannot think of one area of the bible where Yahweh demonstrates these qualities … other than after he had been responsible for some of the most heinous acts and maybe he just felt contrite?
Like after he wiped all humanity(‘cept Noah etc) and other flora and fauna in the global flood?
So,no, you haven’t actually identified a single one of Yahweh’s moral standards.
Why do you worship such a monster?
The only way you can claim the Bible is wrong about those things is if you admit you’ve got a conscience.
You FEEL genocide and slavery are wrong, as most humans FEEL they are wrong. You FEEL the “right” thing to do is to treat others the way you want to be treated.
That’s religion.
Religion?
YOu are claiming we have developed morality by some form of divine intervention yet the supposed giver of this morality is a capricious, meglomaniacal monster.
If you think Yahweh is the source of all good and the bad is just happenstance then why are you not worshiping Hitler?
Explain why you beleive there is nothing wrong with the atrocities Yahweh commits.
Nonsense.
I’ve never supposed the giver of morality is a capricious, megalomaniac monster.
Sit down before you hurt yourself.
(And, for the love of Frank, stop bringing up Yahweh.)
So Yahweh is not your god then?
Not the Yahweh you’ve put in a box.
You can call God Yahweh or Frank.
But you CANNOT reduce him to a chapter and verse.
So Yahweh is your god, yes or no?
This again?!?!?!
Yes or no?
YES OR NO?
YEEEEES OR NOOOOOO?
You’re hopeless.
(Here’s the link to the last time you refused to understand: https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2016/10/17/do-what-god-says-because-god-says/comment-page-1/#comment-7335 )
No, you simply refuse to take responsibility.
And this is why you are a cherry picking hypocrite … as Swarn has now clearly demonstrated.
At least other fundamentalists, such as Craig, ”own” Yahweh, warts and all.
You cannot have the ”nice” and simply hand wave away the vile.
And you have STILL not provided a single, recognized moral standard of your god, Yahweh.
I’m a Theist. 🙂
Sorry you prefer attacking what’s wrong with Christianity, rather than discovering what’s right and true in the Universe.
Nobody needs theism to discover anything about the universe.
And you are a Yahwehist, and you cannot identify a single moral standard. Not one.
And this is why you are simply indoctrinated and thus are unable to think critically.
Okay.
Here is a comment from my blog by Swarn.
I wonder if any Christian on this particular thread would be up to the challenge of answering it?
Prove, with science, that caring about survival and well-being are what we HAVE to do…
Preventing disorder and harm are religious concepts. God gave us a conscience. That’s why we do it.
Scientifically, though, you can’t explain why people SHOULD care about that stuff. Ted Bundy reasoned through it and decided he didn’t give a crap about society’s “well-being.”
Prove it, with religion .. or the bible or one of your god’s clearly defined moral standards.
Swarn was the one who said people should reduce harm and promote well-being.
He’s the one who needs to explain WHY.
Well two things. First the scientist was tasked with this by the leader of the society. The point being that if we can empirically demonstrate that murder is harmful to a society, and a society wants to thrive, then where does God come in?
Secondly if you would like to know, how with science, that caring about survival and well-being are important, this seems all too obvious that I didn’t think it would need to be answered. Every form of life has a survival instinct, plant or animal. We all have different ways of doing it. It’s just what life does. Now if you want to argue that this survival instinct is handed down by a creator, perhaps your right, but this has nothing to do with any particular religious story such a creator could be the one of any particular religion, or none of the known religions, so let’s put that aside.
We know a few things about many species that mate. Genetic diversity is important, so there is a commonality among species that one at least has to be close to others of your kind and to mate with those who do not share direct genetic lineage, otherwise this tends to lead to physiological problems down the line. Primates are one such species that require genetic diversity. With the exception of the gibbon which lives monogamously with a mate, all primate species live in groups and have multiple partners for the purposes of reproduction. Humans are no different, we are a social species. Thus if our society, tribe, band of people are going to be successful we need sufficiently large numbers to promote that diversity. Somewhere around several hundred is a minimum. If in smaller groups, then those groups must be in reasonable geographic proximity to each other to ensure genetic diversity.
So how does a social species ensure survival? Through reciprocal altruism. By acting kindly towards others, they are likely act kindly to you and the unit remains cohesive and people care for each other. We raise children through bonding with a mate. Love, friendship, these are things that increase the chance of the survival of the young as well, because that means the parents, and the tribe has a vested interested in their being raised healthy. Evolution explains this human trait pretty well, and thus in our scientific understanding of how our species survives optimally, caring and well-being thus must be a goal of science also.
So, you’re automatically assuming that all societies want to “thrive” and that “thriving” means reducing harm and increasing well-being.
That’s fine, except it doesn’t explain why survival SHOULD or OUGHT to matter to us.
All life wants to thrive…it’s not an assumption, it’s an observation. We are a species that lives in societies. Other species don’t but the goal is the same.
Survival is not a matter of should…it’s just part of what life is. It’s like asking a question “Why should a rock be hard?” A rock is hard because of what it’s made of. Life survives, because that’s what life does.
All life wants to thrive PERSONALLY. There’s no explanation for why it “should” extend its concern to the rest of society.
We observe social species making decisions in the best interest of their society all the time.
Your quoting of Ted Bundy is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The fact that we have developed laws against the harm of a person like Ted Bundy is evidence that society is actually concerned with the well-being of others. Otherwise, why not let Ted Bundy go around and kill people.
The question to you stands, for which you have not answer. If we can observe the harm that murder causes in a society, why does a God need to command that murder is wrong if we could figure out for ourselves?
Society is concerned about the well-being of others. I already agreed to that. Ted Bundy agreed to that.
The question I asked was “Why SHOULD we be?”
Contrary to what you claimed, this isn’t like a rock being hard. We have the choice to NOT strive for the survival of our species. Why should we choose survival?
So your asking, why does life exist?
I’m asking why you started your “challenge” with the assumption that the right thing to do is to survive.
If some tribal leader asked “what’s the best way to keep as many people alive as possible,” then you certainly could give him some tips, without appealing to God.
But you haven’t answered the question, “Why do you want to?” You’ve taught him not to question his own instincts…which is GREAT for mere “survival.” But not great for deep thinking.
I never claimed the right thing to do was survive. Survival is not a moral question, it is simply what life does. That is the nature of life. Which is why I used the example of the rock. You are the one assuming that I have attribute a moral position to survival. I am saying survival is what optimizes our moral positions. The fact that we evolved as a social species and that we must maintain genetic diversity in order to survive means that we will also develop moral positions that enhance our probabilities of survival.
The fact that as individuals we may choose to think otherwise is irrelevant. As the brain is a physical organ, and can simply be deficient, just as Ted Bundy’s clearly was, such patterns of thinking tend to be stamped out by society over time. We are born learning everything through the observation of other people, and almost all humans display group thinking behaviors, not suprisingly because we are wired to think like our group because if a group of adults in our lives made it to the age of reproduction, following them seems like the best solution to also survive. That’s not to say our individuality has no value, in fact it is the fact that we have the freedom to be individuals within the context of a larger society is what has led to moral progress over the course of human civilization. Situations where the individual self is valued to highly over the success of society tends to be self-defeating as the history of tyrants overthrown shows.
If “survival” optimizes our moral positions, then you are saying survival is right. And, to claim that Ted Bundy’s way of evolving was wrong/deficient is to make a value claim.
You ARE suggesting that life is “supposed” to survive, and if humans refuse to do so, they are wrong. You’re just not using those words.
No I am saying survival is what we do. The universe could have no life whatsoever, just as most of it does and it would still exist. Life, survives. That’s what it does. It doesn’t make it right or wrong. You are the one assigning morality to survival. I am simply saying that morality is a consequence not an a priori condition that allows survival to happen.
Humanity as a whole has never failed to survive thus far, unless a tragedy befell a society that they did not anticipate (volcanic eruption, drought, etc). So as a whole humanity has never refused to do so, and thus my statement of the nature of life is that humans are like every other species in that we survive. That is the nature of life and I attribute no right or wrong to it, it’s just what we do.
Survival is just what we do…until we don’t…
And then, when people don’t care about survival, we call them crazy and lock them up.
I already answered your question: if you ASSUME that keeping alive the largest number of people possible is the only goal, then yes. You can help a tribal king do that without God.
One of the laws should be, “Don’t ask questions about WHY we want to survive in the first place.”
No species has the intelligence to know all the variables to optimize survival and different species evolve behaviors according to how their environment, their physiology, their reproductive habits. We are no different. The question of “Why we want to survive” can be asked… But it’s a pointless question. A blade of grass wants to survive… But it doesn’t really have wants…. It doesn’t have a brain or emotions… Yet it behaves in way that optimizes it’s survival. We would never say that a blade of grass is wrong or right… Yet over its long history it has evolved and adapted to ensure it’s survival.
Also I never assumed that keeping the largest number of people alive is the only goal. Technically we’d probably be fine if we remained at around a few million at various parts of the globe. Personally I hate to see suffering… Part of bonding as a group is being sensitive to the suffering of others… So whether we are 10 or 10 billion… I would not wish suffering on any human. I know how it feels. Other species have not evolved empathy… They don’t have the capacity to be concerned about the death of another of their species next to them or half a world away.
Murder within a society can be observed to be immoral because it reduces the chance of survival and counters the very nature of the property of life. And yes those who don’t care about survival, well we can afford to have a few in society… But it cannot be pervasive… Or yes… As a whole we would not survive.
“It’s a pointless question.”
Very good.
That’s precisely the kind of thing you should teach the hypothetical tribe you are hypothetically trying to help survive (for no reason). 🙂
It’s a pointless question, because the answer is obvious and simple. Survival is the nature of life.
Survival is the nature of life… until it isn’t…
When is it not, unless said example of life is not ill through genetic mutation and/or the experience of harmful environmental stimuli like severe abuse, trauma, etc?
Oops. Now you’re implying a definition of what “good life” and “bad life” are. (So, back to the moral question.)
If you want to throw out the examples of humans who are “ill” because they won’t strive for survival along with you, then you’re begging your own question.
Is “survival” what people OUGHT to be concerned with?
Nope not implying good life or bad life. I’m implying shit happens through no fault of our own. I’m not begging my own question at all. The fact that a faun in the forest might be born with only 3 good legs, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t want to survive it means that it is highly likely it won’t. Because our species has a highly develop brain, genetic mutations may impact our behavior and emotions. Many other species don’t have to experience such things as a result of genetic mutations.
Survival again isn’t a matter of “ought” we simply are…which is why we try to help those who have less chance of survival whether through depression, whether through sickness, whether through some genetic mutation to survive. Of course such attempts may be fruitless, but since empathy is the what bonds us together as a social species it our nature to try.
I’m not talking about fauns that are physically ill. I’m talking about people you would call MENTALLY ill (like Ted Bundy), because they don’t fit your definition of what life “always does.”
The brain is a physical organ…there is no mental vs physical…this a social construct. All maladies are physical.
What does a broken brain look like?
What does a broken liver look like?
I have no idea, but I’m not the one suggesting that it’s always physical. Unless you can demonstrate there’s only a physical difference between Ted Bundy’s brain and “life behaving as it always does,” then it’s a faith statement.
This is something easy to google or find books about, but I’ll leave you with one article that shows how the brain is different for psychopaths (like Ted Bundy) compared to other people. Sadly such technology wasn’t around for old Ted. But the field of neuroscience and medicine has documented numerous differences in brains between those with mental illness and those without. So it is not a matter of faith in the least. It is well studied. http://www.businessinsider.com/what-a-psychopath-brain-looks-like-2015-7
It’s not a matter of faith in the least.
Science has proven that your brain is the right way for societies to evolve. But Ted Bundy’s brain (because it doesn’t care about survival) is wrong.
Thanks.
How many people have psychopathy or sociopathy? It’s fairly rare, and even those who have such an affliction can be raised in nurturing environments and be productive members of society.
You seem to hold it against me simply for saying that my brain is healthy like most people’s brains. Of course brains our plastic, it could change. Yet when we look statistically at humans we find quite a lot of them act in their best interest of survival. It’s almost as if that were normal somehow.
If you wish to believe that Ted Bundy was just like your average human, then that is most certainly a matter of faith, and your welcome to it. I for one, am quite glad the Ted Bundys in our midst are few.
To bring this full-circle. Yes, you can teach a hypothetical society how to write laws to maximize their chances of “survival,” if they’ve already agreed that’s what they want to do. If a society doesn’t care to question WHY SHOULD WE…and if they take their consciences for granted, then you won’t need religion. (Religions answer questions about purpose. It seeks to answer the WHY.)
But, if it’s a society of Ted Bundys, they wouldn’t ask for your help in the first place. They would tell you to get lost and let them enjoy doing whatever they want, without caring what the consequences are. In THAT case, you’ll have a hard time explaining why they should want to think about group survival, rather than individual pleasure.
Since I can’t seem to reply to your most recent comment, I guess I will say it reply to this comment instead.
“If a society doesn’t care to question WHY SHOULD WE…and if they take their consciences for granted, then you won’t need religion. (Religions answers questions about purpose. It seeks to answer the WHY.)”
Religion seeks to answer WHY perhaps, but that doesn’t mean it’s successful. A society doesn’t need to answer the question why it should survive. It does, people create purpose. If that purpose involves inventing a belief system to give their life meaning so be it. There have 1000’s of God’s and belief systems throughout history. It simply proves my point that people try to survive, if commonly shared beliefs and ideologies aid in survival, as they seem to do, then this would make a lot of sense.
“But, if it’s a society of Ted Bundys, they wouldn’t ask for your help in the first place. They would tell you to get lost and let them enjoying doing whatever they want, without caring what the consequences are. In THAT case, you’ll have a hard time explaining why they should want to think about group survival, rather than individual pleasure.”
A society of Ted Bundys would never develop, because if it did then they would not survive. The fact that humans have survived today in the numbers we have is evidence that the Ted Bundys are few.
Correct. Religions aren’t always successful. But, whenever you try to answer “why,” you’re using a religious process. That’s why I said, “Sure–you can teach a society how to organize itself without God…just hope they don’t ask ‘why should we?'”
You put a lot of faith in Evolution’s will to survive! Almost like you think it’s intentional!
The point is, the Ted Bundy’s wouldn’t care that society would go extinct. (And, in order to explain why they SHOULD, you would need to appeal to some sort of objective right/wrong.)
You keep using that word faith in regards to my view on survival incorrectly. If observed entire species jumping into the oceans to drown themselves I might not think that survival was the nature of life. But since we don’t observe that and we see every species from microbe to human, to a high percentage of the population trying to survive, no faith is necessary. This is a universal observation on all life.
It could be that the nature of life to survive is something given to us by a creator, no such evidence exists. Is iron denser than oxygen? It is. Some creator could have made it that way or perhaps it just is. But a creator who set the stage for evolution and a vast universe in no way proves there to be a Christian God, or any other theology to be valid. It could a God who just decided to make something, and then decided that he was bored on the whole thing and trod off somewhere. The truth is we have no evidence either way.
You seem to be obsessed with the question of “why should we?” I have lots of reasons to survive without belief in a creator. As it seems does every other species who survives despite having failed to erect a single church or write a single holy text. You seem to equate religion or a creator as a necessity to answering this question, however there is no evidence for that to be the case.
The difference between you and Ted Bundy is that you LISTEN to your conscience. You place a high value on a human’s “empathy” and you respect the seemingly natural instinct to do what’s “right.”
Whereas Ted Bundy decided it didn’t really matter.
That’s what happens when a culture strips God out of the equation and tries to put a mindless, cold, uncaring process called “evolution” in its place. Things are fine, as long as people “naturally” do and feel what the majority has decided to call correct. But, when humans start believing what you said about everything being physical, then they start questioning why they should care what other “lives” think. (And–by extension–they start seeing “society” as just a group of opinionated “lives” who unquestioningly follow arbitrary instincts…AND forcibly control those who don’t.)
Naturally, people start questioning WHY they should cooperate with a mindless, purposeless process.
So, like I said, as long as nobody asks WHY, you’ll be fine without God.
Your statements don’t actually follow from historical or scientific evidence. A) You keep calling Ted Bundy a regular human being who simply decided to kill people apparently because he didn’t believe in God. Psychopaths are not new to society, and plenty of them have been religious. I have provided you with evidence that the brain of a psychopath is different than a healthy brain. B) Read Steven Pinker’s, Better Angels of our Nature. The world has actually become less violent and more moral as a percentage of world population. We have actually made tremendous moral progress since societies became more secular and with the development of the scientific method. Secular societies, particular ones where there is separation of church and state tend to be far more moral than theocratic ones. C) You seem to think we have an absolute free will. The evidence is once again against you on that one.
The fact that you can’t accept that humans are life like any other life is part of the problem, because no other species which exist is asking such questions and most have survived on this planet much longer than we have. You have created a purpose by imagining a supernatural world out there whose existence depends entirely on faith. I own the fact that I must create my own purpose and really don’t mind that the universe might not have any purpose at all, I still think it’s all pretty amazing and am happy just being in awe of it all and existing a short time to appreciate it. If inventing alternate planes of existence is what you need that’s fine, but there is nothing that makes your imaginations that exist only as matters of faith, more right than anybody else’s.
I’ll let you have the last word, because I can see that the entirety of your argument rests on premises that cannot be proven, whereas I draw conclusions about what seems to be true based on evidence. Such points of view are incompatible. Unless you are willing to change your mind based on evidence, then there is no point. And I am not willing to change my mind based on your faith based arguments that run counter to evidence.
None of my arguments run “counter to evidence,” Swarn. But I’m getting used to that charge from Atheists because (evidence shows) it helps them feel better about their own shaky, confused worldview. Whatever helps you feel superior! It doesn’t bother me. 🙂
I agree with you completely that societies OUGHT to care about survival. I’m only pointing out that it’s a religious statement.
When people show mercy and put others first, they’re doing what they’re SUPPOSED to do. (What they were made to do.)
So, if the leader of a hypothetical tribe asks ME how to proceed in the best-interest of everyone, I would say: “Nature provides us with lots of clues about right/wrong! Just look at what humans tend to do, statistically, by valuing empathy and justice and love. We find quite a lot of us (naturally) act in our best interest of survival. It’s almost as if that were normal somehow. Almost as if they were MADE for that purpose.”
Societies that love mercy and seek justice for all are CORRECT societies. They don’t have to use the word “God” to obey the instincts he gave them.
Meanwhile, Ted Bundy rebelled against his God-given conscience. He was WRONG.
Moral societies don’t need “religion.” But when they start questioning the source of their own morality, THEN the godless societies have a problem. At that point, you have to use some sort of force to make them value survival as much as The Righteous Majority does.
Oh, and for your viewing pleasure, here’s a small group of people, using their evolved sense of empathy. I think they sound nuts. But who’s to say? Maybe they represent a small glimpse of our evolutionary future?
😉
(That last comment should have said “without God.” I fixed it.)
Ah.. Dave… you make me smile.
You are the perfect personification of the blithely ignorant and indoctrinated, cherry-picking Christian.
I simply love watching you dance to a tune you have made up for your self, one that is lacking several very important notes on the stave.
You so glibly ignore the entire foundation of your religion – the Old Testament – and have no answer for the barbarism; the superstitious anti-scientific clap trap, do you?
Of course not. This is why you behave in such a disingenuous manner. Why you can actually excuse anything providing you maintain faith in the character Jesus of Nazareth,
When I read this it always makes me chuckle, and believers never cease to toss this line out.
It is akin to chaff an aircraft pilot might throw out in the hope of disrupting the path of a following missile.
You equate the way I write with my emotional state? Do you then beleive that the roles an actor such as Sir John Gielgud played as a reflection of his emotional state?
You truly beleive I hate a fictional character from a book Really, Dave?
I am a product of western cultural Christianity thus, I am much more familiar with your god and the religions it has spawned.
It has little to with bravery.
And I have posted on Muslim sites.
I do not see you railing against Judaism or Hinduism or Islam either?
Perhaps in your case you realise that ridiculing other religions you open your own beliefs up for some serious scrutiny which migh be decidedly uncomfortable?
Or maybe, as I suspect, you’re simply a moral coward in this regard? I have no real idea why you are not slating other forms of god belief, so you tell me?
I encourage further interaction Dave. I truly want to see what makes people like you believe in bronze age superstition but rejects
all other superstition.
And I am STILL waiting for an example of your god’s moral standards.
Or are you simply going to hand wave this away like the rest of your unsubstantiated whimsical prose?
Let’s see some grit, shall we?
Give me one example of the moral standards, delivered by your god , Yahweh, that you live you life by. and could not live it were it not for Yahweh.
Four examples of God’s moral standard: mercy, respect, honesty, and love that Bird referenced in the letter Dave just linked to. (Christians, if you didn’t click on the link Dave shared from “everybody has a story,” you need to do that!)
And I would dispute each one.
In fact all you have done is write four words which could have come from anywhere or , quite likely , anyone..
Rather give specific examples.
Those are God’s standards. Also joy, which is a sense of happiness and hopefulness no matter the situation. And peace.
All humans recognize these are the goals (even though they can’t always agree how to achieve them). They are God’s standards.
Fine .. . as requested, please point these moral standards out in … I presume … the bible.
Thanks.
Bad presumption. You can find the standards in the Bible, but you can also find them literally EVERYWHERE you look.
God didn’t make this hard. The only reason you want me to mention a specific Holy Book, written in God’s penmanship, is so you can rip it apart.
You claim the moral high ground and yet you now refuse to refer to your source?
You denigrate atheism and every other non Christian belief and state as fact that your god, Yahweh is the source of all morality and NOW when asked you balk!
If your claims can’t stand scrutiny then they are simply that … claims and therefore you have nothing, and merely demonstrate my point.
Yahweh is a megalomaniacal monster and you are simply indoctrinated and unable to offer any rational reason why anyone should accept any of your claims regarding morality.
I did refer to my source. The truth of God’s standards is revealed to all humans, everywhere, internally. I didn’t bring up Yahweh because, as always, YOU’RE the one obsessed with the name of God as understood by the ancient Jews. Not me.
Remember this conversation?
link: https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2016/08/30/i-could-but-i-dont-want-to/comment-page-1/#comment-3694
–“You’re still assuming [God] 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). What would God need to do too reach out, according to your definition?”
The only source you have is the bible . You have nothing else. Nothing.This is your foundation and when asked to provide evidence
you balk.
You cannot demonstrate a single moral standard from your god.
You utterly reek of hypocrisy.
Aaaaaaand, as always, I love it when you tell me what I have to believe, so you can refute it. 🙂
Mercy, Respect, Justice, Love. If you don’t get to see a “demonstration” of any of those standards every, single day, then look harder. They’re everywhere. And humans know by instinct they are Divine…
But that’s not good enough for Fundamentalists with no imagination. You want a Scripture, which you can tell everyone is THE Truth. You want a letter, straight from the post office of Heaven–a letter which is inerrant and all-powerful and easy-to-understand, so that you can put it in your pocket and know that you’ve got a piece of God Himself in there. I understand. A lot of Christians do that with the Bible. (Just as Muslims do it with the Koran. And Jews have done through the ages with the Torah and other texts.) But God didn’t give the Truths of the Universe to a particular group, and then leave everyone else blind. The Universe itself CLEARLY STATES his standards.
Mercy, Love, Joy, Justice…those things are all over the place.
Absolute nonsense.
This is not critical thinking but severe indoctrination.
Me, no? Don’t be so ridiculous. I am an atheist. I do not need a 2000 year plus document/s of historical fiction to ”tell” me anything, and especially not about morality or ethics,thanks all the same. But you on the other hand ….
Well, maybe you don’t either?
Tell me, as a Christian are you truly saying you do not need Scripture?
If so, how do you know about the claimed Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth,the single most crucial aspect of your faith?
How did your parents and theirs before them?
Really? How do you know?
(link: https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2016/08/30/i-could-but-i-dont-want-to/comment-page-1/#comment-3713)
So, there you go. ALWAYS trying to reduce God to a single, physical, graspable “source.” ALWAYS trying to bring the conversation back to Yahweh and the Exodus and “specific” black-and-white doctrines, in a laughable attempt to wrap your mind around the infinite Code-Writer of the Universe.
You are such a moral coward. Truly.
The discussion was with Dave but there’s your ego again…
Now, if you agree with Dave’s statement then you should be able to back it with evidence.
If you cannot, then you are a hypocrite.
And so far that is what you are proving to be.
Your god is a moral monster.
Period. And until otherwise demonstrated, you are nothing but an indoctrinated little fool.
Demonstrate your integrity and prove me wrong.
Outline one of your god’s moral standards and explain its source and where you learned about it.
I hear you, buddy. “Please stop talking to me, because you’re making me uncomfortable.”
You got it.
I’ll even let you have the last word this time. 🙂
I am becoming evermore convinced that you lie for your own benefit, for surely someone cannot be as blatantly ignorant as you.
But then I recall some of the characters I recently encountered in Dawkins’ The God Delusion movie and I remember thinking, these people are truly sick .. seriously disturbed, and I immediately reevaluate that view.
If one were to regard some of the religious fundamentalist Dawkins encountered during the filming as off the chart, disturbed and in the case of the former Jew turned radical Muslim
genuinely disturbing, then you fit somewhere among these people.
But keep going. The fence sitters and lurkers will read what you write and judge your tacit non-response for what it ultimately is.Hypocrisy and
Indoctrination.
Ark,
Actors do not act in a vacuum. The use their own past emotional experiences to sound authentic in their roles. As do you.
Your anger toward me is really anger toward God. I am not taking the bait.
You are chasing your tail with the same stuff again and again. I am not joining in the doggie rumba. I do not have the free time to dance to your tune, so I will glibly dance to my own. My blog time is short by design, as I have lots of cool stuff to do outside of the blogoshpere. Actually, the total number of blogs I post on, including this one, is… one. So you should be appreciative of my limited attention. 🙂
What I say applies to all who are not believers in Christ, be they atheists, Muslims, or Cargo Cultists. I do not go to blogs of people I disagree with to debate them, because… 99% of my life is outside of this blog. (I am sure John will not be hurt that my day is not consumed with his blog. But… if he would like to hire me full time as a moderator and poster, I promise my life would be consumed by it… at least for eight hours, five days a week.)
I never hand wave. I am an introvert and dislike the attention. But I still won’t do the trick monkey thing. Ain’t my job to convince you of anything. I present the truth of Scripture and you decided to accept or reject as God moves in your heart. And I sincerely mean that. And besides, mrsmcmommy was rather thorough in her response.
Whimsical prose? Whimsical prose! Wow, Ark. I have to thank you. Again, sincerely. For two reasons. One, I have pretty much called my own writing of no great literary consequence, the mere bloviating of one endowed by God of some writing ability, and nothing more. Two… and I really, really am grateful to you for this… if I ever start a blog. that just may be the name I use. Whimsical prose. I love it.
I do not take myself so seriously that I am hurt by angry posts. Really. I know that God is not up there, so bummed out by what mean old Ark is saying about Him that He needs superhero Dave to come to His rescue.
Here are some things to think over.
1. God is a perfect and holy Being, good and faithful, Creator of all things. He is incapable of sin and must judge sin by His nature.
2. Humans are sinful and deserving of eternal death, and earning it daily, with a final destination in the Lake of Fire for their guilt.
3. Christ came to earth and lived a sinless life and died for His called ones, a propitiation for their sins.
4. Those whose sins are forgiven based on Christ’s act are declared righteous in God’s final judgement.
5. Those who are righteous will spend an eternity with God in heaven.
We are all sinners, Ark. God’s grace can save even the worst of us. That is what I want for the whole world, to be in heaven with God for eternity and have their sins forgiven. So I pray for the Lord to work His miracle in their hearts.
I am fully aware that unbelievers will have a field day of mockery at my whimsical prose. I will still pray for them. What kind of wimpy faith would I have to have to wilt like a flower at the first sign of opposition? I should hope you would be disappointed in anyone like that.
So read the five things I enumerated above, and accept or reject them. Genuine questions from those who wish to learn are always welcome. But why would I spend time on peripheral issues, when the centrality of the Bible deals with man’s sin and redemption? That issue is enough to keep me occupied until either I keel over and die, or the Lord returns.
Wow, that was a long post. Hope it is appreciated in the spirit it was given. I am supposed to be playing Skyrim and watching “The Gunslinger” on Hulu right now. My life is exciting!
Praying for you, Ark,
Dave
John 17:9 (ESV) – I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.
How do you know?
@ John Brunyun
Seriously? No wonder you are such a lousy bloody comedian Branyan. Taking pictures of unsuspecting kiddies on their way to school? I never get up that early.
I took pictures of unsuspecting children coming home from school.
At least have the integrity to fact check before you get a hard-on trying to insult me. Honestly.Bunyan. *Shakes head*
@Dave
Exactly what are these moral standards and where can one find them?
Well, praise God!
Ark is seeking spiritual wisdom!
To quote Obi Wan, “You’ve taken your first step Into a larger world“
And I am quite sure you already know where to find the moral standards from all of the marvelous posts from Mr. Branyan. You just need to start reading them all over again with your newfound interest in pursuing faith.
Dave
Jeremiah 29:11 (ESV) – For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.
RFLMAO!
The Bible?
I must take morality lessons from a make-beleive, genocidal maniac?
Dave, You have simply got to be kidding, surely?
There you go!
Ark, you knew the source for the answers you were seeking.
…and you had already preplanned your response to your own question.
You faith journey is progressing. Deny it all you want. The angrier and more overblown your responses become toward my mild and reasonable posts shows us that I am hitting close to the mark.
Stop fighting the work of the Holy Spirit. We see your rage toward the one true God. Or do you post to Muslim sites in the same manner? That would take bravery. We Christians aren’t going to do anything to you but share the truth with words.
How about Hindu sites? Buddhist? Zoroastrian? Or have you chosen evangelicals as your group to vent your rage at God to?
It is not healthy to be so angry at God and His followers. Not physically, emotionally, psychologically, or spiritually. I had some relatives from Scotland that were missionaries to South Africa, if I am not mistaken. Perhaps I need to see if any are still out there after all these decades and have them meet you. Nice folks, my kin. A smart bunch, and loving toward even those who would be harsh in their faces.
Embrace Christ. It is your destiny.
Dave
Acts 13:47-48 (ESV) – For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, “‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’” And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
/blush
Aw, shucks. Thanks.
Dave
A big problem with the word “normal” is that it is purely relative. Just the same as morals, and law, and good, and bad. If we don’t have some sort of fixed way of life (fixed meaning unchanging), then there is almost no point to any thing. Your dad might seem crazy today, but ten years from now, things will change and people will hate those who hate him now. (Probably for not being openminded enough. That seems to be a recurring thing now days.)
RDP,
So that begs the question… *should* there be an inalterable standard of what is normal? Or is normal even something we should worry about at all?
Or are we better off looking for a moral standard that ought not be deviated from? (Ick… that was a cumbersome sentence… too lazy to rewrite it.)
By way of analogy… there used to be a “sacred” hunk of metal used to definitively measure metric units. If one were to state that something was one meter in length, verification of that truth was dependent upon whether it matched the hunk of metal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units#/media/File:US_National_Length_Meter.JPG
(Now, they have moved to a much more precise standard for it, based on voodoo and the wavelength of light of a spectral line of krypton 86.. but that’s not important right now)
The point is, that the standard was measured against the sacred hunk of metal, not how long we felt a meter should be. It was not changeable by opinion of the people or laws in a community. It was only a true meter if it measured up. Unless the creators of the standard changed the sacred hunk to something cool about a noble gas.
Same for God’s moral standards. He sets the measure, and we are unable to change it by popular opinion or legislation. Only the Creator of the standard can change it. And He has said He won’t. So no amount of coming up with our own measurements has any effect on the Arbiter’s final judgement.
Dave
Revelation 19:11 (ESV) – Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war.
I like you Dave! Talk about an accurate comment.
We live in a universe where the wavelength of light of a spectral line of krypton 86 is precisely the same length every day, everywhere.
How do you suppose that kind of consistency came from mindless chaos?
John,
nor·mal
ˈnôrməl/
adjective
1.
conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
“it’s quite normal for puppies to bolt their food”
synonyms: usual, standard, ordinary, customary, conventional, habitual, accustomed, expected, wonted; typical, stock, common, everyday, regular, routine, established, set, fixed, traditional, time-honored
“they issue books in the normal way”
ordinary, average, typical, run-of-the-mill, middle-of-the-road, common, conventional, mainstream, unremarkable, unexceptional, garden-variety, a dime a dozen
“a normal couple”
———
Again, we have some folks making their own definitions, like last post.
If the standard (usual, typical, or expected) changes, than “normal” changes.
To wit: it was not normal in the early 1900s for people to be in public wearing next to naught while at the beach. Today, it is normal. In the early days of television, a fictitious married couple would have two separate beds on the shows. Today, “normal” on some shows is pretty graphic.
Normal, by definition, can change. that does not make it right or good, of course. After all, the goal of many is to “normalize” things that Scripture says are sinful. While at the same time, calling God-fearing believers abnormal.
I am glad I am not normal by the modern world’s definition.
I do find it interesting that the listed synonyms above include “set, fixed, traditional, and time honored”. If that is true, then same-sex marriage cannot be called normal, for it is not traditional and time-honored. Well, of course… as they change marriage, than over time, they will say it is indeed set, fixed, traditional, and time-honored.
I would also wager that under psychiatric standards, 100% of people could be diagnosed with some disorder. Of course, they also can biblically. Sin is universal. We all suffer from its effects. But most people do not want a cure. They would rather just call it a misdiagnosis or deny that such a condition even exists. That won’t change the results of the disease. It is still fatal. We believers are the few who see the disease and need of the cure.
So our job is not just to tell people that a cure exists, but to reveal to others that they have the disease.
One of my heroes, Spurgeon, once preached a sermon that touched in this. (Ah, this has become one of my lengthy missives of old, now, hasn’t it?)
“A prideful person does not seek the Light of God. You can often notice that if a man has a high opinion of himself, he is extremely good and excellent and does not need to be saved by Grace. He does not want to be told too much about himself. He likes to go to a place of worship where they prophesy very smooth things and if he ever strays in where there is very plain talk, he says that the preacher is too personal. The Hindu thinks it is wicked to kill an insect, or to take life of any kind—and that he will surely not enter into his happy paradise if he does. When the missionary showed a Hindu, by means of a microscope, how many living creatures there were in a single drop of the water which was in a glass on the table, in order to convince him of the impossibility of avoiding the destruction of life if he drank the water, what did the Hindu do? Why, he smashed up the microscope! That was his way of answering it! And so, sometimes, if the Truth of God is put very plainly so that men cannot escape from the force of it, not wishing to know the uncomfortable Truth, they turn upon their heels and find fault with the preacher and refuse to hear any more from him!”
Dave
Luke 5:31 (ESV) – And Jesus answered them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.”
Very nice Dave. I always look forward to your comments.
Different note – I’m pretty sure Ark and gang would smash your microscope.
Kevin (~CQW)
Thanks, CQW!
I am honored.
Yeah, scope-smashing would commence.
I am still convinced that Ark is in the throes of conversion and kicking against the goads. Deep down he believes in God, but was hurt by something, and hates God and blames Him for something.
He is much too passionate to just be a simple unbeliever.
Things I do not believe, but others have a different point of view, is but a shoulder shrug for me. Unless it is an issue I am passionate about. What is the best brand of car in the US? Shrug. I am unmoved. Is it better to raise chickens and farm your own eggs or buy them at the local grocer? I am ambivalent. PS4 vs X-Box One… meh. But talk about why Dungeons and Dragons can be a good thing, even for believers, and I am up for the debate, with chainmail on. Or ask my opinion on diagnosing and dosing kids with “ADHD”, and it is game on. Because I care about the matter with more than passing interest.
Thus I posit that Ark is emotionally invested in the matter of faith in God.
Perhaps he will direct some vitriol my way for saying it, and he may even go all potty mouth in my general direction.
But wouldn’t that just prove my point?
Dave
Acts 26:14 (ESV) – And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’
uh oh, somebody turned the light on! 🙂
Gene,
Yeah… but was anyone home?
Dave
Matthew 5:15 (ESV) – Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house.
You just said “meant to be”. That assumes there is purpose to humanity, which can only come from a Creator. Just saying.
I see nothing wrong with John and Amanda’s attitudes on their blogs. If you want to call it bipolar, you can by all means. I prefer to call it a natural reaction to too much stupidity which must be expressed via sarcasm to prevent an aneurysm.
LOl… where do you arrive at ”Creator” from evolution simply from the use of ”meant to be”?
You claim to be a writer, if I’m not mistaken? So demonstrate this by acknowledging you are simply playing asinine, semantic games.
I have always understood that Christian are called to witness (proselytize)
Do you think that, as a couple, they are doing the ”faith” a service by their spiteful, vitriolic posts?
Has it ever occurred to you that your interpretation of a Christian’s calling could be flawed? Because if you read the Bible at all, you couldn’t help but notice where sarcasm is used, and you would also clearly see it’s not our purpose in life to babysit and coddle idiots. You may think some of these posts are spiteful, but all I see is someone not certain enough in their own belief and so convinced the world revolves around them, that every sarcastic or blunt jibe must certainly be directed at them. As for asinine, semantic games, in order for anyone to understand another, terms must be defined. Evolution has no purpose, which means humans are not “meant to be” anything. This is the same pathetic argument you posed in order to justify why an atheist should or shouldn’t do anything.
You know nothing about faith, and you choose to know nothing about Christianity; something that has more grit, guts, and glory than you could ever hope to understand. It’s not an airy-fairy, ethereal, feel good experience where Christians ought to lick the feet of every jerk that treats them like dirt. We are called to be wise, shrewd, cunning, and recognize crap when we see it. We can take your cussing, your accusations, your ridicule, criticism, and abuse, and laugh. We have nothing to prove to you. If your belief in nothing was as watertight as you say it is, then why don’t you just go and live it out? Witness it to us yourself. Don’t be hypocrite to your un-faith by staking out on Christian blogs in order to mudsling. Surely if atheism was the warm light for all mankind to share that it claims to be, it wouldn’t need to bag Christianity out in order to validate itself.
Why rage against the darkness if you can merely turn on the light?
In this case your religion has failed dismally, as you neither understand evolution or the history of your religion.
You have allowed yourself to succumb to indoctrination based upon false, unsubstantiated claims and all you can do is state that a supernatural being that you have em>absolutely no idea about has changed our life.
Furthermore , you perpetuate this belief by indoctrination into generation after generation of children, much of which involves vile punishment and psychological trauma.
It is child abuse. Period.
In fact, without the bible as reference you would have no notion whatsoever of your god, Yahweh, and certainly no Christian religion.
In the medical field this is generally recognized as a clinical psychotic episode.
I am not asking you to prove anything to me providing you acknowledge that you have no damn right to proselytize to anyone who is unable to mount a critical defense; namely children.
You have the absolute right to beleive whatever you want.
But you have no damn right to ask for or expect that your religion is granted any sort of privilege. None whatsoever.
Your Christian churches pay no taxes. They are a parasites.
If you are so confident in your position then why would an omnipotent deity need a puny human such a you to indoctrinate anyone?
Or even to make mention of your god, Yahweh?
The hypocrisy of your position can be measured in the millions of litres of blood spilled in the name of your god and every other that has butchered its way through humanity.
Why do you want to worship such a monstrous entity?
What possible benefit can it have?
If God doesn’t exist, why are you so angry? I don’t see you ranting and raving against Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. You tell your kids one lie and it’s okay, but another assumed lie and its child abuse. Also, how can you judge God based on the behaviour of people? You do believe in a god, and his name is Ark. Your opinion is gospel, and you reserve the right to judge mankind against your own standards, even though you adhere to a concept marked by it’s LACK of standards. If you believe you’ve seen the light, I don’t understand why you don’t go and bask in it and leave the unconvinced where they choose to be. You are as much a hypocrite as I am. Atheism does not have clean hands either. The only difference between you and me, is that I don’t trust in my own “goodness”, or hypocrisy. I also don’t judge God by the failings of humanity.
You also don’t know much about kids. Children do in fact arrive at the conclusion there is a God somewhere without your so called “indoctrination”. They are more in tune with spiritual things, and their senses aren’t deadened by the tripe that will eventually be fed to them by highly educated idiots.
There is no evidence for gods … yours or anyone else’s .
I am not angry. You’re a writer … figure it out , Jasmine.
I simply find it disgusting that adult believers are not encouraged in some way from indoctrinating children with this nonsense, irrespective which religion we are dealing with.
If it is true, if your god is the all powerful all loving being you claim then surely they will move toward it as a matter of course, without veiled threats.
I confront Christianity because I am more familiar with it than other religions. I was raised a cultural christian, but I managed to avoid indoctrination, largely because my parents attitude toward religion was more or less laissez-faire.
Interesting.
I agree. I am pretty sure there are a great many vile, heinous, non-believers throughout history.
However, how many wars have been fought over atheism ?
I am a parent to two children. So, in fact I do have a reasonable idea about kids.
It’s called assigning agency.
Look it up.
Would you call someone like the late Carl Sagan (for example) a ”highly educated idiot” ?
What about the Dalai Lama?
or …Neil de Grasse Tyson?
Marcus Aurelius?
Albert Einstein?
Are/were they idiots, Jasmine?
Tell me, did you teach your kids to look both ways before crossing the street?
Albert Einstein was a Christian, by the way.
Yes, we called it the ”Green Cross Code.”
I can imagine several million educated Christians, let alone almost everyone else who has even a vague idea of two Einstein was cringing at this statement.
However, I’ll afford you the benefit of the doubt.
Please offer some evidence to back this assertion.
I’m assuming you taught your kids to look both ways before they crossed the street because you believed that was best for them, right?
And no. I’m not providing evidence. I’ll give you the chance to use your faith that he believed in a Creator at least.
Naturally. Who wouldn’t?
*Smile*
Why is it when some people (in this case, you) get caught out in a flagrant lie or simply make a mistake, they are too proud to admit it and then try to move the goalposts in a ridiculous attempt to save face?
Re: Einstein.Even A cursory Wiki search would have revealed this …
Einstein called himself an agnostic rather than an atheist, stating: “I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god is a childlike one…..”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein#Personal_God
I think Jasmine is incorrect to refer to Einstein as a “Christian.”
But–the thing about famous smart people is, they’re CONSTANTLY being used by two sides in a tug-of-war.
Einstein also said this: “There are yet people who say there is no God. But what really gets me angry is that they quote ME for the support of such views!”
I’m going to go out on a limb and say Einstein would be “rolling in his grave” over this whole conversation.
Yes, you would, because you are basically ignorant.
It would have taken a couple of seconds to search Einstein, as I did. But she did not even bother and then had the temerity to say he believed in a creator with a capital ‘C’ , which is also wrong.
He was as best an agnostic.
Which demonstrates not only Jasmine’s ignorance but compounded this totally unnecessarily with stupidity and arrogance as well.
I said I disagreed with Jasmine on that word-choice
I simply pointed out that calling Einstein an “Agnostic” makes you guilty of putting words in his mouth, and making “arrogant” assumptions, in exactly the same way! Einstein said a LOT of spiritual things, which today’s New Atheists have a hard time justifying. The smartest guys in the world almost ALWAYS sound more spiritual than New Atheists… weird… 😉
“Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.” –Albert Einstein
Did you even bother to read the Wiki link?
Go and do so before you mouth off, you silly, ignorant indoctrinated woman.
Einstein died before we discovered the genetic code.
I think, today, he would have called himself a Deist.
What you believe is based entirely upon a presuppositional worldview involving a man-god called Jesus Christ and his meglomaniacal alter ego, Yahweh,so really, who cares?
Oops! We’re not talking about me! We’re talking about Einstein–who was religious.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”
Yes… and nowhere does it even allude to Yahweh or any anthropomorphic entity.
To state that Einstein believed in a Creator as stated by Jasmine is false and you are m«now simply being blatantly disingenuous.
Regarding your worldview …my observation stands as it colours very presentation pertaining to your version of god belief.
As you have just demonstrated.
Einstein was not a Christian. But he DID believe “someone” must have “written the books.”
So, Einstein was also NOT a “whatever-Ark-is.” He was more spiritual than you (because he was smarter than you). 🙂
I never, ever said he was an atheist or what-ever-Ark-is you stupid, disingenuous ignorant woman.
I told you to read the damn wiki page. It says he was at best an agnostic.
So … the original dialogue as espoused by Jasmine is wrong … and she had not the humility to acknowledge it.
I don’t care what the Wiki author’s opinion is. To say Einstein wouldn’t approve of the term “Creator” is wrong, too… because he’s not here to say whether he was okay with that term.
It’s weird how he said the Universe suggests a “someone” who wrote the books, though. And he referred to “a spirit” a lot!
Awkward! 🙂
Not for me …
The dialogue was between Jasmine and me.
Because of your childish ego you simply felt compelled to jump in and try to stick up for another of your poor delusional friends.
The only thing that counted on that thread was that a Einstein was not a Christian…. I mean, what a pile of horseshit!
And b … the term creator was used with a capital C.
So go and get Daddy to stroke your ego .
Talk to Jasmine whenever you want.
And ALWAYS expect me (and my childish ego) to jump in, when you say something you can’t support.
(Awkward: Einstein ALWAYS capitalized “God” when he wrote it. Weird!)
Silly, Fundamentalist Atheist. 🙂
And your point? Sam Harris capitalizes the g.
I don’t.
And if your chums haven’t the decency to acknowledge and apologise when they are wrong … then tough.
You can jump in anytime you like. Shouldn’t you at least ask ”How high?”
Fool ALWAYS jump in where angels fear to tread.
Just remember to wipe the shit from the soles of your boots before you tramp it around the house, okay?
So, capitalizing a letter implies God is “personal” when Jasmine does it (and that’s bad!!!) But it’s okay to capitalize references to God when Einstein or Sam Harris does it. Got it. 🙂
That’s all you had to say!
No … it’s just so that utter indoctrinated morons like you and your ilk understand, and saves them having to explain that there are other gods … lots of them.
I don’t ever feel like affording you even that small courtesy.
Jasmine: “[Einstein] believed in a Creator at least…”
Ark: Capital C! Capital C! ROAAAAAR! He didn’t believe in a Creator! He thought there might be a creator. See the difference?!?!?! He didn’t refer to a Spirit! He wrote about the transcendent spirit! GET IT RIGHT YOU INDOCTRINATED MORON!
hehehe. You know, it wouldn’t be as easy to make fun of you, if you were actually using your head to think–instead of just trying to argue everything. At least have the consistency to ask Sam Harris to stop capitalizing God. 🙂
Yes, capital C.
And so …?
Einstein stated he was agnostic.
Jasmine said he was a Christian.
I mean …. really?
I simply do not know why you, as an indoctrinated fundamentalist christian are peeing your underwear over Einstein for?
He never believed in a personal god and certainly never believed in Jesus fucking H Christs of Nazareth.
So I simply don’t give a monkey’s uncle about you jumping in or jumping out or shaking it all about.
Here’s a nice video for you …
https://youtu.be/RqQn2ADZE1A
Keep back-pedaling…
She said “he believed in a Creator at least” AFTER THAT. She and I have both allowed that he wasn’t a Christian.
I care about the Truth, Ark. That includes when you try to erase Einstein’s clear views that higher intelligence somehow transcends over the universe. (And, just for you, I didn’t capitalize “Intelligence.”) You’re welcome.
You do not care about the truth at all.
You are a Chriatian.
Christians are liars.
Join the dots.
LOL! There’s the Ark we know and love. Anything else you want to say about Christians?
(By the way, can I capitalize Christian? lol. I think Sam Harris does that, so…I guess it’s okay.)
There’s the clinically psychotic, disingenuous, Amanda we have all come to know and love.
Is there anything else one really needs to say about Christians that hasn’t already been said?
Is it disingenuous to call someone “clinically psychotic,” who has a clean bill of health? Asking for a friend.
True … I forgot to include still sounds and behaves like clinically psychotic ….
Apologies.
Thank you.
My pleasure.
Thank you for saying “my pleasure.”
No problem.
Oooh …as you love to jump
all over other people’s threadsin and offer well thought out, meaningful contributions, maybe you would like to help out Jasmine and offer a refutation of my description of Yahweh?Seeing as you are so clued up on him/it and the bible?
I welcome your erudite input.
Thank you for saying “no problem.”
Oooooh, as you love to continue talking, even when a conversation is over, perhaps you’ll recognize that all I’m doing is conducting a small experiment to see if you’re capable of NOT responding.
Amazing! I am conducting exactly the same experiment!
Right.
—————————-
🙂
…Clinically psychotic?
Is there something you’ve told Douglas that you haven’t told me?
Ark knows a lot about psychosis. Maybe I should listen.
You don’t need to know about psychosis to be psychotic.
Douglas knows what Einstein believed.
He really is a remarkable individual.
Nah, he just wants to argue.
He has nothing else to do, before he returns to dust.
He could take pictures of unsuspecting children on their way to school…
If you weren’t so ignorant, you’d realize that Wikipedia is a better source for understanding Einstein than Einstein himself.
Jasmine is ignorant.
I am ignorant.
You are ignorant.
Thank God we have Douglas showing up to tell us God doesn’t exist!
He’s helpful.
At least he’s not ignorant!
Like you!
And Jasmine!
And me!
If someone told you that you were restricting your child’s freedom to arrive at their own conclusion about how to cross a road, you would probably think they’re crazy, wouldn’t you?
And actually I seem to remember a quote of his evidencing the fact, but I couldn’t be bothered going to find it.
I don’t mind having a lively, heated discussion, and I often enjoy pushing the limits. Really. It can be quite enlightening and refreshing to discover just how ”the other half” thinks.
And with that in mind, I sincerely believe you might want to try and do that … think … sometimes.
So if you believe you have your child’s best interest at heart when you teach them to look both ways before crossing the road, why would a parent who believes that faith in God is the best way to live life not tell their child so? You could pick any number of things to go on a crazy “child abuse” rant about, but if the parent genuinely believes something and lives it themselves, it would be neglect on their part to NOT teach them.
Aside from the fact that belief does not automatically equate to fact or reality , Jasmine, you have yet to demonstrate that the god you worship even exist.Also, the only first reference book that we encounter this man-made deity, the bible,clearly shows without a shred of doubt that, he, Yahweh, is nothing but a selfish, misogynist,meglomaniacal, egotistical, genocidal fucking arsehole.
And there we have it, my dear Ark. You have demonstrated spectacularly how your interpretation of everything is the only right one. Absolute truth rests solely in your hands. This from someone who doesn’t have intelligence to construct a creative insult, but must instead fall back on the basest of cussing. I rest my case to let your own pride prove itself ridiculous. If you wanted to commit suicide, I would suggest you go jump off your ego and land in your IQ.
“…jump off your ego and land in your IQ…”
You need to throw around more insults.
My description of Yahweh is 100% correct.
Your god isn’t worthy of a creative insult. He /it isn’t that special.
It isn’t even opinion. And the bible is my witness.It’s all there. Written down.
However, if you believe you have any evidence to refute the assertion, and I mean any , feel free to present it.
In fact, I truly welcome and wholeheartedly encourage you to present the evidence. Because for you, Jasmine, to let what I have called your god slide means you cannot defend it, and thus tacitly acknowledge that your god is everything and more that I have labelled him/it
So here you go ….
I give you my absolute solemn word that I will make a profound public apology in the form of an open blog post to you and every other Christian who might feel in anyway insulted or offended by my description of their god, Yahweh … if you can produce evidence that flatly refutes the things I have ascribed to him/it.
Can’t be fairer than that. Your call …
Ha ha ha hahaaaa!
He’s given his solemn word!!
All you have to do is provide evidence that refutes his ad hominem comments about God! What could be more fair?
Right, totally fair. God has just been waiting, aching for this day so that He could give Ark a point list of evidence that proves His own existence. God must be so honoured by this opportunity.
God will get to read Ark’s public apology.
Yes, Jasmine. Think! Think like Doug does!
He is so profound and wise that his comments don’t even fit the context of the discussion.
I have no reason to think, so why should I? Maybe I would rather just drool all over your comments section and pretend I know what I’m talking about and call it thinking instead of actually doing it. I wouldn’t be the first.
Arkedummy is played by the Black Knight. Jasmine just spilled several more litres of (Ark’s) blood. Good job Bushmaid.
Anyway – Ark still has nothing to prove that child abuse, genocide, or even sex with dogs is wrong (the dog thing is really more wishful thinking of Ark’s for yet another image “to go to sleep with” of The Crimson Quarter Wit).
~CQW
I think you have something here. Spiteful posts are pretty bad. It’s like me going to someone who isn’t walking my walk and yelling at them telling them they are stupid. Clearly I should just keep walking and keep my mouth shut. No one was ever convinced they were stupid by being told they were stupid.
But I don’t think these are very spiteful posts in the end. They seem to be highly opinionated posts (to some people) that use scenarios to teach why one way is wrong.
It’s not a bad thing. It is just a thing that can offend certain people, and it has.
But good point. I think we should all look at our posts before publishing them, and see if they are just mean. Offense isn’t something that anyone can always avoid. But being a jerk is, no matter what people tell you.
@Rainy Day Posts
The difficulty we face when dealing with Christianity … and also certain other religions, is the command to proselytize : that Believers are commanded to take the ”Word” (sic) out into the public domain and infect people with it, as if it were akin to some form of uninvited STD.
Free Speech is one of the foundational blocks of any democratic society and I would never wish to curtail this.
Branyan and kin should never feel intimidated ( and they don’t … good for them!) even if most of those claims come from a place of indoctrination founded on fear and ignorance …. even willful ignorance.
I, as an adult, can choose to confront such nonsense, or simply walk away.
Sometimes I will stand other times I will walk.
I depends on how I feel.
But I am realistic to recognise that, the chances of getting people such as the Branyans to openly recant or even acknowledge they are thoroughly indoctrinated with supernatural bumph, especially in an open forum, are close to zero.
Few people will react in a positive manner when their core beliefs are challenged, especially when such beliefs have absolutely no verifiable evidence whatsoever to back such claims.
If they did, then faith – believing in something you know ain’t true – to paraphrase Twain – would be unnecessary.
So I generally consider those that might be reading along and prefer not to comment.
And , of course one always learns something new during such interactions, no matter how heated they become.And at times they are also fun.
However …. A child rarely has the luxury of refusing the doctrine being inculcated.
They trust their instructor (Parent/s) and if that parent says Jesus died for your sins and if you don’t love him back you will be going to hell and hammers this message home often enough it will become ingrained.
This is nothing but child abuse.
And it is delivered with force or subtly.
And it is not restricted to Christianity.
As I was raised a cultural Christian I deal with such mindless assertions because I am fairly familiar with the dogma.
The internet has presented those of a religious bent the perfect opportunity to demonstrate the bona fides of what they have been claiming for several thousand years.
And they fail at every turn. They fail abysmally.
And if one can put any stock in stats … any stock at all, they are losing ground.
Such an open environment exposes everything to minute scrutiny and religion cannot hide.
Without trying to be melodramatic, its days are numbered.
Humans will eventually refuse to swallow such mindless nonsense and Christianity will fade into the background just like thousands of other religions have already done.
It will take time, but it will happen.
It already is …
Good catch, Jasmine! Ark exposes his own sense of Objective Truth, from time to time. The last time we had the conservation about moral relativism, he asked me, “What could possibly motivate Evolution to turn out an entire race of puppy-killers?”
What could MOTIVATE evolution??? He also said, “Everything has to have a basis, no matter how ridiculous it may seem to us…”
So, Evolution is motivated and has reasons for doing what it does. (I told him that he needed to start spelling Evolution with a capital E.) 🙂
Link: https://branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2016/10/17/do-what-god-says-because-god-says/comment-page-1/#comment-7232
I gotta go with The Peaches on this one… crazy is just a state of mind. Go with it or fight it, sorry for you atheists who have to go it alone. The Moral Compass wins!!
Undoubtedly there are exceptions, but from what little I have read, those who have bi-polar would rather not.
From this perspective, sufferers probably don’t consider themselves ”normal”.
Exactly! That was the point of the article!
But, if we get to the point where 55% (or more) fit the bill for “bipolar,” then it will be the new normal! The “crazy” people will be the ones who DON’T experience intense mood swings. (Maybe psychologists will say those people are “Single-Polar.”)
Even if the figure were 90% I would still assert that those who suffered bi polar would consider there was something not right because by all accounts bi-polar is very unpleasant.
I don’t have personal experience so I cannot state this is fact categorically.
However, home of the quotes I read by sufferers suggest theirs s often a living hell.
So no , even labeling such people with the title ”Normal” will not alleviate the problem for those who suffer.
No–it isn’t unpleasant by ALL accounts… Some people like the roller-coaster ride. (I could hypothesize that even MORE bi-polar people would enjoy it, if they weren’t constantly being told it’s “wrong” and pumped full of sedatives.)
But, even if it were “unpleasant,” people wouldn’t know any different. They would ASSUME it’s just part of life.
It would be, by definition, normal.
I said in the first comment there were exceptions.
Do you purposely misread simply so you can pretend to yourself that you might be clever?
No. I assumed, when you said “all accounts,” you meant “all accounts.”
I went with the thing you said last….
The point is: “different” doesn’t always mean “deficient.” It’s a matter of perspective, and opinion.
Read and try to understand.
I never said different is deficient.
I stated that ( with exceptions) based on what I had read, those who suffered bi-polar would prefer not to.
And I stated that–if bi-polar was normal–they wouldn’t even think about it.
They’d probably think, “I’m so glad I’m not like those crazy people, who don’t even go around putting bread in mailboxes. I have waaaaaaay more fun than they do!”
Crazy/suffering are matters of perspective.
It’s like hearing people, constantly pitying the Deaf community. You should read about that some time! It’s fascinating. Many of them are actually annoyed that people try to call Deafness a disability. From their perspective, they’re doing just fine, thanks.
Not according to the many quotes I read.
It appears to cause severe anguish in many most?) people who have bi polar and although there are high moments the lows seem to be crippling (to many)´
If you with to call this normal so be it.
I don’t call it normal, yet.
But it could be someday.
And, if BPD was normal, we wouldn’t even have a name for it. People wouldn’t know the difference. So they’d find ways to deal with it, the same way we deal with the “normal” unpleasant things people deal with now. The most common way would be to find a way to celebrate it. People would have parties where they bonded over putting bread in mailboxes. “This is what makes us human!” they’d shout.
Sure, sometimes we lose focus on what matters.
But, with the right medication and therapy, we can get to the point where we really ENJOY throwing money out the car window again!
Ahhhhh, meaningful life. 🙂
Bi-polar often seems to impair everyday functionality.
If humans were meant to be like this ‘ it was a normal part of our evolutionary biological make up it would be manifest throughout all of humanity.
It isn’t.
Very much like epilepsy.
It is manageable and treatable.
And while it may occur regularly in humans ( and animals too) because of its destructive potential for self-harm and more serious long term damage it could never be considered ‘normal’.
Yes, it could.
If the majority of people experience something, it’s normal.
Okay ….
Your grandfather enjoyed his manic highs immensely. It’s why he didn’t take his meds.
I know… and he really did NOT like his family members or doctors who tried to get him to think as they deemed “better.”
If everyone in the world is bi-polar, then no one is. (Until one person says they aren’t, and want others to be the same)
You got it.
I’m not sure why the concept is somewhat less clear for others. 🙂
Well, I try. And being a student of logic, and a graduate of the world, I pick up on things pretty quick.
This post caused somewhat of a stir on Facebook today.
Some people don’t appreciate that he is “making fun of mental illness.” (*rolls eyes*)
We NEED to podcast about this, JB…
I feel that making fun of the mentally ill is wrong. Buuuuuuuuuut…. that isn’t what this is.
You’re not allowed to say ANYTHING about any type of mental illness, unless it’s something along the lines of: “I’m sorry you are suffering with [insert diagnosis], and it’s not your fault at all, and now you are free to do and say whatever you want, without question, due to the nature of your disability.”
…sorry, I get a little worked up on this particular topic.
I’ve grown up with people who had mental illness. I understand why they can’t help it most of the time. (I really do) But it depends on what kind of “illness” you are talking about.
A big one now that people dance around is depression. I’ll use it in my analogy. I suffered from depression at one period in my life, and I grew up around a lot of other people who had it. The thing is, people who had it (including me) were all like “Poor me, don’t say mean things, don’t talk like you understand, (and the big one) How dare you make fun of people with this condition!
… The thing is, we have gotten more to the point where we try to comfort the people more than we try to help them. Instead of grabbing their hand, and pulling them out, we pat their head and we understand.
Yes! Exactly my frustration with the Church, especially! I’ve seen so many blog posts saying, essentially, “This is just who I am, and it’s okay!”
I guess I just don’t like being told what I am allowed or not allowed to question. Having been through a bout of postpartum depression I would not have made it out of, without falling back on the Logos and trusting the mind He has given me to wrestle with deep, challenging questions–don’t tell me not to question your illness! 🙂 I know it’s difficult. Honestly, I’ve been there. It’s pure Hell, struggling with a body and mind which feel out-of-sync.
But, I will NOT agree that mental illness is “exactly like a broken bone” or “exactly like diabetes” or any of the other (poor) comparisons we make between physical illnesses and mental ones. And I will NOT agree that the struggling person just needs to be encouraged while they find the right medication to make them stop thinking quite so much.
I recently had a close childhood friend die. She had a mental illness that didn’t let her… Grow up in a way. Now she wasn’t stupid or something. Far from. But she still liked toys, and such. She lived with her parents, and was a really sweet person. Her parents didn’t really treat her like she had a problem. They treated her really normally. I remember at her funeral her mother told me that out of all of her friends, I was the closest. I didn’t treat her like something below me. I treated her normally, and didn’t do stuff to look down on her and coddle her.
I told her mom that it was because after growing up with her, I didn’t really see he in a way that made me have to slow down for her to catch up. Even after I was old enough to understand her problems, I didn’t see her any different.
She was able to excel beyond a lot of other people with her problem, because she wasn’t treated like a flower. She was pushed, she was tested, and in the end she was strong just like you or me. I think I also heard that she was helping others who had the same problem.
So, if we do try to make someone stronger, and don’t cushion their life just because they are going through hard times, they will be better.
When I was in my depression, I didn’t have people boohooing over me. I was strong because of that. I didn’t let it define me, because people reminded me it wasn’t me.
Now, I’m not going to go around saying people with mental problems and depression are all fakers and whiners. But I won’t just cripple them by treating them like flowers.
I’m sorry for the loss of your friend. 🙁
right?! Prescribe a pill for your problems, side effects may include death.
Let me clear this up for you, Dad.
Disorder: anyone who isn’t normal.
Normal: anyone who doesn’t have a disorder.
That sounds normal.
~CQW
Sure.
But won’t I need a prescription to understand this?
Isn’t bi-polar just mood swings? Like ADHD, which now apparently affects a third of the entire US population, it’s a suspiciously contemporary “problem” which, amazingly, seems to have become a multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical business unit almost overnight.
Curious, isn’t it?
I can testify to the effectiveness of the pharmaceutical ‘solutions’ in my Dad’s case.
No change.
As I suspected, based on the tone and content of the blog posts of JB and Amanda,there is a distinct possibility that the disorder is not necessarily confined to Branyan’s father ( assuming JB is talking straight)
Genetic: Bipolar disorder tends to run in families, so researchers believe there is a genetic predisposition for the disorder.
https://psychcentral.com/disorders/bipolar/bipolar-disorder-fact-sheet/
Can you inherit bipolar disorder?
Bipolar disorder is frequently inherited, with genetic factors accounting for approximately 80% of the cause of the condition. If one parent has bipolar disorder, there is a 10 per cent chance that his or her child will develop the illness.Oct 1, 2013
Bipolar disorder explained: causes – Black Dog Institute
http://www.blackdoginstitute.org.au/public/bipolardisorder/causes.cfm
@Arkedummy
Did your dad used to sneak around and take pictures of other people’s children on their way to school?
~CQW
He probably still does. I keep trying to tell him that hanging around schools in a VW Van with tinted windows is only going to get him into trouble, but he simply will not listen.
Old people, eh?
Shoot ’em I say. All they do is consume oxygen.
Tell me, Senor Dipshit, have you stopped having sex with your dog?
(CQW: Ark wanted a picture. You know how he loves to capture things mating.)
Yes, Senor Dipshit mounting his Poodle.
Now there’s an image to go to sleep with…
@Arkedummy
I figured you’d like that (another image of me). All’s good in atheism.
~CQW
But have you stopped having sex with your dog.
This is the real concern.
@Arkedummy
You know what they say about assuming. I guess I’d have to have own a dog first. I know you won’t be sleeping tonight with another image of me in your head tonight though.
Speaking of your assuming … here’s a pic I came across of your old man (hidden in the VW van) taking a pic of you walking to school. Creepy.
http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj531/TheCrimsonQuarterWit/arkedonkey%20from%20vw%20van_zps4rmzesz3.jpg
~CQW
As I suspected, based on the tone and content of the blog posts of JB and Amanda,there is a distinct possibility that the disorder is not necessarily confined to Branyan’s father ( assuming JB is talking straight)
Genetic: Bipolar disorder tends to run in families, so researchers believe there is a genetic predisposition for the disorder.
It seems that Ark believes BPD is a genuine problem, which is hereditary and worthy of a “fact sheet.” (He helpfully linked to that.)
What say you, JZ?
Hey, I’m no medical professional, I am only trying to get a handle on why you and your father are so thoroughly obnoxious on the blogs.
If Google is wrong what chance is there for humankind?
Perhaps you are simply not praying hard enough to Jesus?
Or maybe you should call in other experts and get an exorcism done?
For grandpa… not you or Daddy. I know you are not Catholics and you might burst into flame at the mere touch of Holy Water
Did you want to fix my definition of “disorder” and “normal,” Ark?
Since you didn’t appreciate my tone, maybe you can provide a better, tone-less explanation of those two terms?
No, you seem to have that covered, Amanda … carry on.
Indeed.
Okay.
My goal has been to become “eccentric”. This label permits a wide degree of craziness that folks just put up with, even struggle to appreciate, because I’m so rich. So far, I think I’m on the correct trajectory on the insanity dimension, but the other still has quite a way to go.
That’s an excellent plan.
Though I don’t think ‘rich’ is a prerequisite for ‘eccentric’. You just made that part up.
Eccentric = nuts + wealth
Eccentric – wealth = nuts.
That’s math.
My mom was bipolar. Made for an interesting childhood.
You guys should swap stories!
I’m a new listener, at least for a few months. I’m curious how you got the nickname peaches?
It was what Dad called me as long as I can remember. 🙂
I’m told I had a onesie when I was a baby, which said “The Peaches” on my backside…and it would wave back and forth while I crawled.
Am I alone in thinking… That’s a bit creepy?
Yep.
New commenters (like Gene and Sue), allow me to introduce KIA. He used to be a legalistic, fundamentalist Know-It-All… And, he still thinks like one.
The difference is, he used to preach that his perfect understanding of Christianity was exactly right, and now he preaches that his perfect understanding of Christianity was exactly wrong. That’s why we call him Pastor Mike. 🙂
Also: he departed with great drama and fanfare a couple months ago, so I’m not sure why he’s here.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/branyancomedy.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/regular-readers-only/amp/
Good morning all. If you’d like to know who I am from my own words and description of myself, rather than someone else’s, please feel free to visit my blog.
A couple months ago, I posted something similar in your comment section and you accused me of trying to get “free advertising,” and edited my comment by removing the link.
But that’s okay. You’re welcome to post advertisements here, buddy. We don’t censor. (Unlike you.)
No problem. I didn’t post a link
Oh, so it’s not advertising to invite people to your blog unless you include a link. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.
Enjoy your day
(Gene and Sue: in WordPress, you can find a person’s blog by clicking on their name. So, you’re literally advertising and “including a link” with EVERY comment…)
But, this is precisely the kind of logic and consistency which threatened the Pastor’s “sanity” and why he decided not to engage here any longer…
Guess he changed his mind. 🙂
I thought you surrendered to save your sanity?
You should stay away, Pastor. We haven’t missed you.
That mental picture is hilarious 😂
Lol! Well, at least he came back to comment on the blog about mental disorders.
I can’t decide whether that suggests a sense of irony, or NO self-awareness. 🙂