Monday, November 01, 2010

Dr Ken Pulliam, the Former Fundy, has died

The death of Dr Ken Pulliam, the author of the Former Fundy blog, is most definitely an occasion for mixed emotions among those who love Jesus. 
On the one hand, the man had just submitted a chapter to an upcoming anti-Christian book edited by John Loftus.  He just finished a massive blogseries in which he attempted to dismantle the wonderful doctrine of the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ.  He was an apostate from the faith after earning a PhD in theology from Bob Jones University.  This last is what sets him apart from many - unlike a Dan Barker, whose education in Christianity is in reality minimal and easily seen to be shallow, a Bart Ehrman, whose post-grad education (Masters and PhD) is more along the lines of history and textual criticism, or a Richard Carrier whose PhD is in ancient history but who to my knowledge does not claim to have been a Christian, Pulliam's studies were in the very field that should lead one to know Jesus better - theology.  He was in a position to know a great deal about the Savior, and yet though he believed in Him, he decided a life lived apart from Jesus would be better than a life lived with Him.

Which brings us to the other hand.  Outside of a extraordinary change of heart that he had kept entirely secret, there can be virtually no doubt of his eternal location.  His heart attack struck him suddenly, at a relatively young age (50), and probably allowed him little time between its onset and his transition into eternity to reflect and repent.  He had just submitted an essay for a book called The End of Christianity.  The Lord will judge him by his works in this life and find that he wanted to be far from Him.  Thus Dr Pulliam will be granted exactly what he wanted in life - a life lived outside of the grace of Jesus. 

Obviously the man knew a great deal about Jesus and yet wanted nothing to do with Him.  He blogged a lot, attempting to turn people away from thinking that the Bible is true.  He was running headlong toward this end; shall we shake our fists at God for giving the man what he wanted?  And yet, we who know better and who love Jesus are sad to see another soul wallow in its self-deception to the bitter, bitter end.  Dr Pulliam was a wolf who attempted to destroy the flock of God; I will not shed too many tears when animal control puts a bullet in the wolf who has been tearing up my sheep.  Yet at the same time, I know the analogy of "wolf" does not entirely cover it.  And I hope that Christians who know his family will reach out to them and offer them the hope of the good news of the forgiveness of sin and eternal life in Jesus' name and will weep with them.

It is interesting to see how uptight people get when it comes to death.  Death truly is our great enemy and equalizer, yet how many are prepared for it?  A few examples of what I mean:
1) I left a brief comment on Dr Pulliam's latest blogpost (obviously he had several ready for scheduled publishing):
Goodbye Dr Pulliam. Your pitiful arguments against Christianity will be missed. I pity you greatly.

-Rhology 
 I have received several comments in response.  I wouldn't call them consistent with atheistic reasoning.  Pulliam wouldn't have lived more than a few more decades, and in 100 years, who will remember any of us? 

2) Dr James McGrath devotes half of a brief post to eulogise Dr Pulliam.  The other half he spends reaming me for my comment!  Apparently I have "decided to bring yet further shame on (my)self and (my) faith tradition by harassing someone who has recently died and has no opportunity to respond".  So, that little comment constitutes "harassment", eh? 
One can only wonder about what sort of motivations are present in Dr McGrath, that the announcement of the man's death quickly steers away from the man to discuss a third-rate blogger like me. Sometimes McGrath could stand to think things through a little more thoroughly, to be sure.
But I would like to ask: What precisely is disgusting about my comment? The implication that the man might be spending eternity separated from the God he claimed not to believe in?
I know the answer - McGrath is a servant of the same being as Dr Pulliam was and is, and death makes such men nervous.  Don't talk about man's eternal destiny after somebody died!  It's not polite! 


3) Ditto with the "The Church of Jesus Christ" blog, which calls me "disgusting".
Here is the comment I left (and which I do not expect them to publish):
Hello,
Thanks for your thoughts. It is apparent that you have not really understood who Dr Pulliam was. One wonders whether you read his blog very much. He and I have had extensive conversations within the past year, and he has just finished a series in which he did everything within his (limited) power to kick dust on the glorious and wonderful doctrine of the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ. He had a PhD in theology from a Christian university (yes, Bob Jones U is offbeat and has problems, but they’re still Christian) and yet turned away from the Christian faith and did his best over the course of many years to destroy it in the minds of others.
He was not your ally. He was not an unwitting pawn. He was a wolf. Biblically speaking, the only way he could have been worse for the Body of Christ would have been if he had stayed within its ranks to wreak havoc from the inside.
I guess I don’t understand what’s so disgusting here. Is it that I said I pity the man? He had just submitted a chapter in an upcoming antitheist book, and died suddenly. Where do *you* think he is? That’s why I pity him. You sort of make it sound like I am dancing with joy at his death. If that’s what you think, you are very wrong.
Peace and less prejudice to you,
Rhology

Finally, God has already spoken on this topic.  Here are some parts that will prove offensive to those who prefer to believe only part of what God has said and leave the rest to the side b/c it makes them uncomfortable. 
Psalm 7:6 Arise, O LORD, in Your anger; Lift up Yourself against the rage of my adversaries,
         And arouse Yourself for me; You have appointed judgment.
Psalm 3:7Arise, O LORD; save me, O my God! For You have smitten all my enemies on the cheek; You have shattered the teeth of the wicked.

Psalm 2: 1Why are the nations in an uproar  And the peoples devising a vain thing?
    2The kings of the earth take their stand   And the rulers take counsel together
         Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, 3"Let us tear their fetters apart  And cast away their cords from us!"
   4He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them.
    5Then He will speak to them in His anger  And terrify them in His fury...

John 3:36  He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.

Romans 2: 1Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. 3But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? 5But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: 7to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil...

134 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have to wonder as to your motivation when you posted your comment on the late Dr. Pullaim's blog instead of keeping your thoughts to your own blog. To the casual reader (like me) it looked like a petty attack on a dead man and left me with no impression of the Christ-like love with which Christians supposedly exude.

From what I can gather, you were trying to draw attention to his place in hell. But why bother? Most of his readers are either atheists or scholars with an interest in inconsistancies in religious doctrine.

David said...

Rho's motivation?

Look at me, look at me, look at me, look at me,look at me, look at me, look at me,look at me, look at me, oh please, oh please, look at me.

Peter Pike said...

David seems to be a textbook example of projection.

Rho is beging criticized for giving a Christian example. Over on Triablogue, Steve Hays is being criticized for treating this from an atheist perspective--Ken was just a meat robot that ceased functioning.

Atheist whine and complain either way. Their entire argument? "Shut up," they explained.

Never have I seen a bunch of whinier self-righteous hypocrites than those bearing the mantle of New Atheism.

David said...

"David seems to be a textbook example of projection."

Do I have a blog? No. How am I trying to say "look at me"?

"Rho is beging criticized for giving a Christian example."

No, he's being criticized for bad taste, rudeness and a lack of sensitivity. Get it right. There are plenty of venues in which Rho is free to express himself, but there's a time and place for this. Rho's just trying to cut a fart at a funeral.

Rhology said...

What a ridiculous comment from David.
Pulliam turned away from his faith. Fine, his business. He was a self-proclaimed agnostic atheist. Fine, he doesn't know any answers to any ultimate questions; fine, his business.
Yet he starts a blog ripping Christianity at every opportunity. Keeps it up for years. Argues with people about it, thus hurting family members who are still Christians. Blasphemes a God he doesn't believe in. Writes chapters in books by Loftus, again to rip Christianity. Believes that all of this is going to be gone in the upcoming heat death of the universe. Why make these strong statements of opinion like this? Why try to disabuse ppl of their delusions?

And then you have me, a 3rd-rate blogger who DARES to say "I pity him" and raise some uncomfy questions. And *I'm* the one interested in self-aggrandizement. Please.

David, PROVE my comment was in bad taste. Then prove that ppl have an obligation not to act in bad taste. Sheesh.

David said...

Rho,

Ah, so your real motivation was that you hated the guy...and THAT'S why you cut a fart at his funeral. Well, that makes it all better then.

Rhology said...

?

Seems like blatant misrepresentations communicate more hatred than what I've communicated.

David said...

So, it doesn't make you mad when someone "hurts family members who are still Christians"?

Rhology said...

Sure, I'd say it does a bit.

David said...

"Sure, I'd say it does a bit."

Well, there you go then. So, maybe I didn't blatantly misrepresent after all.

Rhology said...

And your proof I've done that?

And your connection from "it makes me mad" to "I showed hatred to Pulliam"?

And what's so bad about hatred anyway? Do I have some power over what my brain's chemical processes create? What is "me"? Am I not just a biological machine?

David said...

And your connection from "it makes me mad" to "I showed hatred to Pulliam"?

Anger and hatred tend to be very strongly linked in humans. It is reasonable to assume that people hate the things that make them angry.

So, if I'm wrong about your motivation, then WHY did you behave in such an unnecessarily nasty manner. You made a conscious choice. Why did you act as you did?

Rhology said...

Nasty? Where? What was nasty? Be specific.

David said...

"Nasty? Where? What was nasty? Be specific."

Stop trying to distract from the main point. I'm not going to waste time trying to explain the obvious.

If you prefer, I'll just put it this way. You made a conscious choice. Why did you act as you did? Why post what you posted?

Peter Pike said...

David said:
---
Stop trying to distract from the main point. I'm not going to waste time trying to explain theobvious."
---

Case proven: "Shut up," he explained.

It's rich watching you condemn Rhology's statement without admitting that to do so you have to admit the truth behind the statement Rho made. Why else do you dance around the subject?

David said...

"Case proven: "Shut up," he explained."

If you insist on an explanation...

Someone dies. Rho wants to talk about the potential suffering of the deceased. Get it?

"It's rich watching you condemn Rhology's statement without admitting that to do so you have to admit the truth behind the statement Rho made."

Err, no, this is not the same thing as admiting the truth behind the statments. The point is that Rho thinks it's true, and given that Rho thinks it's true, he thinks that it's appropriate to talk about the suffering of the deceased at a funeral.

Not the venue. Get it?

What is the point of talking about horrible suffering at a funeral?

What's the motive? What is to be gained? What is the value of the comment?

It does make one point crystal clear. Christianity is fundamentally a religion based on fear.

Rhology said...

Now comes the part where David doesn't explain why that's a bad thing. He just asserts it and mocks if you question him.

David said...

You made a conscious choice. Why did you act as you did? Why post what you posted?

What is the point of talking about horrible suffering at a funeral?

What's the motive? What is to be gained? What is the value of the comment?

David said...

In short, explain why what you did is a good thing?

Rhology said...

Proclaiming God's Law, forgiveness of sin, and the penalty and danger of refusing said forgiveness and flaunting said Law is a command of Jesus Himself. Obeying Jesus is good.

Peter Pike said...

David said:
---
In short, explain why what you did is a good thing?
---

But what *IS* "good", David? You're assuming a definition of "good" and forcing it upon Rhology. What gives you that right? What gives you the right to demand Rhology obey your rules of ettiquette instead of proclaiming the truth?

THAT is what I mean by how you cannot criticize Rhology without affirming the truth of his position.

David said...

"Proclaiming God's Law, forgiveness of sin, and the penalty and danger of refusing said forgiveness and flaunting said Law is a command of Jesus Himself."

And how, exactly, does this relate to what you did?

"Obeying Jesus is good."

So, Jesus says it's good to fart at funerals. Got it. As I said elsewhere, you just use your religion as an excuse to amplify and empower your insensitive behavior and your basic ass-holyness. Do it in the name of heaven, justify it in the end.

Yes, Jesus would be very proud.

Rhology said...

You're just emoting now. Start saying sthg substantive.

David said...

"You're just emoting now. Start saying sthg substantive."

I did. I asked how, exactly, does your rationalizations relate to what you did.

Anonymous said...

that's it for me. rho and pete have pushed me over the edge. i renounce my faith and don't want to be associated with haters.

off to find a nice athiest community group.

thanks, i feel better now (smarter too)

David said...

"But what *IS* "good", David?"

What is beauty, Peter?

We can play philosophical games all day. Doesn't change what Rho did.

Rhology said...

David thinks that appealing to more ignorance to justify his ignorance is a good thing. Sounds like we might want to be wary of his other opinions w.r.t. goodness...

David said...

"That's it for me. rho and pete have pushed me over the edge. i renounce my faith and don't want to be associated with haters."

You know, this is a large part of what pushed me away from Christianity. I just couldn't stand many of the Christians I had to interact with. Couldn't take the use of religion as an excuse to harm others. Couldn't take the constant threats and the use of fear as the main tactic for forcing compliance. It's basically intellectual terrorism.

David said...

David thinks that appealing to more ignorance to justify his ignorance is a good thing.

So, no answer to the question?

How, exactly, do your rationalizations relate to what you did?

What's the motive? What is to be gained? What is the value of the comment?

Anonymous said...

"You know, this is a large part of what pushed me away from Christianity. I just couldn't stand many of the Christians I had to interact with. Couldn't take the use of religion as an excuse to harm others. Couldn't take the constant threats and the use of fear as the main tactic for forcing compliance. It's basically intellectual terrorism"


or it could just be that you hate God.
Romans 3: 11-12
“None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”


Repent & trust Jesus as your savior.

Peter Pike said...

David said:
---
What is beauty, Peter?

We can play philosophical games all day. Doesn't change what Rho did.
---

"Shut up," he explained.

Thank God you've come along with such wisdom to show me the error of my ways by continuing to put your head in the sand and merely ASSERT that we ought to obey your whims of morality.

David said...

or it could just be that you hate God.

No, dude. I just hate what humans have done with the concept of god.

Anonymous said...

"No, dude. I just hate what humans have done with the concept of god."

Who is this god you speak of? There is only one God. He is revealed in the Holy Bible. There are not any other gods. Even the ones you claim that humans have developed. Will you admit that the God of the Bible id true?

David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...

"Will you admit that the God of the Bible id true?"

The evidence suggests that this god was invented by humans.

Anonymous said...

So do you believe in a god? You said "I just hate what humans have done with the concept of god." Just curious who & where this god comes from?

David said...

"Thank God you've come along with such wisdom to show me the error of my ways by continuing to put your head in the sand and merely ASSERT that we ought to obey your whims of morality."

Did I say that Rho had to obey? I just said he was an asshole. To paraphrase Potter Stewart, I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it.

Beside, you're just doing the same when you assert that I ought to obey your whims of morality. You can claim that the Bible or any given book gives you absolute moral rules, but these are all written by humans. Like it or not, we're going to have figure out how to get along with each other on our own.

What is beauty?

David said...

So do you believe in a god?

Could there be something out there that one might describe using the word "god"? Sure. Do we have the slightest clue about the nature of that something? No.

Paul C said...

Perhaps this is less about religion and more about the personalities of the people involved.

David said...

"Perhaps this is less about religion and more about the personalities of the people involved."

Probably true.

Peter Pike said...

David said:
---
To paraphrase Potter Stewart, I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it.
---

If you can't define it, then how do you expect to hold other people to that standard?

And it's not the same thing as asserting morality from Scriptures. I *have* Scriptures I can point you to. You can deal with them. How am I supposed to deal with your phantom undefinable feeling?

So get off your hypocrtical high horse and stop criticizing people for not following your freaking lower intestine, David. Either get an objective argument or acknowledge that *YOU* are the brute and thug here.

Paul C said...

"Either get an objective argument or acknowledge that *YOU* are the brute and thug here."

What has David done that makes him a "brute and thug", Peter?

Rhology said...

Since David doesn't feel the need to answer such questions, I don't see why Peter should.

Paul C said...

"Since David doesn't feel the need to answer such questions, I don't see why Peter should."

As usual, makes no sense at all. Peter?

Peter Pike said...

Paul asked:
---
What has David done that makes him a "brute and thug", Peter?
---

He's been slandering Rhology, for one thing.

Rhology said...

Naw, but see, I'm a meanie, so it's OK.

David said...

"I *have* Scriptures I can point you to."

So what? Your scriptures come from someone else's lower intestine. It’s all lower intestines.

"If you can't define it, then how do you expect to hold other people to that standard?"

Ok, define obscenity. Define beauty. If we need a definition for these things before we can recognize them, then feel free to provide one.


"Either get an objective argument or acknowledge that *YOU* are the brute and thug here."

Brute and thug? Really? Now who’s speaking with his lower intestine? Who started this by farting at the funeral?

Even if I slandered Rho (and I didn’t), that makes me a slanderer, not a brute and thug. You really do have a problem with definitions. Both terms (brute and thug) strongly suggest that I’ve committed acts of physical violence. Obviously, I have not done so. So, now who’s the slanderer?

Now, as far as objective arguments and phantom feelings go, I see you wish to try to deflect by turning this into some year-long debate over the origin of morals. One could review all of the various philosophical positions and argue about the lack of evidence that any god-like entity has ever provided humans with anything approaching a moral code. We could attempt to solve philosophical problems that no one has been able to solve in thousands of years of trying. That would be fun, but I’m pretty busy.

So, here’s the thing. It’s true that I’m not going to point to some human-created book and claim that it came from a god and then say that the book says that Rho is a jerk. I’m not going to point to some fictitious objective moral allegedly handed down by some unseen supernatural entity to draw the conclusion that Rho is a jerk. Rho doesn’t have to obey me, Rho is free to post as he pleases, and I’m not going to stop him.

However, by their fruits shall ye know them. And I think that we can learn everything we need to know about Rho from his decision to piss on the grave of kind and decent man while his family watched. Rho is free to conclude what he wants about himself. But I think we all know an asshole when we see one.

cerbaz said...

Out of respect for his family and loved ones show some love and compassion. This is not about trying to prove RHO right or wrong it just is about doing the loving thing knowing that his family could or has read the comments. Even when I was a christian I would never have told an unbelieving family member that I pitied her dead relative. This is just good manners.

beowulf2k8 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beowulf2k8 said...

By most Protestant doctrine of Once Saved Always Saved, he's still saved. You on the other hand are simply totally depraved. Of course, you can sit there in your wife's dress condemning Ken for not believing the Bible, but your yourself have written over "world" in John 3:16 the word "elect" and therefore, "who do you think you are who condemns others for the same things you do--do you think you will escape God's judgment?" (Romans 2:3) By what measure you use to judge others you will be judged (Matthew 7:2), and therefore, you simply cannot escape hell, O Calvinist. You waited with glee for Dr. Pulliam's death, but Satan waits with glee for yours, because he knows you're all his.

beowulf2k8 said...

"Anyway, I'd be interested in knowing who has the courage of their convictions in using the same vitriolic language of Christopher Hitchens that you have of me. Let's see where your hearts really are.
Cheers!"
Christopher Hitchens doesn't claim to be a follower of Jesus, does he you retard?

cerbaz said...

My final comment to you is on the same day Ken died I lost a dear friend because her son shot her. My heart breaks for her as I can not imagine anything worst than a son killing his own mother. She was a believer and her family was everything to her. I know without a doubt Ken's family is hurting to know that they have lost someone dear to them. My heart aches for both families as they deal with this lost. So again I ask you can you not just feel some sympathy for what someone who has lost someone they loved? You are one of the most despictable people I have ever known and I will never respect the god you worship for allowing my dear friend to die this way and I mourn the loss of Ken who I admired. What are you now going to say I am going to hell like Ken so be it. I rather burn in hell then worship a god who does not care. If I were a father and I could stop my son from killing his mother I would yet your god does nothing. He allows babies to die of starvation and he allows little children to be raped and murdered and that is okay with you. So continue to worship your god and hate the ungodly if that makes you feel good. There is absoultly no excuse for your bad manners towards Ken's family.

Matt said...

Did I say that Rho had to obey? I just said he was an asshole.

This is quite ironic, coming from a person who condemns other for violating his presumed moral standards, without seeking to demonstrate or justify how such standards are ethically normative on the basis of his own principles. As long as one can emote strongly enough and simply know that what Rho did was wrong, consistency with the principles of one's own worldview doesn't matter, I guess.

But on a naturalistic worldview, Ken Pulliam was simply a biological machine functioning according to its natural impulses - impulses that led it to criticize Christianity. Rho is simply another biological machine functioning according to its natural impulses - impulses that lead it to criticize those who criticize Christianity. I hope that I will be forgiven (along with others of like mind here) for not seeing the (apparently) self-evident immorality of one machine criticizing another machine after the latter machine has ceased functioning. After all, a breathing bag of molecules saying something critical of an unbreathing bag of molecules is obviously a violation of the most sacred laws of morality.

Matt said...

By most Protestant doctrine of Once Saved Always Saved, he's still saved.

This presumes that Pulliam was saved in the first place. Apostasy refutes any claimed salvation at some prior point in time (1 Jn. 2:19).

beowulf2k8 said...

"Apostasy refutes any claimed salvation at some prior point in time (1 Jn. 2:19)."

Not according to most Protestants, whose normative doctrine is that if you ever believed at any point in the past, you were saved, and hence always saved. And John there is not speaking of people who left fundamentalism because its immorality in accusing God of commanding genocide was abominable to their God-given moral sense: he's speaking more of Calvinist heretics who left the true understanding of Jesus for an unloving and false one, one even slightly Manichean in its opposition to flesh, tending towards a denial that Jesus came in the flesh: You deny that Jesus came in the flesh when you say that he had a different flesh from us in order to avoid original sin -- John is talking about your sect when he says "they went out from us because they were not at all of us."

Paul C said...

"He's been slandering Rhology, for one thing."

How has he slandered Rhology, exactly?

And if that's one thing, what are the other things?

Paul C said...

"But on a naturalistic worldview, Ken Pulliam was simply a biological machine functioning according to its natural impulses"

Even if true, this has nothing to do with the appropriateness of Rhology's statement at a time of personal loss for Ken Pulliam's family and friends, which is what the debate is about.

On the other hand, it is always fascinating to see how your religion is merely a cart being pulled by the horse of your personality - and amusing that you can't even see it.

James Swan said...

Wow, I hope this David virus is contained over here, and doesn't spread to ther blogs.

Rhology said...

cerbaz,

I am sorry for your loss. In the context of this discussion, I would like to suggest that sorrow and moral outrage are completely incompatible with atheism. I am sorry for your loss b/c I am a Christian and b/c, since God is real, death is an enemy, who will be defeated.

But if atheism is true, so what? It's just a big pile of meh.
"In any case, the universe doesn’t owe us comfort, and the fact that a belief is comforting doesn’t make it true. The God Delusion doesn’t set out to be comforting, but at least it is not a placebo." (Source)

"If it's true that it causes people to feel despair, that's tough. It's still the truth. The universe doesn't owe us condolence or consolation; it doesn't owe us a nice warm feeling inside. If it's true, it's true, and you'd better live with it." (Source)


I will never respect the god you worship for allowing my dear friend to die this way

I can assure you that God is not particularly broken-hearted about this fact. You will have to pay for your own sins and be judged for them. I urge you to turn back from this self-destructive path.


can you not just feel some sympathy for what someone who has lost someone they loved?

The sympathy I feel drives me to share the truth with them, and to undergo ridiculously cruel and baseless attacks on my character for the sake of sharing that truth. I care that much. What have *you* done? Nothing, except to whine about how I'm so mean for expressing pity for a man who lived the last half of his life in rebellion against his Maker.


I rather burn in hell then worship a god who does not care.

1) He does care. So much, in fact, that He sent His Son to die for sins; you can have that forgiveness of sin if you'll but ask for it.
2) Does a godless universe care? You haven't subjected your beliefs to your own questions. Start asking the same questions of your own beliefs and you'll find (if you do so honestly) that the outlook is MUCH bleaker.
3) Ken Pulliam was simply a biological machine functioning according to its natural impulses - impulses that led it to criticize Christianity. Your own biological drives are pushing you to type that. So what?
4) I know you'd rather burn. The Bible describes you as God's enemy. I've been there. I urge you to turn back - it's way better on this side.


He allows babies to die of starvation and he allows little children to be raped and murdered and that is okay with you.

For a purpose.
I suppose you prefer a godless universe where babies' suffering is meaningless?


There is absoultly no excuse for your bad manners towards Ken's family.

How many times do I have to ask you to make an argument for your assertions? You ASSERT I've expressed bad manners but never show how they are bad, or why that matters. Get on it.



Paul C said:
Even if true, this has nothing to do with the appropriateness of Rhology's statement at a time of personal loss for Ken Pulliam's family and friends, which is what the debate is about.

Another machine speaks. Paul, machines don't care about propriety. Some machines PRETEND to care, others don't pretend. You're apparently of the former kind, but so what?

David said...

Do dogs have souls? Is there an afterlife for dogs?

David said...

"The sympathy I feel drives me...to undergo ridiculously cruel and baseless attacks on my character."

Ah, so you DO understand when people act in a cruel manner towards YOU. So, learn from it.

Rhology said...

Just quote me being cruel. I've only asked 20 times by now.

David said...

"Just quote me being cruel. I've only asked 20 times by now."

And it has been answered. Repeatedly. At several different blog sites. Honestly, Rho, if you can't see that you pissed on a man's grave in the presence of his family, no one here can help you now.

David said...

And dogs?

Rhology said...

Your question about dogs has been answered. Repeatedly. At several different blog sites. Honestly, David, if you can't see that your question about dogs has been fully answered, no one here can help you now.

David said...

"Your question about dogs has been answered. Repeatedly. At several different blog sites. Honestly, David, if you can't see that your question about dogs has been fully answered, no one here can help you now."

Really? Could you provide a link? Or would you prefer to not answer the question. All I need is a yes or no.

Rhology said...

As soon as you provide a link for the answer to my question, since it's far more à propos.

David said...

Actually, my question is quite a propos to your statement...

"But if atheism is true, so what? It's just a big pile of meh."

But here's your link.

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

Rhology said...

Hahaha fail.

Thanks - you've just proven my whole point. Nobody can quote me. Everyone's just whining and taking their angst out on me. Pretty immature.

David said...

Hahaha fail.

No, not a fail. You and Fred are doing the same thing. You piss on funerals while claiming to be driven by god and/or your beliefs to share the "truth". Again, you're just too blind to your own faults to see this.

Now, do you want to move on to answer the dog question, or do you want to duck and cover.

Rhology said...

Do you want to answer the where I've been cruel question, or do you just want to bluster and bluff?

David said...

"Do you want to answer the where I've been cruel question, or do you just want to bluster and bluff?"

Ok, we'll give this one last try. Then maybe we can talk about dogs.

Tell me something, when someone dies, is it considered good manners to speak ill of the dead in front of the family? Why or why not?

If your wife dies, what would think of someone who came up to you and described your wife's activities as "pitiful"? Any objections to this? Any thought that this might not be appropriate at this time and place?

What did you mean by the following?:

"I pity you greatly."

Do you understand the phrase "not the venue"?

Matt said...

Not according to most Protestants, whose normative doctrine is that if you ever believed at any point in the past, you were saved, and hence always saved.

Not according to most Protestants, whose normative doctrine is that if you ever walk away from and become an enemy of the faith, you never had saving faith to begin with.

he's speaking more of Calvinist heretics who left the true understanding of Jesus for an unloving and false one, one even slightly Manichean in its opposition to flesh, tending towards a denial that Jesus came in the flesh: You deny that Jesus came in the flesh when you say that he had a different flesh from us in order to avoid original sin -- John is talking about your sect when he says "they went out from us because they were not at all of us.

It is unclear exactly what you are talking about here. You can make rash and presumptive accusations all day long, but unless you explain exactly what claims you are trying to make, and offer justification for those claims, your words will only fall on deaf ears.

Matt said...

Even if true, this has nothing to do with the appropriateness of Rhology's statement at a time of personal loss for Ken Pulliam's family and friends, which is what the debate is about.

And I will reiterate my previous comment, with the wording slightly adjusted:

On a naturalistic worldview, Ken Pulliam was simply a biological machine functioning according to its natural impulses - impulses that led it to criticize Christianity. Rho is simply another biological machine functioning according to its natural impulses - impulses that lead it to criticize those who criticize Christianity. I hope that I will be forgiven (along with others of like mind here) for not seeing the (apparently) self-evident impropriety of one machine criticizing another machine after the latter machine has ceased functioning. After all, a breathing bag of molecules saying something critical of an unbreathing bag of molecules is obviously a violation of the most sacred principles of propriety.

On the other hand, it is always fascinating to see how your religion is merely a cart being pulled by the horse of your personality - and amusing that you can't even see it.

What exactly do you mean by this? What is the justification for your claim? Why should this bag of molecules care about the chemical reactions going on in the brain of another bag of molecules (that is, your opnion)?

Rhology said...

David,
You seem intent on blaming me for violating YOUR moral principles. Bottom line - we've seen before that you have no objective basis for your moral beliefs. I see no reason to accept any judgment based on the arbitrary moral opinions of one man.

What is obvious is that you have no substantation for your accusation of "cruel". You want to convict me of bad manners. You're a self-righteous whiner. It's a bit of a bore going round and round with you.

David said...

"You seem intent on blaming me for violating YOUR moral principles."

Ok, let's use YOUR moral principles. Given what you claim to believe, given YOUR particular version of God, given what is considered appropriate behavior for CHRISTIANS, please address the following:


Tell me something, when someone dies, is it considered good manners to speak ill of the dead in front of the family? Why or why not?

If your wife dies, what would think of someone who came up to you and described your wife's activities as "pitiful"? Any objections to this? Any thought that this might not be appropriate at this time and place?

What did you mean by the following?:

"I pity you greatly."

Do you understand the phrase "not the venue"?



Now, do you want to talk about dogs? You object to going round and round, but this is what you wanted. I'm ready to move on to dogs.

Rhology said...

Yes, it is OK to do that. Especially on a blog, which you have no evidence his family reads. And especially if the person in question is an apostate from the faith, trying to destroy others' faith. Yes, very much so.


If your wife dies, what would think of someone who came up to you and described your wife's activities as "pitiful"?

Is my wife a rabid apostate from the faith? Let me know how you want to flesh out this whiny hypothetical.


What did you mean by the following?:

"I pity you greatly."


B/c he is almost certainly facing eternity apart from Christ. That is not going to be fun.


I'm ready to move on to dogs.

So start a blog and talk about it. I'm not going to follow your radical change of subject.

David said...

Is my wife a rabid apostate from the faith? Let me know how you want to flesh out this whiny hypothetical.

So, if your wife is a rabid apostate, then in your moment of profound grief, as you ponder her eternal torture, you want to hear someone say that her activities were "pitiful"? At that place and time? This would be appropriate?

"B/c he is almost certainly facing eternity apart from Christ. That is not going to be fun."

Right, and there's your urine stream. Seriously, how hard is this to understand?

Ok, I see that you are incapable of self-examination or self-awareness.

"So start a blog and talk about it. I'm not going to follow your radical change of subject."

You said "but if atheism is true, so what? It's just a big pile of meh." You said this. You introduced the subject. I didn't radically change the subject. I'm addressing a subject that you introduced.

Dogs?

Rhology said...

Next question - am I reading my wife's blog two days after her death?

Next question after that - why did you switch it to "activities"? I didn't say Pulliam's "activities" were pitiful, did I? What precisely did I say, David? Why change it around?


Right, and there's your urine stream. Seriously, how hard is this to understand?

I thought you said we were using MY principles here. Again you do the bait and switch.


I see that you are incapable of self-examination or self-awareness.

OK.


I'm addressing a subject that you introduced. Dogs?

Please quote me introducing the topic of dogs.

Matt said...

As a side note, I think it's ironic how many of Rho's detractors, Christian or atheist, here or elsewhere, have simply refused to explain precisely what it is that Rho did that was so terrible, and why it was as terrible as it was. In response to his initial comment, I've seen much strong emotional expression throughout the blogosphere, but little rational and substantive thought on the matter.

I've seen some try to take the moral high road and condemn Rho for his remarks. But if one claims to be morally superior, how loving is it to rebuke another person and yet refuse to at least attempt to explain how the other person has erred, and why, especially after repeated requests for such explanations? If Rho is truly in the wrong, then those who do such demonstrate a disregard for him and his well-being, by refusing to show him the error of his ways. But showing disregard for another human being is what they accuse Rho of doing! Thus, they engage in self-righteous hypocrisy.

David said...

“Next question - am I reading my wife's blog two days after her death?”

Umm, this matters? Ok, sure, you’re reading your wife’s blog two days after her death. You’re reading it, because many people are posting notices of sympathy, condolence and support. The blog is functioning as a kind of internet wake or funeral service.


“Next question after that - why did you switch it to "activities"? I didn't say Pulliam's "activities" were pitiful, did I? What precisely did I say, David? Why change it around?”

I did not intentionally change it, I just don’t see much difference in the words (activities, arguments). You said “arguments”, but I don’t see much of a difference. Pulliam was in the “arguments business”. His arguments were his “activities”. Honestly, what difference does it make if someone tells you that your wife’s activities are pitiful or that her arguments are pitiful? Would you honestly feel any different if it was one way or the other?



“I thought you said we were using MY principles here. Again you do the bait and switch.”

So, you’re saying that this is what Jesus wants you to do? This is showing kindness to your enemies? This is how you interpret the Bible? Well, just goes to show what I’ve always thought. One can interpret the Bible in whatever manner one wishes in order to justify one’s actions.

You think that other Christians would disagree with my assessment, that under the circumstances, this was a urine stream? You think that other Christians would consider this good manners or tactful or sensitive or expressing true sympathy and condolences? You don’t think much of your fellow Christians then.

By the way, I know that you like to assume that your principles have a different source than mine, but really, they’re all from the same source. They’re all products of the human mind. So, spare me the garbage about how I have no basis for morals and you do. All you have a fantasy.


Self-awareness.

You know, Rho, there’s one thing that I can tell. You don’t like it when people call you an asshole. You think it’s cruel. That means that it hurts. It’s painful. So, you don’t want to let it go, and you don’t want to move on to other things until you think that you’ve proven that it’s not true. But it is true.

Now, one could use this experience and develop an enhanced sense of empathy and maybe consider the possibility that it’s not always necessary to inflict pain on those who are already suffering, and maybe consider the possibility that there are times to push your agenda and there are times to just express sympathy and leave the agenda for another day.

Or one can just ignore the lesson, lash out at those who point out your bad manners and insensitivity, play games to deny any wrongdoing and become a bigger asshole than ever before.

I wonder which way you’ll go.



“Please quote me introducing the topic of dogs.”

I believe that I’ve explained the subject that you introduced. Repeatedly. My question about dogs is related to this subject that you introduced. If you wish to hide, instead of dealing with the subject you raised, just say so. No need to play games.

David said...

“Next question - am I reading my wife's blog two days after her death?”

Umm, this matters? Ok, sure, you’re reading your wife’s blog two days after her death. You’re reading it, because many people are posting notices of sympathy, condolence and support. The blog is functioning as a kind of internet wake or funeral service.


“Next question after that - why did you switch it to "activities"? I didn't say Pulliam's "activities" were pitiful, did I? What precisely did I say, David? Why change it around?”

I did not intentionally change it, I just don’t see much difference in the words (activities, arguments). You said “arguments”, but I don’t see much of a difference. Pulliam was in the “arguments business”. His arguments were his “activities”. Honestly, what difference does it make if someone tells you that your wife’s activities are pitiful or that her arguments are pitiful? Would you honestly feel any different if it was one way or the other?



“I thought you said we were using MY principles here. Again you do the bait and switch.”

So, you’re saying that this is what Jesus wants you to do? This is showing kindness to your enemies? This is how you interpret the Bible? Well, just goes to show what I’ve always thought. One can interpret the Bible in whatever manner one wishes in order to justify one’s actions.

You think that other Christians would disagree with my assessment, that under the circumstances, this was a urine stream? You think that other Christians would consider this good manners or tactful or sensitive or expressing true sympathy and condolences? You don’t think much of your fellow Christians then.

By the way, I know that you like to assume that your principles have a different source than mine, but really, they’re all from the same source. They’re all products of the human mind. So, spare me the garbage about how I have no basis for morals and you do. All you have a fantasy.


Self-awareness.

You know, Rho, there’s one thing that I can tell. You don’t like it when people call you an asshole. You think it’s cruel. That means that it hurts. It’s painful. So, you don’t want to let it go, and you don’t want to move on to other things until you think that you’ve proven that it’s not true. But it is true.

Now, one could use this experience and develop an enhanced sense of empathy and maybe consider the possibility that it’s not always necessary to inflict pain on those who are already suffering, and maybe consider the possibility that there are times to push your agenda and there are times to just express sympathy and leave the agenda for another day.

Or one can just ignore the lesson, lash out at those who point out your bad manners and insensitivity, play games to deny any wrongdoing and become a bigger asshole than ever before.

I wonder which way you’ll go.



“Please quote me introducing the topic of dogs.”

I believe that I’ve explained the subject that you introduced. Repeatedly. My question about dogs is related to this subject that you introduced. If you wish to hide, instead of dealing with the subject you raised, just say so. No need to play games.

David said...

“Next question - am I reading my wife's blog two days after her death?”

Umm, this matters? Ok, sure, you’re reading your wife’s blog two days after her death. You’re reading it, because many people are posting notices of sympathy, condolence and support. The blog is functioning as a kind of internet wake or funeral service.


“Next question after that - why did you switch it to "activities"? I didn't say Pulliam's "activities" were pitiful, did I? What precisely did I say, David? Why change it around?”

I did not intentionally change it, I just don’t see much difference in the words (activities, arguments). You said “arguments”, but I don’t see much of a difference. Pulliam was in the “arguments business”. His arguments were his “activities”. Honestly, what difference does it make if someone tells you that your wife’s activities are pitiful or that her arguments are pitiful? Would you honestly feel any different if it was one way or the other?



“I thought you said we were using MY principles here. Again you do the bait and switch.”

So, you’re saying that this is what Jesus wants you to do? This is showing kindness to your enemies? This is how you interpret the Bible? Well, just goes to show what I’ve always thought. One can interpret the Bible in whatever manner one wishes in order to justify one’s actions.

You think that other Christians would disagree with my assessment, that under the circumstances, this was a urine stream? You think that other Christians would consider this good manners or tactful or sensitive or expressing true sympathy and condolences? You don’t think much of your fellow Christians then.

By the way, I know that you like to assume that your principles have a different source than mine, but really, they’re all from the same source. They’re all products of the human mind. So, spare me the garbage about how I have no basis for morals and you do. All you have a fantasy.


Self-awareness.

You know, Rho, there’s one thing that I can tell. You don’t like it when people call you an asshole. You think it’s cruel. That means that it hurts. It’s painful. So, you don’t want to let it go, and you don’t want to move on to other things until you think that you’ve proven that it’s not true. But it is true.

Now, one could use this experience and develop an enhanced sense of empathy and maybe consider the possibility that it’s not always necessary to inflict pain on those who are already suffering, and maybe consider the possibility that there are times to push your agenda and there are times to just express sympathy and leave the agenda for another day.

Or one can just ignore the lesson, lash out at those who point out your bad manners and insensitivity, play games to deny any wrongdoing and become a bigger asshole than ever before.

I wonder which way you’ll go.



“Please quote me introducing the topic of dogs.”

I believe that I’ve explained the subject that you introduced. Repeatedly. My question about dogs is related to this subject that you introduced. If you wish to hide, instead of dealing with the subject you raised, just say so. No need to play games.

David said...

“Next question - am I reading my wife's blog two days after her death?”

Umm, this matters? Ok, sure, you’re reading your wife’s blog two days after her death. You’re reading it, because many people are posting notices of sympathy, condolence and support. The blog is functioning as a kind of internet wake or funeral service.


“Next question after that - why did you switch it to "activities"? I didn't say Pulliam's "activities" were pitiful, did I? What precisely did I say, David? Why change it around?”

I did not intentionally change it, I just don’t see much difference in the words (activities, arguments). You said “arguments”, but I don’t see much of a difference. Pulliam was in the “arguments business”. His arguments were his “activities”. Honestly, what difference does it make if someone tells you that your wife’s activities are pitiful or that her arguments are pitiful? Would you honestly feel any different if it was one way or the other?



“I thought you said we were using MY principles here. Again you do the bait and switch.”

So, you’re saying that this is what Jesus wants you to do? This is showing kindness to your enemies? This is how you interpret the Bible? Well, just goes to show what I’ve always thought. One can interpret the Bible in whatever manner one wishes in order to justify one’s actions.

You think that other Christians would disagree with my assessment, that under the circumstances, this was a urine stream? You think that other Christians would consider this good manners or tactful or sensitive or expressing true sympathy and condolences? You don’t think much of your fellow Christians then.

By the way, I know that you like to assume that your principles have a different source than mine, but really, they’re all from the same source. They’re all products of the human mind. So, spare me the garbage about how I have no basis for morals and you do. All you have a fantasy.

David said...

Self-awareness.

You know, Rho, there’s one thing that I can tell. You don’t like it when people call you an asshole. You think it’s cruel. That means that it hurts. It’s painful. So, you don’t want to let it go, and you don’t want to move on to other things until you think that you’ve proven that it’s not true. But it is true.

Now, one could use this experience and develop an enhanced sense of empathy and maybe consider the possibility that it’s not always necessary to inflict pain on those who are already suffering, and maybe consider the possibility that there are times to push your agenda and there are times to just express sympathy and leave the agenda for another day.

Or one can just ignore the lesson, lash out at those who point out your bad manners and insensitivity, play games to deny any wrongdoing and become a bigger asshole than ever before.

I wonder which way you’ll go.



“Please quote me introducing the topic of dogs.”

I believe that I’ve explained the subject that you introduced. Repeatedly. My question about dogs is related to this subject that you introduced. If you wish to hide, instead of dealing with the subject you raised, just say so. No need to play games.

David said...

Matt,

What is it that Fred Phelps does that is so terrible? Or do you find his activities acceptable?

Matt said...

David,

As one of Rho's morally superior detractors, are you going to explain exactly what he did wrong and why, or are you going to ask irrelevant questions of third parties?

David said...

"As one of Rho's morally superior detractors, are you going to
explain exactly what he did wrong and why, or are you going to ask irrelevant questions of third parties?"

What? Yo mamma didn't teach you about good manners, either?

Ben said...

cerbaz said... "Out of respect for his family and loved ones show some love and compassion. This is not about trying to prove RHO right or wrong it just is about doing the loving thing knowing that his family could or has read the comments. Even when I was a christian I would never have told an unbelieving family member that I pitied her dead relative. This is just good manners."

Good manners?.What are they?.

Rhoblogys God dashes babies heads against rocks

Coram Deo said...

Sadly the worst part for Mr. Pulliam is yet to come.

On the last day his Creator will summon him to the final judgment, find him guilty of high treason against the One True and Living God and His Christ, unite his disembodied soul with an indestructible, physical resurrection body, and justly cast him into the lake of fire where he will suffer unspeakable, conscious, eternal torments forever and ever.

This is why believers are rightly horrified by the sins they see in others - like the apostate Ken Pulliam - it's because we are reminded of our own wretched unworthiness, and also of the grace, mercy, compassion, and love of God which is magnified in that He freely forgives all those hell-deserving, wicked sinners who place their trust in Christ as their one and only Substitute, which thing is by grace alone, through faith alone.

Christians ought to grieve and weep and throw ourselves into paths of those who are blindly racing towards the pit of hell, doing all in our power to warn them of the wrath to come, but once they succeed in suicidally plunging themselves headlong into the fiery abyss, despite all the pleas, urgings and warnings God mercifully provides them, there's no longer any reason to grieve, because it's too late.

In Christ,
CD

Ben said...

Matt said...
David,

As one of Rho's morally superior detractors, are you going to explain exactly what he did wrong and why, or are you going to ask irrelevant questions of third parties?"

Matt whats the point explaining? when its obviously far beyond the comprehenshion of you and Rhobology and Pike.Seems you lack any understanding of empathy an emotion that even many animals are also able to understand to some extent.Plenty have discussed the emotional effects of empathy, even if it still leaves you calvinists completely lost as to how it should be understood why atheists still have standards as do many animals also.

Why even bother trying to explain this simple factor of life to you lot here or even that lost unit Steve Hays.For sure it will only enter in one ear and go straight out the otherside without even touching anything, when lately its become so obvious it seems your calvinism belief system has left you with absolutely no brain matter left in between.

Golly seems you wouldnt even have the mental ability to even start to understand why even a dog might try helping another http://crittergeek.com/?p=212 .Im sure you lot and Steve Hays who cant even start to understand how atheists might also still have standards, when possibly your devoted brains also remain totally dead and closed off, even while with your very own eyes you can be watching some video material of animal such as Wilderbeast or Elephant do its best to protect its own against a frenzied attack of revenous lions.Or why whales and dolphins are seen and recorded attmpting to protect each other against shark attack.You just dont comprehend emotion and empathy at all do you Matt.

Its your calvinistic faith that makes you intellectually ignorant right?.

Really Matt what use is there in even attempting to explain these matters to braindead calvinists faith zombies .It would be far to much like butting ones head against a double thick brick wall.When all we are likely to hear in return is this endless stupidious childish drivel, of how can an atheist dare claim to even have standards.

Some people can learn new things, but ostrich types only bury their heads deeper in sand.

Ben said...

Coram Deo said...
Sadly the worst part for Mr. Pulliam is yet to come.

On the last day his Creator will summon him to the final judgment, find him guilty of high treason against the One True and Living God and His Christ, unite his disembodied soul with an indestructible, physical resurrection body, and justly cast him into the lake of fire where he will suffer unspeakable, conscious, eternal torments forever and ever."

Coram Deo , do provide the proof please.Without proof your claim is only assuming something,and in effect more worthless drivel that lacks factual evidence.Can you provide any proof that isnt only assuming words of faith recorded in faith books?.

We atheists can so far provide absolutely no proof yet of what you are assuming and suggesting here.Can you provide this proof ?.If not your mindless suggestions have little more worth than other ancient claims of faith that once also made some people cast live babies into the flames of fire in hope of this act bringing them more fertility.

Coram Deo said...

Ben,

As you know, all the proof you'll ever need, and then some, is awaiting you just after you breathe your last breath.

Beyond that, the proof is inside of you because the One true and living God created you as His image bearer.

And as His image bearer, in your quiet moments when you're all alone with only your thoughts you know that you have a guilty, accusing conscience within you, an angry, wrathful God above you, and a yawning hell beneath you.

It's in your "spiritual DNA", as it were. I know it and you know it, and no matter how much you beat the air with your puny fists and deny it, you know it's true and you know that you can't change this truth.

You must be born again.

In Christ,
CD

Ben said...

Coram Deo as i had figured you have absolutely no proof of that what you assume.You have no more proof of that what you assume,than those that once cast live babies into flames of fire or assumed people were witches and slaughtered them.

And here you are claiming it is i the agmostic atheist who is not willing to assume along with the faithful who have done so, whom should ? have reason to be very afraid of my death.That is like saying maybe its the innocent that should be held guilty for the crimes of others?, Coram Deo

Coram Deo im not at all afraid of my death.Im absolutely happy i can at least go to my death knowing that at least i have not been involved in following faiths that what is only assumed rather than proved.

As an agnostic atheist i do not assume that God doesnt possible exist, no not at all.It just means i will not willingly join with you Coram Deo and others in assuming that what you have not yet been able to also prove.To do so would be to gamble with the lives of others,as was done with those once thrown into fire and slaughtered as witches at the stake.It was those willing to follow faith that only assumed that are those who are guilty of this willing harm.It like not being involve with those willing to assume guilt and be sending people to jail, without first obtaining good proof of their guilt.

I die in peace in that knowledge Coram Deo,that i dont just follow such practices of only assuming .Can you say the same?.

I think Ken Pulliam can.

A good day to you sir.

Coram Deo said...

Ben,

There's not a lack of "proof". Your problem isn't intellectual, as if somehow you simply lack evidence, your problem is moral.

You're an immoral person. In fact, you're an unspeakably wicked and vile person, and you love it. You love your sin and you hate the One true and living God, the infinite Creator and Judge of the universe.

You hate Him so badly that there is no amount of "proof" that could ever change your mind, because you prefer your sins.

This is precisely the same problem that all men everywhere have, because all are born sinners, and born loving sin. It's our nature.

Just like you'll never see a vulture in your back yard eating seeds from the bird feeder, and just like you'll never see a robin on the side of the road eating a dead possum, you'll never turn away from your sin to Christ for forgiveness by your own power.

You're a slave. A slave to sin. And you'll be doomed to be a slave to sin, being destroyed by it until you die, and then you'll be judged because of your sin and you'll be destroyed by it forever and ever in eternity.

When "Ben's" body ceases to function, the real "Ben" will be more alive than he's ever been, and unless his present course is radically altered, he will burn in hell for eternity with Ken Pulliam and countless others who decided they wanted to be their own god.

But Christ alone can set you free from your slavery to sin. He alone is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Whom the Son sets free is free indeed.

You're in desperate need of a spiritual heart transplant, you need to cry out to the Savior before it's too late.

In Christ,
CD

Matt said...

What? Yo mamma didn't teach you about good manners, either?

So, evasion and irrelevant retorts are the order of the day, along with a meaningless criticism of one machine's communication protocols by another biological machine.

Matt said...

Ben,

Instead of launcing into an emotional screed, how about engaging in rational dialogue? For all of this talk about manners, that is much more becoming.

Your comment contains a copious number of insults. That point is noted, and meaningless, because you provide no justification for your insulting claims. Rather, you make arrogant statements of the form:

"I could explain it, but you wouldn't understand..."
"I could explain it, but you wouldn't change your mind..."

and thus attempt to justify your refusal to explain yourself. Feel free to continue writing in this manner, if you wish, but I'm not buying it. The issue is not whether atheists have standards, but whether or not they can rationally claim moral superiority, given the principles of their worldview. You claim moral superiority, but have done nothing to demonstrate it. Your moral superiority is a house of cards; the emperor has no clothes. When challenged on these claims, the rational response is to provide argumentation. The irrational approach, as you have taken, is to emote strongly and claim that deficiencies in one's opponent preculde the need to explain oneself. This is simply arrogance. I exhort you to repent of your prideful rebellion against God, and believe the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Ben said...

Coram Deo i see you have more and more rubbish calvinist drivel but still unable to supply the proof.Yawn , thats why people like you are becoming like dinosaurs.A dying speicies soon to go extinct.

Still listening to your threatening faith rants is great for a little comedy.

Coram Deo .."You're in desperate need of a spiritual heart transplant, you need to cry out to the Savior before it's too late."

Well whatever, but at least im not in dire need of some meds from an asylum for the mentally retarded calvinists like seems you are Coram Deo.

You have shown you can provide absolutely no proof.And shown your faith relys entirely on threats of a faithfully warped brain.

Look at every single word of the deluded crap what you wrote.And imagine that it could just as easy have been written by some deluded al qaeda fanatic frothing at the mouth like some rabid dog.Hoping that his worthless threats would invoke fear.

When will you stupid calvinists finally wake up a little and realize that most of the world these days is looking at you lot as the moronic idiotic fools that you truly expose yourself as being.You hope to strike fear into our hearts with your ancient faithful threats, yet all you can create for yourself these days is ,more and more of our mirth.

Why worry about me ,when its so extremely obvious you are a slave to such blatant lunacy.

Shouldnt you really be thinking about considdering making a appointment with the local department of mental health ?.

Coram Deo said...

Ben,

Your angry insults only prove the point that every word I'm saying is true, but again you reject the proof of your own hate-filled loathing of Christ and His people, claiming there is no proof.

Do you ever reflect on why you hate the God of the Bible, and His people? That might raise a red flag with you.

In Him,
CD

Ben said...

Matt said... " Feel free to continue writing in this manner, if you wish,"

Thanks Matt.

Matt.." but I'm not buying it."

Since when do i need to worry what you are buying Matt?, who the **** are you, King Farouk ?.I couldnt care less what you buy.But im still standing by what ive been saying about you Calvinists being utterly thoughtless for lacking enough respect of this persons death and the feelings of his wife and family.

Sheese.Time to get real man.Biblical days are gone son.You cant just throw in a few threats and demands anymore, and expect us to suddenly think of you as any being type of authority.

Im no authority either.But that dont mean we dont have a right to tell you what we think about your Calvinist thinking.

You dont like it?.

Thats to bad son.Did you bother to stop and considder if Kens family enjoyed the nasty gloating thoughts of your friend Rhoblogy?.

This world aint run by Calvinists son.Give nasty shit out, and you can expect your nasty shit is likely to get thrown right back.After all,you Calvinists was treating others how you hoped others to be treating you, am i right son you live by the golden rule?

Matt.."The issue is not whether atheists have standards, but whether or not they can rationally claim moral superiority, given the principles of their worldview."

Who said anything about trying to claim any superiority Matt ?.Telling a few ignorant Calvinist how lowly and rude it seems they possibly are, for not bothering to be caring enough about respecting the feelings of a wife and families grief after the sudden loss of their loved one who only just died.

Isnt anything at all about claiming any new type of specially superior morals.As these type of respectful morals have been around for a very long time Matt.

Sheese son.I knew lately science proved devoted faith made some folks brain waves slow down.But i sure had not realized it was quite so bad it made some of them braindead.

Matt.."You claim moral superiority, but have done nothing to demonstrate it."

Yawn .Oh well guess some folks just dont get it.However that dont matter, they say some old dogs just cant learn new tricks.

However thankfully the youth of today use situations like this, to help them see and realize they sure dont want to be nasty Calvinists ,huh Matt? .

Oh and you`ll come back again and try saying i need to think about how im dissing you Calvinists out right? and being nasty too.

Son im not here to feel any need to be nice to arrogant Calvinists who already treated somebodys death like a reason to gloat.Understand?.Cause many of the youth of today sure do understand, son

Matt said "blah blah more plus bleat more faith drivil"

pffftt ohh whatever

Ben said...

Matt said... " Feel free to continue writing in this manner, if you wish,"

Thanks Matt.

Matt.." but I'm not buying it."

Since when do i need to worry what you are buying Matt?, who the **** are you, King Farouk ?.I couldnt care less what you buy.But im still standing by what ive been saying about you Calvinists being utterly thoughtless for lacking enough respect of this persons death and the feelings of his wife and family.

Sheese.Time to get real man.Biblical days are gone son.You cant just throw in a few threats and demands anymore, and expect us to suddenly think of you as any being type of authority.

Im no authority either.But that dont mean we dont have a right to tell you what we think about your Calvinist thinking.

You dont like it?.

Thats to bad son.Did you bother to stop and considder if Kens family enjoyed the nasty gloating thoughts of your friend Rhoblogy?.

This world aint run by Calvinists son.Give nasty shit out, and you can expect your nasty shit is likely to get thrown right back.After all,you Calvinists was treating others how you hoped others to be treating you, am i right son you live by the golden rule?

Matt.."The issue is not whether atheists have standards, but whether or not they can rationally claim moral superiority, given the principles of their worldview."

Who said anything about trying to claim any superiority Matt ?.Telling a few ignorant Calvinist how lowly and rude it seems they possibly are, for not bothering to be caring enough about respecting the feelings of a wife and families grief after the sudden loss of their loved one who only just died.

Isnt anything at all about claiming any new type of specially superior morals.As these type of respectful morals have been around for a very long time Matt.

Sheese son.I knew lately science proved devoted faith made some folks brain waves slow down.But i sure had not realized it was quite so bad it made some of them braindead.

Matt.."You claim moral superiority, but have done nothing to demonstrate it."

Yawn .Oh well guess some folks just dont get it.However that dont matter, they say some old dogs just cant learn new tricks.

However thankfully the youth of today use situations like this, to help them see and realize they sure dont want to be nasty Calvinists ,huh Matt? .

Oh and you`ll come back again and try saying i need to think about how im dissing you Calvinists out right? and being nasty too.

Son im not here to feel any need to be nice to arrogant Calvinists who already treated somebodys death like a reason to gloat.Understand?.Cause many of the youth of today sure do understand, son

Matt said "blah blah more plus bleat more faith drivil"

pffftt ohh whatever

Ben said...

Coram Deo said... "{ }"

Yawn !

Rhology said...

Coram Deo said:
You're an immoral person. In fact, you're an unspeakably wicked and vile person, and you love it.

And just for the record, I love Coram Deo.
Thanks be to Jesus for saving me, for I too am an immoral person, an unspeakably wicked and vile person, and I love it.

David said...

Matt,

Go ask your momma. She'll explain it to you. I'm done trying.

Matt said...

Ben,

When you're ready to stop firing off emotional screeds and engage in rational dialogue, let me know. In the meantime, I second Coram Deo's exhortations - repent of your wickedness and believe the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Matt said...

Go ask your momma. She'll explain it to you. I'm done trying.

So, you're done trying to explain before you even got started? For all of your rhetorical blustering, you've given very little in the way of substance.

David said...

"For all of your rhetorical blustering, you've given very little in the way of substance."

You think so? Well, then, go ask your momma. What more substance do you need? Mother knows best.

enchantednaturalist.com said...

Rho,

Your stated justification for cutting a fart at Ken's funeral (Thanks to David for the apt imagery):

"Yes, it is OK to do that. Especially on a blog, which you have no evidence his family reads. And especially if the person in question is an apostate from the faith, trying to destroy others' faith. Yes, very much so."

Please do tell: precisely which objective, absolute moral law derived from the Bible supports this conclusion? Is it the same moral law that justified John Calvin burning Michael Servetus at the stake?

Rhology said...

enchantednaturalist,

Read the books of Jude and 2 Peter. As here.
The numerous very negative references to apostates and those who lead others astray throughout the NT, and the warnings against them. And the Bible psgs I cited in this very post, which in your haste to jump on the rip-Rhology bandwagon you probably didn't even bother to read.


Is it the same moral law that justified John Calvin burning Michael Servetus at the stake?

1) Ignorance is not commendable about any historical issue.
2) Are you under the impression that the existence of an objective moral law means that no one will ever break said law? What in the Bible gave you that idea?
3) You sound like you think burning Servetus was a bad thing. Why?

David said...

Do it in the name of heaven, justify it in the end.

I had no doubt that you'd choose Door Number 2. I see you've learned nothing, Rho.

David said...

Hey, Rho. You sound like you think burning Servetus was a good thing. Why?

Rhology said...

What gave you that idea, beside your biased opinion of me?

David said...

You said to EN, "you sound like you think burning Servetus was a bad thing. Why?"

Well, if you think this was a bad thing, why do you have to ask EN why it's a bad thing? I got the impression that you disagreed with the conclusion that this was a bad thing.

Feel free to correct me if I misunderstood. So, which is it? Good thing or bad thing?

Rhology said...

I want to ask him whether it was bad b/c I want to know how he knows that things are bad. How he ascribes moral value to a thing.

And my own evaluation of it is mixed. Some permissible, some bad, but since I don't know a ton about it and since I don't want to make anachronistic judgments, I don't make definitive statements about it.

David said...

I don't want to make anachronistic judgments...

Well, yes, it's true that morality is situational and changes with time, so we shouldn't judge others based on today's subjective and relative morals.

"I don't make definitive statements about it."

Huh. So, it's possible that's good? Not saying that you're definitively saying that it's good, but you're open to the possibility?

Brabble Frabbitz said...

This Calvinist scheme articulted by Coram Deo truly is anachronistic. When I was a Calvinist, I read mostly material that was more than a century old - Spurgeon, Ryle, Edwards, the Puritans, etc. That's probably true of a lot of Calvinists. They aren't aware of the huge company of scholars who would easily point out how Platonic that whole line of thinking is: disembodied souls, individual salvation after death as the "Christian hope," e.g. (And where in the Bible do we find the wicked being given incorruptible bodies?) That stuff flies just fine for a person still living in the 1700s, but it's been debunked soundly by smart people in your own camp.

Try reading outside the comfort zone of your sect. You might learn something. (Of course, you can always write these dissenters off as emissaries of Satan and soldier on.)

Rhology said...

Brabble,

You don't seem to understand that Coram Deo, Matt, Andrew, and I draw our doctrine from the Bible, not from Ryle, Spurgeon, and the Puritans.

how Platonic that whole line of thinking is

1) Yes, perish the thought that maybe Plato said something true!
2) I think you're overstating the similarities, but I'm not an expert in Plato.


disembodied souls

Parable of Rich Man and Lazarus? 2 Corinthians 5? Revelation?


individual salvation after death as the "Christian hope,"

Jesus - "WHat does it profit a man to gain the whole world and yet lose his soul?"



(And where in the Bible do we find the wicked being given incorruptible bodies?)

1 Corinthians 15, and in Revelation the dead are resurrected, then judged, then sent to the lake of fire.
Sorry to point out a bit of ignorance, but I'd encourage you to be a little more specific in critical comments in the future.

Brabble Frabbitz said...

Yeah, everybody gets their theology straight out of the Bible. Uh-uh. Sure. Just ask and they'll tell you.

The Rich Man was a "disembodied soul" who wanted water to cool his tongue. Souls have tongues. Ohhhh-kay.

"Lose his soul" -- you're reading that through the theological specs handed you by the Greeks who conquered your church long ago. Some modern translations render it "forfeit his very self." There's no reason to assume it means "give over his immaterial, deathless self to suffer endless torments." Of course, when you read that verse, your brain reflexively fires off such messages from Sunday schools long ago. I understand that. But that doesn't make it so.

Rhology said...

"The rich man also died and was buried."
So his body teleported to the fiery place? Nah. The reasonable reader will understand that his experience was comparable to bodily suffering. It's not as if the man had a lot of experience being disembodied. How else was he to express it?


"Lose his soul" -- you're reading that through the theological specs handed you by the Greeks who conquered your church long ago.

Thanks for the assertion. Around here, we prefer arguments.


There's no reason to assume it means "give over his immaterial, deathless self to suffer endless torments."

Actually, there are lots of reasons, like the rest of the NT's testimony with respect to the eternal state.

Matt said...

This Calvinist scheme articulted by Coram Deo truly is anachronistic...

Making full use of the fallacy Chronological Snobbery, I see.

it's been debunked soundly by smart people in your own camp.

References, please? In particular, which historic Reformed doctrines have been "debunked soundly" by which Reformed scholars ("smart people in [our] own camp"), in which scholarly works?

Brabble Frabbitz said...

Ah, yes. I suppose I can understand a disembodied man asking another to dip his THUMB in some water and put it on his TONGUE. No, on second thought, I can't. But as long as it backs up the old foregone conclusions, who cares? In the crazy world of prooftexting, you can shove a triangular peg in an oval hole if you push hard enough.

@Matt

A Calvinist accusing someone of snobbery. A pot/kettle moment for sure.

To continue my assertions and rank snobbery: If you think that getting a soul into heaven is the essence of the Christian message, you are way, WAY behind the curve. And you don't even know it. Probably too busy tut-tutting about those Arminian dullards who just don't get it. (While you're stuck in the 17th century yourself.)

For starters, read something by N.T. Wright. Maybe "What St. Paul Really Said."

Brabble Frabbitz said...

Oh, and as far as all your high-sounding appeals to argument and logic. Just remember, you're the guys who think people are born incapable of doing good or receiving the gospel; that God, nevertheless, commands that they live perfectly and (if they fail at it) receive the gospel; and that He whose love and mercy are perfect will burn much of our race in hell for not doing what they can't do.

Sorry, but you've forfeited your credibility when it comes to claiming any kind of logical high ground.

Matt said...

@Babble

A Calvinist accusing someone of snobbery. A pot/kettle moment for sure.

Apparently, you fail to grasp that Chronological Snobbery is an informal logical fallacy. Your argument from anachronism is fallacious.

For starters, read something by N.T. Wright. Maybe "What St. Paul Really Said."

Let me recall the claim you made earlier. You said:

That stuff flies just fine for a person still living in the 1700s, but it's been debunked soundly by smart people in your own camp.

To justify such a claim, you need to do the following:

1) Identify which specific Reformed doctrines have been "debunked soundly by smart people in [our] own camp."
2) Identify which specific Reformed scholars have debunked the doctrines in (1).
3) Idenfity the specific works in which such debunkings in (2) have been published (with citations).

Simply giving a passing reference to N.T. Wright (who is not in "our camp") is insufficient. Do you wish to justify your claims, or are you content with simply making baseless assertions and expecting people to take you seriously?

Brabble Frabbitz said...

@ Matt

No, I don't expect members of your cult to take me seriously (dang, that's another fallacy, I bet). In my experience, you folks don't take anyone seriously who happens to be part of the "outgroup" anyhow.

Matt said...

Oh, and as far as all your high-sounding appeals to argument and logic. Just remember, you're the guys who think people are born incapable of doing good or receiving the gospel; that God, nevertheless, commands that they live perfectly and (if they fail at it) receive the gospel; and that He whose love and mercy are perfect will burn much of our race in hell for not doing what they can't do.

Sorry, but you've forfeited your credibility when it comes to claiming any kind of logical high ground.


Even if there is an inconsistency in the Calvinistic position, per your point above, your comment as a whole is another fallacious argument.

It is a non sequitur to say that because a person believes a logical falsehood in one area, that such a person's argument in another area is somehow worthy of less than proper consideration. Each argument is sound or unsound on its own merits, and your conflation of the argument with the person making the argument suggests a rather tenuous grasp on the art of reasoning.

But there is no reason to concede your point as to the inconsistency of Calvinism. What your comment ignores is the possibility that the term "incapable" is equivocal, and that your supposed problems disappear if such an equivocation is acknowledged (as I have done here).

Matt said...

No, I don't expect members of your cult to take me seriously (dang, that's another fallacy, I bet).

"Cult"? What is your definition of a cult? If your definition is wide enough to include Reformed Protestantism, then one would expect pretty much everything to be a cult by your definition, rendering your appellation meaningless.

As for expecting to be taken seriously - the question I have is why you would come in here, make a rather serious assertion, and then fail to even attempt to justify your claim. Were you hoping to accomplish something by doing this?

In my experience, you folks don't take anyone seriously who happens to be part of the "outgroup" anyhow.

Perhaps that is because folks in the "outgroup" often do not produce convincing argumentation and justification for their claims. Just a thought, anyway.

Brabble Frabbitz said...

OK, "cult" is too strong. My apologies. My reason for using that term is because, when I was a Calvinist, we all read ONLY literature from a narrow sliver of available Christian literature. We listened only to Calvinists and regarded those outside the group as people not worth listening to. That strikes me now as very cultish. But to paint everyone with that brush based on my own experience is, admittedly, unfair.

And, of course, your points are all valid about the non sequitur. But what the hey -- a fallacy doesn't cost me a dime and sometimes it's fun to sling a few.

Coram Deo said...

And just for the record, I love Coram Deo.

I love me too, Rho; which thing lies at the root of my manifold struggles with sin. Thanks be to the Lord for His grace that is sufficent for me, even me.

BF said: OK, "cult" is too strong. My apologies. My reason for using that term is because, when I was a Calvinist, we all read ONLY literature from a narrow sliver of available Christian literature. We listened only to Calvinists and regarded those outside the group as people not worth listening to. That strikes me now as very cultish. But to paint everyone with that brush based on my own experience is, admittedly, unfair.

In my experience - and granted this only anecdotal - but the serious Calvinistic believers I'm acquainted with are some of the most voracious and ferocious readers around.

They consume tomes and scholarly works and critical papers and offer reasoned, Biblical rejoinders to their theological and philosophical opponents.

Part of the reason for this is natural enough; the Calvinist takes a high view of Scripture, and the absolute sovereignty of the One true and living God of the Holy Bible, which produces a desire to know Him more, and to speak His authoritative truth with the full confidence that His Word will not return to Him void, but will accomplish all His holy will.

In other words Calvinists take God seriously as opposed to toying with a hodge-podge of worldly wisdom, sub-Biblical sophistry, and making pathetic overtures to the workers of darkness in the vain hope that they'll "like us", and will thereby be persuaded to "like Jesus".

I can easily see how this sort of worldview would be perceived as overly narrow, divisive, and exclusive - because it is - yet this is God's design, not the Calvinists' design. Wide is the path that leads to destruction...

And, of course, your points are all valid about the non sequitur. But what the hey -- a fallacy doesn't cost me a dime and sometimes it's fun to sling a few.

A candid admission which clearly brings into question both your epistemology and your integrity; just in case your pomo attacks on the text of Scripture left any lingering doubt.

In Him,
CD

enchantednaturalist.com said...

Rhology,

Do you maintain that Calvin was not complicit in Servetus's execution?

Was Calvin morally justified for his actions (or inactions) that contributed to Servetus's execution?

I'm still waiting for you to answer the question: which of the absolute moral laws that you follow permits you to mock and persecute apostates and blasphemers (dead or living) and their families?

Does Jesus Christ condone your or Calvin's actions? Why or why not?

You claim to have the measuring tape, so give us the exact dimensions.

Brabble Frabbitz said...

"A candid admission which clearly brings into question both your epistemology and your integrity ..."

It's a fault I've inherited from Adam. Apart from a work of efficacious grace, I'll always be this way. So give me a break, Coram.

On the other hand, I would never use the occasion of a man's death to reveal my invincible boorishness, as your comrade has done. But then, that probably doesn't bother you in the least, does it?

As for J. Calvin, if the standard Calvinist view of hell is true, then he is surely there. No murderer has eternal life in him. And he is both a murderer and a coward.

Is it any wonder his namesakes are so cranky and intolerant?

Rhology said...

Brabble,
a fallacy doesn't cost me a dime and sometimes it's fun to sling a few.

Hopefully you don't expect any of us to take you seriously after this. Since you have so little regard for logic, why should any of us respond to you logically?


EN.com,
You seem not to have read my previous comment to you. Repeating myself won't do any good. Take it into acct or talk to yourself.

Brabble Frabbitz said...

Calvinists not taking me seriously!? Say it ain't so.

enchantednaturalist.com said...

You seem not to have read my previous comment to you. Repeating myself won't do any good. Take it into acct or talk to yourself.

I read your comment and the link, and your fellow Christian interlocutor in the thread pointed out the errors of your exegesis. His and your interpretations of the law contradict each other, and what happens when there's a disagreement over how to apply law? It's decided by a third party judge or jury. So who is that? Who speaks the true truth of God's word to His people? There's no divine third party to help settle the impasse--just your own human intuitions as to what the passages truly mean and which verses and commandments to prioritize over another.

Human intuitions. As Harris puts it, you put your own good in the Good Book.

Rhology said...

en.com,

your fellow Christian interlocutor in the thread

I didn't see one. Did you mean the liberal poseur?
(Yes, I'm being serious. I saw little evidence that he is an actual committed follower of Christ. Liberalism is a different religion, one that seems to be more up his alley.)



pointed out the errors of your exegesis.

Where specifically? Please copy and paste the errors.



His and your interpretations of the law contradict each other, and what happens when there's a disagreement over how to apply law? It's decided by a third party judge or jury. So who is that?

God is the judge, and it's already been decided.
Your argument is merely an argumentum ad populum. Please explain why such an appeal is supposed to be rationally defensible.



Who speaks the true truth of God's word to His people?

God.
Please explain how it's necessarily God's fault if ppl don't agree on what He said. IOW, you left out a very important part of the equation, which atheists always do - sinful man. Why did you leave out that possibility, that the other guy is wrong? B/c you're biased, that's why, but I want to hear you wriggle out an explanation.



There's no divine third party to help settle the impasse

Thanks for your opinion. How could you possibly demonstrate it?



Human intuitions. As Harris puts it, you put your own good in the Good Book.

Or maybe the other guy is, and I'm reading it for what it says, even when it says I'm a worm and can't do what I want. For ex, it says that my greed is bad, and that sucks b/c I prefer to be greedy. It says my penchant for desiring every hot girl that crosses my path is wrong, and that sucks b/c I prefer to lust.
You don't really get it, and that also sucks for you, b/c your position has the same problem. There's no one theory of time. Or of naturalism. Or whether naturalism is true. Or of evolution. Or of relativistic physics. Or of truth, or of morality. So don't come to me with "all those who call themselves Christians don't agree", as if that's supposed to mean something.

Peace,
Rhology