Search This Blog

Saturday, March 26, 2011

Love and Marriage - some comments from the threads examined

The black and white portions are taken directly and sequentially from the comments thread of Love and Marriage - under attack.  Why?

If you see "hb" then that is short for Highboy.  
 
My post is in this color.
 
Anonymous said...
hb says, "I've never met a Christian who claims to have a moral high ground." Then Radar says, "Christianity has a valid claim to moral superiority by having the absolutes as defined by the Creator."
There is a clear difference between claiming that I am morally superior as opposed to saying that Christianity is morally superior. I am unable to live up to the absolutes established by God so therefore I am morally inferior to the standards of God. This is why we turn to Christ, because we cannot meet God's standards but Jesus was able to meet them and also pay the price for my failures. So I will say Christ is morally superior but not me.
Then DeB says, "Yes, we Christians have the moral high ground and that is why the God haters are mad and want to destroy the ideals of marriage and family." So either hb was talking out of his backside or he's never met Radar and Deb. Hmmm... what could the answer be? The answer is not so hard to comprehend.  Christians understand and accept the moral absolutes set by God, so we "have the moral high ground" in that we have moral absolutes.   Atheists have no absolutes at all.   Not surprisingly, I think Jon summed up the ridiculously hypocritical position of hb the best when he posted this, "Ask yourself this: if you don't believe that you as a Christian are morally superior to atheists, then why do you even bother to claim that atheists (or members of any other identifiable group) have no moral code? Why does it matter to you? There's no logical reason for you to care about the morality if people you've never met and never will, and will never interact with in any way ... unless you actually do think that alleged lack of morals makes them inferior, and you can use that 'fact' to lift your own social status."   So wrong!  If I do not point out to Woolf that he is missing out on the concept of God and also point it out to the world in general, then I am failing to do my duty to both Woolf and the world.  It is a matter of warning you that God is and does have absolute morality.   It is a matter of prompting you to consider that concept because you may one day decide to actually think on it and maybe even think on it seriously.   I do not compare myself morally to you or Woolf because I do not believe in either comparative or situational morality.  You guys are going down a dark road at night and the bridge is out and I might be the only sign between the river and you. Oh and Deb, am I to assume that because you don't believe in the easter bunny, you "hate" him? What about the tooth fairy? Or Thor, or Mormon Jesus, for that matter? Maybe we should refer to you and your hubby as "Zeus haters"? Sounds pretty stupid, right? Obviously one doesn't have to hate something to not believe it.   I don't believe in the Evolution Fairy, either.   Jesus is a historical character so anyone who knows history knows that Jesus existed.  Atheopaths are people who hate God because they do not like the idea that there is a superior being to whom they must eventually report.   It is simple human nature.  God is the boss.  You do not want a boss?  Then you hate the concept of God.   Speaking of god and hating, though, any chance you can tell me what his problem is with Japanese people, right now? I mean you've likely heard something similar before but here is a quote from Greek philosopher Epicurus that I feel sums things up nicely, "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"
You can find a Greek philosopher for just about any concept.  "There is a spill in the Greek Philosopher's aisle!"  You are going to ask this in another way later so the answer is a bit farther down.
Me?  I think that I prefer Socrates as presented by Plato to an Epicurean. Cheers, - Canucklehead.
highboy said...
Um, not sure where this discussion seemed to take a swan dive, but I'll do my best to answer honestly and see what happens. "What it boils down to is that Christians have been given specific rules to follow; i.e. the Ten Commandments. Yet one doesn't have to look far to find Christians who have no problem lying, cheating, stealing, etc... Isn't that hypocrisy to those who are not Christian?"   What is actually true is that, when Christians lie or steal or cheat they are aware of doing wrong and are not comfortable with it.   Habitual sinning either drives Christians towards repentance or drives them away from Christianity so they are not continually reminded of their sins.  Sinning and hypocrisy have different definitions.  Hypocrisy is from the Greek meaning "to wear a mask" so a hypocrite isn't someone who sins and realizes it, he is someone who sins and hides it or denies it.  Yes, anonymous, that is hypocrisy. "It really is fun to watch you two claim to be deep thinkers, and then miss points like this time after time."   Actually, you are missing the point.  By what moral code are you saying that lying and cheating and stealing are wrong?  If you are not willing to accede to God's moral code and if you believe that man is here by blind chance for no particular purpose then who are you to point fingers and say that somebody else is conducting themselves incorrectly?  By what right do you judge the actions of others?  Answer that question before you put your foot in your mouth. Well for one, I never claimed to be a deep thinker, though most who know me say I am. Second, I have no idea what point you're trying to make as I haven't claimed to be morally superior so I fail to see why this is directed at me. It seems your bone of contention is with a Christian claiming to be morally superior and then sinning like all get out. I don't disagree with that so I'm not sure what else to say. Though I would add that simply meeting a Christian who sins doesn't make them a hypocrite, unless you're referring to the "holier than thou" judgemental types and again, I wouldn't disagree.   Highboy and I are on the same page here.  When I first became a Christian I soon went to a seminary that was full of legalistic pharisitical types, people who put on a good front but were actually quite comfortable sinners behind the scenes.  It was a huge downer to me when I discovered that all these people who were in leadership were skimming money from the till, taking kickbacks, having affairs with their secretaries or teachers having affairs with students...legalism tends to lead to an emphasis on the external appearance instead of the internal thoughts and intents of the heart. " Ask yourself this: if you don't believe that you as a Christian are morally superior to atheists, then why do you even bother to claim that atheists (or members of any other identifiable group) have no moral code?" Again Jon, I have to ask, is this directed at me or radar? I can't speak for radar but I can't recall ever claiming that an atheist had no moral code. Obviously the code is up to the individual atheist, like you Jon may feel abortion is wrong and anonymous whatsit may not. (I just picked something off the top of my head I'm not sure what you believe) But I never said an atheist has no moral code or can't live morally. The difference is God sets my standard for moral living and the atheist sets his/her own standard, usually according to their perception of humanistic morality.   Right.  So what I am saying is that an atheist does not recognize absolutes and has no absolute moral code.  When they borrow from God's moral code I sometimes ask them to explain where they get their code from.  An atheist might have his own moral code and that is fine, but it is not supported by any authority. I'll say again, its not that Christianity teaches that we Christians are better than everyone else, being a Christian if being forgiven. Completely. Making Jesus Lord of your life means yes, following a standard Christ has set rather than culture or humanism or what have you. This doesn't make me "better" than you, because trust me, I suck at it. Its not about a list of rights and wrongs, its about a devotion to Jesus. That isn't to say I excuse my sin or don't try not to sin, but that simply Jesus paid the penalty for those sins, and His presence in my life helps me work at being a better person. As I said before, my Christianity does not make me better than you, but it makes me better than who I was, and that is what matters to me.   Well said! Jesus in my life has made a me who is a lot better than the me I was and has therefore made life better for my entire family.  
DogMaBlog said...
Jon says "The trick, of course, is to determine which actions truly are detrimental to society, and which ones aren't." The trick???? Figuring out what actions are detrimental to society a trick????? I think you should get more sleep you are sounding very silly. The simplest idea of all and the one that gets every God hater the maddest is: Sex outside of marriage is detrimental to society. This destroys people at the very foundation of their being.
Right!  If there is no sex outside of marriage there is no adultery, no STD transmission, no AIDS, no teenage pregnancies and et cetera.   It is sickening to see society changing to the point that we have people coming in to grade school to teach kids about having sex both homo and heterosexual versions.  Not teaching them to abstain but teaching them how to have sex!
 
 
highboy said...
Canucklehead: the third option is that I didn't realise until now that radar was claiming a moral superiority. Another option is that you're so quick to jump on highboy that in all your pathetic excitement you missed an opportunity to actually read everything posted and draw a conclusion from there. "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?" Yeah that's one of the oldest and frankly most debunked lines of logic in apologetic history, small wonder you quoted it. First, the questions assume God has done nothing in the past nor will do anything in the future to address the problem. As someone once said of this very issue, "its an incomplete framing of the issue". Second, you could just as easily flip it and say, how can an all powerful God, completely good, allow good to happen to bad people? How come that doesn't get asked? The whole idea of just assuming an infinite all powerful being operating within and without a naturalist framework isn't doing anything because our finite human brains have a limited sense of good and evil doesn't make it true. The question is just silly.   We will say more on that but it is kind of funny to see an atheist take God's opinion of what is good and evil and then try to use it to judge the Judge. 
radar said...
As Highboy said, Christianity has made me a better me, albeit not a perfect one. Again, I am saying that God has the high moral ground and has set absolutes. Atheists reject God and his absolutes, so they have no finite absolutes for morality. Therefore atheists either borrow from God when it pleases them or depend upon their own finite brains to determine right and wrong. The Creator of all things has set a moral code in place. That moral code is superior to the situational ethics of an unbeliever or dissident. That should be clear. Highboy and Debbie and I are not perfect and we are not claiming to be. We are all saying in differing ways that God's absolutes are perfect. When imperfect people depend on God, they will be better than they were beforehand. So, relative to the man I was, Christ in me has made me better. I compare myself to Christ, see my shortcomings and try to be more like Him. I do not compare myself to Highboy or to Woolf in this way. Christ sets the standard.
 

Anonymous said...
hb, I will grant that you have written some fairly thoughtful stuff in this thread (you even admit to being an angry guy - gasp!). That said, I'm no dummy. Do you really expect me to believe that this is the very first time you have heard/read Radar claim moral superiority over atheists? Because he does it all the time. He also asserts moral superiority over Muslims, Darwinists, homosexuals, Evolution-believing christians, etc. etc. etc. I say its just a case of selective listening on your part. I mean, if you've missed Radar's assertions, why would I believe that you haven't missed them in all/most of the interactions with the christians you've met. Go ahead, ask your christian friends if they think they are morally supeior to atheists. I bet I know their answer. Oh and relative to your assertion that you have never claimed that "an atheist has no moral code or can't live morally", I'm almost positive that you have. That said I don't have time to search for it. You know you've made some claims about atheists and morality, and I know semantics are very important to you, so can you fill us in on what those thoughts were? Or are you saying you've been completely silent on the topic of atheism and morals? Also, you say, "The difference is God sets my standard for moral living and the atheist sets his/her own standard, usually according to their perception of humanistic morality." Now, you've been in this long enough to understand that almost every christian had a different interpretation of god's "standards", right? I mean, even you and Radar can't agree on some of the basics. So really, what's the difference between a christian's attempted interpretation of some loose guidelines and an atheist's. Also, we even know your "rules" better than you do. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0928/In-US-atheists-know-religion-better-than-believers.-Is-that-bad That link includes a wide variety of non=Christians into the set named Christian and also reveals a sad lack of Bible study in the old demoninations and the emergent chuches. I'm glad you've gotten better as a person (or at least you feel you did, although I have to say, I suspect the "internet Tim" before god is A LOT like the current "internet Tim"). That said, I would interpret the situation differently, and say that you've matured and that you can go ahead and credit YOURSELF for that improvement. Sure the bible may have helped you realize some things, but the same thing would likely happen if you read a bunch of Tony Robbins books. Now to your bible college "debunking" of the quote I provided, what do your comments say about prayer? Isn't prayer then simply "assuming an infinite all powerful being operating within and without a naturalist framework..." is going to do or not do something because somebody asked/prayed for it? Especially when as you assert that "... our finite human brains have a limited sense of good and evil"? Why do you think this by the way? Could it be due to the nastiness contained in the bible? Is that why you give god a pass for calling for the killing of adulterers, or mouthy children? You know, because we just don't understand him? This argument ends up with you sounding like an abused spouse.   The above is one of those Adam Sandler rants.   Did you just say all that ridiculous garbage in one internet breath?   What a rambling incoherent set of assertions and accusations bereft of  reasoning.  Let's start with the concept that Christians depend on the righteousness of Christ to bring them into relationship with God and that prayer is a conversation with God and His people.  Just because you cannot comprehend a relationship with God doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.    Furthermore, your complete and utter ignorance concerning the Law as characterized by your accusations about "adulterers" and "mouthy children" tells me that you do not understand the books you are referencing.  The five books that start the Old Testament are books of history.  The Law was given to the Children of Israel in covenant and it was setting behavioral expectations at a time when the "morality" of the time in the region was up for grabs to say the least.  Go ahead and enumerate for me the number of times in the Bible that you can find children or adulterers being stoned to death. Oh and good question "How CAN an all powerful God, completely good, allow good to happen to bad people?" You have an answer for this one? - Canucklehead.   Did you ever take a philosophy class at all?  If you have established a set of absolutes that sets the standard for "good" and "evil" then I have yet to see it.  But assuming that you have a measuring stick for right and wrong?   God had given us a world in which no bad happened to anyone.  Adam and Eve lived in that world.   But he also gave us the power to choose individual actions.  If we do not have the power to choose, then we are robots.   God didn't create a Universe to keep robots, He did it to contain fully functional individuals with the ability to create and think and hypothesize and fantasize and organize and work in tandem with others or alone.  He made us to be able to think rather than just react.   But that also made us able to choose to disobey.   When God told Adam and Eve to not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, that was the one thing they were told they could not do.   Of course they did it.  Satan convinced them to "be as God" by knowing good and evil.  But man was not meant to be a judge.   The downfall was that our innocence was gone and every action we take can be right or wrong and much of what we wish to do is selfish and wrong.   So what would you have God do?  We are the ones who decided to take on the ability to know right from wrong and so we brought sin into the world.  Do you want God to take life over and make us all do right things so we are all robots?  Do you want him to take over and have supernatural control of all processes, miraculously stopping any hurricanes or earthquakes, thus taking over every action and occurrence?  Either you want God to turn us all into marionettes and turn the entire Universe into his own personal toy or you have to accept the concept that beings with free will in a Universe that operates logically will have to deal with the evil of selfish mankind and the consequences of the outworking of physical laws. 
Anonymous said...
Oh and Radar, FYI, the golden rule concept predates christianity. If anyone was "borrowing", it was your god (or more precisely, the men who created him). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule - Canucklehead.

That last one is a classic epic fail.  All of these cultures mentioned in that ludicrous article were established after the Tower of Babel.  Ancient history and genealogies reveal that these civilizations all were descended from the family of Noah, who knew God and God's laws as given to Adam and Eve in the Garden after the fall.   There were no remnants of the pre-Flood civilization, but the people who left the Ark had the knowledge to quickly rebuild great civilizations, quickly performing engineering marvels such as the Pyramids that we still admire today.   


We can be sure that Noah and his family could read and write and that all people had one common language until after Babel.  The basis of God's law was known to all, but some cultures left God behind when they left Babel behind and the concept of God and the history of mankind became warped and twisted and Chinese telephoned...and yet virtually every culture on Earth mentions a flood and a Creator God and many if not all of the names of the men who left the Ark.   God established the Law and the Golden Rule is simply a man-made simplification of the teachings of Christ and the Bible.   The Golden Rule is inferior to the Law in authority and certainly not in keeping with what Jesus Christ was actually teaching.   


Jesus Christ came to the Jews who were under the Law of God.   He preached the Law to them, not just the letter of the Law but also the intent.   He taught them that adultery was wrong but beyond that concept was the assertion that even considering it was also wrong!  Jesus was preaching the Law to people under the Law so they could clearly see that they did not and could not keep it.   At this time the Jews were still giving blood sacrifices for sins at the Temple according to the Law but these sacrifices had been going on for centuries and had never provided a solution for the problem of sin.   Jesus provided the solution.  But the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, is not actually such good news because not one of us can always do what Jesus urged us to do.   You see, we sin because we are sinners by nature.  Jesus not only didn't sin but he took the penalty for all the sins of mankind and became The Blood Sacrifice, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world for us all at the cross.  He then rose again from the dead as the victorious Messiah who reclaimed the authority over the Earth and over death.   


I was a sinner by nature and choice but I did come to believe in Christ in this way:  I understood that Jesus Christ did not sin and that He died for my sins in my place.   I understood that Jesus was God allowing Himself to be limited by a material existence, the Son of God, come to undo what Adam had done.   When I trusted Christ and traded my sins for His sacrifice then suddenly a change took place inside of me.  I now know that I was born again at that moment, that my dead spirit was brought to life by the Spirit of Christ.


Now people had been telling me over and over for years that Jesus Saves and that I had to be born again to know God and avoid hell.   It seemed simplistic and I just ignored those people.   I was looking for the great secret to the meaning of life.   I sought it through philosophy, through drugs, through meditation, through hedonism, by whatever means I could.   I read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" before Phil Jackson even heard of the book.   No explanation for life and existence was satisfactory and so I had decided to just live for the moment and for my own pleasure.


But God didn't give up on me.  He kept on seeking to catch my attention and one thing worked.  My wife, who had been transformed after having our first child from a loving, fun person into a ranting shrew and I was about to seek a female upgrade via adultery and then probably divorce.   But she "got saved" and was radically transformed.   Suddenly the shrew was Snow White and I was being treated like a prince!   Did God do that to her?  So I saw that she had truly been changed and when the pastor of that church came to talk with me I, for once, listened with at least one ear opened.


I was a sinner
Jesus died for my sins
If I asked Him to take my sins and come into my heart, He would do it and I would become born again
He would work on me from the inside out.

Jesus has been working on me from the inside out ever since.   What I would like would be for all of you to allow God to catch your attention long enough to truly consider the Jesus Gift.   Once you put your pride all the way down and admit that you have absolutely no power to save yourself, you will be able to hear from God and give Him a chance to convince you.   

God didn't make me perfect.  Debbie isn't perfect.  Highboy isn't perfect.   But we are already judged righteous and worthy in the sight of God because Jesus took our place and our judgment and has provided us with an eternal life with God.   We are hemmed in by a material world for now.  But once we escape the bonds of this life we will live in a form in which we can see God in all his Glory.   You see, when God makes a human life He makes something supernatural, a self that will never end.   Do you want your never end to be with peace and joy and God or do you want it in solitary torment with no hope of deliverance?




61 comments:

Anonymous said...

"But we are already judged righteous and worthy in the sight of God because Jesus took our place and our judgment and has provided us with an eternal life with God."

Well, at least that's what you hope for. But what guarantee do you have that you will actually get this eternal life?

radar said...

It to some extent is a two part answer. From where I am sitting now, I can see the obvious design of the Universe and organisms and it is painfully obvious that the Universe was created and not in any way a chance occurrence. So logic tells me that a Creator is required for creation.

But the identity of the Creator? That requires a step of faith. You can make an intellectual assent to the concept of a God but that really doesn't do the trick.

A friend who is on the Elder board gave the Sunday message today. Harry is a bibliophile and a history enthusiast as well as a Bible brain, so I always like to hear him speak. He made a very interesting distinction from the Book of John in which he demonstrated the difference between what we usually think causes people to be judged and what the answer really is...

highboy said...

"Did you ever take a philosophy class at all?"

You're surprised radar? Have you just now been reading canucklehead's posts?

radar said...

My first thought would be, if asked what sends people to judgment and hell would be sin. Sin is wrong, it separates us from God and it is what Adam and Eve brought into the world that came with death and destruction in each hand. Sin would be the answer.

But Harry pointed out that a Christian and a non-believer both have sinned and do sin. A Christian may have more power to avoid sin and good reason to try...an unbeliever may not care about some sins at all. But no one is sinless. Okay, that made sense. So then he had us read some scripture that is integral to the normal Christian life, from my favorite book of the Gospels and one of my favorite chapters...

radar said...

I have said this in a different way but here is John 3:16-19 = 16

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


Belief is the difference. We all sin. But those who truly believe and depend on Christ for their salvation will be saved. Those who do not believe in Him have condemned themselves.

God claims that He will judge the world. Those who have done wrong while on this Earth will be judged and those who were wronged will be vindicated by the Creator God. But all who put their trust and faith in Jesus for their deliverance from judgment have already been judged and have been saved from wrath through Christ.

Atonement for sins. Salvation from hell. Justification by blood. Sanctification from the world. Righteousness by faith. These are all unearned gifts freely given by God to all who will acknowledge Him and trust in Christ.

This unjust world ruled by the might of the strongest, this world where the users take and the givers sing the blues, it is temporary. It might end tomorrow and it might last another thousand years. When the Creator judges all things all wrongs will be righted and all of God's plan will be revealed to those who have trusted Him. I look forward to being transformed so that I can behold God in His glory and truly understand how magnificent such a supernatural God must be. He is beyond my true comprehension now. But I know my time is coming.

radar said...

The greatest philosophers of the world who do not acknowledge God are simply smart and tragic failures. There is no excuse. Man can clearly see that the Universe was made. Darwinism is beyond silly. I sometimes find myself awestruck by the amazing faith of Darwinists in completely undirected chance to design the most complex and efficient of organisms. The very thought that man evolved from a bit of lightning smacking a mud puddle is so boneheaded that words sometimes fail me. Yet there are millions of ardent believers, whose lives are built on the concept that something comes from nothing and information appears from thin air and that life just happens and the most intricate systems and molecular machines and multi-step interactive processes like photosynthesis just HAPPENED somehow...and they are so certain of this without any evidence at all.

I marvel at their faith in nothing. If only they could for once really see that their platform is just nothing at all?

Anonymous said...

Radar,

That's a lot of words without really answering my question:

How do you know for sure that you will be saved? Which guarantee do you have?

radar said...

1)I know I am saved because I believe that the Bible is the Word of God and I have obeyed the one commandment that must not be disobeyed and that commandment is to believe and receive Christ.

2)I then had a drastic and instantaneous internal change that was unexpected and amazing. Inside I suddenly had peace. Up until that moment, I didn't realize that peace was missing. But for years I had been trying to fill that empty space with all sorts of things - learning, drugs, drink, women...nothing filled the God-shaped hole in my heart. In fact I didn't know it was there until it was filled. So something tangible happened inside.

3) My life is a testimony. I was a drug using alcoholic self-centered party animal who lived to please myself only. Since the day I was born again I've been drawn to know God better and to serve Him and work in concert with His people. My friends used to be druggies, bikers, rockers, gamblers, guys who spent time just playing sports or music or getting high or chasing women and just raising hell.

(A few of my friends are Christians who are also bikers, so bikers are not by definition bad...but the ones I hung out with before were bad news.)

I serve my family and I serve God. We have lots of connections with people so we are not living lives apart from others, we are involved in helping and supporting people and depending on them for support and accountability. My church is like extended family.

In short, my life has been completely and radically changed and that is in and of itself a testimony. I have since turned down opportunities I would have lusted after in my unsaved life but now I seek to please God.

Anonymous said...

@Radar:

1)Believing something doesn't make it true. Once again I ask you how you know your belief to be true. How do you know that obeying this commandment you speak of will earn you a place in Heaven? If God promised you this, is He obliged to keep His word to you?

2)This in itself is not proof of anything. Many followers from other religions have experienced the same. Some have even had likewise experiences simply with the help of some self-help books.

3)You changed because you had a belief; but this doesn't necessarily mean that your belief is true.

highboy said...

"Believing something doesn't make it true. Once again I ask you how you know your belief to be true. How do you know that obeying this commandment you speak of will earn you a place in Heaven? If God promised you this, is He obliged to keep His word to you?"

This was addressed to radar but since you seem to be trying to make a point by constantly asking how we "know" these things I'll answer anyways:

1. A Christian, through faith, just knows. There is no other way to explain it and I think you're aware of that. No one on this site is claiming to have concrete evidence they can produce that would prove beyond doubt that the God we experience is the Christian God. We choose to believe through faith He is who He is, and I'll even dare speak for radar and say that thus far in both our lives that faith has never been shown to be ill-placed. God answers my prayers, speaks to me, and performed miracles. Of course I guess its possible its all a cosmic hoax or that God can change His mind in the end but contemplating something like that serves no purpose. Until God gives me a reason to doubt Him, I won't. Until one of these other "gods" makes themselves known, they don't exist. All I can do is live my life for Jesus and tell others about Him. Some convert and some unfortunately do not.

2. God is not obligated to keep His word to me. He's not obligated to treat me in any way. He was never obligated to create me. To imply He's "obligated" to do anything implies there is a principle greater than He to appeal to but if He exists, there isn't such a principle. We trust Him to keep His word and thus far to my knowledge hasn't broken it. Once again: faith.

Anonymous said...

Radar,

If Richard Dawkins managed to convince at least one person that there is no god, does that make Dawkins worse than a murderer? Forget the earthly self, did he just condemn that person to an eternity in hell?

lava

Jon Woolf said...

"Atheists have no absolutes at all."

Illogical. "There are no absolutes" is itself an absolute statement.

[shrug] You can say what you want, Radar, to us and to yourself. But your faith looks quite different to someone on the outside looking in. Oh, I've met/heard of/read about a few -- a very few -- Christians who I would believe were genuinely as altruistic as you claim to be. You're not one of them. Everything you write here indicates you are as I described you: self-centered, self-righteous, driven mainly by ego, caring mainly about yourself and seeing 'Darwinists' only as tools for increasing your status in your god's eyes. I might even go so far as to say you're still an addict, just addicted to a different drug. The high you get from your certainty that you are right and we are wrong is as powerful as any chemical high.

If it saved you from being a parasite and turned you into a useful member of your Tribe, well, that's a Good Thing. But don't think it makes you any smarter, or any more able to tell truth from falsehood. It doesn't.

radar said...

Gee, Jon, you get pretty vicious when people talk about God, don't you? You just don't intend to allow yourself to understand that my salvation and my standing with God is in no way based on this blog. Blogging doesn't earn my way to heaven. There is one way to heaven, through Christ alone. Not by blogging. Not by stirring up Darwinists.

How would this blog be particularly beneficial to my ego? I don't do trackbacks to build a trail of links. I don't make money from it. It isn't designed to get me a book deal. It takes up time I could be spending doing something more fun.

Now about the parasite thing? A parasite is living off of another's efforts. I support my family by working. So parasite is just a kind of a dumb thing to say.

Yes, Richard Dawkins will be judged for his life's work if he doesn't accept Christ and turning people away from God will be a pretty big black mark. Anyone who works hard at turning people away from faith is going to be paying the price later. Not up to me, but Jesus said it would be better to have a millstone chained to your neck and for you to be thrown into the sea right now than to be caught turning uncertain young minds away from God.

In fact, I think your rancor is probably directed at God. I just try to obey Him and I often quote Him and that tends to tick you off, so why not just yell at God directly? He hears you anyway but maybe you would feel better just venting? You might even hear something back. That would be interesting...

Anonymous said...

Regarding "superior" morality, questions of morality and ethics have occupied human beings for many, many centuries, and that thinking has evolved over time. We can even track such an evolution in the Bible, for example in the difference between the Ten Commandments (both sets), the laws in Deuteronomy and the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus (and perhaps some subsequent editors of his words) definitely advanced morality from what was there before.

What I find interesting in the discussions of this alleged superiority of Christian morality is that it seems to be solely based on the belief that Christianity has a kind of "boss", an authority, that supposedly authored these morals. This alone doesn't make it a superior moral system, nor does it make it a more valid morality.

Anonymous said...

"You can say what you want, Radar, to us and to yourself. But your faith looks quite different to someone on the outside looking in."

Not least that if one views Christianity as created by man, it makes a lot of sense, for example the changes in moral thinking over time, which Christian explain by successive covenants.

Anonymous said...

So Radar. If what Dawkins is doing is so wrong and leads to eternal suffering rather than just merely death of the earthly body, would you support legislation against it? It sounds worse than first degree murder. Shouldn't he be locked up for life?


lava

DogMaBlog said...

To answer lava:

Psalm 2
1 Why do the nations conspire
and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth rise up
and the rulers band together
against the LORD and against his anointed, saying,
3 “Let us break their chains
and throw off their shackles.”

4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
the Lord scoffs at them.
5 He rebukes them in his anger
and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
6 “I have installed my king
on Zion, my holy mountain.”

7 I will proclaim the LORD’s decree:

He said to me, “You are my son;
today I have become your father.
8 Ask me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.
9 You will break them with a rod of iron;
you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”

10 Therefore, you kings, be wise;
be warned, you rulers of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear
and celebrate his rule with trembling.
12 Kiss his son, or he will be angry
and your way will lead to your destruction,
for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

Anonymous said...

highboy said:

"Until one of these other "gods" makes themselves known, they don't exist."

Exactly! Do you realize now that you think precisely like an atheist when it comes to other religions? Atheists just go one god further.

Do you now understand the position of an atheist, who has had no god-experience?

radar said...

I removed a post and gave it a separate place. I think a total of three comments were lost in the doing of it and those comments were put back in right away by the commenters in the next post. It is not correct to say I erased those comments, I just deleted the entire post and put it at another link.

Again, if you put up a comment and cannot find it now, do it again. I didn't delete it.

radar said...

Of course I can understand an atheist or atheopath. If I didn't I probably wouldn't be blogging. Darwinism is vital to the religion of atheism so when information that undermines Darwinism is presented it is in fact an attack on the religion of atheism. Atheists BELIEVE that there is no God. Atheopaths HATE God. Agnostics are lazy atheists. All of these are belief systems aka worldviews. Everyone has a worldview. I make the majority of my posts in order to defend the Christian worldview or undermine the Atheistic worldview.

Anonymous said...

Radar,

You just proved you don't understand the atheist position at all. Not that I mind, though; your opinion about atheism has little bearing on my daily life.
However, it does sabotage every attempt you make at converting atheists to Christianity. I'd even dare to state that with comments like that you turn the atheists that visit your blog AWAY from Christianity. After all, who would buy something from an angry salesman?
Not that I mind about that either; why should I complain about you turning people against Christianity?

highboy said...

It was never a question of not being able to understand the atheist position anonymous.

Anonymous said...

"It was never a question of not being able to understand the atheist position anonymous."

Well, I don't see how that should keep you from answering the question.
Unless, of course, you rather not answer it (or feel uncomfortable answering it).

highboy said...

Answer what question? Yes I understand the position of the atheist. What point are you trying to make if any?

Anonymous said...

Basically I'm just curious so I'm not really trying to make any point.

Just wondering though if you realise you yourself are an atheist in many ways and that as such we're not that different from each other...

radar said...

I discovered 23 comments in the spam folder that were just comments. If you put a link on a comment, sometimes blogspot thinks it is spam. I didn't even know blogspot HAD a spam folder until recently and I just looked into it after Canucklehead complained of disappearing comments. SO maybe describe the link site rather than using a link? As to Canucklehead, why blogspot thinks you are spam is interesting...

Jon Woolf said...

Well, you're certainly consistent, Radar. You're about as good an amateur shrink as you are an amateur paleontologist.

radar said...

Jon, nice to know my status with you remains unchanged. :-)

radar said...

Oh, and if Canucklehead ever comes back, what are "the consequences" that you threaten me with? You say I will suffer them, just wanted to be on the lookout for them.

Anonymous said...

"I removed a post and gave it a separate place. I think a total of three comments were lost in the doing of it and those comments were put back in right away by the commenters in the next post."

The fact that some people continued the discussion doesn't mean that you didn't act unethically and hypocritically in trying to shut down the discussion in the first place. (And it's a discussion you're still apparently not comfortable with.)

"It is not correct to say I erased those comments,"

Huh? Wrong. That is entirely correct to say, and fully supported by the facts, which btw the readers of your blog are fully aware of. You erased a post along with all the discussion that had been made in the comments (incidentally, far more than three comments, from what I recall).

How does this not amount to you erasing those comments? What possible reasoning could you present to make such a claim?

You clicked a button that you knew would erase the post and all the comments with it. You did that, I'm guessing while you were of sound mind and body.

Why can't you accept responsibility for your actions? Why not just admit to what you did? This is getting weird.

"I just deleted the entire post and put it at another link."

You "just deleted the entire post and put it at another link"? Are you seriously hoping that unwitting readers will fall for this bit of revisionist history?

You deleted the entire post along with a bunch of comments that you couldn't answer and then put up just the post minus those comments at another link where no comments were allowed.

This from the same guy who keeps complaining that "Darwinists" supposedly suppress open discussion. Sorry, Radar, you've ceded that talking point.

You own it now. It's you.

Anonymous said...

"I removed a post and gave it a separate place. I think a total of three comments were lost in the doing of it and those comments were put back in right away by the commenters in the next post."

The fact that some people continued the discussion doesn't mean that you didn't act unethically and hypocritically in trying to shut down the discussion in the first place. (And it's a discussion you're still apparently not comfortable with.)

Anonymous said...

"It is not correct to say I erased those comments,"

Huh? Wrong. That is entirely correct to say, and fully supported by the facts, which btw the readers of your blog are fully aware of. You erased a post along with all the discussion that had been made in the comments (incidentally, far more than three comments, from what I recall).

How does this not amount to you erasing those comments? What possible reasoning could you present to make such a claim?

You clicked a button that you knew would erase the post and all the comments with it. You did that, I'm guessing while you were of sound mind and body.

Why can't you accept responsibility for your actions? Why not just admit to what you did? This is getting weird.

Anonymous said...

"I just deleted the entire post and put it at another link."

You "just deleted the entire post and put it at another link"? Are you seriously hoping that unwitting readers will fall for this bit of revisionist history?

You deleted the entire post along with a bunch of comments that you couldn't answer and then put up just the post minus those comments at another link where no comments were allowed.

This from the same guy who keeps complaining that "Darwinists" supposedly suppress open discussion. Sorry, Radar, you've ceded that talking point.

You own it now. It's you.

Anonymous said...

You know you've done your job as a "Darwinist Commenter" when Radar devotes an entire post to deriding the comments you made in a previous thread. By-the-way, Radar, I was raised a Christian so I've heard all of your rationalizations before. So tired, so very very tired. Actually, I'm continually amused at the way you and hb perceive your own arguments on god to be so sophisticated. LOL. Once hb, comes to terms with the idea that he and his religion are just as irrelevant and meaningless to an atheist as all those other believers and religions are to him, for the exact same reasons, we'll all be better off.

And, Radar says above,

"Oh, and if Canucklehead ever comes back, what are "the consequences" that you threaten me with? You say I will suffer them, just wanted to be on the lookout for them."

First, sorry to disappoint, that was not some kind of physical threat (we'll just have to continue to leave the threats of violence on this blog to you and Tim). The consequences that I'm referring to is the fact that if people take the time to comment here but their comments keep disappearing (whether by your actions, or those of some broken system within Blogger) the few commenters you do have will stop coming by at all. And while I'm sure you find us "Darwinist commenters" annoying, without us it's just you, DeB and Tim, and, really, how much "fun" could that possibly be? Notice, now that Hawkeye has a job, even he's no longer visiting/commenting.

- Canucklehead.

To sign off I'm going to, again quote Jon because this sums things up so nicely,

"You can say what you want, Radar, to us and to yourself. But your faith looks quite different to someone on the outside looking in. Oh, I've met/heard of/read about a few -- a very few -- Christians who I would believe were genuinely as altruistic as you claim to be. You're not one of them. Everything you write here indicates you are as I described you: self-centered, self-righteous, driven mainly by ego, caring mainly about yourself and seeing 'Darwinists' only as tools for increasing your status in your god's eyes. I might even go so far as to say you're still an addict, just addicted to a different drug. The high you get from your certainty that you are right and we are wrong is as powerful as any chemical high.

If it saved you from being a parasite and turned you into a useful member of your Tribe, well, that's a Good Thing. But don't think it makes you any smarter, or any more able to tell truth from falsehood. It doesn't."

A-Fricken-men, Jon, A-Fricken-men.

Anonymous said...

Looks like my comments are being instantly deleted again Radar.

I will try again after this post.

- Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

You know you've done your job as a "Darwinist Commenter" when Radar devotes an entire post to deriding the comments you made in a previous thread. By-the-way, Radar, I was raised a Christian so I've heard all of your rationalizations before. So tired, so very very tired. Actually, I'm continually amused at the way you and hb perceive your own arguments on god to be so sophisticated. LOL. Once hb, comes to terms with the idea that he and his religion are just as irrelevant and meaningless to an atheist as all those other believers and religions are to him, for the exact same reasons, we'll all be better off.

And, Radar says above,

"Oh, and if Canucklehead ever comes back, what are "the consequences" that you threaten me with? You say I will suffer them, just wanted to be on the lookout for them."

First, sorry to disappoint, that was not some kind of physical threat (we'll just have to continue to leave the threats of violence on this blog to you and Tim). The consequences that I'm referring to is the fact that if people take the time to comment here but their comments keep disappearing (whether by your actions, or those of some broken system within Blogger) the few commenters you do have will stop coming by at all. And while I'm sure you find us "Darwinist commenters" annoying, without us it's just you, DeB and Tim, and, really, how much "fun" could that possibly be? Notice, now that Hawkeye has a job, even he's no longer visiting/commenting.

- Canucklehead.

To sign off I'm going to, again quote Jon because this sums things up so nicely,

"You can say what you want, Radar, to us and to yourself. But your faith looks quite different to someone on the outside looking in. Oh, I've met/heard of/read about a few -- a very few -- Christians who I would believe were genuinely as altruistic as you claim to be. You're not one of them. Everything you write here indicates you are as I described you: self-centered, self-righteous, driven mainly by ego, caring mainly about yourself and seeing 'Darwinists' only as tools for increasing your status in your god's eyes. I might even go so far as to say you're still an addict, just addicted to a different drug. The high you get from your certainty that you are right and we are wrong is as powerful as any chemical high.

If it saved you from being a parasite and turned you into a useful member of your Tribe, well, that's a Good Thing. But don't think it makes you any smarter, or any more able to tell truth from falsehood. It doesn't."

A-Fricken-men, Jon, A-Fricken-men.

Anonymous said...

Nope, that's gone now too. Awesome. I'll post in small bits, if I have time.

- Canucklehead.

radar said...

Funny how Canucklehead is considered a spammer by blogspot. I have to go in and find his comment to get it published. I kind of agree with them.

You use character assassination and derision, much like Jon, rather than bring evidence to the table. Jon doesn't succeed in bringing arguments, he just shakes his head and says "nyuh-uh" and now and then makes one of his lists.

I don't think the readers will believe that I am trying to glorify myself at all. This is about what is true. Truth doesn't mind it if you do not believe, truth will stand on it's own. But truth will be the measure by which you will be judged and you cannot say I didn't give you ample evidence to change your mind. When truth is applied to your life, what will you say? Because God doesn't accept excuses or mastercard. Jesus or nothing.

Anonymous said...

Lots of commenters bring you "evidence" Radar. You just continually choose to completely ignore it. I too used to talk about evidence on this blog (and sometimes I still do) that said, continuing to do so in the hopes that you will "see the light" is something I just don't have time for, at this point. Someday you'll get it, although I doubt you'll ever admit it. Oh and no amount of slagging Jon is going to mask how badly he owns you when it comes to science, etc., etc..

I do commend you for retrieving my comment though. You just as easily could have pretended not to hear me on this issue. Maybe you should tell Blogger that I'm not a spammer? As an "IT guy, you do understand what they mean by "spammer", right?

Also, you say "Jesus or nothing." Really? What about the millions of people that believe in something different? Or the ones that say he never even existed.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

- Canucklehead.

highboy said...

"Lots of commenters bring you "evidence" Radar."

You're not one of them canuck.

"I too used to talk about evidence on this blog (and sometimes I still do) that said, continuing to do so in the hopes that you will "see the light" is something I just don't have time for, at this point."

Odd, since you have time to write multiple paragraphs with no substance whatsoever and even repost them once their deleted. But I suspect "don't have time for" is actually meant to say "not competent enough for".

"Oh and no amount of slagging Jon is going to mask how badly he owns you when it comes to science, etc., etc.."

Your cheerleading is cute but canucklehead insisting someone was "owned" isn't exactly a compelling argument and is really pretty childish, only deepening the suspicion that you're barely a teenager.

"Also, you say "Jesus or nothing." Really? What about the millions of people that believe in something different? Or the ones that say he never even existed."

We obviously believe they're wrong so what about them? And the site you referenced is a notorious joke.

Anonymous said...

Um, you're the "notorious joke", highboy. It's just hilarious to me, that you think that your positions on any of these points are objective. You clearly have too much of your life invested in christianity to even consider opposing viewpoints (and the same cannot be said for me and my positions). And, to top it off, you are so radical (and not the good kind of "radical") when compared to mainstream viewpoints, that hardly anyone in their right mind would take you seriously. You are a caricature, pure and simple.

Why are your thoughts on those hundreds of other religions, any more valid than my thoughts on christianity? Why would I believe your religion over any other ones out there? How do you deal with the idea that millions and millions of people will be tortured for eternity by your god because they didn't "know Jesus", when they had never even encountered christianity their whole lives? How do you write off the feelings of the believers of other religions (beliefs equally as passionate as yours), while holding your own to be true?

- Canucklehead.

highboy said...

"Um, you're the "notorious joke"

says the teenage cheerleader who is incapable of even arguing his own positions.

"that hardly anyone in their right mind would take you seriously."

and all the commenters on here are waiting breathlessly for your awesome responses. LOL.

"Why are your thoughts on those hundreds of other religions, any more valid than my thoughts on christianity?"

Because you've already demonstrated a startling ignorance in regards to not only basic Christian beliefs but simple fundamental philosophy. You've demonstrated over and over again a simple lack of education in any relevant subject that would give your opinion on Christianity or any other religion any more weight than the average "this is how I feel" viewpoint. Most of your posts in regards to anything even remotely related to anything religious are simply mindless rants.

"How do you deal with the idea that millions and millions of people will be tortured for eternity by your god because they didn't "know Jesus", when they had never even encountered christianity their whole lives?"

*Ding* Bingo! Classic example of Canucklehead not having the first damn clue when it comes to basic Christian beliefs. So let me enlighten you:

1. I "deal" with it, because even if a truth is hard to swallow or maybe hard to understand, it doesn't mean its not true. Therefore, if something like the crap you just posted were to be true, how I feel about it doesn't make it go away.
2. No one will be tortured for all eternity for not knowing Jesus without ever encountering Christianity. Jesus will not return until the Gospel has been preached everywhere. (Mark 13:10) Pretty basic stuff.

"Oh and hb, I read this on the internet somewhere but if, as you say, your god is "an infinitely powerful, eternal, supernatural being", why is he so jealous (see the 10 commandments), arrogant and petty that he would choose to torture people for eternity if they won't be his cheerleader? The logic in all of this, to me, says that ALL religions are man made. And not how you apparently believe, i.e. that every other religion on earth, aside from yours, is man made. Logic, I'm afraid, is just not on your side in this debate."

Oh, please. The fact that you have no idea how little sense all of what I just quoted from you actually makes tells all when it comes to your own "logic". The fact that an all powerful God wanting His creation to love Him or suffer the consequences=man made God to you is so ridiculous I can't even take it seriously. It doesn't make an ounce of sense. Not to mention that if God exists, and He is the Creator of all, what right does His creation have to exist apart from Him? Was He somehow obligated to create humans to begin with? If not, why then would He be obligated to leave them alone? If He is obligated, who or what is the higher principle that soars higher than God, the highest principle? This is where the debate flies over your head though so I won't expect a coherent answer.

Anonymous said...

So much ugliness and anger...

We get it hb, you think you are pretty amazing. Especially compared to me, someone whom you have never met and desperately want to be a "teenager" (which is a little weird, amiright?).

I have said many times that practically nobody reads this blog or the comments. Despite what Radar would like to believe. So, not sure where you were going with that one but, what I'm saying is that you are the extreme of the extremes when it comes to both your religious views and your political views. And as a result nobody will ever take you seriously. Forever regarded as a wing nut by most of the people you've ever met. Man, on second thought, no wonder you're so angry.

Again, why are you dealing with "truth" and all other religions aren't? How can you be so sure of your own beliefs? How can you be sure that all people of other faiths, who in many cases are just as sure as you, and have equally "personal" relationships with their deities, are totally wrong?

- Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

To me, you are essentially conceding that your god is a dick. You don't like the rules either but "rules are rules", right? You say that your god doesn't torture as long as a person hasn't encountered christianity. Does that mean that if someone has met a christian (but wasn't indoctrinated into the religion like you were - say, for example, a hindu living in India with a christian neighbor) will be tortured forever for not making the right choice? You're still saying that any and all of those hindus that encountered that christian in India would be doomed to helfire for eternity. Does that seem like something a loving god would do?

Finally, regarding the "man made" stuff, my point is that for an all powerful all knowing deity, this guy/gal sure has A LOT of very human failings (like jealousy for example). AND, of course the curious fact that you are hopelessly ignorant (i.e don't know a damn thing) when it comes to all/most other religions outside christianity, yet you feel completely OK dismissing every single last one of them as complete bunk. Why is is it so hard to understand why your religion can/should simply be thrown in the pile with all the other man made belief systems?

- Canucklehead.

OK, one more thing, you say "Not to mention that if God exists, and He is the Creator of all, what right does His creation have to exist apart from Him?". Man, do I ever feel sorry for your poor kid(s).

highboy said...

"We get it hb, you think you are pretty amazing."

Thanks for the compliment but who is this "we" you're always referring to?

"So, not sure where you were going with that one but, what I'm saying is that you are the extreme of the extremes when it comes to both your religious views and your political views. And as a result nobody will ever take you seriously."

Funny because those who actually know me seem to think differently, but hey, if Canucklehead doesn't take me seriously I guess no one can. LOL. Guess that's those Jedi mind powers of yours working again.

"Forever regarded as a wing nut by most of the people you've ever met."

This pretty much sums up the entire span of your education and just how productive you'll ever be in a real discussion. Its obvious your clip is running out of ammo or has been full of blanks from day one.

"Again, why are you dealing with "truth" and all other religions aren't? How can you be so sure of your own beliefs? How can you be sure that all people of other faiths, who in many cases are just as sure as you, and have equally "personal" relationships with their deities, are totally wrong?"

So just as I thought, no response to anything we were actually discussing, which means it all went over your head again. I'll try again:

1. You asked me how I "deal" with the belief that God will torture millions for not knowing Jesus while never encountering Christianity, to which I pointed you toward actual Scripture that clearly states that isn't even a part of the Christian belief system. It shows a staggering ignorance on your part. Answer the point. Wasn't it you that pointed to some ridiculous study that "proved" to you atheists know more about Christianity than we do? Thanks for proving that study wrong.

2. I asked you why if God exists He's obligated to treat humanity a certain way, and what authority you would be appealing to that would trump God if He existed. Answer the point.

3. And for the umpteenth time, my belief in the truth I speak of as it pertains to God vs. other gods is just that: a belief. Its called faith, based on the common sense to know that the odds of life puking itself into existence by random chance are astronomically low, a book that spans thousands of years written by over 44 authors with remarkable reliability, and a personal experience. Of course others from other faiths have similar stories, I believe they're wrong, they believe I'm wrong. But over 90% of the human race from the dawn of time till now who all disagree with YOU that there is NO god makes your constant implications that I'm somehow in some elite minority all the more hilarious.

Now if you have a brain cell in your head that is firing, try actually answering the points instead of simply mocking what you obviously don't understand. Or, simply continue to try and "one up" me on the sarcasm and derision scale while pretending anyone but you is impressed.

highboy said...

Its official. Canucklehead isn't competent enough to run bath water let alone keep up with a discussion without ranting and raving. *sigh*

"To me, you are essentially conceding that your god is a dick. You don't like the rules either but "rules are rules", right?"

Cute, but no. I didn't say I didn't like the rules, but if I didn't, it wouldn't matter. One more time and maybe you can wrap this around your head: truth is truth, whether you like it or not.

"You're still saying that any and all of those hindus that encountered that christian in India would be doomed to helfire for eternity. Does that seem like something a loving god would do?"

Yup. Sure does. I'll try this in all caps since you keep deliberately missing it: WHY IS GOD OBLIGATED TO BEHAVE A CERTAIN WAY TOWARD HUMANITY? WAS HE OBLIGATED TO CREATE THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE? IF SO, WHY?

"AND, of course the curious fact that you are hopelessly ignorant (i.e don't know a damn thing) when it comes to all/most other religions outside christianity, yet you feel completely OK dismissing every single last one of them as complete bunk. Why is is it so hard to understand why your religion can/should simply be thrown in the pile with all the other man made belief systems?"

You've already proven you have virtually no knowledge of the Christian faith whatsoever, you've proven it right here in this thread, so maybe you want to step outside your glass house before throwing stones.

"OK, one more thing, you say "Not to mention that if God exists, and He is the Creator of all, what right does His creation have to exist apart from Him?". Man, do I ever feel sorry for your poor kid(s)."

which of course is a remark made by a childish, pitiful little kid who is obviously pissed he's getting owned (yeah I'm using your word so you get the point) in a discussion obviously far above his head. My kids are just fine, and what's most telling about your pathetic attempt to insult me is that you demonstrated beautifully for me that you have no knowledge whatsoever on this subject, which is why instead of answering my valid question, you simply said you feel sorry for my kids. LOL. Classic. I hope radar makes sure your comments are never deleted as every post you make keeps proving me right. Please keep embarrassing yourself.

Anonymous said...

Not sure I'll have time to respond to all the crap you wrote, hb, but that said, IF anyone is actually following this thread, take a look at the comments of this post to see who's REALLY embarrassing themselves around here.

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2011/04/myriad-ways-to-fail-but-one-way-to.html

Your ALL CAPS question is irrelevant because you assume the answer, in the question itself. I believe the logical fallacy here is called "begging the question". That said, it looks like you've just learned this one so you probably get a pass here. Next time though, no such luck.

So, now can you answer my questions?

"Again, why are you dealing with "truth" and all other religions aren't? How can you be so sure of your own beliefs? How can you be sure that all people of other faiths, who in many cases are just as sure as you, and have equally "personal" relationships with their deities, are totally wrong?"

Oh, and only creationists say things like this, "life puking itself into existence by random chance". It is a straw-man, nothing more.

And, hb, this is just weird, first me, then you here,

""You're still saying that any and all of those hindus that encountered that christian in India would be doomed to helfire for eternity. Does that seem like something a loving god would do?"

Yup. Sure does."

I guess I don't subscribe to your definition of "loving"(which harkens back to my ever present concern for your kids). Curiously though, why is it not ok to ascribe human emotions to God when their negative, i.e. prideful, petty, jealous, but its perfectly fine to ascribe positive ones like loving, caring, forgiving? By the way, this is only one of the many reasons I choose to not believe in god, the complete lack of evidence and existence of other gods being two other very important facets.

- Canucklehead.

Oh and relative to this comment of mine

"you say "Not to mention that if God exists, and He is the Creator of all, what right does His creation have to exist apart from Him?". Man, do I ever feel sorry for your poor kid(s)."

All I'm saying here is that it seems to me that anyone that subscribes to this line of thinking might be one of those parents that says "I brought you into this world and I can take you out.". Only, you appear to mean it. Which is scary.

Anonymous said...

Point of clarification, when I said this "and existence of other gods" I meant to say "and existence of other religions (each with their own set of passionate/radical believers)".

- Canucklehead.

highboy said...

"IF anyone is actually following this thread, take a look at the comments of this post to see who's REALLY embarrassing themselves around here."

That would be you. Its still cute though the way you try to lump yourself in with every other dissenter on here, as if you were educated enough to be so, or as if your comments made an ounce of sense to anyone but you.

"Your ALL CAPS question is irrelevant because you assume the answer, in the question itself. I believe the logical fallacy here is called "begging the question"."

Funny how you couldn't bring this up until someone else did. But then I suspect teenagers like yourself are also not exactly learned in logical fallacies. In any event, its not assuming the answer any more than the counter worldview, as was also pointed out and agreed upon in the thread. Try not to hurt yourself figuring that out.

Like I said, its not assuming God exists, you've obviously made a moral judgement call on His behavior whether He exists or not, so like my all cap question said: IF He exists, why is He obligated to act a certain way?

"I guess I don't subscribe to your definition of "loving"(which harkens back to my ever present concern for your kids)"

I'd worry about your own if you ever have any one day. Your mindless rants that go in circles might frustrate them.

"All I'm saying here is that it seems to me that anyone that subscribes to this line of thinking might be one of those parents that says "I brought you into this world and I can take you out.". Only, you appear to mean it. Which is scary."

Well your first problem there is that you're attributing my belief in God's authority to some belief in my own, which isn't even close. If God exists, He is the highest principle, the final authority. Not me. This is why the question was asked repeatedly and you have no answer because you can't think any deeper than your cereal bowl: why is God obligated to act a certain way toward humanity? If He exists, was He obligated to create us? If so, why? So now instead of dancing behind the other dissenters' comments around here regarding logical fallacies that you obviously don't grasp, just answer the question.

highboy said...

And don't worry Canuck, I won't tell anyone that you yourself single-handedly disproved the study you linked to that showed atheists somehow knew more about Christianity than Christians. Or at the very least, you proven that are not one of those atheists.

Anonymous said...

That has to be one of the dumbest comments you've ever made here on this blog. Didn't you go to Bible College, hb? How is your knowledge of the bible comparable to that of the average believer? You're not getting it (surprise surprise). Because, what the study actually says, is that as bad as you feel my knowledge of christianity is (and really that's just you trying to make yourself feel better), the study says that it's better than that of the average christian.

- Canucklehead.

highboy said...

You've already proven yours isn't canuck.

Anonymous said...

hb admits to using the logical fallacy, "begging the question",

"Funny how you couldn't bring this up until someone else did. But then I suspect teenagers like yourself are also not exactly learned in logical fallacies. In any event, its not assuming the answer any more than the counter worldview, as was also pointed out and agreed upon in the thread."

So you mock my knowledge about logical fallacies, yet you had no clue that you were peddling one? Interesting strategy... Oh and please explain how, what I was saying above, amounted to any kind of logical fallacy. I merely pointed out that your god appears man made (just the same way you believe all other gods dreamt up on this planet to be) and that while you protest your god being described in "negative" human terms (petty, jealous, vindictive, etc.), you are perfectly fine describing him in glowing human terms like loving, and forgiving etc, etc,. And I think his "man made" nature is especially obvious in light of the fact that you have absolutely no evidence of/for the god that you believe in (outside of your holy book, and all religions have those).

And really? Again with the teenager stuff. Talk about firing blanks. As you know, I've been posting on this blog for a long time, so your math doesn't even work anymore. Probably better to get back to bashing Canada and all Canadians.

I also find it funny that you lump yourself in with believers of other faiths, when you know full well that, at the very least, the three major religions all say that "hell" awaits all that deny their particular religion. You cannot all be right, hb. You sure as hell can all be wrong though.

In the end, Sam Harris sums things up nicely in this little clip. Hold on to your christianity boys, this one is a doozy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsqTysSMQpk&feature=player_embedded

- Canucklehead.

highboy said...

"hb admits to using the logical fallacy,"

except I didn't, I guess English isn't Canada's first language.

"So you mock my knowledge about logical fallacies, "

among other things.

"Oh and please explain how, what I was saying above, amounted to any kind of logical fallacy. I merely pointed out that your god appears man made"

1. Keyword: appear
2. the "appearance" is based on a blatant ignorance of basic fundamental Christianity, as you have already demonstrated brilliantly for all to see.

"And I think his "man made" nature is especially obvious in light of the fact that you have absolutely no evidence of/for the god that you believe in (outside of your holy book, and all religions have those)."

other than the created world I'm living in where the odds of it forming without a creator are so astronomically low its barely worth considering.

"Again with the teenager stuff. Talk about firing blanks. As you know, I've been posting on this blog for a long time, so your math doesn't even work anymore. Probably better to get back to bashing Canada and all Canadians."

I thought about that but I figured I'd just let you keep posting. Most Canadians would bury their heads in the sand and never claim you after reading your incoherent rants.

"You cannot all be right, hb. You sure as hell can all be wrong though."

Wow that was a compelling argument.

"In the end, Sam Harris sums things up nicely in this little clip. Hold on to your christianity boys, this one is a doozy."

Yeah that was devastating. LOL.

Anonymous said...

Wow, reaching much?

You say, first me then you,

""And I think his "man made" nature is especially obvious in light of the fact that you have absolutely no evidence of/for the god that you believe in (outside of your holy book, and all religions have those)."

other than the created world I'm living in where the odds of it forming without a creator are so astronomically low its barely worth considering."

Um, what? You're making my points for me now are you? How does your existence prove anything when it comes to your particular religion? Protip: It doesn't. All other faiths can say the same thing you say above. Again, why is your passion for, and faith in, christianity any more "real" than any other fundamentalist believer outside of your own particular brand of faith? You obviously didn't watch the video. See again Sathya Sai Baba.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba

You dismiss all other religions on the globe, if "the world" is evidence of a creator, why do you think your particular creator is the right one without relying on your holy book, something that all religions have?

Oh and I'll say it one more time here, no one, outside of religious fundamentalists, say crap like this "the odds of it forming without a creator are so astronomically low its barely worth considering.". This is an unfounded statement and this has been pointed out to you quite recently.

And, "created world"? Really? I mean, for a guy that likes to mock others about their knowledge when it comes to logical fallacies, you sure don't worry about using them yourself. You're begging the question here again hb. Maybe this will help.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html

Finally, Good, back to bashing Canada. I love it when you proudly display your ignorant and bigoted beliefs. I've said it once, and I'll say it again. You are a caricature, hb, and as a result you will never be satisfied. You are the fringe of the fringe, of the fringe. The modern world is moving away from dangerous fundamentalism like yours, towards atheism and agnosticism. It's a fact, look it up.

- Canucklehead.

highboy said...

"You dismiss all other religions on the globe, if "the world" is evidence of a creator, why do you think your particular creator is the right one without relying on your holy book, something that all religions have?"

Because they DON'T have the Holy book I have, at least not one as reliable and accurate. Yes, I know, you believe in your heart of hearts in the made up laundry list of "contradictions" that floats around the internet, but as of yet you haven't done a good job of supporting that. Surprise.

"Oh and I'll say it one more time here, no one, outside of religious fundamentalists, say crap like this "the odds of it forming without a creator are so astronomically low its barely worth considering."."

WHich is why I maintain my belief in your adolescence, because such a statement like the one you just made could only be made by someone who has either never left their house or at least hasn't yet left without mommy and daddy's permission. You keep mocking me like your arguments are making any sense and its sad you don't see just how much you expose the fact that you have a very limited education not only as it pertains to philosophy or religion, but even the science you claim to ascribe to. Its also not been "pointed out" to me that the odds of life and the universe forming on its own is slim to none other than to suggest I haven't studied the conditions. Funny thing: no scientist can. Why? Because science is only the study of the natural order, and there was no order before nature? Get it slick?

"Finally, Good, back to bashing Canada. "

No, bashing canucklehead. Still not getting English up there huh? Funny, everyone I know in Canada seem to know it fine.

"The modern world is moving away from dangerous fundamentalism like yours, towards atheism and agnosticism. It's a fact, look it up."

Another one of your "studies"? LOL. Keep trying son.

Anonymous said...

So much derision, so little sense.

To my point,

"You dismiss all other religions on the globe, if "the world" is evidence of a creator, why do you think your particular creator is the right one without relying on your holy book, something that all religions have?"

you say,

"Because they DON'T have the Holy book I have, at least not one as reliable and accurate."

First, I said "without relying on your holy book, something that all religions have". Surprised you missed that part, especially because you quoted me directly. Anyway, isn't that what every fundamentalist will say about their own religion and their own religious books? Every major religion has it's own brand of apologist. I'm sure there are many Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Mormon's, Scientologists, etc, that swear they could answer every concern you have with their "books". Just like you feel you have an answer for every contradiction in the bible pointed out to you. Mere existence is in no way evidence of your christian god. All you have is the old "my god book is better than your god book because that's what I was taught" argument. And really, that's no argument at all. Because, where was it that you discovered that your holy book was the best, again? Oh right, at a christian Bible college. Seems like an objective source for that kind of info, right? LOL.

Further to your admittedly uneducated assertion that "the odds of life and the universe forming on its own is slim to none", if you're admitting that you don't understand what you're basing this assertion on, i.e. you have not "studied the conditions", maybe it's time to check out some actual facts on the matter.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Intro

Finally you say,

"Another one of your "studies"? LOL. Keep trying son."

Church attendance is up in the Western world, is it? Non believer numbers in North America aren't going up? What, exactly, are you basing your position on?

Deny reality all you want hb, modernization and education are religion's kryptonite. You keep trying to turn back that clock though...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12811197

- Canucklehead.

Oh and hb, repeatedly calling people "slick" is not you're best move if you don't want to appear angry. It's a dead giveaway, actually.

Anonymous said...

I'm being deleted again.

I'll try again in two parts.

So much derision, so little sense.

To my point,

"You dismiss all other religions on the globe, if "the world" is evidence of a creator, why do you think your particular creator is the right one without relying on your holy book, something that all religions have?"

you say,

"Because they DON'T have the Holy book I have, at least not one as reliable and accurate."

First, I said "without relying on your holy book, something that all religions have". Surprised you missed that part, especially because you quoted me directly. Anyway, isn't that what every fundamentalist will say about their own religion and their own religious books? Every major religion has it's own brand of apologist. I'm sure there are many Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Mormon's, Scientologists, etc, that swear they could answer every concern you have with their "books". Just like you feel you have an answer for every contradiction in the bible pointed out to you. Mere existence is in no way evidence of your christian god. All you have is the old "my god book is better than your god book because that's what I was taught" argument. And really, that's no argument at all. Because, where was it that you discovered that your holy book was the best, again? Oh right, at a christian Bible college. Seems like an objective source for that kind of info, right? LOL.

- Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

Further to your admittedly uneducated assertion that "the odds of life and the universe forming on its own is slim to none", if you're admitting that you don't understand what you're basing this assertion on, i.e. you have not "studied the conditions", maybe it's time to check out some actual facts on the matter.

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Intro

Finally you say,

"Another one of your "studies"? LOL. Keep trying son."

Church attendance is up in the Western world, is it? Non believer numbers in North America aren't going up? What, exactly, are you basing your position on?

Deny reality all you want hb, modernization and education are religion's kryptonite. You keep trying to turn back that clock though...

www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12811197

- Canucklehead.

Oh and hb, repeatedly calling people "slick" is not you're best move if you don't want to appear angry. It's a dead giveaway, actually.

highboy said...

Wow 3 attempts? Someone is desperate for the last word I see.

Canuck, you're in over your head and you have been since you started posting here. I realise you think your posts are really clever, but as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, you're all over the place. You are not competent enough or important enough to make me angry. You only expose your own anger with your repeated rants that go in circles in a futile game of "one-upmanship". All your posts are only verifying what little understanding you have of what you're talking about. I've explained all of this so that a kindergartner could understand it, if you can't grasp this stuff, you shouldn't be blogging. You can't even defend your own scientific positions let alone your philosophical ones, so you may want to save yourself the embarrassment and simply let the grown ups talk.

But you won't, and I'm sure the minute you read this you'll be pounding away at your keyboard in anger after you spend an hour coming up with another incoherent rant that you think is clever.

Anonymous said...

So, is that your way of saying "uncle", hb?

You post mostly derision with nothing in response to the points I make, or the questions I ask, and then say I'm the one in over my head. OooooO-K, hb, whatever you say.

And I think you're doing more than a little projecting in this last comment of yours.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
I mean, you are guilty of the exact same crap you accuse me of. It's as if you think your own shit doesn't stink.

If you feel like you've covered everything, fine (although you can take it from me that you haven't). What you have proven is that you're not quite the deep thinker you profess to be. "God works in mysterious ways". LOL.

- Canucklehead.