The Great Gatsby
Chapter 6, Gatsby on his first kiss with Daisy.
Do you remember the first real kiss of your life? I don't necessarily mean the first "french kiss" per se, but rather a kiss that seemed to be more than simply a kiss?
An embarrassing moment from my childhood - It was the sixth grade dance. Us boys hung out on one side of the gymnasium. The girls were on the other side of the gym. Some of them danced to some of the songs but not one of us boys dared be the first to ask a girl to dance, lest we get relentlessly teased by the other guys or, even worse, GET TURNED DOWN! Unthinkable! I was plastered to the sidelines with the others, even though my fifth-grade girlfriend, Susan, might have been glad to say yes if I had asked. But I wasn't going to risk being first.
There was a lottery set up by the French teacher in which random names would be drawn to pair up the boys and girls for a dance. Unbeknownst to us boys, the teacher and the girls had colluded to allow some of the girls to chose their dance partners and I wound up paired with Sherry. The music began playing - a slow song - and I had to take her in my arms and dance with her pressed close to me. I was entirely intoxicated by the smell of her perfume and her hair, the feel of her head against my chest, my hand was overjoyed to find and slightly caress the small of her back. I don't remember the song. But I do remember literally falling into a state of awestruck awakening of new feelings and urges so that, when the music stopped, I didn't. I kept dancing with Sherry when everyone else stopped.
Later in high school I had my first kiss real french kiss with a pretty girl I really liked a lot and it seemed like time stopped while she and I lived in the fantasy world of love and joy contained in a seeking, yearning kiss. I thought that was the real thing.
What I wanted and expected was to enter into the world of a song popular during my grade school days -
Then I Kissed Her
Well, I walked up to her
And I asked her if she wanted to dance
She looked awful nice and so I hoped
She might take a chance
When we danced I held her tight
Then I walked her home that night
And all the stars were shining bright
And then I kissed her
Each time I saw her
I couldn't wait to see her again
I wanted to let her know
That I was more than a friend
I didn't know just what to do
And so I whispered I love you
And she said that she loved me too
And then I kissed her
I kissed her in a way
That I'd never kissed a girl before
I kissed her in a way
That I hope she liked for evermore
I knew that she was mine
So I gave her all the love that I had
Then one day she'll take me home
To meet her mom and her dad
Then I asked her to be my bride
And always be right by my side
I felt so happy that I almost cried
And then I kissed her
And then I kissed her
And then I kissed her
The Beach Boys from the Summer Days and Summer Nights album
I thought and hoped that life was like that and that our love would be forever. Being in love would make it all work. We'd have our picket fence and a little house and raise little miniatures of us and...but love isn't magic and strong feelings alone do not love make nor preserve it. I was not ready for such a commitment at age 21 and life is way more complicated than a Beach Boys song. I was raised at a time when the Summer of Love and Woodstock and the Love The One You're With philosophy had changed the morality of my generation. Because I had not accepted the moral absolutes of the previous generation, the formula didn't work for me. Rolling stones don't stay put in a rock garden.
Thankfully one great love isn't necessarily all you get in this life. I got another chance and I didn't blow that one! Anyway, the most common theme of novels and stories is the search for and the finding or losing of love. Boy meets girl, boy wins girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back in the end. That storyline and spinoffs from that storyline is the primary story that writers of fiction use, more than warfare or rebellion or any other subject..
"And they lived happily ever after." From Adam and Eve until today it is the very core of the human experience.
An old-fashioned love story as played out by a couple of celebrities.
The artist is Josh Kelley, a former college golfer who realized that music was in his blood (his brother is a successful musician also). The woman in the video is his wife of three year-plus years, actress Katherine Heigl by stage name, with whom they share an adopted daughter and a life. The two met during the taping of this music video! They do make a being a couple look good. Now imagine how hard it is to manage a marriage and a home life when you are a music star who must tour and your wife is an actress? But I do know they got something started right, as quoted from wikipedia:
During a taping of Live With Regis and Kelly, Heigl stated that she and Kelley chose not to live together before they were married, saying, "I think I just wanted to save something for the actual marriage... I wanted there to be something to make the actual marriage different than the dating or the courtship."
People magazine:
People Exclusive
Grey's Anatomy Star Katherine Heigl Engaged
Heigl and Kelley in February
Lisa Rose/JPI
Grey's Anatomy star Katherine Heigl and her boyfriend, musician Josh Kelley, are engaged, their reps confirm exclusively to PEOPLE.
No wedding date has been set.
The couple met last year when Heigl, 27, appeared in a video for Kelley's song "Only You."
"At the end of the shoot, I said, 'You're gonna go eat dinner with us, and you can't say no,' " Kelley, 25, said in October. "So we ate, drank and just started hanging out after that."
(Later, Kelley arranged to propose marriage to his "Katie" by arranging to have dinner in the somewhat dingy apartment location where the "Only You" video was filmed and, after she said yes, they actually strolled out together on that same stretch of beach you see at the video's end. He apparently had to pay off the stoners who lived there to go away for a day or two. A hundred bucks to set up a perfect proposal? Not bad.)
Music is still part of their relationship: Kelley wrote a tune, "Katie's Song," for Heigl. "There is really nothing more romantic than that," Heigl told PEOPLE in December. "It was one of the most thrilling and romantic things that I've ever experienced, and it makes me really like him bad."
~~~~~~~
"Like him bad" must be Heigl for "love" as they apparently have a successful marriage going. I hope it will be one that lasts. Famous people tend to not connect the dots concerning relationships, tending to live in an alternate reality in which they are treated as royalty and both doted upon and constantly hounded by fans and bloodsuckers. I hope this couple makes it work!
Fortunately (for all concerned), my meager season of fame is past and my wife and I live in the real world. In some ways we are a 21st Century couple. We met online (Christian Cafe) at a Christian dating site and exchanged emails and phone calls before meeting. We met in late summer and married before the year was out. We just knew. In doing so we brought four kids and two kids into one family and they all liked the idea. Now we share two sons-in-law and three grandchildren and a bunch of "Godkids" together. A blended family whose parental units met online? Very 21st Century!
But we are also very traditional. Our first night together was our wedding night. We have had fewer fights than we have had years of marriage. My wife is like my gift from God!
We belong to a church where we are part of the ministry and most of our friends are from our church family and friends we have made in Christian circles down through the years. Some of our friends are missionaries now. Many of the kids I have taught have grown up and married and started families. Our own children have all made it to at least 18 years old so our season of parenting is largely over...except me, my wife and my oldest son all work in the youth ministry with high school kids. So I have signed on to being a perpetual parent of sorts. There is a teenager who is about to ring the doorbell and hang out for awhile with me and Debbie and Rob. One of our main concerns is to instill the traditional values into this generation before they leave the nest and fly off into the cold, cruel world.
Most marriages are not famous, but the institution of marriage is...people have been joining as couples since the world began. The reason that marriage is apparently being attacked? Not for any good reason, but rather as a means of promoting the agenda of a small group of sexual dissidents who hate the Judeo-Christian ethic upon which American Society was founded and wish to attack it at every hand. Darwinism erodes faith in God. Social Darwinism leads to millions of murdered babies and tacit racism and class-ism. GLSEN and NAMBLA want to break down all sexual mores and taboos so that they can have adults "marry" children, those of the same sex, animals and what have you. Really, the push to destroy marriage is energized by pedophiles, for both GLSEN and NAMBLA seek to promote juvenile sexual activity. Do you really want your children "marrying" promiscuous adults? Because that is the stated goal of NAMBLA and GLSEN's unstated agenda as well. Kill off marriage and sexual restraints will soon be destroyed as well. The old guy across the street is NOT going to have sex with my children or my dogs! We cannot allow this stuff to happen.
Dave Miller wrote this in 2003 (From Apologetics Press):
The Sacredness of Marriage
| by | Dave Miller, Ph.D. |
Since its inception, the United States of America has been a country whose Founding Fathers recognized the need for God in public life, and the need for Bible principles of morality to govern and structure American society. Our Founding Fathers recognized that if our country ever strayed significantly away from these foundational moral, spiritual, and ethical principles, we would be doomed as a nation. For 150 years, our society recognized the importance of what some are calling the “traditional family,” i.e., a husband and a wife who marry for life and rear their children together. Divorce was almost unheard of in this country. When it did occur, it was regarded as deviant behavior. Family disruption in the form of separation, divorce, and out-of-wedlock birth were kept to a minimum by strong religious, social, and even legal sanctions. Immediately after World War II, most American children grew up in a family with both biological parents who were married to each other.
This state of affairs held sway up through the 1940s and 1950s. In fact, disruption of the traditional American family reached a historic low in the 1950s and early 1960s. But then something happened (see Whitehead, 1993). Beginning in about 1965, the divorce rate suddenly skyrocketed, more than doubling over the next fifteen years. By 1974, divorce passed death as the leading cause of family breakup. By 1980, only fifty percent of children could expect to spend their entire childhood with both their parents. Now half of all marriages end in divorce. Every year a million children go through divorce or separation, and almost as many more are born out of wedlock. People who remarry after divorce are more likely to break up than couples in first marriages. The same is true for couples who just live together.
Overall child well-being has declined, despite a decrease in the number of children per family, an increase in the educational level of parents, and historically high levels of public spending. The teen suicide has more than tripled. Juvenile crime has increased and become more violent. School performance has continued to decline. Some sociologists are now recognizing the incredibly harmful effect these circumstances are having on our country and the homes of America. They are beginning to realize the relationship between family structure and declining child well-being. Some are even admitting that the social arrangement that has proved most successful in ensuring the physical survival and promoting the social development of the child is the family unit of the biological mother and father.
But our society as a whole has been slow to see family disruption as a severe national problem. Why? A fundamental shift has occurred in our culture with reference to religious and moral value. Much of our society has jettisoned the Bible as the absolute standard of behavior. The Bible is no longer considered to be the authoritative regulator of daily living. Many, perhaps most, Americans no longer feel that divorce is wrong. “Irreconcilable differences” and “incompatibility” are seen as perfectly legitimate reasons for divorce—flying directly in the face of Bible teaching. Many Americans no longer feel that a couple simply living together without marriage is morally wrong. By the mid-1970s, three-fourths of Americans said that it is not morally wrong for a woman to have a child outside marriage.
We could debate the causes of this basic cultural shifting. I would argue that the influence of evolution and humanism in our educational system, the impact of feminism, the increased participation of women in the work force to the neglect of their children, the widespread prosperity that we enjoy as a nation (causing us to forget God and to indulge ourselves)—these and other factors have contributed to our moral decline. Hollywood, television, and the cinema have unquestionably glamorized, defended, and promoted divorce, premarital sex, unwed motherhood, abortion, and the use of alcohol, filthy language, and many other immoral behaviors.
Ironically—and tragically—the media have been working overtime to discredit the married, two-parent family by playing up instances of incest, violence, and abuse. If a family has religious inclinations, its members are depicted on programs as weirdos and deviants. In fact, it is surely disgusting to the sensibilities of the morally upright that what was once mainstream and normal (i.e., the religious, church-going, two-parent family) is being demonized and ridiculed, while behavior that once was considered deviant, reprehensible, and immoral is paraded before society—on TV, in the news, and in the courts—as the social norm. Anyone who lifts a finger to speak against such immorality is berated as “homophobic,” “prejudiced,” “judgmental,” “mean-spirited,” and guilty of a “hate crime.”
Two illustrations of the undermining of the marriage relationship as God intended are the recent decisions regarding homosexuality by the United States Supreme Court and the Episcopal Church. By a 62-45 vote, the Episcopal House of Bishops elected the denomination’s first homosexual bishop on August 5, 2003 (see Duin, 2003). Only days earlier, the Supreme Court ruled that sodomy laws are unconstitutional—even though sodomy was treated as a criminal offense in all of the original thirteen colonies and eventually every one of the fifty states (see Robinson, 2003; “Sodomy Laws,” 2003). Sadly, a generation has arisen who simply does not share the values of its parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents. Sexual fidelity, lifelong marriage, and parenthood are simply no longer held up as worthwhile personal goals.
"The clear-cut restraints and distinctions between right and wrong so typical of American culture in the past have been systematically dismantled. Relativism has taken the place of objective, absolute truth."
- Divorce almost always brings a decline in the standard of living for the mother and children, plus a dependence on welfare; children in single-parent homes are far more likely to propagate the same behavior.
- Children never fully recover from divorce. Five, ten, fifteen years after a divorce, the children suffer from depression, under-achievement, and ultimately, their own troubled relationships.
- Young adults from disrupted families are nearly twice as likely as those from intact families to receive psychological help.
- Children in disrupted families are nearly twice as likely as those in intact families to drop out of high school. Those who remain in school show significant differences in educational attainment from those children who grow up in intact families.
- Remarriage does not reproduce nor restore the intact family structure. The latest research confirms that stepparents cannot replace the original home.
- For children whose parents divorced, the risk of divorce is two to three times greater than it is for children from married parent families.
What is even more startling is the fact that as an institution, marriage has lost much of its legal, religious, and social meaning and authority. For most of American history, marriage was one of the most important rites of passage in life. But now, marriage has lost much of its role and significance as a rite of passage. Sex is increasingly detached from the promise or expectation of marriage. Cohabitation is emerging as a significant experience for young adults. It is now replacing marriage as the first living together union. It is estimated that a quarter of unmarried women between the ages of 25 and 39 are currently living with a partner, and about half have lived at some time with an unmarried partner. Referring to this state of affairs as “the deinstitutionalization of marriage,” researchers at the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University concluded: “Taken together, the marriage indicators do not argue for optimism about a quick or widespread comeback of marriage. Persistent long-term trends suggest a steady weakening of marriage as a lasting union, a major stage in the adult life course, and as the primary institution governing childbearing and parenthood” (Popenoe and Whitehead, 1999).
Make no mistake: the social science evidence clearly documents the fact that the breakdown of the traditional two-parent, biological husband-wife family is a major factor contributing to the overall moral, religious, and ethical decline of our country. The social fabric of American civilization is literally tearing apart. The social arrangement that has proved most successful in ensuring the physical survival, and promoting the social development, of the child is the family unit of the biological mother and father. America is in deep trouble.
Our society is not likely to solve these massive problems. The liberal elite has been operating with great vigor for over forty years to push our country into “value neutrality” and “political correctness.” The clear-cut restraints and distinctions between right and wrong so typical of American culture in the past have been systematically dismantled. Relativism has taken the place of objective, absolute truth. The glorification of the individual has encouraged people to determine for themselves right and wrong—rather than looking outside themselves to the Transcendent Creator of the Universe. Consequently, whatever the individual feels is right is sanctioned as right—at least for that individual. The absolute standard of moral value and human behavior—that previously governed our nation—has been successfully supplanted. Subjectivity reigns supreme, and God has been effectively severed from human culture. “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:12).
GOD’S VIEW OF THE MATTER
The fact remains that there is a God in heaven (Daniel 2:28). God has spoken to the human race through His written Word, i.e., the Bible. In that inspired communication, He has designated the structure of society. He created male and female with the intention for one man to marry one woman for life (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6). Here is the foundational building block of humanity. That is His simple will on the matter. He hates divorce (Malachi 2:16). The only way He permits divorce is if one marriage partner divorces the other marriage partner for the one reason that the marriage partner has committed fornication, i.e., illicit sexual intercourse. Upon that basis alone, God allows the innocent partner to put away that unfaithful mate and form a second marriage (Matthew 19:3-9).God intended for the husband and wife to produce children who, in turn, are to receive nurturing and care from their parents in a stable, loving home (Ephesians 6:1-4; Colossians 3:18-21). In this divinely ordained institution of the home, God intended that children receive the necessary instruction and training to prepare them to be productive, honest, God-fearing, hard-working citizens of their country. The home was designed by God to impart to each succeeding generation proper religious, moral, and social principles that would in turn make their nation strong and virtuous. The Bible is filled with references to the essential ingredients of healthy family life (e.g., Deuteronomy 4:7-9; 6:1-9; 11:18-21; 32:46-47; Psalm 127; Proverbs 5:15-20; 6:20-35; 11:29; 12:4; 14:1; 15:25,27; 17:1,13; 31:10-31), including proper parenting skills (Proverbs 13:24; 19:18; 22:15; 23:13-14; 29:15,17; Ephesians 6:1-4).
CONCLUSION
How simple! The solution to the confusion and corruption that has gripped American civilization is simple—if hearts are humbly yielded to the will of God. If we could get our families back on track according to God’s will, we could get our nation back on track. It starts with you and me. We must believe in, affirm to others, and conform ourselves to the sacredness of marriage.REFERENCES
Duin, Julia (2003), “Gay Bishop Sets Off Talk of Episcopal Schism,” The Washington Times,Popenoe, David and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead (1999), “What’s Happening to Marriage?”
Robinson, B.A. (2003), “Criminalizing Same-Sex Behavior,”
“Sodomy Laws in the United States,” (2003),
Whitehead, Barbara (1993), “Dan Quayle Was Right,” The Atlantic Monthly,
~~~~~~~
So this is an old article and some of the links may not work. In 2003 Miller clearly saw the path the country was taking. We are another 8 years down the road and it is worse than ever! The attack on the nuclear family shows up in poor education, bad behavior, higher incidence of drug and alcohol abuse, teenage pregnancy and STDs, suicides...our children are paying the price as deviant adults do whatever they can to tear down marriage. We even have a chief executive who has instructed his administration not to defend the laws of the land - the DOMA lawsuits filed by the radical deviants will not be challenged by the representative of the President? I thought he was sworn to defend the Constitution and the law? Pathetic.
Another aspect to the attack on marriage is the emergence of the Super State and Gendercide- take for instance, Communist China:
The Global Threat of Gendercide
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Historian Niall Ferguson reminds us that Ernest Hemingway once penned a collection of short stories entitled Men Without Women. The stories are haunting, demonstrating the brutality that comes to men without the presence of women — and especially without the companionship of wives.He recalls the Hemingway collection in order to underline what is at stake in the growing global threat of missing girls and women. The global gender gap in favor of males is a reversion of the natural pattern. How did it happen? By the widespread practice of aborting and killing baby girls — what is rightly called “gendercide.”
As Ferguson explains, “The mystery is partly explicable in terms of economics. In many Asian societies, girls are less well looked after than boys because they are economically undervalued.”
Years ago, economist Amartya Sen put the number of missing girls and women at 100 million worldwide. As Ferguson argues, that number is surely far larger now.
Consider the scale of the problem:
In China today, according to American Enterprise Institute demographer Nicholas Eberstadt, there are about 123 male children for every 100 females up to the age of 4, a far higher imbalance than 50 years ago, when the figure was 106. In Jiangxi, Guangdong, Hainan, and Anhui provinces, baby boys outnumber baby girls by 30 percent or more. This means that by the time today’s Chinese newborns reach adulthood, there will be a chronic shortage of potential spouses. According to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, one in five young men will be brideless. Within the age group 20 to 39, there will be 22 million more men than women. Imagine 10 cities the size of Houston populated exclusively by young males.
Ten cities the size of Houston? This staggers the imagination!
Ferguson warns that this gender imbalance has led in the past to outbreaks of expansionism and imperialism. Others have more directly warned of militarism and violence from China’s young men who have no prospects of marriage and a normal family life. These young men are described as China’s “broken branches.” There are millions of these young men in India, as well.
We must look beyond these warnings and see the even larger horror — the tragedy of young girls, aborted and murdered just because they are girls. This, among other vital reasons, is why even the earliest Christians understood abortion to be such a horrific evil. Given the reality of human sinfulness, we now compound abortion with infanticide and gendercide. Is this of interest only to historians and economists?
Niall Ferguson, “Men Without Women: The Ominous Rise of Asia’s Bachelor Generation,” Newsweek, March 14, 2011 (posted March 6, 2011).
~~~~~~~~
What happens when there are MILLIONS of young men with no chance of finding a mate? Do they fall prey to sexual deviancy? Will they become the point of a spear pointed at other countries, an army of soldiers with no family to leave behind? Will they rebel and turn to crime and anarchy, or will they subject themselves to a perceived groupthink goal greater than themselves as a propagandized mass of automatons? They have no chance at an ordinary life. When man cannot have a life, he is more likely to be motivated to take yours away from you...Genocide, gendercide, sexual deviancy being enforced by law on free society? It cannot end well. This is the fruit of society separated from God. This is what man looks like when God is not respected and obeyed. Is it any wonder that God wiped mankind from the face of the planet once before? How long before He cannot tolerate these crimes against humanity foisted upon humanity?
To take away the moral absolutes brings about the worst consequences. Hundreds of millions of unborn babies slaughtered by evil adults will weigh down the balance scale of justice on the side of destruction for those responsible. All forms of Social Darwinism and Humanism lead inevitably to the same end, the complete destruction of morality leads to the destruction of society and real freedom for the vast majority of mankind is lost. We are sliding back towards the time of a ruling elite and teeming masses of serfs. What do you think life in China is like for the average young man? God help you if you are a girl growing in your mother's womb, there is a pair of forceps and a knife and a suction tube coming for you! Pedophilia and Gendercide.
How could I take us from a love story to a horror story? More to come...
54 comments:
Relativism is a self defeating philosophy and always has been.
Darwinism erodes faith in God.
Seeing the hypocrisy, dishonesty, bigotry, and outright hatred practiced by some of his followers in his name is what erodes faith in the Christian God.
Other gods are rather more likable. So are their followers.
"Seeing the hypocrisy, dishonesty, bigotry, and outright hatred practiced by some of his followers in his name is what erodes faith in the Christian God."
So when those things are seen in the atheist does that mean the absence of faith should be viewed the same way? Not to mention those other "likeable" followers have no small amount of hypocrites among them.
"So when those things are seen in the atheist does that mean the absence of faith should be viewed the same way?"
Contrary to religion, atheism has no dogmas or rules to follow. Atheism simply means 'without belief in any god(s)' and thus gives no moral guidelines, be it good or evil.
"Contrary to religion, atheism has no dogmas or rules to follow. Atheism simply means 'without belief in any god(s)' and thus gives no moral guidelines, be it good or evil."
Doesn't matter. If its logical to look at a Christian's hypocrisy and decide that worshipping their God is fallacious, than its equally logical to look at someone with no rules to follow in life and conclude the same thing. Just because atheism doesn't have rules to follow doesn't mean an atheist can't be a hypocrite.
Jeremiah 17:
5 This is what the LORD says:
“Cursed is the one who trusts in man,
who draws strength from mere flesh
and whose heart turns away from the LORD.
6 That person will be like a bush in the wastelands;
they will not see prosperity when it comes.
They will dwell in the parched places of the desert,
in a salt land where no one lives.
7 “But blessed is the one who trusts in the LORD,
whose confidence is in him.
8 They will be like a tree planted by the water
that sends out its roots by the stream.
It does not fear when heat comes;
its leaves are always green.
It has no worries in a year of drought
and never fails to bear fruit.”
I think that eventually the ridiculousness of moral relativism will become apparent. In England there is a Christian couple who have children and also take in foster children. They raise their foster children with the same morals as their natural children. Now a court says that they can no longer take in foster children because they teach their children that homosexuality is a sin.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=273301
"Just because atheism doesn't have rules to follow doesn't mean an atheist can't be a hypocrite."
Sure. But can an atheist be a hypocrite in relation to his non-belief in any gods?
What Jon was referring to (if I understood correctly) is that Christians often claim to have the moral high ground, yet do not live up to this high morality and break their commands as they see fit.
There's no such thing in atheism, simply because atheism doesn't give any rules to follow. The only way an atheist can be a hypocrite in relation to atheism is to actually believe in a deity while still claiming to be an atheist.
Any time an atheist claims something is "right" or "wrong" he is being hypocritical, since atheists deny an absolute moral code. Furthermore, the old saw about the hypocrisy of Christians is toothless. Comparing the morality of Christians to Islamists and communists and atheistic anarchists and elitists makes Christians look good by comparison. Lots of Christians fail to live consistently right, but they know what right is, why it is and they are (usually) striving to do it.
Selfishness is at the heart of humanism and atheism. Christ urged Christians to look outwards towards others.
"What Jon was referring to (if I understood correctly) is that Christians often claim to have the moral high ground, yet do not live up to this high morality and break their commands as they see fit."
That is simply false. I've never met a Christian who claims to have a moral high ground. Its actually just the opposite. Its the Christian who believes he/she needs constant and eternal forgiveness for sins, so I fail to see how that Christian is claiming a moral high ground. If anything, the Christian claims to be the worst of sinners.
@Radar: sorry, won't take the bait :-P
@highboy: just because you haven't met them doesn't mean they don't exist.
But would you agree then that being a Christian doesn't necessarily make you a better person?
"@highboy: just because you haven't met them doesn't mean they don't exist."
Anything is possible and after all my years in Bible College, being in foreign land, and all my years in ministries of different kinds, I suppose I may someday meet one. But until then, I'm not going to pretend like an oddball joe here and there is enough to make a generalised argument that Christians claim moral superiority over those of other faiths or even those of no faith. Christianity has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with Christ. As for whether or not Christianity makes me a "better person", that's a loaded question if ever there was one. I guess that would depend on your definition of a "better" person. What would make them better? Less sin? That would imply a numerical scale and there is no real defined scale as to how much a Christian can sin in order to fall into a certain bracket. lol.
So I'll try it like this, and if it sounds self-righteous, I don't mean it to be. But from personal experience, I'm definitely a better person than I use to be before Christ. Not claiming to be better than you, Jon, or anyone else, but what's important is I'm not who I was. That person sucked beyond belief. I went from an angry, pathological lying coward who treated his wife like garbage to a slightly less angry, completely honest to the point of obsession, guy who tries to treat his wife like a queen and isn't afraid anymore. So yes, I'm a better person than the me that God washed clean. Whether or not that makes me better than others is a loaded question I can't answer and to be honest, one that doesn't concern me. I can't compare myself to other people like that.
@highboy:
OK, thanks for that. But maybe I wasn't clear enough.
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?
Point out to me if I missed something, thanks.
Highboy makes a valid point - becoming a Christian not only makes you aware of your sins, it makes you want to overcome them. Christianity has a valid claim to moral superiority by having the absolutes as defined by the Creator. Christians are (should be) seeking to live by that code and not by force of self-will, but by allowing God to change him/her on the inside.
I try to make my "wanter" want what God wants. Seeking to love others, have empathy, share burdens, be transparent with people and be consistent.
Many of you would not understand that this blog is one way I seek to live out God's will by informing and warning those who deny or have doubts about God. I mean, if the bridge is out and there is no sign and I see you driving down the road in that direction, I should yell and wave a hand and scream at you to stop and not keep going towards the river. You may think my actions are antagonistic but they really aren't in that context.
Most of the Christians I know do not make a habit of lying and cheating and are working on NOT doing those things. What a crock to say that Christians commonly do these things! It is the non-Christians who habitually do them and they often don't care or even think their actions are wrong or couldn't care less if they were.
Pointing out that Darwinists lack evidence is hardly an attack, as it is a factual statement devoid of value judgment.
"You may think my actions are antagonistic but they really aren't in that context."
Weird as it may seem, I actually understand what you're trying to do. Although of course I don't agree with YEC, I really do believe that you are convinced that this is all true and that you're trying to do the 'right thing'. What I (and I think Jon as well) am trying to point out to you is that you are using counter-productive methods to achieve your goals.
I'm not sure if you realise it, but you come across as very aggressive and rude. And that will always turn people away instead of making them listen to you. To follow up on your analogy: if someone tried to warn you by flipping the bird and shouting profanities, would you heed his call?
Also: never forget that you can NEVER shame someone into believing you.
"I've never met a Christian who claims to have a moral high ground."
What about Radar? Post after post about the alleged moral superiority of Christians. Sounds like a claim for having the moral high ground over everyone else.
AFAIK moral high ground doesn't mean claiming to be superior to God or any other deity.
"Most of the Christians I know do not make a habit of lying and cheating and are working on NOT doing those things."
So do most of the atheists and/or humanists I know.
"What a crock to say that Christians commonly do these things!"
The other commenter said one doesn't have to look far. In your case, we only have to look at your blog. It contains many untruths that you refuse to correct even as you are unable to address the facts that contradict them. The honorable thing to do would be to correct them.
Can you see how this could be perceived as you being hypocritical when it comes to the speaking of untruths?
"It is the non-Christians who habitually do them and they often don't care or even think their actions are wrong or couldn't care less if they were."
Allegation: Christians don't lie and cheat, non-Christians do lie and cheat. Do you have some kind of evidence to back this up? I'm guessing no. And there is evidence that suggests the opposite is true, or rather that everyone lies and cheats in equal measure - for example, the breakdown of religions in the prison population roughly mirrors that of religions in the overall population.
"Pointing out that Darwinists lack evidence is hardly an attack, as it is a factual statement devoid of value judgment."
It's a nonsensical statement that rests on you not addressing a great deal of evidence properly. It is an untruth. Whether it is a lie depends on your motivation and mental state.
Radar: "Furthermore, the old saw about the hypocrisy of Christians is toothless. Comparing the morality of Christians to Islamists and communists and atheistic anarchists and elitists makes Christians look good by comparison."
So, say, mugging is okay as long as you don't injure the victim, because hey, you could have injured or killed them, but you didn't? After all, a murderer makes a mugger look good by comparison too.
highboy: "I've never met a Christian who claims to have a moral high ground. Its actually just the opposite."
It really is fun to watch you two claim to be deep thinkers, and then miss points like this time after time.
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.
Whatsit, when I present information that you disagree with, it means that we disagree and NOT that I am lying. In fact it probably means that you are propagandized and cannot even consider the argument.
I did not say that Christians never do wrong, I am saying that they know right and wrong from a Biblical basis and allow that standard to guide them. An atheist can borrow from us in terms of morality but it is kind of humorous when you accuse us of lying when, with your belief in random cause and no underlying meaning or absolutes, what you say has no basis for argument.
And I don't come across as aggressive and rude to the majority of my readers. In fact I am pretty kind to commenters despite their continuing rudeness to me. False charges are commonplace from the troll population but I let them say it anyway as long as it is not x-rated language. As long as it stays decent, I don't even demand courtesy. But really, read the comment threads and tell me again which side is rude?
Jon Woolf, I am not concerned about my social status and so your idea about this supposed argument on moral superiority is missing the point entirely. I am saying that God is morally superior to the judgment of man. I am therefore saying that God is morally superior to both you and me. Because God sets the standard, I am going to try to meet it to the best of my ability. It is up to you whether you will acknowledge God and do the same.
Let me cap this - the erosion of the moral code of our society has led to all sorts of atrocities, murders, the continual attack on the family and so we have more broken homes, more suicidal kids, more murdered babies, more drug use and alcohol us, higher STD rates and a vast number of people taking drugs for emotional problems and things like AHD. We have far more allergies now, far more syndromes, far more random rulings by amoral judges.
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.
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. That's why they make up myths like evolution and insist that everyone believe it.
I am not concerned about my social status
[ROF,L]
Of course you are, Radar. Every human is. Social status is one of our most basic needs, right up there alongside food, water, and shelter. You wouldn't be here, now, writing these things, if you didn't care about your status -- status in your own eyes, in the eyes of other humans, and in the eyes of your god.
"the erosion of the moral code of our society has led to all sorts of atrocities..."
So it has ... as long as you define 'morality' loosely as 'the good of society'. By that definition, any action which is detrimental to society is immoral. The trick, of course, is to determine which actions truly are detrimental to society, and which ones aren't. In my experience, that's where fundamentalists like you fall far short of the mark.
"Whatsit, when I present information that you disagree with, it means that we disagree and NOT that I am lying."
I was talking about an actual untruth, not something that we happen to disagree on - even though you routinely mischaracterize things you disagree with as lies. Don't worry, I do get that distinction. Unfortunately, for you it's a Rubicon you have yet to cross. That I suspect you don't dare to cross. People who disagree with you are not necessarily liars or "propagandized" or have fences. Be honest. Examine their arguments. Address them. Don't fall in love with your own arguments. Address theirs instead.
Here's an untruth: the rate at which the moon recedes from the Earth indicates that the Earth couldn't possibly be over 4 billion years old.
You've used this on your blog.
It's an untruth. It's not true. The math doesn't hold up.
The reasoning has been linked to many times on your blog, so it's unlikely that you're unaware of this.
If you disagree, please provide a counter-argument.
BTW, this is not a matter of "taste" or "opinion" or "being propagandized" or "worldviews". It's simple math. Something is true or it isn't.
"In fact it probably means that you are propagandized and cannot even consider the argument."
Consider the possibility that your arguments were considered, addressed, and refuted. Then use evidence to counter that possibility.
"I am not concerned about my social status"
Your pride is one of your most distinguishing characteristics, dude.
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."
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? 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."
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.
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?"
Cheers,
- Canucklehead.
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?"
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."
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Canucklehead,
Thanks for the comment. Really, you probably earned an actual blog post for an answer, where I publish your entire comment and go over it point by point. So be looking for yourself in the headlines (blog version).
But the golden rule concept "borrowed" by God? Not. I will throw that into the post, too.
"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?"
LOL. I expect nothing more out of you than something ridiculous every time you post. Not to mention its not a matter of "expecting" you to believe anything, as if your thoughts on the matter were actually important to me.
"Because he does it all the time."
Do you have any examples? Or am I just suppose to take your word for it? Even here in this thread radar clarified very well what he meant and its pretty much a dead issue for anyone not looking for something to nit pick about.
"Go ahead, ask your christian friends if they think they are morally supeior to atheists. I bet I know their answer."
and you would be wrong, which is no surprise.
"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."
Now that is a compelling argument. Find a statement I made where I claimed moral superiority for atheists and get back to me.
"That said I don't have time to search for it. "
I'm shocked.
"Or are you saying you've been completely silent on the topic of atheism and morals?"
I talk about atheism and morals all the time. What I have not done, is state that I have a moral "high ground" over atheists simply because I'm a Christian.
"Now, you've been in this long enough to understand that almost every christian had a different interpretation of god's "standards", right?"
Correct.
"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?"
The atheist isn't interpreting guidelines. The atheist follows his/her own guidelines according to culture or humanistic morality or both.
"Also, we even know your "rules" better than you do."
Its utterly hilarious that you think such a survey would somehow prove atheists (its cute the way you said "we) know more about the Christian faith than those who practice it, as if it was a written test that God will give us all on judgement day.
"I suspect the "internet Tim" before god is A LOT like the current "internet Tim")"
I can't match your Jedi mind powers here so I'll just let you believe what you want.
"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."
Which is why your interpretation of the situation will never carry any more weight than blade of grass with me. I know Jesus. I know the experience I had with Him, it wasn't a matter of simply reading the Bible and checking off all the character adjustments I needed to make.
"Isn't prayer then simply "assuming an infinite all powerful being operating within and without a naturalist framework..."
Prayer is communicating with God. That's 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."
Um, if God exists, exactly who is He accountable to? If He exists, and I would for some reason have a problem with the way He behaved, exactly what would I do about it? That's why its so illogical for an atheist to judge God's actions. If God exists, He is not bound by humanistic morality. In humanism, humans are the measuring stick for morality. If God exists, this isn't the case.
"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?"
Yes: He's God and can do what He wants. "I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion, and mercy on whom I will have mercy". I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere....
Uh-oh, here comes "angry Tim" again... LOL.
Tell me hb, does it make you feel better when you write stuff like this "as if your thoughts on the matter were actually important to me."? Because if they aren't, why bother even responding?
First off, I think you need to re-read what Radar wrote in his "clarification" because he's still claiming the moral high-ground over atheists. And shock of shocks, you don't see it. Oh well.
You say, "I talk about atheism and morals all the time. What I have not done, is state that I have a moral "high ground" over atheists simply because I'm a Christian.". Awesome (although it isn't true). Only, I didn't ask what you think you have not stated, I asked you what your thoughts actually are. What IS your point concerning atheists and morals?
RE: The Pew US Religious Knowledge Survey, how exactly would you test religious knowledge? And keep in mind the topic was religious knowledge, not "who's the awesome-est christian". But if it was, I'm sure either you or Radar would totally win. I'm sure God must know how much you bros have his back.
You say, "I know Jesus.". Um, OK hb, whatever you say. Seems really crazy to me though. Do you "know" any other long dead quasi-historical figures?
As for your nonsense when it comes to judging gods actions, you're kinda rambling here, and I think you may have confused yourself. Are you saying that if God exists, and he is evil, you can't/wouldn't say anything BECAUSE he's god? What kind of morality IS he bound by? Or does everything boil down to the weak "god works in mysterious ways" rationalization?
Finally, you drop the quote, "I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion, and mercy on whom I will have mercy"
Which, i guess, is why praying to a rock produces precisely the same results as praying to your god. It's a fact.
http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/3_31STEP.html
- Canucklehead.
"I know Jesus. I know the experience I had with Him,..."
People from various religions claim to have an experience with the god(s) they worship. How do you know it was Jesus you had an experience with? And is this the same Jesus who Benny Hinn as well as Paul Jennings Hill claim to know?
"People from various religions claim to have an experience with the god(s) they worship."
Irrelevant. My experience with Christ wasn't suppose to sway you, and I can't erase an experience I had with Christ from my memory simply because others claim to have experiences with different gods.
"Uh-oh, here comes "angry Tim" again... LOL."
Mocking the ridiculous things you say on this blog is hardly "anger". You're flattering yourself again.
"First off, I think you need to re-read what Radar wrote in his "clarification" because he's still claiming the moral high-ground over atheists. And shock of shocks, you don't see it. Oh well."
...and that was a masterful job of pointing it out to me canuck. lol. The old "na-uh" argument.
"You say, "I talk about atheism and morals all the time. What I have not done, is state that I have a moral "high ground" over atheists simply because I'm a Christian.". Awesome (although it isn't true)."
If it isn't true than you have some sort of quote from me to validate your assertion. I'm waiting breathlessly to see you produce it. LOL.
"Only, I didn't ask what you think you have not stated, I asked you what your thoughts actually are. What IS your point concerning atheists and morals?"
Wow, could your question be more vague?
Atheists have morals, they simply get them from a different source.
"RE: The Pew US Religious Knowledge Survey, how exactly would you test religious knowledge? And keep in mind the topic was religious knowledge, not "who's the awesome-est christian". But if it was, I'm sure either you or Radar would totally win. I'm sure God must know how much you bros have his back."
The Christian Science Monitor has also posted studies concerning Creationism yet funny you're not citing those as reliable sources.
"You say, "I know Jesus.". Um, OK hb, whatever you say. Seems really crazy to me though. Do you "know" any other long dead quasi-historical figures?"
and of course childish and nonsensical remarks like I just quoted is why no one with active brain waves can take you seriously, though its hilarious you constantly talk about integrity and maturity when it comes to myself and radar, yet have the audacity to say what I just quoted. This is why I refuse to believe you're anything other than an adolescent teen having fun on the computer. Intelligent people are able to have discussions and back up their points, yet from day one your posts are childish digs at those with opposing view points. You aren't even capable of arguing your own positions coherently.
"As for your nonsense when it comes to judging gods actions, you're kinda rambling here, and I think you may have confused yourself. Are you saying that if God exists, and he is evil, you can't/wouldn't say anything BECAUSE he's god? What kind of morality IS he bound by? Or does everything boil down to the weak "god works in mysterious ways" rationalization?"
By calling it weak you pretty much expose yourself as being completely incapable of thought that goes any deeper than your cereal bowl. Its really quite simple: if God exists as He is described according to Christian faith, to judge His actions as "good" or "evil" implies that there is a principle greater than He. But if God exists as He is described, He Himself is the highest principle. What He says is. Judging His actions according to humanistic morality is meaningless, because of God exists, its not humanity that is the measuring stick of morality, its God.
"Which, i guess, is why praying to a rock produces precisely the same results as praying to your god. It's a fact.
http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/3_31STEP.html"
Um, no little one, but cute though. Once again, a study on the results of prayer to God would have to be done by someone with infinite knowledge, otherwise its an incomplete study. The person gathering the data would have to do so indefinitely unless it operates under the assumption that God will not do anything about the prayer request ever. Here endeth the lesson.
"Irrelevant. My experience with Christ wasn't suppose to sway you..."
I'm aware of that (it would take far more to sway me btw), but the gist of the question was: how do you know that your experience was with Christ?
"...and I can't erase an experience I had with Christ from my memory simply because others claim to have experiences with different gods."
Similarly, others can't erase the experience they had with a different god simply because you claim to have had an experience with Christ. But does your sentence mean that you acknowledge that there might be other gods?
If not, why not simply state that all the others are deluded?
"how do you know that your experience was with Christ?"
That is the equivalent of asking me how I know the woman I sleep with every night is really my wife and not an android. I know she exists, I met her, talk to her, and live with her. Some things are just undeniable.
"Similarly, others can't erase the experience they had with a different god simply because you claim to have had an experience with Christ. But does your sentence mean that you acknowledge that there might be other gods?
If not, why not simply state that all the others are deluded?"
I actually think they are deluded. They would tell you the same. I'm not concerned with that. All I can do is go with what I know and what I experience.
"That is the equivalent of asking me how I know the woman I sleep with every night is really my wife and not an android. I know she exists, I met her, talk to her, and live with her. Some things are just undeniable."
You didn't really answer my question, which is how you know that is was Christ you had an experience with. In the case of your wife, for instance, you could go by your senses. But what is it that makes you so sure it was Christ you experiences and not another God, or worse even, Satan trying to deceive you?
"I actually think they are deluded. They would tell you the same. I'm not concerned with that."
See above. Unless you have some specific knowledge with which you can determine that your experience was right and theirs wrong it should concern you. After all, you could be wrong and they could be right.
"All I can do is go with what I know and what I experience."
I have never had an experience with any god. Does that mean I'm right being an atheist?
"You didn't really answer my question, which is how you know that is was Christ you had an experience with."
Because His name is Jesus Christ and I know Him. Not sure how else to explain it. My senses tell me He's Jesus, my intellect tells me He's Jesus. Even that can only get me so far, in the end its about faith, same with any other religion. Its not about "knowing" but believing". If you're looking for some concrete evidence that He's Jesus I don't have it obviously. That's why its called "faith".
"Unless you have some specific knowledge with which you can determine that your experience was right and theirs wrong it should concern you. After all, you could be wrong and they could be right."
But I don't believe they are so it doesn't concern me. That belief is again based on what I know of the Christian God, the way He's revealed Himself to me. Yes, I'm aware advocates of other faiths have the same answer. Not sure what point you're driving at.
"I have never had an experience with any god. Does that mean I'm right being an atheist?"
Of course not.
"Of course not.
Why not? If I understood correctly, you stated earlier that you changed and live your life the way you do now because of your experience with Christ.
But I haven't had such an experience. In the other thread you said:
"Until one of these other "gods" makes themselves known, they don't exist."
Christ hasn't made himself known to me. So, by your logic, He doesn't exist. Right? If not, why make an exception for Christ?
Note highboy's "3:47" post near the bottom of this thread. Note that he quotes a comment of mine that doesn't exist. My comment was obviously there at some point, because hb quotes it. And because I saw it load after I wrote it on Friday, but by the time I signed in later that night it was gone. Anyway, this isn't the first time this has happened. And the way it does leads me to believe that Radar is doing the deleting for some reason, probably because I stated that prayer is a waste of time. Anyway, deleted comments make something that's already bit of a waste of time into an even bigger one. So congrats radar, you have successfully stifled debate yet again. With that, I'm out.
- Canucklehead.
Oh and hb, I didn't read anything you wrote after my comment went missing but, for the record, you are an extremist nut that will NEVER get his way (politically, religiously, or otherwise). Nobody agrees with you. Not even your christian friends. Open your mind and who, knows, you might even be a happier person for it.
Canucklehead, I never erase comments. If yours disappeared it was because blogger thought it was spam, you accidently did it yourself or you are hallucinating.
Time stamps might be for the time zone in which they are posted, I have never looked to see.
"Canucklehead, I never erase comments."
Seeing as "never" has a pretty specific and absolute meaning and the readers of your blog are all aware of an instance when you did erase comments, we can say that this claim of yours is inoperative.
A more truthful statement would be "I rarely erase comments, but when I do, you can tell, because the entire post will be missing."
OK, so now my comment that Radar has responded to (with the lie that he "never" deletes comments) is gone as well. Would you agree, Radar, that you're not hallucinating? My comment was up for all to see, one minute, and it's gone a few hours later, for apparently no reason. This is your blog, Radar, and it's clearly not working properly. I think you should probably do something about this or suffer the consequences. I mean, personally, it's just not worth my time to bother commenting and/or visiting if comments are just going to randomly disappear (and I'm sure I'm not alone in this sentiment). Anyway, have fun, Radar, but I'm out.
- Canucklehead.
For a minute I thought Canucklehead was either going insane or deliberately erasing his own comments. I get an email with each comment that is published but not all of them are here. Now I know why- blogspot has identified Canucklehead as Spammer! He has a couple of comments in the spam folder online.
So quit sputtering, I am going to release them from their prison. If I do, maybe blogspot will decide you are not a spammer?
Um, thanks Radar, I think?
- Canucklehead.
Post a Comment