Religious labels don't tell the truth about religious belief

News of the Weird

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11699849

http://www.opusangelorum.org/

Sign me up!

peterhuff,

"It looks like more of your world-view is emerging (from nothing)."

Looks can be deceiving, you know.

"Evolution seems to be a HOT topic."

From what I've seen, it is a misunderstood topic, especially among believers.

"Philosophical naturalism here I come."

Yeah, well, good luck with that.

"You are doing all right for someone who believes nothing!"

I'm comfortable.

RCofield,

"Do tell. I mean…….do…..tell…."

I just did.

"No, it is actually a word that many of us use in the pejorative sense when highly educated folks like yourself begin talking down your noses to us po unejukatid folk."

You think that I'm highly educated?

"Darn. You had me fooled."

You think that I'm a scientist?

"Are you feeling especially attractive today?"

No more than usual.

"Are you feeling attractive AND lonely today, Peregrine?"

No more than usual, and no, I'm not going to tell you what I'm wearing.

"As I recall, that was the exact same argument Peter used."

Are you recalling, or believing?

"You ARE learning something from him after all."

No, actually, I've been deceptive and passive aggressive all my life.

"You don’t get out much, do you?"

More than I care to admit.

"Are we back to this discussion being a “rodeo” again?"

I'm beginning to wonder if you get out at all.

Hi Psolus,

It looks like more of your world-view is emerging (from nothing). Evolution seems to be a HOT topic.
Philosophical naturalism here I come. You are doing all right for someone who believes nothing!

PEREGRINE,

PER: “That is correct; your comments show that you are apparently incapable of understanding evolution theory.”

RCO: Do tell. I mean…….do…..tell….

PER: “Is the word "elitist" evangelical code for not agreeing with evangelical beliefs, or for just having an education?”

RCO: No, it is actually a word that many of us use in the pejorative sense when highly educated folks like yourself begin talking down your noses to us po unejukatid folk.

RCO: "Are you a scientist, Peregrine?"

PER: “No.”

RCO: Darn. You had me fooled.

PER: “Are you hitting on me?”

RCO: Are you feeling especially attractive today?

PER: “Again, are you hitting on me?”

RCO: Are you feeling attractive AND lonely today, Peregrine?

PER: “Yes, you tell me with every comment that you type.”

RCO: As I recall, that was the exact same argument Peter used. You ARE learning something from him after all.

PER: “You are hitting on me!”

RCO: You don’t get out much, do you?

PER: “You know that I don't ride that pony, don't you?”

RCO: Are we back to this discussion being a “rodeo” again?

RCofield,

"Hmmmm....Sidestep an argument by dismissing it as a "straw-man"....and I'm "incapable" of understanding evolution?"

That is correct; your comments show that you are apparently incapable of understanding evolution theory.

"My, my, Peregrine, aren't your elitist roots showing today!"

Is the word "elitist" evangelical code for not agreeing with evangelical beliefs, or for just having an education?

"Are you a scientist, Peregrine?"

No.

"You wanna whip out your "understanding" of the sciences (you do no there are more than one, don't you?) and let me whip out my understanding of the sciences and let's measure them and see whose is the longest?"

Are you hitting on me?

"And of course, we all know that if there are disagreements over facts, we can, in fact, know nothing as factual now, can we?"

Remember, we're talking about biblical "facts" here.

"Now, remind me, who exactly is offering "straw-man" arguments here?"

That would be you.

"Might want to read that paragraph again."

No, I might not.

"Almost?"

Yes, almost.

"And whoa there, big fella!"

Again, are you hitting on me?

You contend that PETERHUFF can't possibly know what you are "thinking," but you know what I am "dreaming about?"

Yes, you tell me with every comment that you type.

"Is that a crystal ball in your pocket Peregrine, or are you just glad to see me?"

You are hitting on me!

You know that I don't ride that pony, don't you?

CORRECTION:

"you do no there are more than one, don't you?"

SHOULD READ:

"you do KNOW there are more than one, don't you?"

PEREGRINE,

"It appears to me that "these almost numberless transitional forms" is simply a straw-man argument to compensate for the fact that you are arguing against a scientific theory that you are incapable of understanding."

Hmmmm....Sidestep an argument by dismissing it as a "straw-man"....and I'm "incapable" of understanding evolution? My, my, Peregrine, aren't your elitist roots showing today!

"From that statement, it appears that you understand nothing about science in general."

Oooooohhhhh! Shiver me timbers, the canon ball-like accusations of ignorance and stupidity are filling the air. Are you a scientist, Peregrine? You wanna whip out your "understanding" of the sciences (you do no there are more than one, don't you?) and let me whip out my understanding of the sciences and let's measure them and see whose is the longest?

"That must be why nobody ever argues over what they mean, and why there are not dozens of denominations, each subscribing to their own interpretation of your bible."

And of course, we all know that if there are disagreements over facts, we can, in fact, know nothing as factual now, can we? Now, remind me, who exactly is offering "straw-man" arguments here?

"Well, that settles that."

Might want to read that paragraph again.

"The evidence you are dreaming about almost certainly does not exist, for good reason."

Almost?

And whoa there, big fella! You contend that PETERHUFF can't possibly know what you are "thinking," but you know what I am "dreaming about?" Is that a crystal ball in your pocket Peregrine, or are you just glad to see me?

test

RCofield,

"Short answer--yes. But you once said you like to think of things in terms of "probabilities." How "probable" do you think it is that after 150 years of desperately searching for and not finding them that we will suddenly come upon all these almost numberless transitional forms that should literally litter the fossil record?"

It appears to me that "these almost numberless transitional forms" is simply a straw-man argument to compensate for the fact that you are arguing against a scientific theory that you are incapable of understanding.

"Simply put, if evolutionary theory were proven true beyond any reasonable doubt, then the creation account of scripture would have been proven false, and hence the biblical record fallible."

From that statement, it appears that you understand nothing about science in general.

"The "facts" of Scripture are clearly stated and are not open to being "re-interpreted" by myself or anyone else."

That must be why nobody ever argues over what they mean, and why there are not dozens of denominations, each subscribing to their own interpretation of your bible.

"Those who attempt to do so have already surrendered the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture. And if "new knowledge" exists, then the divine authorship of scripture by an Omniscient God is a myth."

Well, that settles that.

"Now, turning the tables a bit here, what level of "evidence" would be necessary for you acknowledge the "probability" that God exists?"

The evidence you are dreaming about almost certainly does not exist, for good reason.

I haven't check the news in a few days, but looks like some people are getting fed-up with Obama's waffling.

Your country may be on its way back to political grid-lock; us verses them, survival of the fittest. (^8

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/Jordan_Sekulow/2010/11/were_back_christian_conservatives_swarm_congress.html

Posted by: peterhuff | November 3, 2010 10:13 PM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ain't that the truth! Don't know if you have read it yet, but Albert Mohler has a very insightful blog on this very issue here:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/r_albert_mohler_jr/2010/11/new_political_equation_for_religious_right.html

PETER, WALTER, PSOLUS, et al,

Not sure why this thread is still active as it is now into it's 15th day.

Just as a reminder, let's go here when this one times out:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/jonathan_merritt/2010/11/voting_values_doesnt_mean_endorsing_a_party.html

CORRECTION:

"....what level of "evidence" would be necessary for you acknowledge the "probability" that God exists?"

SHOULD READ:

"....what level of "evidence" would be necessary for you TO acknowledge the "probability" that God exists?

PEREGRINE,

"Even if the fossil record contradicted the "facts" as stated in your bible?"

Short answer--yes. But you once said you like to think of things in terms of "probabilities." How "probable" do you think it is that after 150 years of desperately searching for and not finding them that we will suddenly come upon all these almost numberless transitional forms that should literally litter the fossil record?

"Would you be able to believe that your bible may not be as absolutely infallible as you currently believe that it is?"

Simply put, if evolutionary theory were proven true beyond any reasonable doubt, then the creation account of scripture would have been proven false, and hence the biblical record fallible.

"Or would you simply "re-interpret" the "facts" as stated in your bible, to accommodate the new knowledge?"

The "facts" of Scripture are clearly stated and are not open to being "re-interpreted" by myself or anyone else. Those who attempt to do so have already surrendered the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture. And if "new knowledge" exists, then the divine authorship of scripture by an Omniscient God is a myth.

Now, turning the tables a bit here, what level of "evidence" would be necessary for you acknowledge the "probability" that God exists?

test

I haven't check the news in a few days, but looks like some people are getting fed-up with Obama's waffling.

Your country may be on its way back to political grid-lock; us verses them, survival of the fittest. (^8

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/Jordan_Sekulow/2010/11/were_back_christian_conservatives_swarm_congress.html

Hi RCofield,

RCO: "As for Pam's view of your “grasp of evolution,” the short dialog I had with her before she disappeared would indicate that her grasp of Scripture is a good deal less than “sufficient.” She was just regurgitating liberal textual critics, whose arguments are often so uninformed of the basic text of Scripture that it is laughable."

I could have used your razor sharp insights. I had to go back to the drawing board on a number of occasions. I happened to read Phil Johnston, The Wedge of Truth. That helped me get a better perspective on the argument.

I keep making the distinction between evolutionary science and science with these guys. I also heard a name being bantered around in Christian circles - Thomas Kuhn. I don't know if you have heard his arguments against the scientific method. I still have not got hold of his book, but this link helped me to understand what he was getting at a little more clearly.

http://www.frame-poythress.org/Poythress_books/Science/bs3.html#2

http://www.frame-poythress.org/Poythress_books/Science/bs0.html#contents

RCO: "I'm with you on the “young earth” position. Ross and Collins, like many in the evangelical camp, are overly influenced by the scientifically dubious and ever-shifting popular theories of evolution. Malcolm Muggeridge, the famous British journalist and philosopher said, “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in history books of the future.” I agree. It is just a matter of time before people begin to realize that the countless transitional forms necessary to support this theory are just simply not going to be found in the fossil record."

I wasn't sure on where you stood, but you are doing a smack-up job in dismantling Walter's position on slavery and abortion - deeper yet, with his theory of evolving morals and the culture today.

I agree totally with Muggeridge too. And I learned a long time ago that God's word is the highest authority I can appeal to. Sometimes I may not handle it correctly, but the truth is His.

Something else I learned a long time ago (I think it was from Henry Morris or Ravi Zacharius), and that is, if you want to find out about someone, find out who influences them. You start doing that and their world-view bias starts to unravel very quickly. It is ultimately the question of where they place their ultimate authority, and that is in some fallible human(s). That is a slippery slope all to often.

RCO: "Yes. It is always interesting that evolutionists want to claim “discrepancies” in the biblical time-line of a few hundred years, all the while ignoring the radical contradictions that their own dating methods produce involving thousands, even millions of years."

The point is that they were not there (Just as God questioned Job in Job 38). They are interpreting the evidence just like the next guy. God's word has proved trustworthy; theirs has not.

RCofield,

"I guess I would have to begin to take the theory more seriously than I do now,..."

Even if the fossil record contradicted the "facts" as stated in your bible?

Would you be able to believe that your bible may not be as absolutely infallible as you currently believe that it is?

Or would you simply "re-interpret" the "facts" as stated in your bible, to accommodate the new knowledge?

PEREGRINE,

"If these "countless transitional forms necessary to support this theory" were "found in the fossil record", would you suddenly "believe" evolution theory?"

I guess I would have to begin to take the theory more seriously than I do now, but then if a little green man from Mars landed a flying saucer on the White House lawn I would have to begin taking extra-terrestrial life-theory more seriously as well. One seems about as likely as the other.

RCofield,

"It is just a matter of time before people begin to realize that the countless transitional forms necessary to support this theory are just simply not going to be found in the fossil record."

If these "countless transitional forms necessary to support this theory" were "found in the fossil record", would you suddenly "believe" evolution theory?

Hey Peter,

“I haven't heard from Pam for a few months now, but I believe we agreed to discuss my critique on a book she requested I read on evolution; Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True. My aim is to do the best possible in tearing down this stronghold. She doesn't see my grasp of evolution as sufficient, but I don't see evolution as a viable world-view either.”

Yeah, Coyne is a kamikaze evolutionist if there ever was one, as I am sure you are aware. I guess there have to be radicals in every camp. As for Pam's view of your “grasp of evolution,” the short dialog I had with her before she disappeared would indicate that her grasp of Scripture is a good deal less than “sufficient.” She was just regurgitating liberal textual critics, whose arguments are often so uninformed of the basic text of Scripture that it is laughable.

“Walter has also had his digs. You see, I believe God's word reveals a young earth. That goes against the secular grain, and even many Christians, especially scientist, feel that God used theistic evolution/long eons of time. Hugh Ross is of the billions of years camp. Francis Collins, I've heard, is of the theistic evolution/long eons of time camp.”

I'm with you on the “young earth” position. Ross and Collins, like many in the evangelical camp, are overly influenced by the scientifically dubious and ever-shifting popular theories of evolution. Malcolm Muggeridge, the famous British journalist and philosopher said, “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in history books of the future.” I agree. It is just a matter of time before people begin to realize that the countless transitional forms necessary to support this theory are just simply not going to be found in the fossil record.

“Walter has pointed out some of what he feels are discrepancies in a young earth view, especially concerning the Flood and the dating game, but he uses a secular mind-view to arrive at his conclusions.”

Yes. It is always interesting that evolutionists want to claim “discrepancies” in the biblical time-line of a few hundred years, all the while ignoring the radical contradictions that their own dating methods produce involving thousands, even millions of years.

Hi RCofield,

I haven't heard from Pam for a few months now, but I believe we agreed to discuss my critique on a book she requested I read on evolution; Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True. My aim is to do the best possible in tearing down this stronghold. She doesn't see my grasp of evolution as sufficient, but I don't see evolution as a viable world-view either.

Walter has also had his digs. You see, I believe God's word reveals a young earth. That goes against the secular grain, and even many Christians, especially scientist, feel that God used theistic evolution/long eons of time. Hugh Ross is of the billions of years camp. Francis Collins, I've heard, is of the theistic evolution/long eons of time camp.

Walter has pointed out some of what he feels are discrepancies in a young earth view, especially concerning the Flood and the dating game, but he uses a secular mind-view to arrive at his conclusions.

The Discovery Institute (Phil Johnston among others) has done a great job of revealing some of the unfavorable suppositions of the macro- evolutionary scientists, and in discussing origins has shown the incredible fine-tuning involved.

Anyway, I'm out of time (working tomorrow and Thursday).

PETER, WALTER, PSOLUS, et al

If my calculations are correct, this thread will expire and experience interment in the WaPo archives at precisely 1:06:59 PM ET tomorrow, November 3, 2010.

Let's go here:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/jonathan_merritt/2010/11/voting_values_doesnt_mean_endorsing_a_party.html

Balloons and other party favors for the first 100 blogomaniacs who arrive there. In the event that PSOLUS is one of these first 100, he will receive a select bottle of chardonnay (without too much "oakiness," of course).

Hey Peter,

I've missed having you around for the last several days!

Given that Psolus has fallen strangely silent and Walter seems to be tailing off, this may give us a chance to get to know one another better.

I see you mentioned Pam. Have you made contact with her again?

Hi Walter,

Please excuse me for not getting involved as of late. You seem to be focused in a heated debate with RCO.

WALT: “(furthermore their position is hardly out of the ordinary on this. there are many christians (peter huff included, at least formerly - i don't know if you've swayed him on this) who admit the bible doesn't prohibit slavery. http://www.bible-researcher.com/slavery.html in fact, it's my understanding that MOST christians grudgingly admit of biblically-sanctioned slavery existed, and apologize for it somehow: "it wasn't so bad" or "that's just the way it was back then" or "god/jesus was concerned about souls, not reforming society" or "we're all slaves ot sin" etc.... i can see how these "apologies" can leave the believer feeling rather uncomfortable. i believe this is the source of your motivation to purge slavery from the bible.

We are talking about different types of slavery. I've said in the past that God allows the type of slavery that you recognize as bad (although you still have not justified how your shifting moral base can ever justify anything), as a teacher to lead us to Christ. It teaches the moral depravity of man and that there is freedom in Christ. But as demonstrated in the link I sent you, and more so by RCO, the type of slavery that God allowed to help the poor and needy is different from the type the Israelites suffered at the hands of the Egyptians or the kind practiced in the south.

Remember how I compared the bondage of the mind to slavery. Do you not see the similarity involved in prostitution or other forms of bondage, as RCO has laid out. These are sick acts done by sick people.

The 'natural man' is in bondage to all kinds of slavery; things that are immoral and that he needs freedom from.

Anyway Walter, I'm watching to see how this all unfolds. I also have to prepare a response for Pam. I believe we said either January 1st or April 1st.

WALTER,

WALT: rco, you said,
"Prostitution, in the vast majority of cases, represents the OWNERSHIP of women and children by pimps, brothel owners, and even customers."

WALT: this sounds like you're talking about illegal prostitution. if it were legal, there wouldn't be pimps etc... and, come on, i never said anything about legalizing it for children.

RCO: Walter, do you honestly think that pimps, brothel owners, and abusive “customers” would somehow magically disappear if prostitution were legalized?! Good grief, man, your naiveté on these issues is sometimes breathtaking.

RCO: "The purposes of this ownership are financial gain, sexual gratification, and/or power and domination."

WALT: “ownership of a person is now illegal. "financial gain, sexual gratification and/or power and domination" are not, and should not be, illegal.”

Financial gain from the prostitution and consequent abuse of women should not be illegal?! Who’s being “sexist” here, Walter? And sexual gratification at the expense of a woman’s virtue and having power over a woman’s body and exercising domination of said woman should not be illegal?!! Wow. Maybe you want to re-think that statement? If not, that may be the most “sexist” statement I have ever seen in print!

WALT: blah, blah, blah... have fun railing against those things. in fact, i'll jump right in with you. those things are largely products of prostitution's being illegal.

RCO: Women being forced into prostitution is “largely a product of prostitution’s being illegal?” Children and women being abused, subjugated, and enslaved is “largely a product of prostitution’s being illegal?” Again, do you think such abuse would magically disappear if prostitution were made legal?

RCO: “Bottom line: Prostitution represents one of the most violent and repulsive forms of SLAVERY known to man. The violence done to women (and men and even children) in prostitution is almost immeasurable when one thinks about it even for a moment."

WALT: “it is only slavery if it's involuntary. i'm against "violence" being done to women and men and children.”

RCO: So…Walter, how is “violence” not being done to a woman when a man pays money to her (or her pimp/madame) to have sexual relations with a woman who is not his wife? Do you understand nothing about the psychological make-up of a woman and how see views sexual intercourse?! You appear to think women somehow enjoy the sort of abuse that is inherent in prostitution. Talk about sexist! Your double standards are beginning to take on a life of their own here.

Simple question: Do you know of any woman who, possessing a sound mind, would “voluntarily” subject herself to the dehumanizing act of prostitution?

rco,
re my pastor: see my emails to you guys.

rco, you said,
"Prostitution, in the vast majority of cases, represents the OWNERSHIP of women and children by pimps, brothel owners, and even customers."

this sounds like you're talking about illegal prostitution. if it were legal, there wouldn't be pimps etc... and, come on, i never said anything about legalizing it for children.

"The purposes of this ownership are financial gain, sexual gratification, and/or power and domination."

ownership of a person is now illegal. "financial gain, sexual gratification and/or power and domination" are not, and should not be, illegal.

"Of those women who appear to work in prostitution voluntarily, many if not most endured situations of ENSLAVEMENT as children [i'm against that!], dominated by sexually abusive adults [i'm staunchly anti-adults-who-sexually-abuse-children] or, as adolescents or young women, suffered violent SUBJUGATION to abusive husbands or boyfriends." [abusive husbands and boyfriends are bad too. i'm not "in favor" of them... in fact, as with some of the horrible people/things you described above, i'm strongly anti-boyfriends-and-husbands-who-abuse.] That subjugation is continued in prostitution, whether over the long term by the pimp, who controls her every movement and confiscates her earnings, or, for a shorter duration by the customer, who buys her body for a night or week and requires total compliance with his sexual demands.

blah, blah, blah... have fun railing against those things. in fact, i'll jump right in with you. those things are largely products of prostitution's being illegal.

Bottom line: Prostitution represents one of the most violent and repulsive forms of SLAVERY known to man. The violence done to women (and men and even children) in prostitution is almost immeasurable when one thinks about it even for a moment."

it is only slavery if it's involuntary. i'm against "violence" being done to women and men and children.

WALTER,

I received two emails from your pastor on the slavery issue. Please communicate my gratitude to him for his prompt response. Three quick questions:

Did he forward them to you as well?

If so, are you satisfied that they sufficiently represent the conversation that you had with him?

Do you mind if I reply directly to your pastor seeking further information?

WALTER,

A while back I questioned you on the issue of polygamy. You responded that it should be legalized, along with PROSTITUTION.

You have made quite an issue out of slavery over the past several weeks, castigating what you believe to be the bible’s advocacy of such with no small measure of righteous indignation, even proclaiming your morality to be superior to the “morality” of the God of the bible.

However, just as with the abortion issue, you are holding a double-standard here as a result of your subjective view of morality.

Prostitution, in the vast majority of cases, represents the OWNERSHIP of women and children by pimps, brothel owners, and even customers. The purposes of this ownership are financial gain, sexual gratification, and/or power and domination.

Of those women who appear to work in prostitution voluntarily, many if not most endured situations of ENSLAVEMENT as children, dominated by sexually abusive adults or, as adolescents or young women, suffered violent SUBJUGATION to abusive husbands or boyfriends. That subjugation is continued in prostitution, whether over the long term by the pimp, who controls her every movement and confiscates her earnings, or, for a shorter duration by the customer, who buys her body for a night or week and requires total compliance with his sexual demands.

Bottom line: Prostitution represents one of the most violent and repulsive forms of SLAVERY known to man. The violence done to women (and men and even children) in prostitution is almost immeasurable when one thinks about it even for a moment.

And you contend it should be legalized.

Double-standard? You bet.

“Evolving” morality? Do tell.

WALTER,

Part 1 of 2

WALT: “and, i WAS aware of the differetn kinds (i.e. - the israelites' hebrew/non-hebrew double standard) about slavery in the old testament. somehow you got the idea i wasn't aware of it in your head and have run with it.”

Riiiiight. Only I was not talking about a “Hebrew” standard. You still have no idea what I am talking about though I have explained it in plain English no less than a half dozen times.

WALT: “well, that's because "enslavers" is not in 1tim1:10 of any any bible i'd ever read. true, it's in the version you've picked - but none others i can find.”

Which is precisely why you should look up the word in a Greek lexicon, as I suggested 2 months ago.

WALT: “...i'm not really a bible expert....”

You’re not?!

WALT: “perhaps the idea of me going to church for other than a get-out-of-hell-free card boggles you. whatever.”

Actually, the idea of someone going to church to obtain a get-out-of-hell-free card boggles my mind.

WALT: “this came just after you had "googled" my church and pastors - which i found (find) extrremely forward and creepy on your part.”

Oooooohhhhhh! Spooky stuff, huh? I’m oscillating back and forth between thinking that really messed you up and thinking you are just posturing. Me thinks thou doest protest too much.

WALT: “"rules", "examine the SOURCE of “evidence” "?! that all sounds very legalistic and accusatory.”

You sound skittish and jumpy. Maybe it’ll pass after Halloween.

So….shall we dispense with all rules of debate in our discussions?

WALTER,

Part 2 of 2

WALT: “and you "google" my church, and put one of their names into a post. jeez, man... that's crossing a line.”

You know, you could keep making an issue about this long enough that we would all begin to wonder if you have something to hide.

And you might want to consider this: I didn’t have any information to “google” that you hadn’t already happily divulged.

WALT: “(furthermore their position is hardly out of the ordinary on this. there are many christians (peter huff included, at least formerly - i don't know if you've swayed him on this) who admit the bible doesn't prohibit slavery. http://www.bible-researcher.com/slavery.html in fact, it's my understanding that MOST christians grudgingly admit of biblically-sanctioned slavery existed, and apologize for it somehow: "it wasn't so bad" or "that's just the way it was back then" or "god/jesus was concerned about souls, not reforming society" or "we're all slaves ot sin" etc.... i can see how these "apologies" can leave the believer feeling rather uncomfortable. i believe this is the source of your motivation to purge slavery from the bible. http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html )”

Ex 21:16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

1Ti 1:9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, ENSLAVERS, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

WALT: “"put up or shut up"?! following your statements about "unsubstantiated evidence". that's accusatory. if you are truly deluded enough to think your series of posts about my pastors is not accusatory (and even somehow threatening), let me inform you that it is.”

You know, Walter, your pastors should be able to counsel you from the bible to help you overcome paranoia. If not, I could help you privately if you will send me your email address……(play spooky music)…..

WALTER,

RCO: "You know, Walter, I was going to let you off the hook gently on the “pastors” thing—until I saw your last two posts. You really don't recognize when your bluff has been called and you have nothing in your hand, do you?
WALT: “note you said "let me off the hook" "about "the pastors thing". .... the pastors...NOT the slavery thing. if words have any meaning, this is you calling my "bluff" on "the pastors thing".”

WALT: “(one has replied and will not join us, but is glad to send you an email (if you give me your email address) attesting to 1)his existence and 2)my family's membership at his church and 3)our recent conversation about slavery in the bible and 4)his interpretation of slavery in the bible as a whole and specifically your 2 proofed-texted abolitionist verses and 5)the fact that i've been giving tennis lessons to the P.E. classes at the church's elementary school during the month of october.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

RCO: Look, Walter, I told you both before and after you got your tail in a knot on this that I was glad that you went to your pastors. You’re still trying to make this into an issue of me saying you were “lying” about having pastors/going to them/ what they said, etc.

The flat out fact is I never said any of those things, and anyone who wants to take the time to go back and read my posts can verify that. I would have only been “calling your bluff” about the pastors thing if I thought you were lying. I never thought such and I never said such.

The “poor offended me” posturing is wearing thin. Get over it.

My email address is randy@promillms.com

part 3 (of 3)
"And then you turn right around and start bustin' my chops on the slavery issue again.

when i went back to slavery w/the ingersoll/paine etc...post, i was trying to catch up on earlier posts.

"Walter, I am perfectly within the rules governing reasonable debate when I request the opportunity to examine the SOURCE of “evidence” that YOU have presented against my position."

"rules", "examine the SOURCE of “evidence” "?! that all sounds very legalistic and accusatory.

"You really should do one or the other of the following:

"1.Either request that “your pastors” join us in this discussion (or agree to my requesting that they do so)

"2.OR, retract your unsubstantiated “evidence” and concede that you have lost this particular point of our debate.

again, very accusatory. "unsubstantiated"? like i'm making it up. like you don't think i can produce pastors who'll say this. a normal person would have said something like, "sure, there are people who interpret the bible that way, but others don't. i think your pastors are wrong about their interpretation." instead, you're saying, "prove it. prove that your pastors said that." and you "google" my church, and put one of their names into a post. jeez, man... that's crossing a line.

(furthermore their position is hardly out of the ordinary on this. there are many christians (peter huff included, at least formerly - i don't know if you've swayed him on this) who admit the bible doesn't prohibit slavery. http://www.bible-researcher.com/slavery.html in fact, it's my understanding that MOST christians grudgingly admit of biblically-sanctioned slavery existed, and apologize for it somehow: "it wasn't so bad" or "that's just the way it was back then" or "god/jesus was concerned about souls, not reforming society" or "we're all slaves ot sin" etc.... i can see how these "apologies" can leave the believer feeling rather uncomfortable. i believe this is the source of your motivation to purge slavery from the bible. http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html )

"This is perfectly consistent with the rules of civil debate."

"To put it short and sweet: I am saying that you need to either put up or shut up on the slavery issue."

"put up or shut up"?! following your statements about "unsubstantiated evidence". that's accusatory. if you are truly deluded enough to think your series of posts about my pastors is not accusatory (and even somehow threatening), let me inform you that it is.

"Whadda ya think?"

i've told ya what i think about you and the bible and slavery. that hasn't changed.

Man, this thing is dead as a hammer. I know Walter's hacked off with me, but where'd the rest of yo guys go?

part 2,
"Not willing to concede that you were wrong, you, an rabidly anti-theistic atheist, went to “your pastors” in a FUNDAMENTALIST Lutheran church to seek out their “expert opinion” on the slavery issue. (You gotta admit, THAT is funny! Did you forget that you are an atheist?)

perhaps the idea of me going to church for other than a get-out-of-hell-free card boggles you. whatever.

"You then, with many rhetorical flourishes for emphasis, present the “evidence” of “your pastors” against my exposition of the bible's position on forced slavery (see your post @ October 27, 2010 9:56 AM)"

here's the relevant part of my october 27, 2010 9:56 am post:

today, i talked to both of the pastors (separately) at our church about ex21, 1tim1:10, and lev25:44- et.al. they BOTH said that nowhere does the bible prohibit slavery. they said verses ex21:16 and 1tim1:10 refer to illegal "man-stealing". sort of like it's not illegal to sell cars, but it's illegal to sell stolen cars. one said in the context of the many other "slavery" verses that it's clear that "non-voluntary" slavery was "allowed".

i told them about our converstaion, and the funny part is that without me at all prompting them they BOTH said that someone claiming the bible prohibits slavery is "imposing today's moral standards on the bible". one even said "proof-texting". these guys both know the hebrew and greek text and, you know, went to god school and write sermons and so forth. no doubt they could be wrong about this, but, i'm jujst sayin'...

"I then proposed that we bring them into this discussion so that I might question them directly as to their position on this matter. And you respond:

WALT: “i really don't want to go any further down this line now.”

when i said, "i really don't want to go any further down this line now", i meant terms of your pursuing my pastors to join us. this came just after you had "googled" my church and pastors - which i found (find) extrremely forward and creepy on your part. (one has replied and will not join us, but is glad to send you an email (if you give me your email address) attesting to 1)his existence and 2)my family's membership at his church and 3)our recent conversation about slavery in the bible and 4)his interpretation of slavery in the bible as a whole and specifically your 2 proofed-texted abolitionist verses and 5)the fact that i've been giving tennis lessons to the P.E. classes at the church's elementary school during the month of october. the other pastor hasn't replied yet.... but maybe he's tending to theists in his flock...)

part 1

rco,
only in your world could your series of posts about my pastors be construed as other than you accusing me of lying about them.

"You know, Walter, I was going to let you off the hook gently on the “pastors” thing—until I saw your last two posts. You really don't recognize when your bluff has been called and you have nothing in your hand, do you?

note you said "let me off the hook" "about "the pastors thing". .... the pastors...NOT the slavery thing. if words have any meaning, this is you calling my "bluff" on "the pastors thing".

"Let me see if I can reconstruct what happened here. YOU brought up the issue of slavery. You spent weeks “proof-texting” trying to “prove” your presupposition that the bible condones/advocates forced slavery. I systematically deconstructed your “proof-texts” and exposed you to at least two clear, unambiguous texts that prohibit forced slavery and even pronounced it worthy of death. You were, at the time, completely unaware of these texts. You were just as obviously unaware of A.N.E. practice of individuals willingly selling themselves as slaves for material/marital considerations AND the practice of people becoming willing “bondservants” for life."

don't flatter yourself with characterizations like "I systematically deconstructed your “proof-texts”..." puleeeze. your "deconstructions" are only convincing to those with your presuppositions.... and, i WAS aware of the differetn kinds (i.e. - the israelites' hebrew/non-hebrew double standard) about slavery in the old testament. somehow you got the idea i wasn't aware of it in your head and have run with it.

you might be conflating the slavery double standard with the fact that i didn't know about the word "enslavers" in 1tim1:10. well, that's because "enslavers" is not in 1tim1:10 of any any bible i'd ever read. true, it's in the version you've picked - but none others i can find. now i'm sure the same exceptionalism and conceit which lets you think that out of all the religions that have ever existed, you've picked the right one, allows you to think that out of all the bible versions, that you've got the right one. the fact is it is you who are projecting your presuppositions on the bible. i "came to" the bible fully expecting it to decry slavery, and as i've mentioned before i was disappointed with what i found - especially the old testament. but....i'm not really a bible expert....so....i asked MY pastors about what they thought was in there. certainly these guys don't bring any "presuppostion that the bible promote/advocates forced slavery" to the bible. they love the bible. they essentially think god wrote it. AND, being bible experts, they can draw ALL the bible's slavery verses, IN CONTEXT, in the original languages, and draw on their education about "biblical times" and so forth to formulate an opinion the issue.

WALTER,

I just noticed something. Look at the portion of my statement that you highlighted with bold type:

"You really don't recognize when **your bluff has been called and you have nothing in your hand, do you?"**

Even worse than lifting the above statement out of the context of the entire post, you are lifting it from the context of the SENTENCE in which it is found. You are focusing only on PART of the entire sentence, to the exclusion of the rest of it.

I didn't say "Your bluff has been called and you have nothing in your hand, do you?" I said "You really don't recognize when your bluff has been called and you have nothing in your hand, do you?" Do you not see the difference?

I've "called your bluff" over and over in this debate about slavery, and you consistently have "nothing in your hand." Yet you fail to realize that fact, hence my statement "**You really don't recognize** when your bluff has been called and you have nothing in your hand, **do you?**"

That is exactly how you arrive at some of the wild interpretations of scripture that you do. This is a case-in-point of what I mean when I say you are proof-texting bible passages. You decide what you want it to say, then you isolate words, partial sentences, sections of verses, etc., and viola...it says exactly what you want it to say. To heck with word meaning, to heck with historical setting, to heck with context, to heck with viewing scripture as a cohesive whole.

You just maul it and mangle it until is says what you want it to say, just as you did with my statement here.

Then you turn around an claim that the bible is not reliable because so many different people interpret it so many different ways!

Well, yes, if words have no meaning and historical setting, grammatical considerations, and context are ignored, then the bible is not reliable.

But Walter, NO TEXT is reliable if you ignore normative interpretive principles!

WALTER,

WALT: rco, you said,
"As for your question “what exactly are you accusing me of” in relation to this “pastors” issue, if you will go back and read my posts you will find that I have accused you of nothing."

jeez, rco. what color is the sky in your world?! here, you are bearing false witness against yourself. you just said:

"You know, Walter, I was going to let you off the hook gently on the “pastors” thing—until I saw your last two posts. You really don't recognize when your bluff has been called and you have nothing in your hand, do you?"

that is an accusation - so gthooh with that "i have accused you of nothing" baloney.
+++++++++++++++++++++

RCO: Context, Walter, context. If you will go back and look at the entire email from which you lifted the above quote you will see that I am referring to the whole of your slavery accusation against God. (BTW: You are starting to read my posts that same way you read the bible--with no regard for context.)

All the way back at the beginning of this particular discussion you claimed the bible/God advocated/condoned slavery. I called your bluff. Over and over you present "evidence" that is actually no evidence at all, and over and over I demonstrate that. Hence, my statement "You really don't recognize when your bluff has been called and you have nothing in your hand, do you?"

If that is an accusation in you world, well, I guess you "got me." But your previous post insinuated that I was accusing you of being dishonest. You asked "are you assuming i am lying about what my pastors said? or that i even asked my pastors? or that i even have pastors? are you assuming i am lying about what my pastors said? or that i even asked my pastors? or that i even have pastors? what exactly are you **accusing** me of?"

Go back, read my posts on this matter, and show me where I "accused" you of "lying about what you pastors said," or "accused" you of "not even asking your pastors."

The only thing I can figure you are referring to is my contention that these men are not "your" pastors, given that pastors "pastor" christians, not atheists. But that is not an "accusation" that you somehow fabricated these men's existence.

If you are going to come on here and play hardball with christians you need to grow a skin and quit complaining when I throw you a brush-back pitch. Or, to use a football analogy, don't gripe and whine when you scramble out of the pocket and and get nailed.

On that note, you said "so gthooh with that "i have accused you of nothing" baloney." Now, I am not certain what "gthooh" means, but I know what it looks like. Shall I get all bent out of shape and call you a "jerk?"

Grow a skin, Walter.

rco, you said,
"As for your question “what exactly are you accusing me of” in relation to this “pastors” issue, if you will go back and read my posts you will find that I have accused you of nothing."

jeez, rco. what color is the sky in your world?! here, you are bearing false witness against yourself. you just said:

"You know, Walter, I was going to let you off the hook gently on the “pastors” thing—until I saw your last two posts. You really don't recognize when your bluff has been called and you have nothing in your hand, do you?"

that is an accusation - so gthooh with that "i have accused you of nothing" baloney.

WALTER,

Part 1 of 2

WALT: "rco, for my pastors, surprisingly you googled one right and one wrong name...strange. i really don't want to go any further down this line now.”

to which you said,
"You know, Walter, I was going to let you off the hook gently on the “pastors” thing—until I saw your last two posts. You really don't recognize when your bluff has been called and you have nothing in your hand, do you?"

WALT: “you are a real jerk. to be clear, are you assuming i am lying about what my pastors said? or that i even asked my pastors? or that i even have pastors? what exactly are you accusing me of?”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Walter, I hate that you view me as a “jerk.” If you and I were neighbors you would know that I am mostly just a big ole softie. I work hard, I study hard, I love my wife of 26 years, I adore my children, and I am enthralled by my grand-daughter. I take good care of my employees, and it is one of the great joys of my life for me to serve those whom I pastor.

That being said, there is one thing about me that over-arches and permeates all of the above—my relationship with God. When it comes to that relationship I am dead-earnest, irrevocably committed, and I take no prisoners. That relationship has been forged in the fires of 20+ years of adversity and suffering such as few I know have experienced. Suffice it to say, I have found Him faithful, and a very real and present help in time of trouble.

As a result, I take serious exception with those who denigrate the name of God. You obviously hate even the very concept of God, and your expressions of that hatred on these threads have been extreme, even for an atheist. I have watched you openly mock and attempt to dismiss Christianity, faith, the bible, God, and Christ Himself in a diabolic manner.

So I confront you—for two reasons. First, because you need to know the God who is currently the object of your hatred. And secondly, because the accusations you are leveling need to be answered.

WALTER,

Part 2 of 2

If you will go back and review our discussion you will discover a pattern. When you are bold with your castigations, I become very blunt. When you become bolder still, I become more direct and more blunt. In short, when you play rough, I can play equally rough. I am well-versed in your arguments, and I know how to respond to them. I am not your average fundamentalist Christian.

I know I have been pretty tough on you, especially over the last couple of days. You interpret this as me being a jerk, and that really does bother me. But I will not back down. As long as you persist in your rejection of God on these threads I will be at least equally persistent in presenting the truth.

As for your question “what exactly are you accusing me of” in relation to this “pastors” issue, if you will go back and read my posts you will find that I have accused you of nothing. I simply requested the opportunity to examine the source of your supposed evidence against my position. Again, I am well within the bounds of civil debate to request such, and, unless you are willing to concede that you have failed to prove your accusation against God on the issue of slavery, I will continue to insist on this.

WALT: “(i am concerned for their privacy. i have left messages for both, and have not heard back yet.”

In the spirit of trying to alleviate your concern, I repeat what I have already said. There is nothing sinister in my request. I'm actually glad you went to them, and I really would enjoy having the opportunity to dialogue with them.

Peace?

rco,
i said,
"rco, for my pastors, surprisingly you googled one right and one wrong name...strange. ****i really don't want to go any further down this line now.****”

to which you said,
"You know, Walter, I was going to let you off the hook gently on the “pastors” thing—until I saw your last two posts. You really don't recognize when your bluff has been called and you have nothing in your hand, do you?"

you are a real jerk. to be clear, are you assuming i am lying about what my pastors said? or that i even asked my pastors? or that i even have pastors? what exactly are you accusing me of?

(i am concerned for their privacy. i have left messages for both, and have not heard back yet. i really don't enjoy your on-line accusatory persona.)

RCofield,

"You seen Dawkins' website lately?"

Actually, I've never seen Dawkins' Web site.

"Ummm....”belief” cannot logically precede “unbelief.”"

Can "unbelief" logically precede "belief"?

"Can I be a rodeo clown now?"

Are you sure that you are not already?

WALTER,

"Every excuse that the ingenuity of avarice could devise was believed to be a complete justification, and the great argument of slave-holders in all countries has been that slavery is a divine institution, and thus ***stealing human beings has always been fortified with a "Thus saith the Lord."***--Robert G. Ingersoll, Galesburg, Illinois, 1867.

Exodus 21:16 "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."

My, my, my, my, my. It seems your Enlightenment heroes couldn't understand plain English either.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE PEREGRINE FALCON IS PREPARED FOR TAKE-OFF. PLEASE FASTEN YOUR SEAT BELT AND HIDE ANY YOUNG CHILDREN.

PER: “I'm beginning to feel taken for granted.”

Not so, PSO, not so!

PER: “Did your "christian" jebus give you special dispensation to "play rough"?”

Indeed: Jude 1:3 “.....earnestly contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.”

PER: “And, by "play rough", are you thinking of the rumble scenes in "West Side Story"?”

Kinda. Read Ephesians 6:10-20. I'll not post it here so as to save you some “expurgation” time.

RCO: "Maybe I've turned out to not quite be the easy “drive-by-mugging” you expected?"

PER: “Believe it; I just signed myself up for jebus camp.”

Wrong camp.

RCO: "What's up with the atheists/non-believers trying to protect each other from the christian here?"

PER: When you're a Jet,
You're a Jet all the way
From your first cigarette
To your last dyin' day.
When you're a Jet,
If the spit hits the fan,
You got brothers around,
You're a family man!

Wow, Peregrine. You are a poet! Whodda thunk it? An enigma and a poet. Peregrine the Enigmatic Poet.

PER: “Are you saying that you need protection?”

I don't know, Peregrine. You contemplating getting physical with me?

PER: “Maybe you should join the sharks.”

Nah. When there's blood in the water you guys will eat each other.

PER: “You might be surprised by the extent that I am not surprised; this is not my first rodeo.”

What?! This is a RODEO? Darn. I was wondering why you clowns couldn't understand anything I was saying.

RCO: "Except, of course, for the fact that nonbelievers/atheists don't have to “recruit members” at all."

PER: “That doesn't necessarily stop them.”

Ain't that the truth. You seen Dawkins' website lately?

RCO: "Unbelief/atheism is the native condition of every single human being who has ever lived."

PER: “I'm not so sure about that; unbelief appears to develop over time, usually as the result of being subjected to other people's unbelievable "facts", atheism also appears to develop over time, as the result of being subjected to other people's beliefs in various gods.”

Ummm....”belief” cannot logically precede “unbelief.”

RCO: "You have an awful lot of company in your “unbelief” camp, Peregrine."

PER: “I'm skeptical of that.”

Ah! A statement of disbelief. I rest my case on that point.

RCO: "Isn't that odd for someone who aspires to be an enigma?"

PER: What makes you think that I aspire to be an enigma? Perhaps being an enigma comes as natural to me as my hair and eye color.

And I rest my case on that point.

In the words of former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean: YEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Can I be a rodeo clown now?

CORRECTION:

"Not willing to concede that you were wrong, you, an rabidly anti-theistic atheist,..."

SHOULD READ:

"Not willing to concede that you were wrong, you, "a" rabidly anti-theistic atheist,..."

WALTER,

WALT: “rco, for my pastors, surprisingly you googled one right and one wrong name...strange. ****i really don't want to go any further down this line now.****”

You know, Walter, I was going to let you off the hook gently on the “pastors” thing—until I saw your last two posts. You really don't recognize when your bluff has been called and you have nothing in your hand, do you?

Let me see if I can reconstruct what happened here. YOU brought up the issue of slavery. You spent weeks “proof-texting” trying to “prove” your presupposition that the bible condones/advocates forced slavery. I systematically deconstructed your “proof-texts” and exposed you to at least two clear, unambiguous texts that prohibit forced slavery and even pronounced it worthy of death. You were, at the time, completely unaware of these texts. You were just as obviously unaware of A.N.E. practice of individuals willingly selling themselves as slaves for material/marital considerations AND the practice of people becoming willing “bondservants” for life.

Not willing to concede that you were wrong, you, an rabidly anti-theistic atheist, went to “your pastors” in a FUNDAMENTALIST Lutheran church to seek out their “expert opinion” on the slavery issue. (You gotta admit, THAT is funny! Did you forget that you are an atheist?)

You then, with many rhetorical flourishes for emphasis, present the “evidence” of “your pastors” against my exposition of the bible's position on forced slavery (see your post @ October 27, 2010 9:56 AM)

I then proposed that we bring them into this discussion so that I might question them directly as to their position on this matter. And you respond:

WALT: “i really don't want to go any further down this line now.”

And then you turn right around and start bustin' my chops on the slavery issue again.

Walter, I am perfectly within the rules governing reasonable debate when I request the opportunity to examine the SOURCE of “evidence” that YOU have presented against my position.

You really should do one or the other of the following:

1.Either request that “your pastors” join us in this discussion (or agree to my requesting that they do so)

2.OR, retract your unsubstantiated “evidence” and concede that you have lost this particular point of our debate.

This is perfectly consistent with the rules of civil debate.

To put it short and sweet: I am saying that you need to either put up or shut up on the slavery issue.

Whadda ya think?

RCofield,

"I was about to send up a smoke-signal for you."

OK.

"Couldn't imagine that you wouldn't have something pithy to say about all I posted last night and this morning. As usual, you do not disappoint."

I'm beginning to feel taken for granted.

"As to your last post: Weeelllll, isn't the atmosphere changing a bit on this thread!"

From my experience, the atmosphere on this thread is in a constant state of change; have you not noticed?

"It appears you guys are struggling to adjust to a “christian” that can “play rough” right along with you."

Did your "christian" jebus give you special dispensation to "play rough"?

And, by "play rough", are you thinking of the rumble scenes in "West Side Story"?

"Maybe I've turned out to not quite be the easy “drive-by-mugging” you expected?"

Believe it; I just signed myself up for jebus camp.

"What's up with the atheists/non-believers trying to protect each other from the christian here?"

When you're a Jet,
You're a Jet all the way
From your first cigarette
To your last dyin' day.

When you're a Jet,
If the spit hits the fan,
You got brothers around,
You're a family man!

"Isn't it supposed to be the other way around? [emoticony stuff expurgated]"

Are you saying that you need protection?

Maybe you should join the sharks.

"You might be surprised by the extent to which I agree with that statement....as it applies to actual “fundamentalists.”"

You might be surprised by the extent that I am not surprised; this is not my first rodeo.

"Except, of course, for the fact that nonbelievers/atheists don't have to “recruit members” at all."

That doesn't necessarily stop them.

"Unbelief/atheism is the native condition of every single human being who has ever lived."

I'm not so sure about that; unbelief appears to develop over time, usually as the result of being subjected to other people's unbelievable "facts", atheism also appears to develop over time, as the result of being subjected to other people's beliefs in various gods.

"You have an awful lot of company in your “unbelief” camp, Peregrine."

I'm skeptical of that.

"Isn't that odd for someone who aspires to be an enigma?"

What makes you think that I aspire to be an enigma?

Perhaps being an enigma comes as natural to me as my hair and eye color.

"Why, thank you, Peregrine. How does one take a bow on this thread?"

One doesn't.

PEREGRINE!

I was about to send up a smoke-signal for you. Couldn't imagine that you wouldn't have something pithy to say about all I posted last night and this morning. As usual, you do not disappoint.

As to your last post: Weeelllll, isn't the atmosphere changing a bit on this thread! It appears you guys are struggling to adjust to a “christian” that can “play rough” right along with you. Maybe I've turned out to not quite be the easy “drive-by-mugging” you expected?

What's up with the atheists/non-believers trying to protect each other from the christian here? Isn't it supposed to be the other way around? :-)

PER: “You fundamentalists are the reason that nonbelievers and atheists don't really have to recruit members; you do all the recruiting for them.”

You might be surprised by the extent to which I agree with that statement....as it applies to actual “fundamentalists.”

Except, of course, for the fact that nonbelievers/atheists don't have to “recruit members” at all. Unbelief/atheism is the native condition of every single human being who has ever lived.

You have an awful lot of company in your “unbelief” camp, Peregrine. Isn't that odd for someone who aspires to be an enigma?

PER: “Congratulations.”

Why, thank you, Peregrine. How does one take a bow on this thread?

hhhmmm... the problem i was having previously may have had to do with too many links in a post. the one i just posted didn't go through so i removed 2 links and it went through.

here are the ones i took out:

ingersol on paine:
http://www.thomaspaine.org/bio/ingersoll1892.html

rousseau:
http://abolition.nypl.org/images/abolition/2/122

rco, way back there you said,

"Robert G. Ingersoll--Though his father (a devout christian) is said to have had "abolitionist leanings", I can find no evidence that Robert G. Ingersoll was personally active in the abolitionist movement. Please supply".

ingersoll was a POLITICIAN and a public speaker - trying to influence public opinion. i don't know if he joined any "official societies" or movement opposing slavery, but he sure spoke out opposing it (and not on religious grounds at all):
http://afgen.com/slavery.html

robert ingersoll not basing his beliefs of the bible:
http://www.etymonline.com/columns/Ingersoll.htm

you implied tom paine doesn't count as an enlightenment abolitionist because he was a "revolutionary"?! what?! that seems arbitrary. tom paine wrote articles attempting to influencing public opinion and wrote the preamble to proposed pennsylvanian anti-slavery legislation.

so here's ingersoll writing about paine:

"The first article he [tom paine] ever wrote in America, and the first ever published by him anywhere, appeared in that magazine on the 8th of March, 1775. It was an attack on American slavery -- a plea for the rights of the negro. ....Five days after this article appeared the American Anti-Slavery Society was formed."

"On the 2d day of November, 1779, there was introduced into the Assembly of Pennsylvania an act for the abolition of slavery. The preamble was written by Thomas Paine. To him belongs the honor and glory of having written the first Proclamation of Emancipation in America -- Paine the first, Lincoln the last."

rousseau:
"From whatever aspect we regard the question, the right of slavery is null and void, not only as being illegitimate, but also because it is absurd and meaningless. The words slave and right contradict each other, and are mutually exclusive."

bentham, mill, etc... you write them off because they were "criticizing from the sidelines". well that's what they did! these guys and paine and ingersoll were like tv/radio personalities of the day. they were "active" in theat they were trying to change public opinion about slavery. mind you most of this public they were trying to convince were christians...

rco,
for my pastors, surprisingly you googled one right and one wrong name...strange. i really don't want to go any further down this line now.

RCofield,

"Walter, you:
1. Attend Church
2. Read the Bible
3. Refer often to the bible
4. Talk to "your pastors" about the bible
5. Refer to God as being your God (as in
"Oh 'my' God!")
6. Often refer to Jesus (as in "jeez" and
"jesus!")
Does that mean you "just might be" a christian?"

Don't worry; at the rate you're going, you will have turned him away from all of his erroneous bible thumping, church going, and pastor talking in no time.

I don't think, however, that you'll be able to stop him from using your various gods' names in vain.

You fundamentalists are the reason that nonbelievers and atheists don't really have to recruit members; you do all the recruiting for them.

Congratulations.

WALTER,

WALT: "what i mean by "fundamentalist" is "literalist"."

Yes, I know what YOU mean when you use the term "fundamentalist," but that does not in any way begin comprehend the utter failure of the Fundamentalist ideology.

Here's my definition of a fundamentalist. You'll like this:

"Not much "FUN," too much "DAMN," and no "MENTAL"."

You see, Walter, part of the problem here (for you) is that fundamentalists are the the kind of "christians" you are used to encountering. You have no difficulty "spanking" them in a debate because their fundamentalism has "dumbed them down." They have no idea how to deal with your anti-theistic arguments because all they know is their 5 or 6 "fundamentals."

I ain't a Fundamentalist. 'Nuff said.

IF your constant referral to them as "fundamentalists," and your representation of your conversations with "your pastors" is accurate, they may well be suffering from the virus of fundamentalism (wouldn't Dawkins be proud of me?). But I don't know that for certain, so, why don't we get them involved in the discussion on this thread and find out?

WALT: "jeez, man... did you try to google the pastors?! yikes... i'm sorry i brought them up."

Ahhhh! So I DID find the right church and pastors, eh? I'm beginning to share your affinity for the wonderful "google machine."

Look, Walter, there is nothing sinister in my request. I'm actually glad you went to them, and I really would enjoy having the opportunity to dialogue with them. So, why wouldn't you invite them to join us?

rco, you said,
"Because “Fundamentalism” was a weak, knee-jerk reaction to liberal higher textual criticism that managed to completely neuter itself (i.e. “your pastors,” seemingly). You don't want to get me started on “Fundamentalism.”

what i mean by "fundamentalist" is "literalist". like when it says moses parted the red sea - he really parted the red sea. and it wasn't some coincidental tidal something-or-other, it was wall of water - like in the movie. the whole earth was really flooded.... there really was a talking snake etc...

i think if you take the bible literally, then of course you'd ascribe to those "5 fundamentals".

jeez, man... did you try to google the pastors?! yikes... i'm sorry i brought them up.

WALTER,

WALT: "furthermore, your honor, they said that someone asserting the bible prohibits slavery is bringing "today's ideas to the bible"."

RCO: Have you talked to "your pastors" and invited them to join this discussion yet?

If its too much trouble for you I would be glad to contact pastors Wattles and Ewings myself and extend the invitation.

Let me know.

WALT: "sheesh. are you a lawyer?"....
"furthermore, your honor,..."

RCO: Are you mocking me, Walter? :-)

Relax, man. I'm no threat to you.

rco,you said,
"If they [THE pastors...] are wrong on “evolution,” what makes you think they are right on “slavery?”

they are experts on the BIBLE, not science - and what the bible has to say about slavery. they are not "proof-texting" the bible, like you said i was (but it appears you are), but considering the "entire bible". that's why i mention their testimony... sheesh. are you a lawyer?

furthermore, your honor, they said that someone asserting the bible prohibits slavery is bringing "today's ideas to the bible".

WALTER,

WALT: rco,
you disassociated yourself from "fundamentalist". if you believe:

1. The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.

2. The virgin birth of Christ.

3. The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.

4. The bodily resurrection of Christ.

5. The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

...then you just might be a fundamentalist....
++++++++++++++++

RCO: Walter, you:

1. Attend Church

2. Read the Bible

3. Refer often to the bible

4. Talk to "your pastors" about the bible

5. Refer to God as being your God (as in
"Oh 'my' God!")

6. Often refer to Jesus (as in "jeez" and
"jesus!")

Does that mean you "just might be" a christian?

WALTER,

WALT: “you mock me for going to "my" pastors for clarification on what the BIBLE says. not really sure why you find that illegitimate... they're pastors... it's the bible... who better to ask?”

Uh, Walter, pastors “pastor” believers. You are an anti-theistic atheist. They may be pastors, but they are not "your" pastors.

WALT: you pointed out that they don't "believe in" evolution. gee really?! omg! i don't know if you thought you had discovered something i didn't know....

You manage to miss the point again. If they are wrong on “evolution,” what makes you think they are right on “slavery?”

WALT: “both of those pastors and i have had many long long talks about the silly science in the bible. clearly, they're bible experts - not science experts...”

Are you a “science expert,” Walter?

WALT: “you mock me for going to church - have fun with all that. don't know if you caught my explanation for going to church... my daughter's young. it's a family thing.”

I don't recall mocking you for going to church. I'm actually quite glad you attend church.

[long explanation of “Fundamentalist” expurgated]---I tip my hat to PSOLUS.

WALT: “why do you NOT consider yourself a "fundamentalist"?

Because “Fundamentalism” was a weak, knee-jerk reaction to liberal higher textual criticism that managed to completely neuter itself (i.e. “your pastors,” seemingly). You don't want to get me started on “Fundamentalism.”

WALTER,

Have you talked to "your pastors" and invited them to join this discussion yet?

If its too much trouble for you I would be glad to contact pastors Wattles and Ewings myself and extend the invitation.

Let me know.

rco,
you mock me for going to "my" pastors for clarification on what the BIBLE says. not really sure why you find that illegitimate... they're pastors... it's the bible... who better to ask?

you pointed out that they don't "believe in" evolution. gee really?! omg! i don't know if you thought you had discovered something i didn't know.... both of those pastors and i have had many long long talks about the silly science in the bible. clearly, they're bible experts - not science experts - and qualified to offer an opinion on "does the bible prohibit slavery?" they both know greek and hebrew. they've both spent their lives studying the bible and explaining it to people. that's why i asked them about the BIBLE. duh...

rco,
you mock me for going to church - have fun with all that. don't know if you caught my explanation for going to church... my daughter's young. it's a family thing.
--------------------

rco,
you disassociated yourself from "fundamentalist". if you believe:

1. The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.

2. The virgin birth of Christ.

3. The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.

4. The bodily resurrection of Christ.

5. The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

...then you just might be a fundamentalist....

don't you believe all those things?

-----------------
fun·da·men·tal·ism
noun \-tə-ˌli-zəm\
Definition of FUNDAMENTALISM
1. a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs

2. a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
------------------

why do you NOT consider yourself a "fundamentalist"?
-------------

i imagine there are some people who parse the word "inerrant" in fundamental #1. those five fundamentals do not strictly speaking include literal "inerrancy" of the bible. so, i suppose one could still say the bible is inerrant, and think "6 day creation" and "global flood" are metaphors. i don't get the sense you're one of those, though.

WALTER,

Part 1 of 2

RCO: "Before you twist yourself into a pretzel answering the above, you should be reminded that if you are going to contend for the omnipotence of God (which you did for the sake of your argument), you can't reasonably reject the remainder of His revealed attributes used in my rebuttal."

WALT: “well, my points are meant to illustrate how the god that you suppose to be perfect, isn't. you assume (at least) 3 qualities which, if the bible is true, are not borne our by his (supposed) actions. besides OMNIPOTENCE you also assume he OMNISCIENCE and ALL-GOOD. sometimes you take god at his word on those points, and ignore his actions. other times you ignore god when he tells you he's not all-good: he admits he gets "jealous". and is "vengeant". (justice is one thing, vengeance is another).”

RCO: Your error lies in the fact that you are interpreting “jealousy” and “vengeance” only from a fallen, sinful perspective. For example, I can be “jealous” in relation to my wife in that I rightly protect her from inappropriate advances from other men. That is a form of jealousy that is not only appropriate, but is morally demanded by my love for her. And it is, when properly exercised, righteous and good.

Likewise, (but at an infinitely higher level) when the attribute of God's perfect righteousness regulates His jealousy and exercise of “justice” (often referred to in scripture as “vengeance”), said jealousy and justice/vengeance are untainted by sin and are therefore good. No sane person would impugn a sitting human judge for dispensing justice in accordance with the demands of his judge-ship and laws of the land, yet you want to impugn God for exercising perfectly righteous justice.

You laud the fact that Hitler received justice/vengeance, yet bemoan the demise of every individual who has ever received justice at the hand of God, and then castigate Him for the exercise of said justice. That, at least here in South Mississippi, is called a double standard.

Of course, you do this because you place yourself (and your highly “evolved” sense of morality) in the place of God and presume yourself more wise and knowledgeable than He. But then you turn around and “justify” killing children in their mother's womb, polygamy, prostitution, etc. ad nauseum.

I think anyone following this recognizes the absurdity of your arguments here.

WALTER,

Part 2 of 2

WALT: “he issues punishments way out of proportion with the crimes.”

RCO: I'm sure God is just utterly devastated that “little ole fallen you” have judged His judgments unjust.

WALT: “if this god you suppose KNOWS about one single 8-yr old girl being made a sex slave and HAS THE POWER to stop it, but DOESN'T, then he is not all-good - unless you define "good" so contortedly as to make it meaningless, or to make it mean something else.”

You argue that forced slavery is immoral, yet you would have God force everyone to obey His law, thus forcing all of mankind to be slaves to the law of God.

Aside from the fact that this denies man having to take responsibility for his actions....you are arguing in a complete circle here.

PEREGRINE,

RCO: "I understand. I used to be every one of those myself."

PER: "Do I detect some wishful thinking?"

RCO: No, I had my fill of it.

PER: [bibley stuff expurgated]

RCO: "I know. You'll "expurgate" that."

PER: "You go it."

RCO: I understand. Catholic schools have a bad tendency to create that sort of knee-jerk reaction.

then you said,
"Before you twist yourself into a pretzel answering the above, you should be reminded that if you are going to contend for the omnipotence of God (which you did for the sake of your argument), you can't reasonably reject the remainder of His revealed attributes used in my rebuttal."

well, my points are meant to illustrate how the god that you suppose to be perfect, isn't. you assume (at least) 3 qualities which, if the bible is true, are not borne our by his (supposed) actions. besides OMNIPOTENCE you also assume he OMNISCIENCE and ALL-GOOD. sometimes you take god at his word on those points, and ignore his actions. other times you ignore god when he tells you he's not all-good: he admits he gets "jealous". and is "vengeant". (justice is one thing, vengeance is another). he issues punishments way out of proportion with the crimes. if this god you suppose KNOWS about one single 8-yr old girl being made a sex slave and HAS THE POWER to stop it, but DOESN'T, then he is not all-good - unless you define "good" so contortedly as to make it meaningless, or to make it mean something else.

hope this works...i have tried re-phrasing this a number of times, i keep getting "thanks for commenting. comment held by blog owner" or something like that. can't figure it out.

anyway, way back there talking about whether aborted fetuses get to heaven you said,

"And thirdly, a reasonably good case can be made from scripture that “these souls” are received into the glorious presence of God to live with Him in happiness and unspeakable joy forever. What a terrible fate, right?"

so, from your perspective, the nicest thing you can do for a fetus is to abort it? - so it doesn't end up like me: in hell for all eternity for failing to believe...

RCofield,

"... (that's what christian means, right?)."

You're asking me?

"I understand. I used to be every one of those myself."

Do I detect some wishful thinking?

[bibley stuff expurgated]

"I know. You'll "expurgate" that."

You go it.

PEREGRINE,

RCO: "A Non-Fundamentalist"

PER: "Is it too embarrassing to actually type the words for everyone to see?"

RCO: Well....OK....I'm just a plain old christian. No denominational affiliation. Just a disciple of Jesus Christ (that's what christian means, right?).

I know that's not real sexy, but in the words of that stalwart Popeye "I yam what I yam."

RCO: "You?"

PER: I variably label myself as one or more of the following, depending on the audience:
- Heathen
- Infidel
- Reprobate
- Nonbeliever
- Disbeliever

RCO: I understand. I used to be every one of those myself.

1Corinthians 15:10 But what I am now I am by the grace of God.

I know. You'll "expurgate" that.

RCofield,

"A Non-Fundamentalist"

Is it too embarrassing to actually type the words for everyone to see?

"You?"

I variably label myself as one or more of the following, depending on the audience:

- Heathen
- Infidel
- Reprobate
- Nonbeliever
- Disbeliever

WALTER,

WALT (to Peter): "no it's more like rco desparate attempts to salvage o.t. god's "all-goodness" leave me dumbfounded."

Ummm...you attend church regularly and you have never heard a defense of "God's all-goodness?" Methinks thou doest protest too much.

WALT (to Peter): "me asking my pastors is more like a reality-check."

Asking "my pastors" for a "reality-check?!" Have I rocked your world so badly that you have forgotten that you are an atheist?

For an atheist to use the possessive pronoun "my" in relation to pastors is more than mildly amusing...

PEREGRINE,

RCO: "BTW: I am not a Fundamentalist."

PER: "Well, then, what, exactly, do you consider yourself to be?"

RCO: A Non-Fundamentalist

You?

WALTER,

WALT: “dang, i can't get my next post to post... it's not too long. "bad" word, maybe? i've tried rephrasing anything possibly "offensive".”

WALT: “i still can't get my next comment to post... grrrr...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Perhaps God has decided that you have blasphemed enough for one day and is blocking your posts.

I know that is not nearly as sensational as your desire that He "strike people dead on the spot," for blaspheming, but the rest of us are thankful that He is dealing with you mercifully.

Ecclesiastes 8:11 Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil.

peterhuff,

"So you are taking that little step out of the closet now."

I have never been in the closet.

Have you?

"You have been 'formulating' this approach since childhood, your reference grid is based on this idea that you don't have a belief system."

I don't have a belief-system; but, your reference grid appears to be based on your idea that I do have a belief-system - what ever did you do with yourself before you started telling me everything that you beleive you know about me?

"That just proves my point,..."

Everything appears to prove your point; but, then, that's easy when your point is based on nothing more than your belief.

"...that your disbelief is a belief system."

So, then, is your belief a disbelief-system?

"You have been building on this untrue ideology from childhood."

Are you thinking that you've just proved your point again?

"It is your world-view, the underpinnings of which you screen everything through."

Tell me more about myself; I never tire of hearing other people telling me about myself.

"You go to so much work to deny this however."

You appear to be going to much more work attempting to convince yourself of this.

"How convenient!"

Isn't it though!

"In this way you can believe you are never accountable for anything."

Are you jealous that you didn't think of it first?

"Oh, darn it, I used the word 'believe' again."

What other word can you use? It appears that you use belief at the expense of actual thought.

"Time and again you stumble over your disbelief in your denial of your world-view."

Have you not convinced yourself of that yet?

Is my disbelief shaking your faith?

You're not going to start worshipping the "devil" are you?

peter, you said,
"This issue of slavery is really driving you to pull out all the stops. You are actually consulting your pastors for their take. That suggests to me that you are finding RCofield's arguments against your position hard to defend against."

no it's more like rco desparate attempts to salvage o.t. god's "all-goodness" leave me dumbfounded. it's like he's looking at a tire and calling it square. me asking my pastors is more like a reality-check.

i still can't get my next comment to post... grrrr...

Hi JustaDiver,

Does this website, which favors atheism, actually have a time limit on its forums?

This is a long winded debate between Walter and a few others that has spanned the course of many a forum and lasted a few years.

Hi Walter,

Did you actually read that link you provided?

I mean, it supports the term 'baby' instead of fetus for the unborn. Do you just filter through what you want to take in support of your position and ignore the rest?

LINK: "A miscarriage is the loss (death) of a BABY before the 20th week of pregnancy. The medical term for a miscarriage is spontaneous abortion, but the condition is not an abortion in the common definition of the term.

Notice also,

LINK: "The causes of miscarriage are not well understood. Most of the miscarriages that occur in the first trimester are caused by chromosomal abnormalities in BABY. Chromosomes are tiny structures inside the cells of the body which carry many genes. Genes determine all of a person's physical attributes, such as sex, hair and eye color, and blood type. Most chromosomal problems occur by chance and are not related to the mother's or father's health."

So the cause of miscarriages is not well understood. This supports RCofiled's argument just as much as yours, and I might add that the cause of miscarriages support the result of the poor choices we make as humans, which would stem back to the Fall of man, where God imposed death on the human race as He warned He would if man chose to know good and evil.

By man's choice he brought in a relative system of ethics in which all he has is preference that he forces on others.

How could a just God continue indefinitely to allow what is evil? But by grace He allows you to live on. As RCofield said, you are still alive.

But one purpose of death that I can think of is so that man would see he cannot live a meaningful and good life without God and that our time on this earth is limited, after which we will be judged for all the wrongful actions we have chosen. God allows man to reap the course of his actions. Man has been forewarned and yet continues to construct all kinds of arguments in opposition to this fact.

Hi Walter,

We missed you last week.

This issue of slavery is really driving you to pull out all the stops. You are actually consulting your pastors for their take. That suggests to me that you are finding RCofield's arguments against your position hard to defend against.

Have you considered all the places in the OT where God shows His concern for the poor, the widows, the down-trodden? There are so many to choose from. Do you not think that these go against what you are saying also? For instance, take Isaiah 58, God's reprimand for exploitation (vs. 3b) and injustice (vs. 6), for setting the oppressed free and untying the yoke (vs. 6, 9) and looking after those in need( vs. 7, 16). Is this not what God has called for since the beginning of His covenants with man? The examples are too numerous to expound on here, but we can go into some of them if you like?

-------------------

ME: "Solid logic against Walter's evolving morality! You certainly are bringing out his twisted thinking on the issues, especially his double standard on the abortion issue in which one minute he is condoning it and the next saying it is a bad thing."

WALTER: "boy oh boy...you guys both have no capacity for nuance. everything is black and white. furthermore you guys are twisting my words: i don't believe i ever said abortion is good. there are lots of things which i personally don't think are "good", but that i do think should be legal."

-------------------------------
You 'don't think.' How do you know?

You condone abortion in certain situations. Therefore you must think it is good in certain situations, as you have expressed in the past and continue to express.

Walter, what do you base goodness on? A woman's right to choose? This you condone. That in itself says that you don't see this as morally wrong. You want each woman to have her own preference. Notice that you are making it relative to each persons position. On those lines I could argue that Hitler's Germany was good. How does my preference make it good or bad? How can good ever be bad? All you are doing is showing preference here.

Just because something is doesn't mean it ought to be. One is descriptive, the other prescriptive. All you are basing your idea of good on is your values, your preference. Why are they good? What is beneath them? You have admitted there is nothing objective to support them. Why is your culture the one who will decide what goodness is? It is might makes right mentality all along. You want to dictate what is right.

If just based on your subjective impressions, what makes you think there is any truth to it? You just make it up in your mind as you go. On that basis, why can't Hitler? He just imposed his obnoxious, intolerant, bigoted opinion on others.

What right do you have to judge good? Well based on your subjective opinion I have as much right to oppose your ideal, and this is what wars are fought over. Evolving morals, hah.

Hi PSolus,

PSO: "I have been formulating my disbelief from childhood, long before these guys appeared on my radar."

So you are taking that little step out of the closet now. You have been 'formulating' this approach since childhood, your reference grid is based on this idea that you don't have a belief system.

That just proves my point, that your
disbelief is a belief system. You have been building on this untrue ideology from childhood. It is your world-view, the underpinnings of which you screen everything through. You go to so much work to deny this however.

ME: "...but if I have you confused with someone else, I apologize."

PSO: "Disbelief means never having to say you're sorry."

How convenient! In this way you can believe you are never accountable for anything. Oh, darn it, I used the word 'believe' again.

Time and again you stumble over your disbelief in your denial of your world-view.

RCofield,

"BTW: I am not a Fundamentalist."

Well, then, what, exactly, do you consider yourself to be?

WALTER,

WALT: “i know two good earnest christian fundamentalists who have very different, and i'd say much more sensible) interpretations of the bible on slavery.
today, i talked to both of the pastors (separately) at our church about ex21, 1tim1:10, and lev25:44- et.al. they BOTH said that nowhere does the bible prohibit slavery. they said verses ex21:16 and 1tim1:10 refer to illegal "man-stealing". sort of like it's not illegal to sell cars, but it's illegal to sell stolen cars. one said in the context of the many other "slavery" verses that it's clear that "non-voluntary" slavery was "allowed".”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

RCO: That “sort of like it's not illegal to sell cars” line is one contorted piece of work. I have a hard time believing they would interpret those passages that way, but it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility. (BTW: I am not a Fundamentalist.)

Nevertheless, consider this. Article II-7 of these pastor's statement of faith reads as follows:

“We reject all theories of evolution as an explanation of the origin of the universe and the human race...”

Do you think they are “right” on the issue of evolution? If not, why would you assume they are “right” on the issue of slavery? You agree with virtually nothing they teach, yet you want to offer them to me as “authorities” on the issue of slavery. The self-serving nature of this approach by you is profoundly obvious, not to mention shamelessly hypocritical.

If you want me to take them seriously, have them become involved with our discussion on this thread. Allow me to contend directly with them on the slavery issue and let them see you in all your uber-moral glory and let's see what happens. Otherwise, I reject your representation of their position out of hand.

WALT: “we also talked about numbers 5, which they agreed was meant to cause an ABORTION if the woman was unfaithful and pregnant.” and “...face it, in your black-and-white world god's an abortionist.”

RCO: LOL! And who, exactly, do you think is the one proof-texting here? Your absurdly vitriolic hatred of God is systematically stripping you of any semblance of rationality or reason. I would really love to get you across the desk from me in my study and trace THAT back to its root-cause.

So....If you are going to claim that this is what the text (Nu. 5) is saying, the burden of proof rests squarely on you. Exposit the passage using the commonly accepted literal/grammatical/historical/canonical-contextual method of interpretation and show me that “god's an abortionist.”

dang, i can't get my next post to post... it's not too long. "bad" word, maybe? i've tried rephrasing anything possibly "offensive".

TEST

peterhuff,

"Richard Dawkin's, although I have scanned through the posts on our previous forum and can't find the post."

I associate Dawkins more with his work on evolution theory and the selfish gene theory than with his atheism.

For the record, I haven't read any of the "God Delusion" or "God is not Great" books; probably for the same reasons I wouldn't read any books titled "There Are no Ghosts" or "Unicorns probably Don't Exist".

I have been formulating my disbelief from childhood, long before these guys appeared on my radar.

"I still contend that you made a favorable reference to him somewhere in out conversations,..."

I've noticed that for some people, beliefs are often difficult, if not impossible, to abandon.

"...but if I have you confused with someone else, I apologize."

Disbelief means never having to say you're sorry.

rco,
continuing in response to "god the abortionist":

you said,
"However, a significant proportion of these conceptions abort due to the use of contraceptives that are themselves abortifacients. Given the widespread promotion of said contraceptives by highly “evolved,” morally superior, enlightened mankind, culpability for many of these “abortions” lies squarely at the feet of mankind."

"...a significant proportion...due to...abortifacients ..." doesn't matter! he's god. and they're not ALL caused by enlightenment-age abortion-inducing potions. in fact i daresay say MOST of these miscarriages are "natural". it's my understanding that often the woman doesn't even realize she's pregnant. god's supposed to be perfect. but, face it, in your black-and-white world god's an abortionist.

then you said,
Secondly, God is not only omnipotent, He is omniscient, and as such is infinitely more knowledgeable and wise in these matters than yourself.

that's ridiculous: why would god let a pregnancy happen he knew he'd abort have to abort later? doesn't even make sense, much less rise to "infinitely...wise". in many cases the woman has a miscarriage w/o even realizing she was ever pregnant. where's the wisdom there?

then you said,
"Additionally, God, by any reasonable definition of the word “God” is the Giver and Source of Life, and as such He retains the legitimate right to either sustain or take away that life ...in His infinitely wise Being...

even if, in the context of the ancient hebrews conception of god you follow, god has the "right" (which is entirely up to how you define god) to kill anyone/thing he wants for whatever reason, should he? seems like he should be better than that.

earlier when i accused god of being an abortionist you said, "...you are justifying bad behavior by pointing to someone else's bad behavior." well...no, not just "someone else's" bad behavior GOD'S bad behavior. i'm just a fallible human being. he's god! he's supposed to be a much better person than little ol' fallen me, right?

WALT: “IF you consider god omnipotent and you consider that little fetus to be a person, THEN you've got to think of god as the greatest abortionist ever. doctors think about 30%-50% of fertilized eggs (i.e., a full-blown, soul-infused person in your estimation) never make it past the first 2 weeks of life. after that, they say about 10% of pregnancies end in "spontaneous" abortions or miscarriages. that's doctor-talk for "acts of god". why does god abort so many pregnancies? what happens to these souls?”

you said,
"First, your percentages are high compared to studies I have seen (source please)."

source: http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/guide/pregnancy-miscarriage (and similar)

rco,
i know two good earnest christian fundamentalists who have very different, and i'd say much more sensible) interpretations of the bible on slavery.

today, i talked to both of the pastors (separately) at our church about ex21, 1tim1:10, and lev25:44- et.al. they BOTH said that nowhere does the bible prohibit slavery. they said verses ex21:16 and 1tim1:10 refer to illegal "man-stealing". sort of like it's not illegal to sell cars, but it's illegal to sell stolen cars. one said in the context of the many other "slavery" verses that it's clear that "non-voluntary" slavery was "allowed".

i told them about our converstaion, and the funny part is that without me at all prompting them they BOTH said that someone claiming the bible prohibits slavery is "imposing today's moral standards on the bible". one even said "proof-texting". these guys both know the hebrew and greek text and, you know, went to god school and write sermons and so forth. no doubt they could be wrong about this, but, i'm jujst sayin'... (btw, they are "wisconson evangelical lutheran synod" (WELS) christians, if that means anything to you. seriously, they're the nicest buch of people i've ever meet. what "kind" of christian are you? why'd you pick that kind?)

we also talked about numbers 5, which they agreed was meant to cause an ABORTION if the woman was unfaithful and pregnant. they both said it was ok in this case because it was god's decision - not ours. they said something about how it's not up to us to judge god or apply our moral sense to god and so forth, nonetheless, they were able to be intellectually honest enough to call this an abortion. i respect them for that....

i imagine you have some convoluted explanation of how numbers 5:15 and forward is not god being an abortionist - in cases where the woman had been unfaithful and become pregnant?

peter, to rco you said,
"Solid logic against Walter's evolving morality! You certainly are bringing out his twisted thinking on the issues, especially his double standard on the abortion issue in which one minute he is condoning it and the next saying it is a bad thing."

boy oh boy...you guys both have no capacity for nuance. everything is black and white. furthermore you guys are twisting my words: i don't believe i ever said abortion is good. there are lots of things which i personally don't think are "good", but that i do think should be legal.

Hi folks,

You've got an interesting discussion going here. Might I suggest a forum to you that is right up your alley?

http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/forum/categories/unbelievable-1/listForCategory

Hey Peter,

Good to have you back.

PETER: "Your life experience in counsellings and dealing with the destructive nature and guilt of those practicing abortion/living the homosexual lifestyle are also a solid witness that speak volumes over the prevailing psychological book-smart thought of the culture in which we live."

This is an area that has always bothered me when it comes to the posturing of the atheists/cultural elites on these issues. Their positions are almost always dripping with a detached hypocrisy that is bereft of hands-on experience. Theirs is a cold, "clinical" position that is utterly divorced from the horrors that accompany the choices of those trapped in these "life-style" sins. I cannot help but believe that if they were to witness some of these things first-hand they would be crushed by the sorrow, pain, heartache and suffering experienced by those involved and would be forced to re-evaluate their positions.

PETER: "You mentioned President Obama. Nancy Pearcey made a reference to him in the opening chapter of her book, by showing how the intellectual elite, those educated in the secular universities of the sixties are now the professors of such universities and the majority of the cabinet of his presidency."

Ain't that a sobering thought! The problem with this intellectual elitism is that its practitioners are out of touch with reality. Virtually no one in the Obama administration, including our president, has any real experience running a company, balancing a budget, marketing, dealing with logistic and production problems, employee relations, etc. Their "ivory tower" educations and resultant elitist idealism are very near useless in the real world, as is beginning to become painfully evident.

I previewed Pearcy's book on Amazon and found it compelling. I am hoping to get a Kindle for christmas, and her book will be one of my first purchases. Thanks for the recommendation.

Hi RCofield,

Solid logic against Walter's evolving morality! You certainly are bringing out his twisted thinking on the issues, especially his double standard on the abortion issue in which one minute he is condoning it and the next saying it is a bad thing.

Your life experience in counsellings and dealing with the destructive nature and guilt of those practicing abortion/living the homosexual lifestyle are also a solid witness that speak volumes over the prevailing psychological book-smart thought of the culture in which we live.

You mentioned President Obama. Nancy Pearcey made a reference to him in the opening chapter of her book, by showing how the intellectual elite, those educated in the secular universities of the sixties are now the professors of such universities and the majority of the cabinet of his presidency.

It just shows how the radical idealism/world-view shift of the arts that surfaced during this period of American history has taken shape in guiding the moral fiber of the present culture.

"Ideas are born, nurtured, and developed in the universities long before the step out onto the political stage." Nancy Pearcey, Saving Leonardo, p. 12.

Hi PSolus,

ME: "I even noticed PSolus referring to one of these horsemen."

PSO: "This is news to me.
To which of these "horseman" do you believe that I referred?"

Richard Dawkin's, although I have scanned through the posts on our previous forum and can't find the post. I still contend that you made a favorable reference to him somewhere in out conversations, but if I have you confused with someone else, I apologize.

WALTER,

Part 1 of 4

RCO: Morally, atheism/secularism offers no restraint of evil. A purely secular government does not see itself as accountable to any higher authority and feels free to kill (if it deems it necessary) in such a way that is consistent with a Darwinian view of survival.
--------------

WALT: “wrong. the "restraint of evil" is provided by real, actual people, right here on real, actual earth. these real actual people make and enforce laws about behavior.”
This contradicts your original contention that atheism makes no judgments about what is moral or immoral. Given that secular humanism is the default religion of choice for atheists, the problem remains. If atheism makes no moral judgments concerning evil/morality, from whence do secular humanists derive laws? Isn’t it interesting how many of these laws seem to be derived from Christian principles, which principles existed long before the “Enlightenment?” There is a reason that virtually every building in our nation’s capitol that is over 100 years old has “law passages” from the bible engraved in granite and marble. Secular humanists (atheists) delude themselves into thinking that their worldview restrains evil when they are, in actuality, living on capital borrowed from Christianity.
WALT: “it's true that a secular government is not "accountable" to an invisible entity who doesn't DO ANYTHING when we break his laws. oh sure there's lots of bluster and promises from god, but when you really think about it we CAN break god's laws (say, commandments 1-4 or "do unto others") just as easily as we can break man's "secular" laws. but when i break god's laws by say, blaspheming, nothing happens to me....
Ec 8:11 Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil.
2Pe 3:3 ….scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4 They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 ***For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.*** (given your derisive treatment of the Flood, that is kinda jarring, isn’t it?) 7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. (I am mildly surprised that I did not find a photograph of you appended to this series of verses.)

WALTER,

Part 2 of 4

WALT: “(i've long thought how awesome it would be if every time someone blasphemed god struck them dead on the spot.** wouldn't that be great evidence for god?! and it would pretty much put an end to blasphemy and whatever other laws god wanted to make....i'd be a believer...but i digress...)”

Ummm…if God “struck men dead on the spot” for blasphemy you wouldn’t be a “believer.” You would be dead.

Ro 2:4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.

WALT: “this invisible (and inaudible) entity has issued different rules to different people! hahahaha...that's rich!”

Not invisible, not inaudible: Ro. 1: 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools…

WALT: “how do pick who's "visions" to make into our laws? muslims are just as sure they're communicating w/god as ancient jews and christians are/were that they've got the right god.”

It is really not that complicated when He has given us His Word which, as does no other document in written history, so clearly accords with reason and the empirical evidence of the universe in which we reside. The fact that you don’t understand the bible is much more a product of your rejection of its Author than any obscurity on the part of scripture.

WALTER,

Part 3 of 4

WALT: “i think you'll agree that it's a bad idea to have a muslim theocracy, right? would you rather that the united states were a christian theocracy, like just about every pre-enlightenment european government was?”

A “Christian theocracy” is not the point for me at all. I think the 19th century Princeton-educated theologian Theodore L. Cuyler said it about as well as it can be said, and I subscribe without reservation to his statement on this matter:

“For one, I care little for the government which presides at Washington, in comparison with the government which rules the millions of American homes. No administration can seriously harm us if our home life is pure, frugal, and godly. No statesmanship or legislation can save us if once our homes become the abode of profligacy. The home rules the nation. If the home is demoralized, it will ruin the nation. The real seed-corn whence our Republic sprang was the Christian households represented in the Mayflower, or the family altar of the Hollander and the Hugenot. All the best characters, best legislation, best institutions, the best church life were cradled in those early homes. They were the taproot of the Republic, and of the American churches.”

WALTER,

Part 4 of 4

WALT: “**like that n.t. story about donating everything to the priests... have you ever sold property and not given all the money to your church? should you be struck dead? why not?”

Walter, Walter. You do seem to manage butchering virtually every passage from the bible you refer to. Ananias and Sapphira were not struck dead because they didn’t “donate everything to the priests.” They died because they publicly committed to give the entire amount of the sale of their land for the aid of the poor and the advancement of the gospel, and then conspired privately to withhold a portion. You can read the entire amount account in Acts 5 & 6. In the end, I really don’t think you want God to “strike dead” people who don’t obey His law. You have grown far too used to His mercy and longsuffering.

PEREGRINE,

"I've been taking it easy on you; I'm trying not to completely break your spirit, as I appear to have done with peterhuff."

Gracias, amigo. You are too kind.

RCofield,

"Actually, your default use of such terms is a perfect example of the insanity of unbelief."

More "believer logic".

"That last post of yours was uncharacteristically weak. I've come to expect better from you. You tired today?"

I've been taking it easy on you; I'm trying not to completely break your spirit, as I appear to have done with peterhuff.

PEREGRINE,

RCO: "“OMG?” “OMFG?” You DO have a god after all."

PER: "This is a perfect example of "believer logic".

Actually, your default use of such terms is a perfect example of the insanity of unbelief.

That last post of yours was uncharacteristically weak. I've come to expect better from you. You tired today?

WALTER

Part 1 of 2

RCO said: “Historically, there is not a single example of an atheistic or purely secular regime that did not result in mass killing. The French Revolution was the first example of a post-Christian government that resulted in a “Reign of Terror.” And it was certainly not the last.”

WALT: “first, historically, the list of atrocities conducted on god's behalf is just way too long to even enumerate. it's almost axiomatic. take the crusades for example: BOTH sides were motivated by god.”

Well, I see you are still pointing to immoral conduct to justify immoral conduct. Does it not strike you how irrational this is?

WALT: “and second, let's distinguish between an atheist regime and a secular regime. an atheist regime would be just as unenlightened as a christian regime or an islamic regime. that's old-fashioned the-govt-needs-a-religious-mascot thinking. a government cannot be involved w/religion - and be fair to all it's citizens.”

Whoa there big fella. Back up the wagon-train. You were earlier quite adamant that atheism was not a religion. Now you lump it right in there with christianity and Islam. What gives with that?!

WALT: “so, i imagine if framed this way all your concerns about "atheistic/secular" regimes evaporates.”

Sorry, but you imagine incorrectly. No evaporation here. May statement still stands. Historically, there is not a single example of an atheistic or purely secular regime that did not result in mass killing. Watch closely. You are about to lend support to my assertion:

WALT: “the united states is a secular regime. the soviet union was ostensibly an atheist regime.”

See? Fifty million abortions since 1973 in the United States—that's pretty massive killing. Soviet Union? Aside from Stalin's rabid atheistic genocides, the abortion rate spiked over 60% of all pregnancies just a few years back. That is a staggering 6 out of 10 children murdered in their mother's womb—that's pretty massive killing by anyone's measure.

WALT: “the "reign of terror" in france lasted one year. of course it was an over-reaction (to millenia of church-justified oppression). i don't know of any enlightenment person nowadays who thinks it was a great thing (see atheist vs secular govt.).”

I see we're back to pointing to immoral behavior to justify immoral behavior again.

WALTER,

Part 2 of 2

RCO: “Morally, atheism/secularism offers no restraint of evil. A purely secular government does not see itself as accountable to any higher authority and feels free to kill (if it deems it necessary) in such a way that is consistent with a Darwinian view of survival.”

WALT: “that is incorrect. as i've explained, an "atheist regime" is unenlightened. a secular regime, guided by reason, enacts laws to "restrain evil".

Ummm....Walter, are you unfamiliar with the old adage “You cannot legislate morality?”

WALT: “in case you can't fathom what "evil" is w/o having ancient near-eastern men tell you,....”

You are kidding, right? You enthusiastically support: a woman's “right” to have the child in her womb brutally murdered, the demeaning practice of polygamy, the legalization of degrading prostitution, and the practice of dehumanizing homosexuality.....and you think I am the one who “can't fathom what evil is?

WALT: “"evil" is not mean things that would land one in hell - because hell is imaginary - evil things violate other people's rights.

So.....let me make sure I've got this right. The only things that are evil are those things which “violate other people's rights?” Have you actually thought about that statement more than, say, 10 seconds? And where, pray tell, does our own Declaration of Independence say these “rights” come from? I mean, we are a secular nation, aren't we? How in the world do you think THAT got in there?

WALT: “the "higher authority" that a secular government answers to is WE THE PEOPLE. that's right! it may be shocking to a theist, but a enlightened government does not have to consult ancient near-eastern men for moral guidance.”

Sigh......So Walter, I have a very simple question to ask you. Are you willing to submit any and everything that “WE THE PEOPLE” determine to be morally acceptable? Two questions, actually. You are aware that not every secular government has been/is/or will be democratic, aren't you?

RCofield,

"Gee, Solus. How shall we determine which (if either) of us is right?"

Have you lost your faith?

"Any suggestions?"

Nope.

"You are an alien from another planet, aren't you?"

I don't think so.

"You know, there is a very thin line between being enigmatic and irrational."

Really?

"Sometime one recognizes an absurd idea immediately upon its being posited."

Does one?

"Yes, and we all know that there has never been an immoral law passed in the history of mankind..."

I'm not sure how that is germane.

"I'm not sure my God “nots.” I'm not even sure I know what “noting” is! (Please clean this one up and re-ask it...please)"

Well crafted - kudos.

"I am (doing something about it), thank you very much."

I'll have to take your word on that.

"Gee, Peregrine, would you contend that a father subjecting his daughter to having a stranger “teach” her about sex, being given contraceptives on demand, having sex with a pimply-faced teenage boy, getting pregnant, having an abortion....and all this without the father's knowledge or input, is a good and fit thing for a father to do?"

Who am I to judge?

"Surely you can drop the “gee, I only think in terms of probabilities” shtick long enough to answer THAT in the negative."

I'm not sure what one has to do with the other.

"“OMG?” “OMFG?” You DO have a god after all."

This is a perfect example of "believer logic".

PEREGRINE,

PER: “Below: a link to an article by a believer whose beliefs appear to me to differ from your beliefs.
He appears to be as convinced of his beliefs about your bible, as your are of your beliefs about your bible.”

Gee, Solus. How shall we determine which (if either) of us is right? Any suggestions?

RCO: "So...in your estimation when an abortion doctor puncturing a late-second trimester child's cranium, collapsing its head, dismembering its body and removing it from its mother's womb with a vacuum cleaner is not murder?"
PER: “No.”

You are an alien from another planet, aren't you?

RCO: Injecting a saline solution into a mother's womb and scalding/burning a child to death is not murder?"
PER: “No.”

You know, there is a very thin line between being enigmatic and irrational.

RCO: "And, may I remind you, our current president once supported legislation that would have allowed abortion “doctors” to leave a child to die when it experienced live birth after an attempted abortion. How is abortion not murder?"
PER: “If you really want to know, ask a lawyer.”

Sometime one recognizes an absurd idea immediately upon its being posited.

PER: “Actually, it's about the law.”

Yes, and we all know that there has never been an immoral law passed in the history of mankind...

PER: “Well then, why does your "god" do noting about it?”

I'm not sure my God “nots.” I'm not even sure I know what “noting” is! (Please clean this one up and re-ask it...please)
PER: “Well then, why do you do nothing about it?”

I am (doing something about it), thank you very much.

PER: “Are you "god"? You appear to be making some "god-like" pronouncements here.”

Gee, Peregrine, would you contend that a father subjecting his daughter to having a stranger “teach” her about sex, being given contraceptives on demand, having sex with a pimply-faced teenage boy, getting pregnant, having an abortion....and all this without the father's knowledge or input, is a good and fit thing for a father to do? Surely you can drop the “gee, I only think in terms of probabilities” shtick long enough to answer THAT in the negative.

PER: “LOL, OMG, ROFL, pie are not square - pie are round! LOL. OMFG. IPML.”

“OMG?” “OMFG?” You DO have a god after all. My, my. It wouldn't be a hand-carved falcon by any chance, would it?

RCofield,

"Excuse me while I pick myself up from rolling around on the floor in convulsions of laughter..."

Scientists also believe: pie are square!

LOL, OMG, ROFL, pie are not square - pie are round!

LOL.

OMFG.

IPML.

WALTER,

WALT (to mono1) “have you learned your evolutionary theory from a religious fundamentalist website? or maybe from your priest/pastor/imam? no modern scientist thinks man evolved from apes.”

Ah, yes, Walter. We all know that humans are “closely related” to modern apes, but we didn't “evolve from apes.” Scientists just “think” we share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists “believe” (but don't know for certain) this “common ancestor” (we think) existed 5 to 8 million years ago (what a “window!” wouldn't want to be too precise now, would we?). Shortly thereafter (whether it was “shortly after” 5 million years ago or “shortly after” 8 million years ago we have no idea, but we do know for certain that it was “shortly after"--LOL!), the species diverged into two separate lineages (...we think. Missing a lot of the fossil record here—but not to worry, it WILL show up...we think). One of these lineages (we're not sure which) ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids (..we think. Still missing a lot [well, actually almost all] of the transitional forms here too). And now, viola, we have the highly evolved moral machine known as modern man.

Excuse me while I pick myself up from rolling around on the floor in convulsions of laughter...

How silly of anyone to think we evolved from apes when we are so positively certain that we did not! (we think)

I'm sorry. I'll get back to answering your more important posts. Just thought I would rattle your cage a bit there......ooohhhhh.....haaaaa.....oooooo.....hahahaaaaahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa......I'm sorry, but....“rattle your cage”?!.....I kill myself.....

I leave you with a quote from the venerable G. K. Chesterton:

"Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself. If evolution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalism."

RCofield,

"You once mentioned that you have a young daughter. Are these really the kind of “choices” you want to make readily available to her? If you will answer that question honestly, you will either implicate yourself as an unfit father or you will completely undermine your entire argument there. Which will it be?

Are you "god"?

You appear to be making some "god-like" pronouncements here.

RCofield"

"So...in your estimation when an abortion doctor puncturing a late-second trimester child's cranium, collapsing its head, dismembering its body and removing it from its mother's womb with a vacuum cleaner is not murder?"

No.

Injecting a saline solution into a mother's womb and scalding/burning a child to death is not murder?"

No.

"And, may I remind you, our current president once supported legislation that would have allowed abortion “doctors” to leave a child to die when it experienced live birth after an attempted abortion. How is abortion not murder?"

If you really want to know, ask a lawyer.

Only when you explain it away with “subjective morality.”"

Actually, it's about the law.

"I don't think God is impressed,..."

Well then, why does your "god" do noting about it?

"...and I am dead certain I am not."

Well then, why do you do nothing about it?

RCofield,

Below: a link to an article by a believer whose beliefs appear to me to differ from your beliefs.

He appears to be as convinced of his beliefs about your bible, as your are of your beliefs about your bible.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/10/26/coogan.bible.family.values/index.html?hpt=Sbin

CORRECTION:

"It is inexcusable, and to claim it for the sake of furthering your argument on being repugnant."

Should read:

It is inexcusable, and to claim it for the sake of furthering your argument BORDERS on being repugnant.

WALTER,

Part 1 of 4

WALT: “yes abortion is bad.”

Walter, you originally responded rather enthusiastically to my question on abortion and stated in no uncertain terms that you were quite the proponent of a woman's “right” to abort her child. Is this yet another example of your subjective morality “evolving?” How was it “good” then and “bad” now?....I can't wait...

WALT: “but it's not equivalent to murdering a person.”

Really? So...in your estimation when an abortion doctor puncturing a late-second trimester child's cranium, collapsing its head, dismembering its body and removing it from its mother's womb with a vacuum cleaner is not murder? Injecting a saline solution into a mother's womb and scalding/burning a child to death is not murder? And, may I remind you, our current president once supported legislation that would have allowed abortion “doctors” to leave a child to die when it experienced live birth after an attempted abortion. How is abortion not murder? Only when you explain it away with “subjective morality.” I don't think God is impressed, and I am dead certain I am not.

WALT: “if you're seriously interested in minimizing abortions, make contraception readily available. stats show ( http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html ) that abortion rates are actually going down worldwide, and that they occur less often in places where they're legal - reflective of those societies' widespread availability and use of contraception.”

Right. Rather than teach people to make good MORAL choices and do the MORALLY right thing and take responsibility for their actions, let's give contraceptives to kids in elementary and junior high and high school and let them engage in sexual relationships (for which they are TOTALLY unprepared) to their heart's content; and when they inevitably become pregnant, take them to a legally sanctioned butcher and let him murder their child for them. And let's even pass legislation that these minors can have their child murdered without their parents even being made aware of what is going on. To hell with the devastating emotional and psychological consequences, to hell with the promiscuity, to hell with the inability of that child to ever be able to have a solid marriage, to hell with the overwhelming guilt that will eventually overtake them...just make sure they have access to contraception and abortion “services” and everything is going to turn out just fine. Please.

You once mentioned that you have a young daughter. Are these really the kind of “choices” you want to make readily available to her? If you will answer that question honestly, you will either implicate yourself as an unfit father or you will completely undermine your entire argument there. Which will it be?

WALTER,

Part 2 of 4

WALT: “you're gonna consider this obfuscation....”

You are correct. It is obfuscation. The question at hand here is the morality of mankind. To justify 800 million children murdered in their mother's womb you set a up a straw-man argument about God. Even if your argument could be sustained (and it cannot) you are justifying bad behavior by pointing to someone else's bad behavior. “Evolved” morality indeed! You wouldn't dream of allowing your own child to use such tactics (I would hope), yet you do so without hesitation. That says more about your subjective morality than I ever could.

WALT: “IF you consider god omnipotent and you consider that little fetus to be a person, THEN you've got to think of god as the greatest abortionist ever. doctors think about 30%-50% of fertilized eggs (i.e., a full-blown, soul-infused person in your estimation) never make it past the first 2 weeks of life. after that, they say about 10% of pregnancies end in "spontaneous" abortions or miscarriages. that's doctor-talk for "acts of god". why does god abort so many pregnancies? what happens to these souls?”

First, your percentages are high compared to studies I have seen (source please). However, a significant proportion of these conceptions abort due to the use of contraceptives that are themselves abortifacients. Given the widespread promotion of said contraceptives by highly “evolved,” morally superior, enlightened mankind, culpability for many of these “abortions” lies squarely at the feet of mankind.

Secondly, God is not only omnipotent, He is omniscient, and as such is infinitely more knowledgeable and wise in these matters than yourself. Additionally, God, by any reasonable definition of the word “God” is the Giver and Source of Life, and as such He retains the legitimate right to either sustain or take away that life according to His own purposes, which purposes find their reason in His infinitely wise Being. Given these points and the fact that He gives us numerous insights into His purposes in His Word, your “case against God” on this issue is really no case at all. Unless, of course, you yourself are god and are more knowledgeable and wise than God himself, in which case we should all worship you.

And thirdly, a reasonably good case can be made from scripture that “these souls” are received into the glorious presence of God to live with Him in happiness and unspeakable joy forever. What a terrible fate, right?

Before you twist yourself into a pretzel answering the above, you should be reminded that if you are going to contend for the omnipotence of God (which you did for the sake of your argument), you can't reasonably reject the remainder of His revealed attributes used in my rebuttal.

WALTER,

Part 3 of 4

WALT: “you can characterize our times as being morally depraved, but that's just because you didn't live in olden times. you probably have a romantic notion of how things used to be...”

LOL! Man, if you don't think our “times” are morally depraved you are living with your hands over your eyes and your fingers in your ears! Do you live under a rock? I haven't even exposed the tip of the iceberg with my above statements. And I don't have to have lived in “olden” times to know modern morality is headed downhill at break-neck speed. Having employed more than 300 people over the course of the last 25 years, I can assure you that people in general are less honest, have less integrity, lie more, cheat more, steal more, fornicate more, do more drugs, drink more, curse more, and break the law more than they did even 15 years ago, let alone 25 years ago. You don't get out much, do you?

WALT: “thanks to the enlightenment, we have equal rights for local AND foreign slaves... furthermore, we have laws banning, rather than codifying, sexism, racism and/or "religionism" (is "hebrew" a racial or religious term?).”

Straw-man....another straw-man...yet another straw-man. All answered and refuted in previous posts. Although...what are you talking about when you say we have “laws banning...'religionism?'” What the heck is that? And BTW, you never did respond to my rebuttal of your offering of “enlightened” individuals who were supposedly actively involved the abolition of slavery. If you are going to claim the abolition of slavery for a moral “feather” in the hat of the “Enlightenment” you are going to have to do better than that.

WALT: “as far as "rampant sexual slavery involving children", i don't know what you're talking about.”

C'mon, Walter. You mean to tell me you are unfamiliar with the fact that sexual slavery is big business? You are unaware that children (especially girls, but, increasingly, boys as well) are being forced into prostitution against their will in virtually every nation on earth?! Statistics show that the child sex trade is a global issue that affects two million children around the world each year. And yet you want to “legalize” prostitution! Good grief, man! Use your wonderful “google machine” that you so often refer to. I'll be honest with you, this kind of willing ignorance makes me angry. It is inexcusable, and to claim it for the sake of furthering your argument on being repugnant.

WALTER,

Part 4 of 4

WALT: “and how does someone's being homosexual affect you? this is how enlightened morals work. to paraphrase jefferson, "it neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg" - so what's the big deal. are you afraid you or your children will "catch" it?”

How unbelievably callous. This is your idea of “enlightened morality”--to have absolutely no concern for those whose lives are being destroyed by homosexuality? Have you ever stood at the bedside of a homosexual dying of aids and seen the look of sheer desperation in their eyes? Have you ever seen the statistics on the devastating promiscuity that characterizes this “life-style,” or the overwhelming guilt that eventually seizes those involved? Have you ever seen a devastated wife and children who discover that their husband/father is secretly meeting men at rest-stops to engage in violent “sexual” encounters, or looked into their eyes when they find out that their husband/father is dying of aids as a result of said encounters? I could enumerate a hundred first-hand observations that should cause any genuinely caring individual to be overwhelmed with empathy for such individuals, yet you ask, flippantly, “what's the big deal.” Again, you are inadvertently exposing the putrid nature of “enlightened morality” far better than I ever could.

And.....“are you afraid you or your children will 'catch' it?” I won't dignify that with an answer....No. Wait. I actually will. Both myself, my wife, and my children have employed, invited into our home, wept with, prayed for, cooked meals for, and otherwise ministered to individuals who were openly homosexual. I have personally held their hands and tried to comfort them while they were dying. Does your concern for them rise to that level Walter? Or do you just say “hey, they're not picking my pocket or breaking my leg....?”

Further, you ignore the issues I raised of mass-sterilizations that took place right here in our “enlightened” nation, the placement of most of our government-funded abortion clinics in black neighborhoods to practice a “sterilized” form of racial genocide, and your contention that we should legalize dehumanizing polygamy and prostitution…. How convenient for you.

Wake up and smell the stench, Walter. Mankind's morality is NOT improving.

I'll get to your other two posts later today.

oops...rco, i didn't finish this thought:

this "right here, right now" nature of secular punishments are much more effective than god's promises of...

...future punishment. damning someone to eternal hell after death for stealing or whatever is all well and good, but it doesn't help society here and now.

mono1,
have you learned your evolutionary theory from a religious fundamentalist website? or maybe from your priest/pastor/imam?

no modern scientist thinks man evolved from apes.

RCO: Morally, atheism/secularism offers no restraint of evil. A purely secular government does not see itself as accountable to any higher authority and feels free to kill (if it deems it necessary) in such a way that is consistent with a Darwinian view of survival.
--------------

wrong. the "restraint of evil" is provided by real, actual people, right here on real, actual earth. these real actual people make and enforce laws about behavior. it's true that a secular government is not "accountable" to an invisible entity who doesn't DO ANYTHING when we break his laws.* oh sure there's lots of bluster and promises from god, but when you really think about it we CAN break god's laws (say, commandments 1-4 or "do unto others") just as easily as we can break man's "secular" laws. but when i break god's laws by say, blaspheming, nothing happens to me.... (i've long thought how awesome it would be if every time someone blasphemed god struck them dead on the spot.** wouldn't that be great evidence for god?! and it would pretty much put an end to blasphemy and whatever other laws god wanted to make....i'd be a believer...but i digress...)

if i break a secular law by stealing i get in trouble right here right now with people - with my fellow man (and woman, of course). in a secular humanist framework that's who your "higher authority" is: other PEOPLE.

this "right here, right now" nature of secular punishments are much more effective than god's promises of

*this invisible (and inaudible) entity has issued different rules to different people! hahahaha...that's rich! how do pick who's "visions" to make into our laws? muslims are just as sure they're communicating w/god as ancient jews and christians are/were that they've got the right god. i think you'll agree that it's a bad idea to have a muslim theocracy, right? would you rather that the united states were a christian theocracy, like just about every pre-enlightenment european government was?

**like that n.t. story about donating everything to the priests... have you ever sold property and not given all the money to your church? should you be struck dead? why not?

typical darwinian mentality and evolurationality,

if its traced to an ape it will walk like an ape and it will behave and morale like an ape.

the major difference between mankind and ape kind is that mankind is trusted with the message of god ,worship the creator not the creation,

ape kind is in the service of mankind to carry the trust of god not to betray the message,

so darwin and his intellectual heirs done 3 damage to mankind, and ape kind,

1- traced mankind to an ape
2- leveled mankind to an ape
3- did not go beyond the biological of an ape .

the above 3 leave mankind in the cave of apeism no matter how modern he eat or crap or put on jazzy suit and perfect tie!

take a wiled darwinian guess,
if it walk like a duck if it talk like a duck?................?

monkey scientific business

RCO: Historically, there is not a single example of an atheistic or purely secular regime that did not result in mass killing. The French Revolution was the first example of a post-Christian government that resulted in a “Reign of Terror.” And it was certainly not the last.

WALTER: first, historically, the list of atrocities conducted on god's behalf is just way too long to even enumerate. it's almost axiomatic. take the crusades for example: BOTH sides were motivated by god. and second, let's distinguish between an atheist regime and a secular regime. an atheist regime would be just as unenlightened as a christian regime or an islamic regime. that's old-fashioned the-govt-needs-a-religious-mascot thinking. a government cannot be involved w/religion - and be fair to all it's citizens. so, i imagine if framed this way all your concerns about "atheistic/secular" regimes evaporates. the united states is a secular regime. the soviet union was ostensibly an atheist regime.

WALTER: the "reign of terror" in france lasted one year. of course it was an over-reaction (to millenia of church-justified oppression). i don't know of any enlightenment person nowadays who thinks it was a great thing (see atheist vs secular govt.).

RCO: Morally, atheism/secularism offers no restraint of evil. A purely secular government does not see itself as accountable to any higher authority and feels free to kill (if it deems it necessary) in such a way that is consistent with a Darwinian view of survival.

WALTER: that is incorrect. as i've explained, an "atheist regime" is unenlightened. a secular regime, guided by reason, enacts laws to "restrain evil". in case you can't fathom what "evil" is w/o having ancient near-eastern men tell you, here, "evil" is not mean things that would land one in hell - because hell is imaginary - evil things violate other people's rights. the "higher authority" that a secular government answers to is WE THE PEOPLE. that's right! it may be shocking to a theist, but a enlightened government does not have to consult ancient near-eastern men for moral guidance.

RCO: The above statements are historically consistent from the Enlightenment to present day.

WALTER: see above. you are conflating atheist and secular.

RCO: How do you square this with your insistence that modern man is "evolving" to an increasingly higher standard of morality?

WALTER: easily. it makes perfect sense that as man's morals have improved as we've evolved away from our dependence of ancient "moral" codes. whereas we used to have laws codifying slavery, sexism, racism, and religionism, secular societies now have laws against all those things.

WALTER,

You never responded to this, though I thought it was pretty damning:

WALT: “who decides the greater good? i certainly hope not ancient israelites who execute people for gluttony, or disobeying a parent. the answer is actually "we do!" - armed with our evolving morals and culture.”

RCO: "Ah, yes! We are veritable gods aren’t we? Armed with “evolving morals and culture” we have “decided the greater good” and slaughtered hundreds of millions through war, sterilized the “unfit” in our fine culture, placed most of our government-funded abortion clinics in black neighborhoods to practice a “sterilized” form of racial genocide, murdered over 800 million helpless children in their mother’s womb in less than a century worldwide, turned a blind eye to rampant sexual slavery involving children…..whoooeeeee, we’re on a roll, aren’t we? But wait, we are not through yet! We’re going to institutionalize perverse homosexuality by granting it the status of “marriage,” legalize polygamy and prostitution….there is just no telling what marvelous moral heights we will eventually “evolve” to."

Posted by: RCofield | October 20, 2010 11:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
-------------------------
yes abortion is bad. but it's not equivalent to murdering a person. if you're seriously interested in minimizing abortions, make contraception readily available. stats show ( http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html ) that abortion rates are actually going down worldwide, and that they occur less often in places where they're legal - reflective of those societies' widespread availability and use of contraception.

you're gonna consider this obfuscation, but, i think you have to rationalize an excuse somehow. IF you consider god omnipotent and you consider that little fetus to be a person, THEN you've got to think of god as the greatest abortionist ever. doctors think about 30%-50% of fertilized eggs (i.e., a full-blown, soul-infused person in your estimation) never make it past the first 2 weeks of life. after that, they say about 10% of pregnancies end in "spontaneous" abortions or miscarriages. that's doctor-talk for "acts of god". why does god abort so many pregnancies? what happens to these souls?

you can characterize our times as being morally depraved, but that's just because you didn't live in olden times. you probably have a romantic notion of how things used to be... thanks to the enlightenment, we have equal rights for local AND foreign slaves... furthermore, we have laws banning, rather than codifying, sexism, racism and/or "religionism" (is "hebrew" a racial or religious term?).

as far as "rampant sexual slavery involving children", i don't know what you're talking about.

and how does someone's being homosexual affect you? this is how enlightened morals work. to paraphrase jefferson, "it neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg" - so what's the big deal. are you afraid you or your children will "catch" it?

RCofield,

"Not following you..."

Maybe I am an enigma after all.

"moniker"

PEREGRINE,

"BTW, I prefer "nom de guerre" (in time of war) or "nom de plume" (in time of peace)."

Not following....

"I'm just not sure in which time I am currently living."

Ain't that the truth?! (No, wait. I meant probability...probability is what I meant...)

Solus Christus

PEREGRINE,

"BTW, I prefer "nom de guerre" (in time of war) or "nom de plume" (in time of peace)."

Not following you...

"I'm just not sure in which time I am currently living."

Ain't that the truth.

RCofield,

"I'd be interested to hear your take on my assessment of your "Peregrine Solus" moniker @ October 23, 2010 8:28 AM."

I don't think that I have a "take".

BTW, I prefer "nom de guerre" (in time of war) or "nom de plume" (in time of peace).

I'm just not sure in which time I am currently living.

PEREGRINE,

"My typical weekend is filled with murdering, raping, pillaging, and committing general mayhem."

Peter and I have secretly suspected as much for quite some time, although a case can be made that the "general mayhem" part is a week-long practice of yours.

Good to hear from you.

I'd be interested to hear your take on my assessment of your "Peregrine Solus" moniker @ October 23, 2010 8:28 AM.

Peter,

"Walter usually takes the weekends off. As for PSolus, I don't know where he disappeared to."

Well, it didn't take old Psolus long to show up once I questioned his absence, did it?

Walter has only posted once since last Tuesday.

"I just picked up a new book by Nancy Pearcey, Saving Leonardo, A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Minds, Morals and Meaning."

Sounds interesting. Post quotes liberally.

peterhuff,

"As for PSolus, I don't know where he disappeared to."

My typical weekend is filled with murdering, raping, pillaging, and committing general mayhem.

peterhuff,

"I even noticed PSolus referring to one of these horsemen."

This is news to me.

To which of these "horseman" do you believe that I referred?

Walter usually takes the weekends off. As for PSolus, I don't know where he disappeared to.

I just picked up a new book by Nancy Pearcey, Saving Leonardo, A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Minds, Morals and Meaning.

It promises to be quite interesting. In inside jacket cover reads, [She] 'makes a compelling case that secularism is destructive and dehumanizing.'

I believe you mentioned previously that you had read Francis Schaeffer, so you might have heard of her. Her last book, Total Truth, was also very good.

The reason I mention this is because of some of Walter's statements on moral evolution. After reading Os Guinness, James Sire and others, who make poignant statements on our culture, I think I will try and develop this area of his belief in the future as related to so many of the values that influence us in music, art, literature, politics, film and news media, etc.

It seems so unbelievable that this atheist, as well as Walter, can take such a stance against God and yet have such an aberrant view on what is really happening behind the scenes.

And someone said recently on a podcast I was listening to that the real issue is exactly that, a moral issue. God's teaching on right and wrong does not allow the atheist to live life exactly as he pleases, so he will find fault with God in as many ways as he can in order to live as he choses.

Hence this militant atheism with the Four Horsemen leading the charge and the foot soldiers gallantly following, like lambs to the slaughter.

I even noticed PSolus referring to one of these horsemen. It just amazes me their influence and the way people lap this stuff up.

Now, if an atheist can display posters on the local buses for the past month stating his value system is for the betterment of society I'm wondering if a small group of Christians could refute such a position. What would we say? How could we say it short and sweet? Would we even be allowed?

Instead of the headline reading, "Don't believe in God?' how about, 'The fool has said in his heart there is no God." (Psalm 14:1) Welcome to Humanism, a religious system to the detriment of society that cannot explain reason, ethics or justify why its system can result in compassion, if adhered to.

No, way to harsh, yet true. It is disturbing though, is it not. These people are going to great pains to make their point of view heard.

I'm not going to be around much on Monday or Tuesday. I'll see if there are any responses to your posts by Walter on Wednesday, the Lord willing.

Just one last thought on slavery. With all the passages in the OT in which God expresses His compassion for the poor, the orphan, the oppressed, how does Walter come up with this stuff? It is like he has blinders on, plus he's plugged his ears and intellect to anything other than what the Four Horsemen have to say. And his biggest stumbling blocks to my mind, based on previous correspondence, are the Flood, the creation account, the existence of evil and prophecy.

Peter,

"I could not pursue the secular humanist individual to engage. Here is his response,
"Thanks for your invitation to debate but I'm a pretty busy person and have more productive things to do with my time. Besides, debate between religionists and atheists never really changes anyone's mind. Richard Dawkins doesn't do it, either. Maybe your time would be better spent reading a good book. I recommend almost anything by Dawkins, Dennett, Harris or Hitchens. God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens is a good one to start with.

Have a good day. Thanks for getting in touch""

Yes, that kind of response is fairly typical. It is a thinly disguised elitism. We "religionists" are beneath them, for they are too busy saving the world from God.

You might reply to him that you will read something from one of his apostles (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, or Hitchens) if he will read one of your apostles (Paul, Peter, John, or James).

Psolus has fallen strangely silent over the last couple of days, and Walter has disappeared on us. What do you make of that?

Hi RCofield,

I could not pursue the secular humanist individual to engage. Here is his response,

"Thanks for your invitation to debate but I'm a pretty busy person and have more productive things to do with my time. Besides, debate between religionists and atheists never really changes anyone's mind. Richard Dawkins doesn't do it, either. Maybe your time would be better spent reading a good book. I recommend almost anything by Dawkins, Dennett, Harris or Hitchens. God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens is a good one to start with.

Have a good day. Thanks for getting in touch"

Yeah, more productive, like trying to convert someone to his frame of mind, without being able to adequately explain it.

The poster they produced reads like a church bulletin,

"[Area] Humanists
Meetings - Fellowship - Events - Regular Meetings in [area]."

In small print,

"Please contact us to donate to this bus-ad campaign."

I like the line 'between religionists and atheists' as if atheism is not a religious view, or his suggestion to read some of the same old tired writing of Christopher Hitchens, who has proved over and over in his debates with Christians his utter abhorrence of God and his prejudice against religion in general.

What does Hitchens have to offer?

test

Hi RCofield,

I could not pursue the secular humanist individual to engage. Here is his response,

"Thanks for your invitation to debate but I'm a pretty busy person and have more productive things to do with my time. Besides, debate between religionists and atheists never really changes anyone's mind. Richard Dawkins doesn't do it, either. Maybe your time would be better spent reading a good book. I recommend almost anything by Dawkins, Dennett, Harris or Hitchens. God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens is a good one to start with.

Have a good day. Thanks for getting in touch"

Yeah, more productive, like trying to convert someone to his frame of mind, without being able to adequately explain it.

The poster they produced reads like a church bulletin,

"[Area] Humanists
Meetings - Fellowship - Events - Regular Meetings in [area]."

In small print,

"Please contact us to donate to this bus-ad campaign."

I like the line 'between religionists and atheists' as if atheism is not a religious view, or his suggestion to read some of the same old tired writing of Christopher Hitchens, who has proved over and over in his debates with Christians his utter abhorrence of God and his prejudice against religion in general.

What does Hitchens have to offer?

Danielle, you wrote: tell me what you believe...
The problem is: JFK told us he believed in peace and as soon as he became President he supported the Bay of Pig invation ( a war).

PEREGRINE,

RCO: "...you set yourself up as your own god and look to yourself for all the answers."

RCO: "Psolusim"

PER: "P-what-ism?"

Peregrine (foreigner/alien/wanderer) Solus (alone).

Psolusism=Peregrine-alone-ism.

As opposed to Solus Christus...

peterhuff,

"I see PSolus as being so entangled in a relativistic/nihilistic framework that I don't think he is presently capable of reasoning this out. But as you point out with certain statements he made, they show his confusion and are self refuting, for instance,

PSO: “Two categories that I do not use are True / False, because I do not deal in abstract absolutes.”

RCO: "Are you “absolutely” sure of that statement?""

Oh, man, did he burn me good!

That's like a super burn, no, wait, an atomic burn!

I got radiation poisoning from that burn!

RCofield,

"Have you ever evaluated something that didn't, at the time, make sense to you, then later realize that what seemed nonsensical initially was actually quite sensible?"

Ummm... probably...

"Have you ever considered something impossible, then later find out that it was, after all, possible?"

Ummm... perhaps...

"Have you ever seen something that you have not seen before? [emoticony stuff expurgated]"

Ummm... I think so...

"Have you ever encountered something that seemingly contradicts your experience only to later discover that it actually reinforces your experience?"

Ummm... maybe...

"Or, conversely, have you ever evaluated something that seemed to reinforce your experience, only to later reevaluate it and realize that it actually contradicts your experience?"

Ummm... could be...

"If you can answer "no" to all the above questions you are truly an enigma and your dream is realized."

Damn it, damn it, damn it... can I change my answers?

I didn't know that this was going to count against my final!

"Nirvana awaits you."

Nir-whatta?

"BUT, if you answer the above questions in the affirmative..."

Do you consider "probably", "perhaps", "I think so", "maybe", and "could be", to be affirmative?

"...you should consider this one passage of scripture:

[bibley stuff expurgated]"

AGH, AGH, AGH, AGH, get it away from me, get it away from me, I feel the holy spirit trying to... to... to... oh, my!
----------------------------------------
What is to be the fate of poor Peregrine Solus?

Read on, if you dare!

Whew, that was close!

"Wait! Wait! I know your fingers are poised in nerve-twitching anticipation of pounding out some pithy one-liner in response to that."

Oh, too late.

"But I want you to think about something for a moment."

Good luck with that.

"You said earlier that you use the "tools" of experience, education, skepticism, extrapolation, common sense, critical thinking, etc. when evaluating what is presented to you as fact. You also said that you think of things more in "terms of probability.""

Hmmm... I wonder where you're going with this...

"If you use those tools to evaluate [bibley stuff expurgated], every single one of them will affirm that the statement of this passage is highly probable."

That's one big "if".

"In all that you have heretofore stated, up to and including the above "categories," you are positing yourself as the ultimate arbiter of all "probabilities," at least for yourself."

I am?

"(I use the term "probabilities" in lieu of "truth" for obvious reasons)."

Well, well, well, aren't you the gentleman.

"If it makes sense to you, then it is sensible. If it accords with your experience, then it is probable. If you have not seen it is not probable. If it seems impossible to you then it is not possible, etc. etc. By the use of any or all of these, every one of which originates with YOU, you make yourself the source of authority.....wait for it....for yourself. You have, in essence, become a god unto yourself."

Why, look at little ole me; I am a god onto myself.

"You have hinted at humility several times, though it was probably tongue-in-cheek."

Was it? Or, wasn't it?

"There is no room for humility when you set yourself up as your own god and look to yourself for all the answers."

Well, that settles that. It wasn't.

"Think about it."

Hmmm...

"Psolusim"

P-what-ism?

PEREGRINE, (may I call you Peregrine?)

PER: "When I evaluate something, it can go into any of several categories:

- It makes sense to me. / It doesn't
make sense to me.

- It seems possible to me./It doesn't
seem possible to me.

- It i(s) something that I have seen
before./It is something that I have
not seen before.

- It appears to contradict something
that I have experienced. / It appears
to reinforce something that I have
experienced.

RCO: Have you ever evaluated something that didn't, at the time, make sense to you, then later realize that what seemed nonsensical initially was actually quite sensible?

Have you ever considered something impossible, then later find out that it was, after all, possible?

Have you ever seen something that you have not seen before? :-)

Have you ever encountered something that seemingly contradicts your experience only to later discover that it actually reinforces your experience?

Or, conversely, have you ever evaluated something that seemed to reinforce your experience, only to later reevaluate it and realize that it actually contradicts your experience?

If you can answer "no" to all the above questions you are truly an enigma and your dream is realized. Nirvana awaits you.

BUT, if you answer the above questions in the affirmative...you should consider this one passage of scripture:

Proverbs 14:12 "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death."

Wait! Wait! I know your fingers are poised in nerve-twitching anticipation of pounding out some pithy one-liner in response to that. But I want you to think about something for a moment.

You said earlier that you use the "tools" of experience, education, skepticism, extrapolation, common sense, critical thinking, etc. when evaluating what is presented to you as fact. You also said that you think of things more in "terms of probability."

If you use those tools to evaluate Proverbs 14:12, every single one of them will affirm that the statement of this passage is highly probable.

In all that you have heretofore stated, up to and including the above "categories," you are positing yourself as the ultimate arbiter of all "probabilities," at least for yourself. (I use the term "probabilities" in lieu of "truth" for obvious reasons).

If it makes sense to you, then it is sensible. If it accords with your experience, then it is probable. If you have not seen it is not probable. If it seems impossible to you then it is not possible, etc. etc. By the use of any or all of these, every one of which originates with YOU, you make yourself the source of authority.....wait for it....for yourself. You have, in essence, become a god unto yourself.

You have hinted at humility several times, though it was probably tongue-in-cheek. There is no room for humility when you set yourself up as your own god and look to yourself for all the answers.

Think about it. "Psolusim"

Hi RCofield,

RCO: ""Welcome to Humanism (the atheist's religion of choice) - a non-religious Value System (meaning a subjective, ever-shifting, evolving morality that has a long history of getting juuuuust a little out-of-control) dedicated to the Betterment of Society (by the use of abortion, sterilization, euthanasia, and eugenics [racially applied, of course, to the 'unfit,' but never to the culturally-elite atheists] for the purpose of controlling population growth on our "over-populated" planet) through Reason (an atheistic exercise completely divorced from the classical history and meaning of the term), Ethics (situationally applied--again, no relation to classical ethics) and Compassion (but only of the ignoble animal sort).' Welcome indeed!"

You nailed it! Well put. (^8

RCO: "Humanism is the best friend Christianity has when it comes to atheism: It won't allow atheists to reproduce (wouldn't want to over-crowd the planet) and thus it ensures that they will eventually "reason" themselves into extinction."

The abortion issue just keeps being a constant reminded of the utter stupidity of such thinking. In our local paper there was an article, 'Chinese woman forced to have abortion at 8 months.'

"Family planning officials in China detained an eight-months pregnant woman against her will, beat her, and forced her to have an abortion, her husband alleged
this week..."

According to the article they held her for three days and injected her with a drug that killed the baby. That is not all that hit the headlines, but I'll leave that for another time.

ME: "Well, I have had run-ins with this gentleman on other occasions in the local paper and was wondering if you and Walter would be game to including him in on our discussions, if he is (willing) of course?...."

RCO: "I'm game."

If Walter is willing I'll send this atheist a message and find out if he is willing to back up his 'enlightened' reason and value system with a display of its logic in debating. Before sending a request to the Washington Post we would probably have to work out the details on the formate. If they are not game (or for that matter, if this atheist or Walter are not willing), then we can continue of the current forums we use.

Hi RCofield,

I see PSolus as being so entangled in a relativistic/nihilistic framework that I don't think he is presently capable of reasoning this out. But as you point out with certain statements he made, they show his confusion and are self refuting, for instance,

PSO: “Two categories that I do not use are True / False, because I do not deal in abstract absolutes.”

RCO: "Are you “absolutely” sure of that statement?"

He is making a statement that if not absolute within itself refutes what he just said. Is it true or is it false?

He says he does not deal in abstract absolutes, but he just did. Now if he admits that he is not sure of the abstract absoluteness of that statement, which seems to be his current framework and most likely reply, based on dozens of similar reference, he again shoots himself in the foot because he can't seem to make sense of anything. He is not sure whether that statement is true or false. It is a real dilemma. And yet he dogmatically says that what we believe is based on magic and irrationality. How much more irrational can you be than to deny truth and falsity? And you can't. He has demonstrated that numerous times that what he says betrays what he actually believes.

Oh yeah, he believes nothing. Right. Nothing is true, nothing is false. It just is. As Ravi Zacharius pointed out, although certain sects of Buddhism believe life is but an illusion, the practitioners still look both ways before they cross the street, to avoid the oncoming bus. It is true that if they step out into the oncoming bus they'll find out it wasn't an illusion after all, and they understand this. So their actions betray what they really believe, just like PSolus' statements betray what he says elsewhere and believes. (PSolus, you don't have to explain to me that you believe nothing, we already know. We also know that you are not consistent when you make such statements, based on other statements you have made, and as RCofield pointed out.)

As you said, RCO, he denies the basis of logic with his contradictions.

The Law of Contradiction (or non-
contradiction) states "A is not not-A." No statement can be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense.

The Law of Identity states that "A is A." This means that if a statement is true, it is true. It can't be true and not true at the same time.

The Law of Excluded Middles states that "A is either A or non-A." Any statement must be true or false exclusively. There is no middle ground. In other words, if a statement is not true then it is false.

PEREGRINE,

"It appears to me that you are deliberately using the word "religion" as a pejorative."

No, I am actually using it in the definitional sense.

"I hope that that statement isn't too judg()mental, and that it doesn't contradict any statement that I have previously made."

Not at all. But thanks for the sentiment.

PEREGRINE,

Part 1 of 2

“If I were to say, "Most basketball players are tall":
1.Am I judging them in any way? No; I'm simply making an observation.”

Yes, you are. You are judging them tall in relation to your experience that their average height substantially exceeds the average of the population at large. That, presumably, is your point of reference.

“2. Am I proving anything? No; again, I'm simply making an observation.”

No. But only because you add no qualifying statements, as you did with your “most people who believe in a god” statement (I.e. “aren't thinking,” are “delusional,” aren't “thinking critically”). If you had said “Most basketball players are tall and are not able to buy clothes unless they go to the “big and tall” section of the local clothing store, etc., you are then offering evidence that, if verified, would prove they are taller than the population at large.

“3. Am I determining anything? No; once again, I'm simply making an observation.”

See above.

“People are free to infer whatever they want from that statement; some might infer (wrongly, I hope) that I am quite insane, other might infer (wrongly, I fear) that I am quite wise.”

That you use examples in which you “hope” and “fear” certain conclusions about your statement indicates that you are indeed trying to make truth-claims that will (hopefully, right?) engender reasonable thoughts about Peregrine.

“No, it is simply your opinion that I contradict myself; other may disagree with your opinion.”

Sorry. No cigar for you. When you make opposing statements you contradict yourself regardless of opinion, popular or otherwise. Statements that oppose one another cannot both be correct in exactly the same way at the same time. Basic logic.

“When I evaluate something, it can go into any of several categories:
It makes sense to me. / It doesn't make sense to me.”

And said category exists on the basis of what you think possible and not possible (see category #2), which in turn rests on what you think is factual/true or non-factual/false.

- “It seems possible to me. / It doesn't seem possible to me.”

Which category is inexorably tied to category #1.

- “It it something that I have seen before. / It is something that I have not seen before.”

Which category is, for you, the primary way you formulate category #1 and #2.

-” It appears to contradict something that I have experienced. / It appears to reinforce something that I have experienced.”

Which category is, for you, the co-primary way you formulate category #1 and #2.

“Two categories that I do not use are True / False, because I do not deal in abstract absolutes.”

Are you “absolutely” sure of that statement?

“I cannot know what is "true", because I don't really know what is "false", and I therefore don't have anything to judge against.”

And yet you do, and you do, and you do.... And no, you are not an enigma.

PEREGRINE,

Part 2 of 2

“If I say, "I find Jackson Pollock's "No. 5" to be a mess of splattered paint", I am not judging it; I am merely stating what I see when I look at the painting.
I am not saying that it is a great painting, because I don't feel that I am qualified to say it is a great painting, and I'm not saying that it is not great painting, because I do not feel that I am qualified to say that it is not a great painting.
Just as I don't feel that I am qualified to say what is "true" or what is "false".”

See my comments on tall basketball players.

RCO: "You “judge” (by inference)..."

PSO: “No, you simply infer that I judge; I have no control over your inferences.”

I was not referring to my inferences.

RCO: "...something more than a one-line pith-o-gram..."

PSO: “It appears that I've really got up your nose with my comments;”

Generally, when I get something up my nose, I sneeze and expurgate it. I have not sneezed lately.

“...in fact, with all of the "proof-texting" (or "text-proofing", I forget which), that you and peterhuff have been doing with them, one might conclude that you are not as sure of your beliefs as you appear to be.”

I am surprised that the fact I was only responding to the passages brought into the discussion (and promptly butchered) by your fellow atheists (I know, you're not an atheist...) managed to escape such an astute poster as yourself.

“I haven't shaken your faith, have I?”

Are you trying to shake my faith?

RCofield,

"...(the atheist's religion of choice) ..."

It appears to me that you are deliberately using the word "religion" as a pejorative.

I hope that that statement isn't too judgemental, and that it doesn't contradict any statement that I have previously made.

PETER,

"Did you get that? Unbelievable, isn't it? 'Non-religious, Value System, dedicated to the Betterment of Society through Reason, Ethics and Compassion.' (^8"

Yeah. (Theistic interpretation):

"Welcome to Humanism (the atheist's religion of choice) - a non-religious Value System (meaning a subjective, ever-shifting, evolving morality that has a long history of getting juuuuust a little out-of-control) dedicated to the Betterment of Society (by the use of abortion, sterilization, euthanasia, and eugenics [racially applied, of course, to the 'unfit,' but never to the culturally-elite atheists] for the purpose of controlling population growth on our "over-populated" planet) through Reason (an atheistic exercise completely divorced from the classical history and meaning of the term), Ethics (situationally applied--again, no relation to classical ethics) and Compassion (but only of the ignoble animal sort).' Welcome indeed!

Humanism is the best friend Christianity has when it comes to atheism: It won't allow atheists to reproduce (wouldn't want to over-crowd the planet) and thus it ensures that they will eventually "reason" themselves into extinction.

"Well, I have had run-ins with this gentleman on other occasions in the local paper and was wondering if you and Walter would be game to including him in on our discussions, if he is (willing) of course? I was actually thinking of asking the Washington Post for a section in which we could continue our long running debate without interruption or interrupting others."

I'm game.

peterhuff,

"Good points to PSolus!"

I'm shocked to see that you agree with RCofield.

"I would think most people would see that PSolus is deceiving himself by his denial of a belief system by your points in which you point out his contradictions."

I'm shocked that you would write such a thing.

"Did you get that? Unbelievable, isn't it? 'Non-religious, Value System, dedicated to the Betterment of Society through Reason, Ethics and Compassion.[emoticomy stuff expurgated]"

Do you write that that is unbelievable because it is impossible, or because it is a bad idea in general?

RCofield,

Part 1 of 2

"Do you not see the contradiction in your statements?"

No.

If I were to say, "Most basketball players are tall":

1. Am I judging them in any way? No; I'm simply making an observation.

2. Am I proving anything? No; again, I'm simply making an observation.

3. Am I determining anything? No; once again, I'm simply making an observation.

"I think you can see where any thinking person would conclude that you have “judged” the idea of a “true, all knowing, all good, perfect, eternal, all powerful...god” an “untrue/false” idea."

People are free to infer whatever they want from that statement; some might infer (wrongly, I hope) that I am quite insane, other might infer (wrongly, I fear) that I am quite wise.

"Again, you contradict yourself."

No, it is simply your opinion that I contradict myself; other may disagree with your opinion.

"Again, your contradiction is evident."

Again, this is simply your opinion.

When I evaluate something, it can go into any of several categories:

- It makes sense to me. / It doesn't make sense to me.

- It seems possible to me. / It doesn't seem possible to me.

- It it something that I have seen before. / It is something that I have not seen before.

- It appears to contradict something that I have experienced. / It appears to reinforce something that I have experienced.

- Etc.

Two categories that I do not use are True / False, because I do not deal in abstract absolutes.

I cannot know what is "true", because I don't really know what is "false", and I therefore don't have anything to judge against.

Part 2 of 2

"See that?"

No.

If I say, "I find Jackson Pollock's "No. 5" to be a mess of splattered paint", I am not judging it; I am merely stating what I see when I look at the painting.

I am not saying that it is a great painting, because I don't feel that I am qualified to say it is a great painting, and I'm not saying that it is not great painting, because I do not feel that I am qualified to say that it is not a great painting.

Just as I don't feel that I am qualified to say what is "true" or what is "false".

"You “judge” (by inference)..."

No, you simply infer that I judge; I have no control over your inferences.

"...something more than a one-line pith-o-gram..."

It appears that I've really got up your nose with my comments; in fact, with all of the "proof-texting" (or "text-proofing", I forget which), that you and peterhuff have been doing with them, one might conclude that you are not as sure of your beliefs as you appear to be.

I haven't shaken your faith, have I?

Hi RCofield,

Good points to PSolus!

I would think most people would see that PSolus is deceiving himself by his denial of a belief system by your points in which you point out his contradictions.

Reading yesterdays local paper I saw the headline, 'Humanists preaching atheism on buses.'

Here is what was on the sign,

'Don't believe in God? You are not alone! Welcome to Humanism - a non-religious Value System dedicated to the Betterment of Society through Reason, Ethics and Compassion.'

And then it gives info on how to get in touch with the organization.

Did you get that? Unbelievable, isn't it? 'Non-religious, Value System, dedicated to the Betterment of Society through Reason, Ethics and Compassion.' (^8

Well, I have had run-ins with this gentleman on other occasions in the local paper and was wondering if you and Walter would be game to including him in on our discussions, if he is of course? I was actually thinking of asking the Washington Post for a section in which we could continue our long running debate without interruption or interrupting others.

We could try to establish some formate to the discussion in testing the two different world-views from. You know, the ethical argument, argument from ultimate authority (which would be the Bible for us and science or self for the atheist, etc.), the reliability of the authority, and an internal/external critic from both camps on the evidence.

Anyway, I've run out of time.

Part 2 of 2

PSO: "I don't judge what is true and what is not."

Then:

PSO: "I find your belief-world-view to be a circular mess of irrationality and illogic."

See that? You “judge” (by inference) said “belief-world-view” to be untrue, because you hold certain truths to be rational and logical and said “belief-world-view” contradicts your yet-to-be-posited truth-claims.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PSO: "I believe nothing. Perhaps I know nothing."

Then:

PSO: "…there are many better alternatives to mindless belief."

Aside from the obvious contradiction that one can believe something without possessing a mind (you exaggerate with the use of hyperbole here for obvious reasons)....you posit that you “perhaps...know nothing,” yet then declare that “there are many better alternatives to mindless belief.” Well, you seem fairly certain that there are “many” better alternatives, which would indicate that you have not only investigated said “many” alternatives, but have investigated them enough to feel comfortable pronouncing them “better.” So...let's hear,...oh, I don't know,...maybe three of these wonderful alternative of yours with, of course, something more than a one-line pith-o-gram telling us why they are better.

PEREGRINE SOLUS,

Part 1 of 2

You have said (at various and sundry times) "I don't attempt to determine the truth of anything.....I have nothing to prove.....I never claimed to judge the truth."

Then you make statements such as this: "I think that most people who believe in a god, or claim that they believe in a god, just aren't thinking about it that much; the delusion that we live in a magical world is so widely held, that many people just believe it without thinking critically about it."

It seems that you have "determined" that "most" people who believe in a god (a rather sweeping categorization) aren't thinking much....and have "judged" the "delusional." Do you not see the contradiction in your statements?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PSO: "I don't recall typing the word "untrue". I don't recall typing the word "false". I don't judge what is true and what is not."

PSO: "Your tortured and convoluted arguments in attempting to "prove" that the god that you believe in is the one true, all knowing, all good, perfect, eternal, all powerful, oz, oops, I mean god, who is the best selling author of your bible, which is itself absolutely true, absolutely perfect, absolutely complete, and the absolute proof that your god exists, because it says he exists, and he, himself, wrote the bible, which you know is true because it says so in the bible itself, well, you get the idea.”

I think you can see where any thinking person would conclude that you have “judged” the idea of a “true, all knowing, all good, perfect, eternal, all powerful...god” an “untrue/false” idea. Again, you contradict yourself.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PSO: "I never claimed to be an authority, ultimate, or otherwise. I have no world-view. I don't pretend to know, or to be able to provide evidence of, what is true."

Then:

PSO: "Second, you probably should not assume that I use only experience when evaluating what is presented to me as fact. I use other tools, such as education, skepticism, extrapolation, common sense, critical thinking, Occam's Razor, the opinions of others, etc."

On the one hand you claim no knowledge of what is true...then on the other hand claim to possess and “use” the necessary tools for “evaluating” what is presented to you as “fact” (truth). You just met yourself coming back. This is not only illogical, it smacks of a double standard: You claim the ability to evaluate truth-claims (fact-claims), yet you go to great lengths to avoid having the means by which you evaluate truth-claims called into question (“I don't pretend to know...what is true”). If you claim to know what is not true (see above), you are measuring it (the truth-claim) against something that you have determined to be true...and that is precisely what you are doing when you claim to “use tools such as education, skepticism, extrapolation, common sense, critical thinking, Occam's Razor, etc.”

Again, your contradiction is evident.

TBC

rco, peter, psolus, tw,
hi guys. still busy. will comment soon.

Shrink Government? Start packing your stuff.
You are about to get fired by the WaPo for voicing such an opinion on their server...

Hi Guys,

Our old thread:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/valerie_elverton_dixon/2010/10/kaleidoscopic_mystery.html