Nihilism just before Pascha

Responding again to the Jolly Nihilist:

To the reader, I'll be pointing out the JN's inconsistencies in the way he handles morality from time to time, but I'd encourage you to read his post 1st and see how many times you can pick them out yourself. I probably didn't get them all, but it's a useful exercise. The disconnect between profession and action on the part of so many atheists and postmodernists continues to amaze me.
Anyway,

I recognize our collective moral ignorance, and a relativistic view flows naturally therefrom.

But the relativistic view is a view in itself. You claim ignorance about the topic and then go ahead and take a position anyway. Why not just eschew any and all moral statements about everythg if you really believe that?


inflict their arbitrary moral opinions on those around them.

There's inflicting and there's inflicting. Surely you won't be so blind as to compare sharia law with laws banning the sale of sex toys!
Yet that's what you seem to be doing. That's one of the things that amazes me about these comparisons to Islam. You miss the forest for the trees. You can apparently hardly bear to NOT take a swipe at Christianity and so you miss the presence of the huge threat of people who want to blow you up.


However, if that truly is your stance (and I hope it is), then you must join me in condemning the Alabama law to which I am opposed....If Bible-inspired statutes, such as the one in Alabama, are applied to Christians and non-Christians alike, religious freedom is retarded.

B/c I believe in religious freedom? That doesn't follow. There is also public morality to think of. I won't support the free exercise of a religion that includes committing 4 murders a year as part of its pietistic exercise, for example.
I'm not saying I do support the law, but it's not for that reason.
Laws limit freedom, you know. You're not permitted to murder someone just for the heck of it, and that can retard religious freedom. We must ask "Which freedoms can be justifiably restricted?" rather than "Should religious freedom be restricted?"


unconventional sex is sinful

Rather, sex that is harmful or outside of marriage is that which is sinful. Nothing in the Bible really refers to sex toys.


If I lived in that state, I would be an atheist in name and belief, but would have to be a de facto Christian if I wanted to avoid legal harassment.

Do what you want, but Alabama is not Saudi Arabia. Seriously, stop acting like it is! You're making yourself look foolish and missing the bigger threat.

Is the latter cell “less evil” than the former?

On your worldview, neither is evil at all.


Just ghastly.

On your worldview, it's not ghastly. It's just painful. Pain is, pleasure is, neither is moral nor immoral. I'm going to hold you to your professed worldview even if you won't.


they certainly are antithetical to modern ideas about absolute equality

OK. Absent an argument why anyone should care, I'll just let this go.


you subscribe to a religion in which wives are supposed to submit to their husbands’ headship.

And, I shouldn't be surprised, you neglected (again) to mention anythg about the husbands' obligations and responsibilities. Pretty typical, though I have come to expect a little more than that from you.


you are a Christian who adheres slavishly to scripture.

I'm happy to admit this is the case.


It seems to me that, in your mind, your beliefs need not conform to popular wisdom, modern mores or even common sense.

Since popular wisdom is so often wrong, yes. Common sense is far from infallible as well.
As an example, just look at how long your moral relativism has lasted throughout your own post! You didn't make it 3 paragraphs before contradicting yourself.


Bearing that in mind, what if Jesus had explicitly preached that women should walk ten steps behind men, or that they never should show their faces in public, or that they never should shake hands with men?

I'd submit and conform to it.
Of course, that's not what He preached.
Again you spend time sniping at Christianity when you should be focusing on Islam. No hypotheticals needed there - they DO teach this stuff!

There is no known way to prove a moral statement or moral code; as such, we are left only with opinion.

Very well. Serious question - why then make all these moral statements, as if someone else should hold them? Why not just hold all moral judgments to yourself?

I do maintain, however, that such passages provided “theological cover” for the torturers, butchers and murderers

Absent an argument, I'll simply make the bare assertion to the contrary.


I would be willing to bet a large sum that, at the height of the witch-hunts, the aforequoted passage was recited more than once.

As if misuse of a passage of text means the text is to blame.
Obviously if I murdered 10 people and then appealed to this very blogpost in court, saying that I took your meaning to be that you were God and you commanded me to murder them, the judge would not and should not hold you responsible for that, right?


Is not Levitical law also “out of date,” as it were?

Violations of the moral law are not out of date, though the penalties are not necessarily the same.
I'll try to get that post out.


Should not that particular verse be retired from the contemporary gay rights discussion?

Given that
1) virtually no one in America understands the relationship of Old Testament law to New Testament times, and
2) 1 Corinthians 6 and Romans 1 (among other NT passages) are clearer and easier to use,
I'd agree with that.
Again, not that bashing gays (literally or figuratively) is morally wrong on your worldview, let's remember to clarify. I assume, since you want to be consistent, that you're just asking for educational, informational reasons.


by “witchcraft,” you apparently are referencing adults who indulge in children’s folly.

Not all of that stuff is simple parlor tricks. But I'm not a naturalist, so I attribute at least a small amount of that stuff, including miracles in other religions, to demonic activity.


(a) torture was used not to punish people for their “crimes” but in order to secure extravagant confessions, and (b) the charges oftentimes were jaw dropping in their ludicrousness.

Well, of course I wouldn't support those gross abuses.
And again, not that treating suspected "witches" this way is morally wrong on your worldview, let's remember to clarify. I assume, since you want to be consistent, that you're just asking for educational, informational reasons.


If the Bible had contained different moral prescriptions—ones that your current self finds repugnant—would you have followed them?

It does contain such. "If you wish to be my disciple, take up your cross and follow me." That's far from easy and I fail every day. I don't want to do it; I prefer to do what *I* want to do b/c I'm selfish.


Dahmer was a serial murderer, rapist, necrophile and cannibal, I tend to be suspicious of anything he said.

Me too. That's why I said "***IF*** he truly repented" - remember?


Might murdering, raping, necrophiliac, cannibalistic Dahmer have pulled one final con job?

Very well might have, but he can't hide from God's eye.


exemplifies nothing more than pathetic cravenness.

Again, not that pathetic cravenness or the threatening people with hell is morally wrong on your worldview, let's remember to clarify. I assume, since you want to be consistent, that you're just asking for educational, informational reasons.
You just can't seem to live up to your own worldview! Since you fit yours so badly, it's the least I can do to offer you one that would allow you to justify making moral claims like you keep doing, namely Christianity.

Don't imprison those suicide bomber guys

I just can't resist. merkur, who prides himself on his powerful insights into this question, has been weighing in on the question of waterboarding. Here's his latest offering. I love it. Rarely does the argument ad absurdum yield such striking results, and I wasn't even really applying it all that heavily!

I said:

Shoot, being in prison has been known to cause severe mental suffering.

merkur responded:

Which is why the Convention explicitly excludes being in prison and other legal incidences.

I can only assume he means the Geneva Convention but I invite his correction on that. But just look at the splendor of that idea! These bombings and things are not acts of war. They're not even crimes. Or, they might be crimes, but surely we, an enlightened society, won't be so inhumane as to put people in prison for doing bad things to others, will we?

Anyway, getting to the rest of his comment, I'm also curious who are the lawyers? The statement's name? Is it the Geneva Convention or does it derive its authority therefrom?
On what basis does it apply to, say, everyone, everywhere, at all times? Does it apply to the jihadists? Since they do worse to their prisoners such as cutting off body parts just for changing their religion, throwing acid in Christian young women's faces for refusing to marry a Muslim, etc, what does that mean for this question?

Depriving someone of sleep is torture, really? A tour of the gallows? Systematic feeding them pork chops (say, once a week)?

Man, you're strict! Next thing you'll say is that imprisonment is torture.
Oh, oops...


(Edit: See at least the 1st 3 comments, as I apparently mistook merkur's meaning. He's still being inconsistent and baselessly pontificating his morality all over the place, but I was wrong about what he meant on imprisonment.)

More from the Jolly Nihilist

Hi JN,

I'll post this same comment here and on the relevant post at my place.
First of all, you're not on the Wall of Shame b/c you actually answer questions! You're not afraid of a good tussle, you don't run away, you respond to charges made against your position. You respond with stuff that's on-topic. You don't moderate dissenting comments into oblivion. You don't confuse attacks on your position with attacks on YOU. Those are what have earned the denizens of the WoS their hallowed place. I appreciate your modus operandi a great deal.

The point I've been trying to make about Irony #1 is, if you will, a meta-point. Let me try to explain better, since I doubt I'm doing an adequate job. In arguing against the possibility of making overarching moral claims (like my position does, you're 100% right), you yourself make the same kinds of claims.
However, I think your latest offering might have clarified what you mean and so my argument would need to be revamped. Now, I'd argue that I am 100% justified in taking what I took from your original post, given the way you worded it, but now everythg changes. The irony is more or less removed to a different spot, one that's slightly less obvious.


Moving on to irony #2 (which I found, unfortunately, to be the less interesting of the 2, haha):

Nobody reading my essay could possibly think I was directly comparing suicide bombing with Alabama’s infantile law.

You yourself said this, though: "Of course, Rhology, you must recognize that my comparison was not of methods but of mindset."
But I agree that religious freedom (which I believe the US should have) should exist and that your statements about it are correct.

I readily admit that, at this moment and for the last few centuries, Muslims behave far worse than Christians do.

Well, I'm looking for more than that! :-D Islam behaved VERY badly its first 2 centuries of existence, as an institution. The medieval RCC was bad; institutional Islam was pretty bad too, enslaved and killed far more people, and took far more territory with the sword. In the name of God and in line with their religion (see the link I posted), as opposed to the Inquisition and Crusades, neither of which are fully justifiable on biblical grounds (though the Crusades are justifiable to a decent extent).
Does that make sense?

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” [1 Corinthians 11:3 (KJV)].

But where do you get misogyny out of that? The New Testament also affirms the ontological equality of men and women in Galatians 3:28-29 and says this in Ephesians 5:

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.

It's a distinction of role, not of nature.
And you're right - it's SERVANT leadership, much like Christ, the Lord and Creator of the universe, space, time, matter, and energy, washing the disgusting, dirty, and manure-encrusted feet of His disciples and then dying for them, abandoned by them. That's my calling as a Christian husband.

702 were tried and executed in Protestant territories

OK, I didn't realise that about Prot territories. Of course, the Salem trials were Prot, (and executed a whopping <20 witches) but this still compares very favorably with Islam. It's not as simple as this, though. The state and church were not separated or barely separated at that time. Principles like American religious freedom were more or less unheard-of; it's anachronistic to judge them by our modern standards. Finally, I'll just remind everyone that you said above that you can't extend moral judgments beyond yourself anyway.

OK, two more: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”

It's not that I deemphasise certain psgs b/c I feel like it. The key is that this law and so many others in the OT Law were CIVIL laws given for the governance of OT Israel, which was a nation, a theocracy. OT Israel no longer exists. Those civil laws don't apply.
Tell you what, I'll post on that issue fairly soon and you can read and learn a bit.

1)“Neither [witchcraft nor sorcery] exists and neither ever has.” I also would like to grant you the opportunity to declare, for all to read, that 2) the pious people who tortured and murdered “witches” centuries ago, in your judgment, are presently in that place where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

1) I disagree with this statement. They do exist. Why else would the OT Law prohibit them?
Shoot, they exist TODAY! Have you never heard of a séance, channeling, Ouija boards, mediums, Tarot card readers, thaumaturgists...?

2) I can make no statement of certainty on the state of most anyone's soul. What I can say is that those who participated in these persecutions were not wholly justified in doing so. It's not as clear-cut as I think we like to make it in modern times, but I think you wouldn't want to be judged by the standards of 24th-century people when they dig up a hard disc drive with your blog contents saved on it, someday. You'd want to be judged in the context of your thoughts, your environment.
Witchcraft was illegal in those areas at that time and was (I'd argue more or less rightly) considered a threat to civil security, so it was treated as a crime. It's not how I'd do it, but it has a fair amount to commend it - the nation would be freer of the evil influence of the occult, the people would be holier in conduct, the gross immorality that usually accompanies witchcraft would be less present, etc.
"Murder" is never justified, so I grant that. Executions after trial are quite another matter.
I don't see why torture would be justified, so I grant that.
On a related note, I believe it is documented on better-than-urban-legend grounds that Jeffrey Dahmer converted to Christianity shortly before his death. If that is true, if he placed his faith and reliance on Jesus Christ to forgive him of his sin and give him eternal life, he is my brother in Christ and will spend eternity in heaven in the presence of Jesus. I am a great sinner, Jesus Christ is a greater Savior. These Inquisitors, if they had saving faith in Christ, will be saved. If they didn't, they are condemned and stand in the exact same place as you do - hellbound. I urge you to turn away from your sin and repent, believe in the Savior. You won't regret it; I can promise you that much.

Peace,
Rhology

The irony hardly gets richer

This post will consist of 2 parts, each on irony.

Irony #1 - See if you can pick out the irony in the following statements from the Jolly Nihilist:

-I argue that, because our species is ignorant of moral truth—or, at the least, no moral code has been proved correct—it is incoherent for any individual’s moral opinions to be inflicted upon other individuals.

-As such, in the comment box, I rail against moral authoritarianism, taking both Islamofascists and Christofascists to task for their attempts to inflict their arbitrary views on others.

-(Comparing perception of morality with perception of colors) In the face of factual ignorance, everybody should be entitled to create an opinion vis-à-vis best color.

-...for both Christofascists and Islamofascists, there is an assumption that they have a right to inflict their arbitrary moral opinions on those around them.

Irony #2 (this one might be a little tougher) -

-Rhology took exception to the comparison, and wrote the following:
“Yeah, the biggest difference might be found in the fact that Christians don't strap bombs to their bodies to blow other people and themselves up. But that's probably just a piddling, minor issue.”...Of course, Rhology, you must recognize that my comparison was not of methods but of mindset.

-If you, Rhology, as a Christian, find sex toys to be immoral, you have every right never to buy or use them. However, if other people find them morally acceptable—and, dare I say, pleasurable—they would be allowed their (in your mind) “deviance.”

LEGEND:

#1 - The JN would inflict his moral views on the rest of us, just as he says we should not do. In making the very statement that one should not inflict one's moral views on another, he does the same. As James White says, "Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument".

#2 - He challenges my comparison between "Christian" violence and jihadist suicide bombers with an illustration of a law in Alabama that prohibits the sale of sex toys.
I love it - the West, for all its faults, faces an enemy that wants to impose sharia law on all people. It wants women to walk 10 steps behind men, never to show their faces in public, to be prohibited from shaking hands with men, to be worth 1/2 of a man with respect to lawful testimony in court. It wants to charge a heavy tax on/kill those who will not convert to Islam. It wants to behead those who insult Islam or Mohammed. Virtually all of its earliest expansion, both under Mohammed and after him, came through military activity and forced conversions, to the point that all of the Iberian Peninsula, much of France, all of the Balkans, up to Vienna, was taken and held by Muslim forces. The number of men AND WOMEN who strap bombs to themselves every year to blow up civilians and children is almost too numerous to consider. And the JN is concerned about the imposition of a few laws banning the sale of sex toys?

Further, I specified even further a big difference between jihadist violence and Christian violence in response to a commenter's mentioning abortion-related violence.
The JN, in his post, goes on and on about "the church" committing the Inquisition and Witch Trials and such. It's hard to imagine how he could be so uninformed as to think there could be any connection beyond a simple name (ie, they were part of the "Christian church" and I am part of the the Christian church) between my position and that of medieval Roman Catholics. Apparently he missed the multiple posts I've written against the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox positions and the fact that I'm a contributor at Beggars All Reformation Apologetics, which would be hard to confuse with medieval Roman Catholicism.
Anyone can claim to "clutch the Bible" as JN puts it. "Who follows its teachings?" is a far better question for two reasons:
1) You're making a claim that the Bible teaches such.
2) You're talking to a guy who claims to follow the Bible in everythg it teaches.

Given all this, perhaps the JN could enlighten us as to how he comes to these conclusions:

-If torture and murder cannot be laid at the Bible’s figurative feet, that tome certainly can be said to have inspired some of this.

-“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” is just begging for trouble, especially when there are nonconformists, heretics and ugly crones about.

Ie. What is the context of this command? To whom was it given? When? What connection does that have to the New Testament church, of which I am a part?

The JN is always an interesting guy; I'm very interested to see the depths of his understanding here.

Prayer for a dying atheist

I recently emailed an atheist blogger with whom I've had some interaction in the past. This was because he had asked me to read Dawkins' The Selfish Gene and agreed in exchange to read one of my choosing (I chose the New Testament). I notified him that I had finished and inquired after an update. He responded that he had not had time partly because his father is near death. I told him I would pray for him and his father, and he then asked me not to, asked me if I would be pleased if a Santeria were to sacrifice an animal in his religious ritual or a Muslim were to pray for me, were I in a similar situation. My response follows:


Hey _____,

I hope you'll be assured that I don't engage in this to rub any salt in a wound. I cannot empathise with the death of a parent (yet), though I have lost an unborn child which has caused me a great deal of grief. And my wife lost her father some time ago.
At any rate, this seems to be an instructive topic. You continue to act inconsistently with your stated worldview, where you have said explicitly and specifically that any moral stance you may have is nothing more than personal preference, yet you're trying to impose that on me.
That's indeed why it's important to flesh this out.

Now, in my case with the Santeria followers or the Muslim, I know that their religion is false and that such idolatry brings further condemnation on them. For THEIR sake I don't want them to do that for me or in my name, b/c that action is concretely, objectively wrong. So it makes sense to request such a thing not be done in my worldview.
It doesn't make sense in yours. In refusing to honor your request, I'm just acting consistently with your own worldview in my refusal to be constrained by what someone else thinks is right. What your father thinks should be respected makes no difference - it's neither right nor wrong to respect another person's views on any issue. I prefer to pray, so it's right for me. That's what you yourself have said. I point out that you apparently can't live out what you said you believe. That would give me pause. I hope and pray it does you as well.

Now, I'd urge you to consider just for a second why these 'vultures' are appealing to your father. I don't know what they're saying, but I know what I'd say. Sthg like this:
"Sir, the day when you will stand before Jesus to account for what you've done is close at hand, very probably; I think we're both being realistic to say that death is near. Please take this opportunity, now, to repent of your sins and ask Jesus to forgive you. He will forgive you now, but He will not when you have passed on. He is gracious, but seize the opportunity. Today is the day of salvation. Confess that you are a sinner, please. Be saved."

My concern is for HIS soul; I want to praise and worship the Lord Jesus forever and ever someday and I want him (and you) by my side while doing it. I don't want either of you to bear your own sin before the judgment of a holy God.
Given that my (hypothetical) concerns are wholly altruistic and that I'm spending my time communicating this message that I could be using to earn money or give my wife a foot massage, I don't know if calling me a 'vulture' is even remotely appropriate. Of course, I don't know all the details of what's happening with your father, but perhaps I guessed correctly.


Peace,
Rhology

Liberalism and waterboarding

I grew up United Methodist but never kept up with the varying and competing influences within the denomination. By the time I actually met Jesus, I was moving away from the UMs in conviction, especially given the liberal tendencies within the denom's government and within the local church in which I grew up. But anyway, I noticed a very interesting post on a UM blog. There are a few interesting things to go after in this post, actually, and I'll have to divide them up.

First,

My suggestion is that we replace all of our "open minds, open hearts, open doors" slogans and commercials, which are completely devoid of any theological content whatsoever, and instead start using, "United Methodists Do Not Torture."

As if "We don't torture" contains any theological content, but I agree 100% with the 1st part of the statement that the current slogan does not.

Here, we have been congratulating ourselves on how open-minded and tolerant we are for the past four decades. We don't care what you believe or what you do, so long as you are sincere. Well, at last, that line of thinking has come to its limits, having been exposed as a lie. There really is a conviction that we share: we don't torture. Yes, I know, that's setting the bar pretty low, but at least we have discovered there is a bar.

One might be encouraged by the first two sentences, as it would appear Jonathan is coming to the realisation that liberal pluralism is a bankrupt worldview. Unfortunately, the soaring optimism comes crashing down when he then deviates into politics and morality rather than theological (ie, dealing with God) content for his "bar". As I said in comment 3 on the thread:

Well, what I'm saying is, why make your denomination's entire slogan a negative stance against ONE issue?
Why not "United Methodists do not murder babies," or "United Methodists do not put criminals to death" or something like that? Why this one issue?

If you abandon what should be your central reason for existence - serving Jesus Christ - then God help you.

I know that both sides of the lib/conservative debate mix their politics with religion, but I don't see any conservatives calling for making their church's Official Slogans into political statements.


I then moved on to the topic of waterboarding, because he brought it up, linking to this article.
I parse here the fallacies point by point:

1) Moral equivocation on the subjects of the interrogation techniques. If it's bad for the enemies to do it, it's bad for us.
2) Poisoning the well by discussing extraneous and irrelevant topics:

-He told his interrogators everything they wanted to know including the truth. They rarely stopped.
-Whether the victim is allowed to comply or not is usually left up to the interrogator. Many waterboard team members, even in training, enjoy the sadistic power of making the victim suffer and often ask questions as an after thought.
-Taking a pregnant woman and electrocuting the fetus inside her? Executing a captive’s children in front of him?

No one is arguing that it's OK to inflict wanton suffering on someone. The question is whether it's permissible or even preferable to do so to obtain actionable intel to save American lives, preventing an attack.


3) Equivocation on the definition of torture.
I don't see an argument for why "painful psychological experience" - which should be stated "experience that lasts about 30 seconds, leaves no physical aftereffect and can cause painful psychological experience later in life, including fear of rain and taking a shower" - that should be defined as "torture".

4) Equivocation on who is who. As if jihadists will stop their torturous activities if we stop waterboarding.
-If you support the use of waterboarding on enemy captives, you support the use of that torture on any future American captives.

He even admits as much later in the article:
-We must now double our efforts to prepare for its inevitable and uncontrolled use of by our future enemies.

5) -Torture. Does. Not. Work.

Except when it does.
Obviously the interrogator must frame his questions carefully. No one is arguing with that.

-The torturer will trigger within the subject a survival instinct, in this case the ability to breathe, which makes the victim instantly pliable and ready to comply.

Good - I want jihadists to tell American captors actionable intel so that fewer American troops and civilians will die, don't you?


6) Further equivocation on the label of "torture" to waterboarding:
-What next if the waterboarding on a critical the captive doesn’t work and you have a timetable to stop the “ticking bomb” scenario? Electric shock to the genitals?

I wouldn't necessarily support that - it's a whole different question b/c it's serious PHYSICAL pain, of a disgusting nature, and can have physical consequences in the future.
To quote an article linked-to below, "to say that 30 seconds of waterboarding is torture trivializes the concept of torture. If that’s torture, then torture is grossly overrated."

7) Unwarranted assertions that, again, poison the well:
-It is not a far leap from torture to murder, especially if the subject is defiant.

Defiant? I thought torture doesn't work. Which is it - does it work or not?

8) Self-loathing and justifying jihadists. Why does he think America is the only bad guy here?
-Brutal interrogation, flash murder and extreme humiliation of American citizens, agents and members of the armed forces may now be guaranteed because we have mindlessly, but happily, broken the seal on the Pandora’s box of indignity, cruelty and hatred in the name of protecting America.

Amazingly, the very next sentence contradicts his point.
-To defeat Bin Laden many in this administration have openly embraced the methods of by Hitler, Pinochet, Pol Pot, Galtieri and Saddam Hussein.

I thought *WE* broke the box open, but now we hear that Hitler, Pol Pot, and Saddam did so.
You think they stopped at waterboarding (as I would argue we probably should)? And didn't they come chronologically 1st? And somehow this is America's fault?


You linked to an article, here are some more to consider from a blog that was recently discussing this very issue:
On waterboarding
How not argue against waterboarding
On Christians and waterboarding

-----

For your edification, as always.

Sniping from the mud tower

Looks like I've provoked a clarification in AC Chase's comment policy. I think this is funny.

For one thing, you know, the term "troll" is too easily thrown around these days, it seems. That makes twice in one week that my on-topic comments, posted under "Rhology" with a link back to my own blog (that is up-to-date), have provoked the appellation "troll". People need to learn a bit what "troll" means. While they're at it, I'd like 'em to look into the definition of "objective" as well...

I hate also to leave comboxes unanswered, but I've had to recently. Oh well. I figure the reader profits most from the interaction, and I'm here to help the reader.
If a comment goes unanswered, it's up to the reader to figure out whether that unanswered comment really did respond substantively to the points it allegedly answers.
It's the philosophy of giving the interlocutor enough rope to hang himself. Apparently Alex does not subscribe to that idea.
But let's see if I didn't comply with his rules:

1. Stick to the topic at hand and be clear and concise.

Check.

2. If you expect respect, show some.

Check. And look how he responded to ME...

3. Anonymous commenting is not allowed, so don't do it.

I commented with my regular blogger ID.

4. If you are looking for a fight, argument and/or pointless, endless debate, don't waste your time. My readers & I won't be wasting our own time by sparring with you ad nauseum.

Look how I worded my original comment. It was intended as a clarification. It was only after he pretended to correct me that I came back. I'd say the argument is HIS doing.
And of course, if he doesn't want debates, why does he post such argumentative material? He's content to snipe behind adamantium walls rather than get his hands dirty. He's welcome to that approach!

5. Know when to comment and when it is more appropriate to e-mail me.

Why would I email him when I intend my clarifications and responses more for his lurkers than for him?

6. No spamming.

Check.

Basically, he's just excluded me b/c I made him uncomfortable. Like I said in the previous post, I thought he was all for free exchange of ideas and communications and such. I guess atheists get freer expression than others. This, my friends, is partly what we're up against in political discourse. Intolerance is not only redefined by the other side, it's redefined inconsistently.

He said:

A Comment Policy has been on my To-Do list for a while, but became an immediate priority today when an obnoxious, antagonist Christian

Let the reader judge who wins the gold star for being more obnoxious or antagonist.

I deleted the entire conversation, not wanting to give him, his blog or his childish tactics a venue (which is why this Christian, who I am sure is proud of himself, is not being identified now).

Haha, he didn't want to give me a venue? My heart is broken! As if I need pub from his blog. It would seem that I'm doing him a favor by linking to him and giving him all this attention. He could sure use it - check out his profile views as of 4March08:


As opposed to my own. There are tons of blogs out there with tons more traffic than mine, and that's totally fine with me, but for someone like him to throw that kind of rock at someone whose profile views outnumber his more than 10 to 1 is kind of funny to me.

Anyway, this was a fun sideshow, but there are greener pastures out there.

Alex the cowardly atheist

I thought I had made a new friend over at Alex the Atheist's place. I decided to engage him in a discussion on the inanities of his post on the power of prayer.

After I commented, he commented, I responded, he responded and summarily cut off the debate! Then he went a step further and deleted all traces of our exchange from his combox. That's hilarious. I laughed out loud. I repost here the comments, since he for whatever reason has deleted the fruit of 20 minutes out of my life.

My first:


Hey AC Chase,

Just a few clarifications from a Christian. I hope you won't mind.

According to Matthew 18:19-20 (of any Bible), you only need to agree with one or two other people on something

Most Christians get this dead wrong, and that's a shame, and it's led you to the faulty interp. Not your fault. :-)
The context of that verse deals with the topic of church discipline; putting out someone from the church body that is not repenting of their sin. It doesn't even mention prayer.


You know that whole "Ask and ye shall receive" jazz.

Now that's better, true. Probably John 15:7 or something would work better for your example.
Just remember, it's not viable exegesis to take one statement only and make that your end-all. Jesus didn't just say those things; He also discussed praying in His will, for reasons of glorifying Him and having a relationship with Him and loving others and helping others. Not greed.

The 700 Club

Just so you know, not every Christian thinks the 700 Club is worth anythg. I certainly don't. Their theology is shallow, P-Rob makes false prophecies, etc. I'd ask you to consider not making them a yardstick for Christianity.


This is most likely because they are not true, and we cannot assume that the responses are even meaningful.

Yes, it's always easier to disregard statistics. Do you just summarily dismiss EVERYTHING that doesn't fit your worldview like you did here?


I am sure the research for these numbers does not meet the standards of evidence a rationalist would accept

Why be so sure? Maybe this is a post that could've stood a little more thought, meat, or dealing with counterexamples.


Going back to praying for those who are sick, there have amazingly been studies on the power of prayer in this respect.

Which I agree are a complete waste of time. As if God were a circus monkey, waiting to perform.


the very nature of religion and religious beliefs means that they are based on outrageous leaps of blind faith and this means they don't have to be proven.

Have you ever done a post on what it means to "prove" sthg like this? Or are you more of the persuasion of Sam Harris who said in The End of Faith that no evidence would be sufficient to authenticate many elements of the Pope's (that was his example) faith?


There is no limit to the selfishness, pettiness or absurdness of what someone will pray for.

How does abuse of a tool constitute evidence that the tool doesn't work?


makes a prayer appear to come true.

How could you possibly prove that it was chance and not the hand of God causing that prayed-for thing to come to pass?


I knew a Christian who credited God for his enemy buying a 'lemon' car

Incidentally, that kind of prayer is not a Christian prayer. We are commanded to love our enemies and wish them good, not evil.


And how about when it doesn't work ? ...Then what exactly is the point of praying? The short answer is there isn't one.

A prayer's "success" is not based on whether it "works" or not.
The whole point of prayer is to build a relationship with God, to communicate with Him. It's not a helpline for getting stuff.

Those are my thoughts. Hope they've helped a bit.

Peace,
Rhology




His response (in yellow, which is the most appropriate color for his actions):


sean: Thank you. Likewise for your additions to my original points. You would think an all-powerful deity would be able to heal amputees, even once.

paul: Nice. That quote would also fit quite nicely in my previous post about how religion trivializes morality.

Rhology: Your "clarifications" are meaningless, as you are just another apologist Christian who wants to use the context argument to make the Bible say what you want it to say (and, as a result, mold your religion into what you need it to be). The cited verses on Matthew do not and cannot refer to prayer, eh? You seem to be the only Christian who interprets Matthew 18:19-20 "correctly" then.

Concerning The 700 Club, note how I said "all kidding aside" after discussing them and their amazing statistics, and proceeding with my main argument. Even so, concerning their statistics, I provided my reasoning (which you conveniently omitted in your response - ironic, since you hypocritically condemned me for dismissing things that didn't fit in my own world view the sentence earlier) as to why their statistics were inherently meaningless (something to do with subjectiveness, which you, as a Christian are certainly familiar with). You aren't very good at debating, as you are taking quotes out of context and reducing any debate to slogans (partial quotes) rather than ideas you can elaborate on (or the ones clearly communicated by me). And yes, I know The 700 Club is not a complete representation of Christianity.

On another matter, I agree with you that God is not a circus monkey called on to perform at will, because he does not exist (prove me wrong). Very difficult to attach character traits to something that doesn't exist, so you win that one (sort of). Also, I have done a post on the futility of trying to prove faith (letting you know in response to your comment on whether it beliefs based on it can be proven or not). Perhaps you missed it because the title was confusing. It is called Faith & Trying to Prove Religion. Maybe you should run along and make some equally ridiculous comments on that post as well.

On another note, what you call "abuse" of prayer is how the majority of Christians like to believe it works (there's that faith thing again). Again, it is nice that you have the "true" interpretation sitting in your ivory tower, but you cannot change the facts. Also, I was not attacking prayer as a tool, because I do not believe it is useful in any way (or a tool). Please do not jump to conclusions or put words in my mouth to meet your own religious ends.

You have actually proven this post's point (Thank You). You turn your religion and your prayers into whatever you want them to be and then you turn their meaning in terms of a relationship with God (or some other supernatural force) into what you need it to be, regardless of the "success" or "failure" of them. Again, religion and religious faith (including prayer) are nothing but wishful thinking and speculation based on personal opinion, not human reason. The whole point of both means you do not need to prove them, otherwise there is no need for faith because you only need faith as a result of such things being unreasonable and hard to believe (see: there is no evidence for them... still following along?).

A wonderful example of this is how you confidently classify a "Christian prayer," as if the debate is over after you have spoken (I had a good laugh at that attempt to enforce some type of religious orthodoxy). You seem to ignore the fact that the same religious faith that has brought you to that conclusion is the same foundation your opponents have for their own religious interpretations (note: they also think they have God on their side). And this is what makes religious faith the most absurd - the ability to believe anything based on what you call faith, no matter how absurd it is. The fact that you have missed this point is not surprising, though (your religious tunnel vision and all).

In the end, I thank you for serving as a willing example to prove my points. So in that way, your thoughts have actually helped in that they serve as a reinforcing tool for my own argument. Have fun talking to yourself (praying) in your decidedly one-sided relationship with your magical friend in the sky.

Thanks for commenting.




My 2nd response:

Hi AC,

You're welcome for commenting! Your tone is, however, pretty harsh. Too bad - I was hoping for less froth from the mouth.

If you think that my appeals to context are invalid, why don't you present an argument to that effect? I know, it's easier to make naked assertions, but you could at least pretend.
I'm not the only Christian who says that about Matt 18 - my whole church does too.
Now, I may be in a minority, but so what? Make the argument.
The majority of Americans don't believe that Darwinian evolution is factual, but you still think they're wrong, right? B/c you think the arguments are on your side, right?

As far as the "arguments" on the 700 Club, here is my best guess at what you're referring to:
these supposed facts are amazing and seem just too good to be true. This is most likely because they are not true, and we cannot assume that the responses are even meaningful. Quantify, or describe universally, "very good" or "happy." These are inherently meaningless terms that are based on opinions that can change on a whim.

I am sure the research for these numbers does not meet the standards of evidence a rationalist would accept - like a scientist or statistician or someone who does not believe in an invisible man who is concerned about who we use our private parts with.

And of course, I took issue with the latter statement, to which I don't see an answer.
The former is nothing more than a statement that you find these incredible. Whoopie - I don't. What's your argument, sir?

Let's say that, IF God exists, He is not a circus monkey. Right? Why even write this post, then? Just say "Prayer doesn't work b/c God doesn't exist. Thanks for reading"?
You seem to be trying to point out inconsistencies in the 700 Club viewpoint, and then you appeal to atheism to plug your holes.

(prove me wrong)

Done.

run along

You're really encouraging me to do so! Maybe I will, if I feel like getting treated like a sick puppy dog.
I'd argue of course that you as an atheist have faith positions as well, so whatever.

I was arguing that you're attacking a poor representation of Christian doctrine. If many Christians hold ignorant positions, that's not my fault, and it's in my interest to differentiate between ignorance and actual teaching. Instead of mocking it, the reasonable thing would be either to accept it or to offer an argument why it's wrong.

Peace,
Rhology


His 2nd response:

If you can't debate in a passionate, cutting way then you have come to the wrong place. My counter-argument to your context argument has been presented. A religious person only needs the faith that their interpretation is correct and it is, the end. Fine, you and your specific sect do not read into Matthew 18:19-20 in the way it was presented here and you view prayer as an entirely different, yet no less meaningless, concept – a one-sided relationship with God. Great. Just do not pretend that how prayer has been presented here is the way that only The 700 Club sees it, because that is not only dishonest but you have made no argument proving it, likely because you can’t. To do so you would have to prove to me that your specific view of Christianity is correct while all others are not.

Perhaps Christians who disagree with your interpretation of Matthew 18:19-20 are confused by what appears to be a prayer in 18:18 and applied the concept of prayer to 19-20, as well. You keep on going back to your view of religious orthodoxy, but seem to overlook that truth with authority in matters of religion is just the opinion that survives. Ask the Gnostics. And who is to say what Christians should believe when they all presume to speak on behalf of God? This is why religion trivializes truth.

So you expecting me to take your interpretation of Christianity, which you think is based on a superior form of orthodoxy (see: your sect's version/opinion), over another Christian's faithful interpretation of your religion is absurd. You calling other Christians "ignorant" is also a telling sign of exactly where you are coming from. Again, must be nice in that ivory tower with the master of the universe on your side. You are a hypocrite who dismisses other theists for their interpretation of religion and the supernatural (both absurdities in their own right) when your methods are exactly the same - using faith as a source of religious knowledge (you also take the supposed truth of the Bible on faith). Also, if you think atheists work on faith, make an argument, sir. And if you want a good post on the experts of plugging up the holes, which you accuse atheism of trying to do (which makes no sense whatsoever as it is simply a lack of belief), I suggest you read my post God of the Gaps, Ignorance.

You accuse me of making naked assertions when you are guilty of making the mother of all naked assertions - that God exists. Your evidence "proving me wrong" was a lengthy non-argument invoking false issues like Pretended Neutrality and Special Revelation, without proving the relevancy of either to your argument. You even have the nerve to attack the very nature of logic and reason as sources of attaining knowledge, which is not surprising. Your entire argument depends on what I have been talking about the whole time – FAITH.

Finally, you define a poor representation of Christianity as any that is not your own. My argument as to the weakness of your own position has been presented. It is not my fault that you continue to ignore it.

NOTE: Rather than continue this debate to nowhere I am taking the final word in it. This blog was not created to debate endlessly with theists who will never be convinced of their own foolishness, but is geared towards those who respect human reason and value human life outside of ridiculous supersition and blind faith. I am done humoring you.


Then, take a look at the comment that is in place now!

sean: Thank you. Likewise for your additions to my original points. You would think an all-powerful deity would be able to heal amputees, even once.

paul: Nice. That quote would also fit quite nicely in my previous post about how religion trivializes morality.


I love it - he deleted the whole thing and then posted his response to his fawning yes-men. Cool, man. You know, you may not like this blog, my ideas, or me, but you have to respect the courage to leave it all out on the table rather than deleting thoughts from others. AC loves to rip the current administration for its curtailing of freedom. He champions free thought and free expression elsewhere. Just not on his blog.
I can see why he deleted it. His arguments are a sham and fail to follow my points in many cases. He's not a deep thinker; just take a look at his first post that he touts and from which he pulls content in his first comment for evidence of that.

For his actions, he earns a place on the Wall of Shame on the sidebar. A pitiful performance from a fairly well-known atheist blog.

Don't mix your pills with alcohol, or your politics with religion

A common criticism of conservative Christians in the US like, say, the Southern Babdist Convention, is that they spend too much time talking politics, even from the pulpit. We hear, "Don't mix politics with religion, you fundies!" and our ears perk up. Maybe they're right, we think.

But of course, this post is just to point out that the SBC is not alone in doing such. The numerous, numerous examples of Democrat politicians (Hillary Rodham and John F Kerry are perhaps the most famous examples) taking the pulpit in primarily African-American churches during their big campaigns can now be joined to the explicit and bold mélange of politics and religion found in the new-and-improved, liberal offshoot of the SBC, the Jimmy Carterists New Baptist Covenant. I'm halfway through watching these videos, and it's apparent that it's not the mixing of politics and religion that bothers liberals. It's conservative values and theology that bother them. So why the disingenuous rhetoric? Oh, wait, that's liberals' stock and trade...

Doctors aren't always right

This baby was a brilliant candidate to be aborted.
Why? B/c he wasn't good enough to live. He wouldn't be able to do the things other babies do.
And he probably wouldn't live long, so might as well kill him early. You know, make sure God doesn't forget or something.

"He was written off completely and we believed he was 100 per cent certain to be handicapped."

An urgent review into the case has been ordered by hospital chiefs because it is unclear if Brandon had the condition and recovered from it – or if the data was misinterpreted by hospital staff.

And this baby was 100% certain to be handicapped. How often is a much lower percentage sold to parents who, on the basis of that information, decide to murder their unborn baby?

Thank God for common grace. Thank God these parents did not take the doctors' depraved advice to murder their baby because they thought he might be handicapped.

Graded rights

merkur makes a good point about abortion.
I respond: Don't be so sure, man. Peter Singer is a famed bioethicist and he says it's OK to murder babies OUT of the womb up to a certain age.

But I agree 100% that this is the issue at hand. But if it's not an all-or-nothing affair, does the unborn baby develop certain rights at a certain age? At one month, more rights than at one week? At 8 months, more than at 7?

If so, why wouldn't that mean that an 80-year old fetus has more rights than a 79-year old one?

If not, when does the fetus have rights? Does it depend on something he DOES? A capability?

If so, why wouldn't that extend to 30-year old fetuses as well as unborn ones? The 4.0 honor student who is also an All-American linebacker at Wake Forest University has more rights than the 100-pound high school dropout? Or is there some other way of determining better capabilities, and thus, better rights? Who decides?
Yes, these are perhaps impossible questions to answer. But the anti-life side is the one advocating putting that whatever-it-is inside the mother to a horribly painful and unprovoked death. You'd think that the side willing to do that would have a pretty good reason.

Not murdering your baby means you're a bad person

Just a few reflections on the comments on this post entitled "Aborting Downs Syndrome babies is a moral obligation?"

I'm coming to find out that James White's comment about the nature of blog comboxes as "Internet Ignorance Aggregators" is right on the money, but sometimes they are instructive in their amazing blindness and foolishness.

Here's one comment that was appropriately bludgeoned by Peter Pike:

Could you please spare us your sanctimonious drivel?
It also says "thou shalt not kill".
Who listens to that? Do you?
After you jump down from your abortion soap box and someone asks you about a 20 year old boy killed in a nefarious conflict where the benefit is that a few Americans have their pockets greased, do you have a tendency to look down at your shoes?

And then a brilliant illustration of what I've often said on this very blog and elsewhere (like here, here, here, here, here, and here:

I bet Peter Singer would agree that such abortions should be obligatory.
The foundations of ethics are arbitrary. Ranting at each other over arbitrary things is like arguing over what your favorite color is.

Finally, one atheist who types like he really has his worldview figured out (though, as the Triablogger said, $1000 says he doesn't live that way):

I'm not saying I'm happy about this fact of arbitrariness, but I'm not going to lose my nerve like you and believe that ethical principles 'exist' the same way that, say, numbers exist. If you try to rob me, of course I'll try to stop you (but I wouldn't reproach you), but this impulse to stop you is only a subjective emotion in my head. It does not correspond to anything outside of that. If I ever behave 'ethically', I'm merely following the path of least psychological resistance. Don't try any of your Francis Schaeffer tricks with me. I'm not afraid to stare the ethical vacuum in the face.

All those objections are appropriately dealt with in the post's combox so I won't rehash them here, but in honor of Sanctity of Human Life Sunday, I just invite you to reflect on how pathetically lame the arguments FOR abortion are. Whether political, moral, psychological, practical, none of them work! If you think they do, I invite you to peruse Randy Alcorn's book on life.

But anyone is welcome to present their best argument for abortion in the combox. Grace us with your best one; maybe you can convince someone that murdering a baby is perfectly OK!

A prayer for judgment

(Originally posted at Beggars All, but I like it so much I'll drop it here too.)
I think I've caused a bit of a stir when I said:

I pray that God will have mercy on many unknowingly in the darkness of RCC and cause Mary to be elevated to the title of a person of the Divine Quadernity.

Apparently my previous explanation was not sufficient.
Let me try something else.

Romans 1:18-32

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
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.
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.
Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;
and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,
slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

What relevance does this passage have to the topic at hand and my expressed hope?
RCC is, to many people, a viable option when it comes to Christian churches. Why? For the same reason that the Word of Faith and Oneness Pentecostal heretics like TD Jakes are seen that way - they use the words "Jesus", "Holy Spirit", "forgiveness", "grace", "faith", "love", "God", "church", "Bible", etc. They quote from the Bible. They have crosses (usually) in their buildings and around their necks.
Insufficient differentiation between them and that which is truly biblical has taken place, and that's of course partly the fault of the true people of God. But it's also the fault of those who wish to take some of the labels of the biblical faith upon themselves and cut out other parts they find less convenient.

I want this mixing, this near-syncretism, to be eradicated, so that the difference between truth and error may be clearly visible. I join my tiny voice to the bold voice of the Scripture - "come out from them and be separate" (2 Cor 6:17) - and to Jesus' own words in Matthew 16:6-12 -

Jesus said to them, "Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 7And they began discussing it among themselves, saying, "We brought no bread." 8But Jesus, aware of this, said, "O you of little faith, why are you discussing among yourselves the fact that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? 10Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? 11How is it that you fail to understand that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 12 Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Now, why the boldfaced print in the Rom 1 passage above? It is to point out that a fair amount of the perverted actions that are described in the passage are results of God's judgment on those who had already rejected God's revelation and the worship of God. They went from bad to worse, from rejection to perversion, from lust to homosexuality, from self-hurt to other-hurt as well, because God took what was in their hearts and caused it to be amplified, to distinguish it further from that which is good, to carry out further judgment and receive glory for His justice.

Our RCC friends will of course object, but all are invited to take a look at the three recent posts on that very topic and decide for themselves just how relevant the "images of mortal man" part of Romans 1 is to RCC practice, as well as the many references to Mariology/Mariolatry that have gone before on this blog.
Thus my prayer is that the institution of the church will go from bad to worse, from blasphemy to serious blasphemy, from implicit rejection of biblical truth to explicit, etc. I pray that individual people in great numbers would come out from the church, and that others would be swayed against joining her because the dogma is just too blasphemous for even the most clueless to accept.
And of course it should always be our prayer that God be glorified in all things. He has chosen to glorify Himself through such judgments visited upon blasphemous institutions. Glory to God in the way He chooses His glory to come. And may God have mercy.

A discussion on eternal security

I'd like to point out a thread where I'm participating on the topic of eternal security, and the discussion is interesting.

Here's my most recent post, responding to 'momesansmom' who has a tendency to make strange, extensive, and peripherally-relevant comments on God's non-temporal nature. I'm perplexed as to why she thinks that the Reformed viewpoint puts God into time, but hey, if you don't hold to the biblical view on stuff, you'll inevitably get messed up. My comment follows:


All of what you've said about temporality and such I agree with, except for your (to me) cryptic references to "encounter with the exalted Christ". I'm not following you on that one.
Part of the problem is that I express the same things but use diff words. Yes, God lives in the eternal NOW.
Yet you agree that God intervenes in time. Jesus CHrist is the same, period, but He is not always DOING the same things. He is not eternally dying on the cross - where would be the resurrection, then?
And I hasten to remind you that Romans 8 uses the words foreknowledge and predestination. What are "fore" and "pre" if not temporal statements? Sthg is being communicated there, and I think you need to acct for it.

I believe you are talking out of both sides of your mouth on this question. On the one hand you talk a great line about eternality and non-temporality and all that. But then you say this about asking questions about the diff between our free will choices to leave Jesus now vs after death:

Once a saint has exited time completely, there will be no falling away for him or her because he or she is in eternity. This isn't loss of "freedom" but it is the end of changeability in time.

So we're NOT living in eternity right now? Great - we're in agreement. This is what I'm saying. God has made it this way and uses language to express TO US certain concepts.
I said that in response to David Bryan's assertion that it's apparently unthinkable that our free will could be limited in such a way as to prevent our falling away once we are truly justified.

All that said, I still don't think that you've dealt with the fact that Rom 8 says that God foreknew AND JUSTIFIED those who will be glorified. Or, to be more proper (properer) and to comply better with what you've been saying about temporal language, it's that He foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorified. All in the past tense. And all the same "those", the same people.
Romans 5:1 (on which you missed the point) says that we were already justified. It's an aorist tense - it's completed. Paul apparently thought he could talk in terms of an "us" who have been justified and which action of justification has been completed. Thus, all the same those of whom he is speaking, their destiny is to be glorified. None will fall away since it's the same "those" justified and glorified in Rom 8.

justification can be in a sense described as a done deal, but salvation is not a matter of a moment when one is justified, it is a matter of a life lived in Christ.

There are at least two biblical uses of the word "salvation", but it is several times used as an equivalent to justification, which is the point at which an exponentially much greater number of things occur in changing the rebel enemy of God sinner to a friend, an adopted son, a lover, a holy one, of God. Thus this is most properly labeled as salvation, though salvation in a broader sense includes justification, sanctification, and glorification, all.

John 3:16, John 11:25-26 and so many other passages make it clear that it is "he who believes" that shall never die.

Yes, of course.
God will guard those in faith who are justified.
If someone dies in unbelief, they never believed. It's not that hard.

If you read 1 John 2:19 the way you're using it, then you are forced to assume that all phony Christians will eventually leave the faith.

Not at all - it doesn't say that. It says that those who left were never of us. But that doesn't mean that ALL who are not of faith WILL leave. Matt 7 obviously indicates that there will be some who persist in false profession until death, as you pointed out.

As regards Heb 6, you said:
And those who DO come back obviously CAN, so they obviously are not the ones to which this passage refers.

Sorry, but that's seriously a case of special pleading.
The psg says that those who fall away CAN'T COME BACK. So the choice is:
1) Believe that those who fall away once are screwed forever.
2) Believe that Heb 6 is not referring to a loss of salvation, and thus abandon it as a prooftext against eternal security.


1 Cor 9 - thanks for posting those words from those men. But their arguments don't change the force of John 10 and the fact that they obviously failed to take into account the many evidences for eternal sec in the NT. All I can do is parse what they said and the fact that 1 Cor 9 makes multiple references to the prize, the reward. Salvation is not strictly speaking a reward; it's a gift, can't be earned (Rom 4:4-5). Paul is speaking of sthg he CAN earn - eternal rewards.


You didn't deal with John 10:28-29 at all, and that's disappointing. Let me remind you of the issue here. It's pretty simple.
Jesus says that His sheep will never perish. Forget the questions about who can snatch.

John 10:25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me.
26 "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.
27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.

You said:
The promise in John 10:28 can quite easily be seen to describe our condition once we are totally free from the bonds of time.

Read it again. No it can't - the sheep are sheep IN THIS LIFE, else quite a lot in that psg wouldn't make any sense.
And the consequence of your position means that we can never be His sheep until we die. Is that really what you believe?
So, please let me ask you to comment again on what it means that His sheep will never perish. If they fall away and don't come back, will they not perish?

Augustine...did not seize the chance to elaborate "and they will never perish" as anything more than a taunt to his unbelieving audience, who would perish.

Fine, but what does it mean that they will never perish? How could it be a taunt if His sheep will indeed perish?

and that this sustains me even in my own faithlessness, even turning my sin into opportunity for grace as I live a life of continual repentance thanks to his faithfulness.

Then what's the problem with the idea of eternal security? Is it not part of your convictions that YOU MUST LIVE THE LIFE or else fall away and perish?

John 15. "Every branch IN ME that does not bear fruit He takes away."

Of course. And did He not take away the branch of the unfruitful Jewish nation? Does He not prune His church thru church discipline (not that Orthodox are strong in that area, I'm talking NT teaching here)?

He does not, in some pretemporal "era," choose some and reject others (this is truly the attitude that is not "God-honoring").

I don't believe that either, but IF IT WERE THE TRUTH, you as a mere mortal have NO call to judge God thusly. It is your responsibility to submit to what He has ordained. Talking back to Him and saying "What you've done is no good!" is the very definition of not-God-honoring.

Peace,
Rhology

Terrible song lyrics

I have to give this band props for a pretty cool name, but the lyrics to the song are atrocious.

Hyper Static Union - "Praying For Sunny Days"


The thunder echoes from the mountains to the waves
Sometimes I wish I could tell the clouds to behave
Calm the stormy seas just by stretching out my hand
But I am just a man, only a man so I'm


Chorus: Praying for sunny days to return to me
Seeking the warmth of the solar rays
I'm not just seeing the grey skies in front of me
Praying for sunny days

This torrential downpour has my brain in a trance
I'd get up and move, but I just can't dance
Lord, You know that I've done all that I can
But I am just a man, only a man so I'm


Rain, rain go away, I have faith that you won't stay
I don't care what doubters say, sunny days will come my way
Then the birds come out to play by the light of one sun ray
Now I kneel me down to pray, please God give me sunny days


Oy, I think I'm going to be a bit ill.

The voice of faith

Fundamentalist Chris unveils this gem of a comment:

Rhology: Diff kinds of dogs are examples of MICROevolution.
I'm looking for a dog turning into a human. Something like that. Lizards into birds.

So, Rhology. Here's how I see your definitions. Microevolution is evolution that can be observed over a human lifetime. Macroevolution is evolutions that happens over considerably more than a human lifetime.

Then, you declare that there's no proof for macroevolution because nobody has ever seen it happen over a human lifetime!!!!

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

Little further comment is needed, I should think.

Abiogenesis and alchemy, again

G-man remonstrated:

I explained to Rho that enough information exists about alchemy for us to know that it is invalid. The same is not true of abiogenesis - this should be hugely obvious.

Since they're the same in quality, naked assertions to the contrary don't do alot for me.

abiogenesis is the best scientific theory out there for the origins of life.

Then so much the worse for science.
Here's another example where a claim to supernatural activity exists and the scientific evidence points the other direction but G-man has the gall to say that abiogenesis is the best "scientific" explanation. Cracks me up.
Spontaneous generation is bunk - wasn't that disproven in the 19th century?
No one has ever observed life arising from non-life in a natural environment.
No one has even been able to get close to creating life in a closely-manipulated lab environment with intelligent design all over the place.

They speak out of both sides of their mouths - sometimes life is extraordinary, beautiful, wonderful, awesome, complex... but when it comes to being pressed about their alchemic beliefs about abiogenesis, they say "Well, we've caused some amino acids to come together in a lab environment!"


That doesn't even begin to suggest that we have enough information about the early earth to invalidate abiogenesis.

You'd better hope so b/c the early earth environment as it's usually thought of is hostile to life's forming out of non-life and hostile to terran life in general.

Alchemy: we know it is invalid.
Abiogenesis: We can't know that it is invalid yet. See? Drop the analogy.

Since abiogenesis IS alchemy, why should I?


'Life' is just a word humans use to communicate.

Retreating to "it's just semantics!" is often an abandonment of the original field of argument. White flag acknowledged.

To say metaphysics - rather than science - has the answer is incorrect.

Which I never claimed - I don't know where you got that.

Sex offender registries are the new Holocaust

Gamelot has diverted our discussion about the nature of legislation and morality as discussed here and has ventured into what can only be described as incredible territory.

That's what I was bringing into question.

Well, you haven't even interacted with my main arguments on the topic, so I'll move on just as you have and wait for you to deal with what I've said.

How often do we do that? How can we be sure we're not doing that now? I, for one, am absolutely convinced that we are.

I don't see how this is even applicable to our day, since we don't live in a theocracy.


Now, on sex offenders...
I just found that out about the sex offender laws, and I think it's kind of weird that public urination = sex offender registration.
At the same time, the sex offender search websites will often display the crime, and so you can tell whether the guy committed aggravated sodomy or urinated publicly.
On a side note, I don't have the least sympathy for that person. Don't get drunk in public. Not that freaking hard.

A man who is drunk and urinates in an alley is treated the same as a man who rapes 5-year-olds, as far as the sex offender laws are concerned.

No they don't.
At least some of the search websites list their crimes.
And the public urinators aren't published as harshly as pædophiles.


housing is impossible for sex offenders to obtain

Good.
In fact, I'm house-hunting, and we saw one that we really liked.
Oops, a sex offender (agg sodomy and indecent exposure with a child) lives 2 doors down.
If not for that registry, who knows what could have happened to my beloved 13 month old daughter?


Christ offers people a second chance. His followers do not.

This is the kind of wild-eyed generalisation that would do the worst of our national politicians proud.
Provide evidence that these laws you decry are driven by "Christ's followers". If you can't, you should withdraw your assertion.
How is alerting others to a potentially dangerous person by putting them on a list equivalent to not giving them a 2nd chance? Seems like you could say that if these guys were executed. But in this case, they're just limited in their options until they can prove themselves non-dangerous. Big deal - that happens all the time.
If people don't know the law and do such a disgusting thing as urinate publicly, what is your argument for giving them a 2nd chance? What would that look like? Just ignoring it?
Is ignorance of the law an excuse? Can I murder someone and then attempt to credibly claim I didn't know it was wrong? Why or why not?

I'm tempted to draw a parallel to the Holocaust

Dude, you don't want to do that.
Just stop and think, for a second how horrible that event truly was. I think that most people these days have lost their horror of it b/c all they know they've experienced thru a textbook or a movie.
I've experienced no more than that but I've cultivated the sense of horror in my heart so as never to lose the revulsion, the awfulness. To even MENTION it in the same breath is to do a ludicrous disservice and insult to the memories of those murdered. Don't go there.


The point remains, though, that the similarities are there.

The differences in degree AND in quality are so vast as to make the comparison absurd.
What did those murdered in the Holocaust DO? Nothing.
What do these 'sex offenders' DO? Something. And they get on a registry that usually describes the crime. The victims of the Holocaust were murdered along with their whole families. Get off it.

Bush est un Baptiste, pas un Méthodiste!

Un ami à moi m'a signalé cet article au sujet des Southern Baptists dans le quotidien Le Monde.

Je l'ai lu, et wow, quelle justice! Aucun préjugement là-bas!

-"enfin des baptistes blancs et noirs s'associent."
-minorent le statut des femmes, exècrent le divorce, l'avortement, les homosexuels. Leur monde a été créé en sept jours.

Vous plaisantez, n'est-ce pas?
De la preuve qu'il en existe le racisme dans la Convention, s'il vous plaît? Que nous haïssons les homosexuels au lieu de les appeler à se repentir de leurs péchés afin de se faire sauver? Que les déclarations bibliques au sujet du rôle de l'homme et de la femme touchent à la question de différence d'ontologie, quand d'autres versets (Galates 3, par exemple) nous apprennent l'opposé?

"promouvoir la liberté religieuse"

Eh bien sûr que les Southern Babdists veulent ôter la liberté réligieuse aux autres! C'est pas qu'on appelle les autres à se repentir personnellement de leurs péchés et à une relation d'amitié avec Jésus-Christ. Non non - faut que le gouvernement vous efforce à s'agenouiller, sinon, l'épée! Ils nous croient des jihadistes ou quoi?
C'est vraiment drôle - la vraie ménace islamique est bien évidente, mais il est beaucoup moins correcte politiquement de lui faire fâce. Attaquons alors les chrétiens! Ils sont imbéciles dangereux, après tout!

Baptistes du Texas (BGCT), une association qui a fait sécession avec les Southern Baptists

Et oui, et on était plus ou moins content qu'ils s'en soient allés. Ils n'ont pas voulu se souscrire à la doctrine de l'infallibilité des Écritures. Amusez-vous bien en séparation! Bien que Jimmy Carter vous ait accompagné!
[soupir]

"La scission historique entre baptistes du Sud et du Nord a porté sur l'esclavage"

Oui, mais ceci porte quoi à l'histoire d'aujourd'hui?

une vision où toute évolution est perçue comme une offense à Dieu.

Je n'ai hônnètement aucune idée de ce que cela veut dire.

ces baptistes "dotés d'un agenda politique".

C'est pas que les politiques qui nous ont amenés a cette séparation, comme j'ai expliqué.
C'est un peu ça le danger de ces conversations - les deux côtés aiment bien mêler les politiques et la théologie, mais à la base de la séparation se trouve une question théologique.
Et pourtant la question d'avortement, par exemple, vaut bien la séparation, je dirais. Ceux qui ont oublié, perdu leur conscience et l'horreur du meurtre des petits par raison de convénient...

Le New Baptist Covenant veut "revenir à l'enseignement du Christ : refuser l'ordre des choses lorsqu'il porte tort à l'humanité".

Bon, l'humanité sauf ceux qui sont dans le ventre de leurs mères. Ces humains ne sont pas vraiment des humains.
Et bien sur qu'ils suivent l'ordre du Christ. Peut-être qu'ils ont oublié le fait que Christ avait un respect très élevé de la loi de Dieu.
Et si l'Écriture a des erreurs dedans, on ne sait pas du tout ce qu'a dit Jésus. Réflechissez un peu, les gars!

La guerre en Irak, la récession, la crise sociale et le déclin de l'administration Bush entraînent leur propre déclin", ajoute-t-il.

Quand ces événements politiques mènent a l'élevement de voix contre la bonne théologie et la fondation de notre connaissance de ce que c'est que l'Évangile, je répète que nous sommes contents qu'ils nous quittent.

"Je ne peux plus le supporter, dit-elle. Il fait honte à l'Amérique."

Bien évidemment, cette dernière phrase suit la thème de l'article en gros, et ne touche même pas à la vraie question. Mais qu'attendais-je du media français? De la justice?

Christ and legislating morality

An old friend of mine recently made the following assertion:

Christ never legislated anything. Rather, He seemed to take great offense with the Jewish leaders who did.

When we allow our nation to become a Theocracy, we start heading down exactly the same path as the ancient Jews.

Christ never legislated anything?
"I tell you, anyone who looks on a woman with lust has committed adultery with her in his heart."
"If you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift."
"But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
"But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is(BM) the city of the great King. 36And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil."

Etc.

Of course He did.
What He criticised the Jewish leaders for was being hypocrites (Matt 23) and for adding their own human traditions to God's law (Mark 7). Yes, God's LAW.
But what else did He say about the Law?
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." (Matt 5:17-18)

He had a pretty high opinion of the Law, since it came forth from God and all.

I didn't argue for a theocracy. I said that any law is a moral statement.
It's wrong to go faster than 25 mph in a school zone.
It's wrong to burn down someone's property.
It's wrong to hold up a bank.
It's perfectly fine to stick a scalpel into a nearly-born baby's brain and then dismember her and 'birth' her that way.
It's perfectly fine for the gov't to force me to give them lots of the money that I earned.
It's wrong to kidnap a woman in order to protect her baby from the scalpel at the abortuary to which she is en route.

Etc.
So the struggle in gov't of a nation is WHOSE morality will be imposed, not WHETHER it will be. EVERY law is an imposition of morality on everyone else. Even a nation that makes no laws makes a moral statement - it's not a high-enough moral priority to make any laws governing behavior.