I AM A FATHER!

Welcome to the world, Nadia Elauren. May the words of the Scriptures that were whispered to you mere moments after your arrival here ring in your ears throughout your lifetime and be the cry of your heart at the moment of your death.

I shouldn't smirk...

But I did.

The love of the brethren

Had a pretty Merry Christmas. Hope you did too.
Mostly relaxed for like 4 days straight. Slept in. Took naps. Received an espresso maker from my parents (thanks so much!) and made like 6 mixed drinks in the span of 60 hours. Mmmm.

Yes, for me, espresso drinks = mixed drinks. Keep your martini, I'll have a macchiato.

And then on Christmas Day, we called tomorrow in Japan and talked to the pastor who arranged for us to be hosted for 4 days and nights among his congregation in Okinawa last Christmas. And he remembered us!
And then we talked to the family who had us over for Christmas dinner and hosted us one night and they told us they and their kids missed us over Christmas, asked about us, wished aloud that we could be there. And that they pray for us every night in their bedtime prayers.
That is AWESOME. I've been floored often over the last 16 months at the fervency of love that believers can display for the brethren. And we've so often been on the receiving end of that, even among people we've never met before. It's been great and I am thankful to have been reminded of it so recently.

Snipings of an apostate

Recently Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries linked to a blog by the name of Crossed The Tiber, an apostate from the faith to Roman Catholicism.
I went on over there and took a look at this post in which the Tiber Jumper (his own self-appellation) compares Sola Scriptura to the Islamic doctrine of the Qur'an (which is a bogus and wrongheaded comparison and reveals that the Jumper understands little about the Islamic doctrine of the Qur'an). Dr. White mentioned that he might get some time the following week (which he did here) to respond, but I thought I'd take a look at the Tiber Jumper's blog and personal conversion story.
I left two comments, actually, and then tried a third a little later.
Then the Tiber Jumper emailed me to explain why he refused to post my comments - apparently he had "tired" of the debate and didn't want to debate the issue anymore.
Just as an example, one of the comments had been in response to his bringing up the Canon of Scripture as an argument against Sola Scriptura. I asked the "White Question": If an infallible Magisterium is necessary to produce the Canon of the NT, how did a pious Jewish man living in 50 BC know that Isaiah and 2 Chronicles were inspired Scripture?

The question is an impossible one for the Roman Catholic, and the Tiber Jumper didn't even want to give it a shot. Instead, he canceled the posting of my comment but continued to allow more comments from others, which took 1 of 2 forms:
1) Other RCs writing to support him
2) Other Protestants offering no argument but just sniping or saying little of substance

So, why did the Tiber Jumper disallow my comments on that article and also on this one?
I responded to his email. Here are two excerpts:

And now you refuse even to POST my comment w/ a very relevant question. It is relevant b/c one of the arguments that you raised against SS is the question of the Canon. You claim that an infallible *human* authority is necessary to establish the extent of the Canon. Yet the question reveals that the pious Jewish believer living in 50 BC knew the extent of the Canon *without* an infallible Magisterium. It is an important point against your position - if he knew the OT Canon w/o one, what makes one necessary for me today? And you didn't want to post it b/c you were afraid of some kind of attack in return? If that is the case, why even bring up things like that at all? Why even have a blog such as you have? Why call it Crossed the Tiber? Why not "Roman Catholic Thoughts" and restrict your posts to Roman Catholic subjects, staying away from polemics altogether?

And...

In closing, I don't buy your stated reasons for demurring. I don't necessarily believe you are lying to me, but you are certainly inconsistent, and that is a shame.
I don't think you are "evil", any more than any other heterodox person out there. I think you are an apostate, and that is more of a shame. I don't bear you any ill will at all but rather the best will, that you would return to the faith of Jesus Christ and His apostles.

You are welcome here, Tiber Jumper. I won't delete your comments.

An Evangelical reacts...

...to Franky Schaeffer and Eastern Orthodoxy.
It's not a bad read and does a pretty good job of encapsulating concerns over conversion.

On Mark Driscoll and Misogyny

To get the context...

Read this.
Then this.
Then this.
Then this.
If you have time, read this too. But don't hurt yourself...

To Rose (from the 3rd "Then this."),

I live in Oklahoma, not Washington State. I have never gone to any church in the Pacific Northwest. Yet I am compelled to write, because out of so many things that are wrong in the Evangelical church today, it is bizarre to read a criticism like this.
Though I have little idea about your motives and won't speculate, it is sad to see Pastor Driscoll attacked in this way and for this reason. It's funny that I get the impression that he is seen as nearly an 'arch-conservative' among many in the combox on your post and at JesusCreed, yet I can assure you that he is not the most conservative of evangelicals out there. There is among many an ongoing discussion and a wait-and-see attitude as to whether he will place himself in his preaching and actions into the “Emerging” category. Such is the vagueness of this classification and the wariness that exists between conservatives and Emergents that much is still unclear, as you can very possibly attest. However, most of the attention Pastor Driscoll receives on that count centers around the language he uses from the pulpit and the way he relates to much of his congregation (ie, is he friendly and making the Gospel seem more relevant? Or is he compromising the Gospel’s integrity by being “cool”?).

All that to say that it is interesting to see him taken to task for being “too conservative”. I read through his posts and was nodding my head at their level-headedness, having found much to commend them. In particular, his 12 bullet points about practical steps for pastoral accountability were quite well-spoken, and ring of lessons learned, thankfully not the hard way. And after having had young women throw themselves at him as he describes, I can see why! Pastor Driscoll shows discernment when he says, “Death comes to every Christian leader who goes to Jesus and Scripture for purely functional and not relational purposes.” That statement seems, to my mind, to reflect a sentiment that would be right up your alley!

Moving to the center of the issue, where you deal with gender roles, you say, “I believe the Egalitarian view of gender roles as closer to the intent of what Scripture teaches.” That is the linchpin of this issue. Having checked thru Grace Driscoll’s article to which you refer w/o linking to it, I saw a fair amount of exegesis and an awful lot of Scripture cited. In your article, I saw an allusion to Galatians 3:28 and a vague allusion to Genesis 3. Perhaps you did not intend to defend your position with Scripture here, but I should think that such a defense would not be out of place at all. You have taken your own personal and denominational traditions (which I estimate to be heavily influenced by many post-modern elements in Western society) and have called Pastor Driscoll to the dock for not hopping to it to get w/ the program! Let Scripture speak; shall we not follow Jesus' explicit example?

A point-by-point discussion might be helpful here:

Remember, I believe in an Egalitarian view of gender roles.

But you have yet to justify it Scripturally. I would be interested in seeing that fleshed out in a post soon. I’ll be watching for it, especially b/c I have never seen a convincing justification of your position.

You teach that women like me are out of God’s intended roles for women in the church and home

This would have been an ideal place to point out HOW he was wrong to teach that.

if the church allows women in ministry then homosexuals in ministry would be the next logical conclusion

History has borne that out. And it makes sense – you wish to muddy the waters of gender distinction that the Bible sets out clearly. Once they are invisible, what’s to stop the next steps?

This is not only offensive to me, it is demeaning of my personhood.

Where do you find Pastor Driscoll demeaning your personhood? Is that not defined by God in His Word? Do you believe that Pastor Driscoll believes you to be less of a person than he himself is? What can you cite to prove that?

I would consider myself a daughter of my Father in heaven rather than a daughter of Eve, as per your wife’s article.

Are you not both? (This would have been a good place to deal exegetically with the Apostle Paul’s discussions of relevant subject matter in Romans 5 and 1 Timothy 2.)

Women will be saved by going back to the role that God has chosen for them.

Again, an opportune moment to exegete 1 Timothy 2:15:
“But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”

how unchristian this statement is.

This is one of my big problems here. You are taking Pastor Driscoll to task over this, but to do it, you have to sit in judgment over the Apostle Paul and the God-breathed Scriptures. It is amazing.

It seems you hold the opinion that if I don’t follow the role that you think God has chosen for me, a role that you find favorable because of the theological lens you see through, then I am not saved.

And then you radically overreact. Where did he say that you are not saved? Do you not agree that it is entirely different to accuse someone of being wrong on this subject (which you are) than to accuse him/her of not being a true believer in Christ (which you may be, I have no idea)?

Can’t you see how even posting that women have motives such as this — my husband is a pastor so he is trapped into fidelity so I can sit back and let myself go — is offensive?

What evidence could you cite to shoot down his anecdotal citation of personal experience? Absent that, you are simply naive; are not women sinners too?

In the second post, you sound patronizing and demeaning of Gayle Haggard calling her “lovely and devoted.”

I’d say “patronizing and demeaning” is in the eye of the beholder. What would you prefer he say? “Ted Haggard’s rather plain and hopefully more or less faithful wife, Gayle…”

It did not seem to matter if Gayle Haggard was the most beautiful, devoted woman, and with her husband the most sexually active woman on the planet

You are right there, but even this point strikes me differently than the way you are using it. Much of this article leaves me thinking that you are just looking for a fight.

So for you make this statement in these terms and make it an issue of sexual impropriety, failure, and sin, in my opinion, simply misses the point.

To make “it” an issue of that? I have to say, I don’t see where you get that. I hope, for the sake of the church members under you, that you are better at exegeting the Scriptures than you are at exegeting Pastor Driscoll’s statements.

You have continually used your power to demean people with derogatory terms such as “limp wristed, and chickified”

Too much slang, I’ll give you that. These are quite insensitive. I don’t quite follow your outrage over “limp-wristed,” but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

the PAF group do not identify as a Christian group and don’t seem to be attempting to operate under the constraints of any particular religious guidelines

I strongly question your choice to use non-Christian sources to criticize a Christian over Christian doctrine. How well can an unbeliever understand this and what could s/he contribute of value?

I find it necessary…to speak out…on this present controversy because it is affecting the local body of believers who I am called to serve.

Then deal w/ it from the Scriptures within your church.
Since you cannot, however, it does not surprise me that you lash out. Perhaps you hope to distract from the fundamental problem you have – you have no biblical warrant for what you are doing. The best defense is a good offense?

the demeaning way you name-call women

I haven’t seen a single instance of him calling names. Yet you have called Driscoll a “misogynist” w/o any evidence that I can see. That is hypocrisy, and it is unwelcome.

There is enough injury inflicted from our enemy without leaders of the flock adding to the amount of injury.

Indeed.


I note also this reference:

good Christians may disagree without using unchristian and uncharitable words when they differ. I would call your attention to the debates between N. T. Wright and Marcus Borg...


Rose, if you believe Marcus Borg to be a Christian, your view of what that is is in serious jeopardy. This is but a symptom of the wider problem in evidence in your letter.

So, to sum up, you are calling Pastor Driscoll to apologise for concluding out of Scriptural exegesis (performed by his own wife!) that women are different from men and have different roles in life. You decline to present any compelling biblical reason for someone to believe you are in the right rather than him. You refuse to object to, and indeed tacitly support, a protest against this man for what he’s said IN HIS OWN CHURCH about a theological issue of lesser importance. You gloss over the total lack of Scriptural support for your position and refer to a rank heretic as “good Christian”. You call names while criticizing the calling of names. I don’t know anyone in this conflict and yet it is abundantly clear who is in the wrong. There is still time for you to prevent the situation from getting worse and your guilt for your sin from growing heavier. Not saying you are not a Christian. I am saying you are in the wrong.

I close with words from Grace Driscoll: “These ideas are only antiquated because our culture has labeled them as such. But we find favor in the eyes of our Lord when we seek His good and perfect will. ‘Charm is deceptive and beauty is fleeting, but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised’ (Prov. 31:30).”

Peace and grace to repentance to you,
ALAN


P.S. to any reader - Please note the very loving and non-judgmental attitudes at the Emergent Jesus Creed post combox, particularly in comments #13, and #14 and very particularly in #18 (from a "Christian lesbian," no less, someone who should be most inclined among us to be tolerant and peaceful!).

A real gem

From JP Holding's response to Sam Harris on his "Letter to a Christian Nation":

And finally, we get to see you at work with Biblical "exegesis". I use the word loosely because it is apparent from your use of the Bible that to you "exegesis" means "putting an X on a picture of Jesus".

That is funny.

Seen on TV

A big banner held by some soldiers:

HALP US JON CARRY - WE R STUK HEAR N IRAK

You stink! No, you do!

One reason, among many, why I can't find it in myself to care much about this election. Or any election.

Happy Reformation Day!

The Reformation Polka

by Robert Gebel
Found here.

[Sung to the tune of "Supercalifragilistic-expialidocious"]

When I was just ein junger Mann I studied canon law
While Erfurt was a challenge, it was just to please my Pa.
Then came the storm, the lightning struck, I called upon Saint Anne,
I shaved my head, I took my vows, an Augustinian!
Oh...

Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let's start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

When Tetzel came near Wittenberg, St. Peter's profits soared,
I wrote a little notice for the All Saints' Bull'tin board:
"You cannot purchase merits, for we're justified by grace!
Here's 95 more reasons, Brother Tetzel, in your face!"
Oh...

Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let's start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

They loved my tracts, adored my wit, all were exempleror;
The Pope, however, hauled me up before the Emperor.
"Are these your books? Do you recant?" King Charles did demand,
"I will not change my Diet, Sir, God help me here I stand!"
Oh...

Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let's start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

Duke Frederick took the Wise approach, responding to my words,
By knighting "George" as hostage in the Kingdom of the Birds.
Use Brother Martin's model if the languages you seek,
Stay locked inside a castle with your Hebrew and your Greek!
Oh...

Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let's start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

Let's raise our steins and Concord Books while gathered in this place,
And spread the word that 'catholic' is spelled with lower case;
The Word remains unfettered when the Spirit gets his chance,
So come on, Katy, drop your lute, and join us in our dance!
Oh...

Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let's start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

In lieu of creating my own post...

The well of creativity is not exactly gushing these days.
So I proudly sample Scrapple Face:

5 out of 4 U.S. Teachers Reject Math-Esteem Study
by Scott Ott

(2006-10-18) — A new Brookings Institution study that shows an inverse relationship between math skills and student self-esteem is “just plain wrong,” according to an overnight poll of the nation’s largest teacher’s union.

The study found that Japanese and Korean students excel in math despite their lack of confidence in their own abilities, while American kids feel great about their abilities but have much lower skills according to tests.

But the survey of National Education Association (NEA) members shows that “five out of four teachers find fault with the data.”

“It just doesn’t add up,” said an unnamed NEA spokesman. “We’ve spent three decades of the last 20 years teaching kids that their self-esteem and happiness are unrelated to their academic competence. The overwhelming minority of them now feel really happy about math.”

The NEA spokesman said the comparatively-low standardized test scores of American children “simply prove that test designers don’t know how to measure what really counts.”

The teacher opinion poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 34 percent, “but that’s okay,” the spokesman said, “because the pollsters did their personal best.”

Convo with the Vile Blasphemer

This is a test to see how it goes to backdate posts like this.
This is a post that will contain the almost-dialogue I had with the Vile Blasphemer, whose blog went inactive not long after our "conversation" on this post on his blog and has recently been removed (as of Oct 2008). So I reproduce the conversation here.
Part of it refers to this video.

Dani said...

Yeah - this ___ was a psycho - no doubt. But is sure was hilarious to watch.

8:08 PM

Vile Blasphemer said...

Dani, she is pretty absurd. Odd that people claim "the producers make me do it!" Really, if it is within your capacity to make such a spectacle, then you are obviously that way.

11:37 PM

chooseDoubt said...

Hahahahahahah, _____ hilarious!!!!!!!

Oh, and tragic. And depressing. And why the ___ should some fat monkey like this have a vote of equal value to that of a sane person?

"I'm the warrior" hahahahahahahhaha.

Hmmmmm. Sumo :)

Someone,please tell me the why this ranting behemoth is considered fit to have children?

4:18 PM

Vile Blasphemer said...

CD, the "Christian Sumo"- I would pay good money to see that competition.

6:04 PM

chooseDoubt said...

It's an interesting idea, but I fear the sight of her wearing only a mawashi would be far too strong for most spectators.

10:31 AM

thetruthword said...

You are satan's puppet. Please free yourself for the end is upon us.

Ask God into your heart, you will see the truth. Stop hurting people with your lies

7:42 PM

Vile Blasphemer said...

Youneedmercy, don't be so absurd.

9:17 PM

A Simple Girl said...

You do know in the end she took the $$$$ I wonder what JEsus thought of that!

12:35 AM

The Real Deal said...

Dr. Vile, how are you? I thought I would just stop by and say hell-o.

In Christ,

TRD

1:00 AM

Vile Blasphemer said...

A Simple Girl, I bet she prayed and was told by Jesus himself that she should take the money.

Real Deal, hey there, real. Didn't think you lurked around here.

4:50 AM

udonman said...

Well vile im glad you stopped by my live journal I'm sorry havent been keeping up with every ones blogsbut I will keep an eye on yours.

Toni

8:44 PM

missy said...

Madness!

11:39 PM

Vile Blasphemer said...

Udon, no need to apologize.

Missy, maddening!

6:37 AM

HomoCyclist said...

This blog totally rocks!
The video is hillarious.
The fat crazy christian woman is so pathetic. She's a typical example of how christianity is so hurmful to humanity.

8:07 PM

HomoCyclist said...

youneedmercy,

You suck!
You're everywhere, in every awesome Atheist blog I go I find you.

Have you learned anything great from us awesome Atheists yet?

8:10 PM

thetruthword said...

I am everywhere that God sends me. I am God's warrior and I will fight for God until the end.

I am trying to save you from satan.

Ask God to show you that He is real!

3:49 PM

Vile Blasphemer said...

Mercy, I did, but all I got was a fruit basket.

7:34 PM

chooseDoubt said...

youneedmercy,

How does god send you. Does it send you emails or sms messages or are we talking voices in your head here?

Sorry to break it to you but god is a fantasy and a pretty nasty one at that. YOu save no body even if by some freak chance they are stupid enough to be converted by you. All you do is condem the ignorance and a futile and harmful belief. You should spend your time encouraging people to think not encouraging them to avoid thinking. That way they will develop the skill of critical thinking that enables them to analyze and resolves problems. By encouraging them to expect some fictional arsehole of a god to help them you only encourage them to suffer more and to sprad that suffering.

I don't believe in good or evil as absolutes, but evil is a good word for actions and attitudes that needlessly promote the suffering of others. So basically your objective is evil. Have you ever thought about how much you are "sinning" against your species by promoting the absence of thought? Probably not. So get off of your high horse about saving people from satan. Better first to save them from yourself by being more responsible in the use of that lump of grey stuff between your ears and those fingers you use for typing.

12:33 AM

pandave said...

wow! what a video. i felt bad for the little girl and the, i assume, eldest daughter.

i wonder if i sound like that when i go on a rant...

6:03 AM

Krystalline Apostate said...

Wow. I mean, just freakin' wow. Perturbed is simply too nice a word.
The eldest daughter seemed to be a lot more together than the mother.
& while I don't usually like making cracks like this, when she announced she'd been in the 'pit', all I could think was, "However did she climb out?"
Cognitive dissonance on a rampage.

9:53 PM

Rhology said...

Homocyclist: She's a typical example of how christianity is so hurmful to humanity.
Me: In what ways did she conduct herself in accordance w/ any Christian teaching during that video? Two or three specific examples should be sufficient for you to:
1) demonstrate that you actually know sthg about Christian teaching, and
2) be able to parlay that knowledge into a bit of rational analysis.
Anyone else is welcome to give it a shot too.

Choosedoubt:
--All you do is condem the ignorance and a futile and harmful belief.
>>I assume you mean "condemN THEM TO ignorance and..."
You don't believe in evil, Choose. Why do you care whether others are condemned to ignorance and futile/harmful beliefs or not?

--You should spend your time encouraging people to think not encouraging them to avoid thinking.
>>Says who? You?

--By encouraging them to expect some fictional ___ of a god to help them you only encourage them to suffer more and to sprad that suffering.
>>Only someone totally ignorant of the history of the West or of Christian missionary endeavors could make such a statement.

--I don't believe in good or evil as absolutes, but evil is a good word for actions and attitudes that needlessly promote the suffering of others.
>>Who says that the suffering of others is bad? You? Why should I care what you think?

--Have you ever thought about how much you are "sinning" against your species by promoting the absence of thought?
>>To know that, I've have to have an objective definition of "sin". Can you provide one?

And as for that lady on the video, she is a willing consumer and victim of a vapid, wasteland mutation of Christianity that is quite prevalent in the US today. My primary sentiment watching the vid was deep sadness. I can't help but be really glad the two older girls got to move out...

-ALAN

10:30 PM

Vile Blasphemer said...

Rhology, you remind me vaguely of Quentin Tarentino. Also, if you are a foreign missionary, you've likely been taught to handle unbelievers differently than most Christians. Just saying is all.

10:55 PM

Rhology said...

Thanks Vile! (I think...)

Actually, I don't know what you were trying to say by either comment. :-\ Sorry, I might be slower than I might seem. I married up, you see.

Can you clarify a bit?
Thanks!

-ALAN

5:16 PM

Vile Blasphemer said...

I can't imagine anyway to make those statements clearer. Sorry, rhology.

10:31 PM

Rhology said...

Vile,

OK. Well, as for the Tarantino comparison, I guess I appreciate it. :-)

--Also, if you are a foreign missionary, you've likely been taught to handle unbelievers differently than most Christians.
>>I'll just take this comment on its face... yes, I have of course been taught to handle unbelievers differently than Christians. It only makes sense - we have radically different worldviews, for one thing. And from my perspective, the former are enemies of God and the latter are friends. So, you know. Yeah, I have been and do.

--ALAN

12:47 AM

Vile Blasphemer said...

So the people that you wish to convert... you view them as enemies? Does that mean their governments should be free to put you in prison as an enemy of state? Should India have expelled "Mother" Teresa? Do you view the Japanese as "lost" and in need of "saving"? Are they aware that you think of them as "enemies" that MUST be changed? Doesn't it bother you to think of people as enemies because they have a different belief system?

Anyway, you still misunderstood the question- I'll diagram it:

You as a missionary<-- attitude -->Non Christians
Common Christians<-- attitude -->Non Christians

Not

You<-- attitude -->Non Christians
You<-- attitude -->Christians

3:24 AM

Rhology said...

Hi Vile,

--So the people that you wish to convert... you view them as enemies?
>>As enemies *of God*, yes. Enemies of *me personally*, not necessarily. Now, to be sure, someone could, by his/her actions, make him/herself *my* enemy as well, but the default position is friend/potential friend.
However, if someone does make himself my enemy by his actions, I am still obligated and commanded to love him b/c of the command of Jesus Christ. Even if he tries to destroy me, I am still called to love him.

--Does that mean their governments should be free to put you in prison as an enemy of state?
>>Gov't action and individual action are 2 separate things. Romans 13, for example, states that the gov't is justified in wielding the sword against evil-doers. The sword = death penalty. I personally, OTOH, am not justified in putting someone to death for capital crimes (ie, being a vigilante).
That said, the gov't of Country X is NOT justified in putting a Christian missionary in prison as an enemy of the state, b/c that action would put that gov't in direct opposition to the truth and the life of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The gov't would be in the wrong and God will judge them as He sees fit.
(Note, BTW, that *HE* will judge them. *I* am not justified in doing anythg other than peaceful endurance and protest.)

--Should India have expelled "Mother" Teresa?
>>If what Mother Teresa SAID about how to get to heaven and such reflect accurately on what she believed, I think there's an excellent chance that she was not a true believer in Jesus Christ.
However, India would have been unjustified in expelling her from their country.

--Do you view the Japanese as "lost" and in need of "saving"?
>>Almost to a man, yes, but there are a few who are believers in Jesus.
If they don't, then yes, they are lost and in need of saving. By Jesus, though, not by me.

--Are they aware that you think of them as "enemies" that MUST be changed?
>>If they ask, I tell them, yes. Some have asked, and I have told them.

--Doesn't it bother you to think of people as enemies because they have a different belief system?
>>Are you trying to tell me that this is immoral or sthg? On what basis can you judge the morality of that or any action?

--Diagram
>>Boy, you are right. I *totally* misunderstood, and I apologise for my density.
OK, you are very right that I 'handle' unbelievers differently than most. That is due to a sad lack of solid biblical teaching in most churches today.
And in point of fact, I have no formal missionary training, haven't yet been to seminary. My worldview is shaped by biblical exegesis (that is, the detailed study of the text and context of the Bible). Most other Christians you'll meet today may well have a saving faith in Jesus (which is what it takes to be God's friend and go to heaven at death) but their worldview and interactions w/ others are not well-shaped by biblical teaching.
So, yeah.
I welcome any comments/responses.

Peace,
ALAN

4:28 PM

Vile Blasphemer said...

Do you believe in installing Christianity into the American government as a means of moral control over the country? Should American political representatives submit themselves to a Christian litmus test? Should Christians be allowed to bring their religion into American government institutions? Should non-Christians be allowed to bring their own religions into American government institutions? Should Christians prevent non-Christians from public displays? Should non-Christians be prevented from their form of "witnessing" to Christians? Do you answer my questions because you percieve me to be a non-Christian in need of "saving"? If I told you that I was part of and a major contributor ot a large lobby to prevent Christian influence in American public institutions, how would you react? If I told you I was an abortionist or a stem-cell researcher or a geneticist or a prostitute or a stripper or a pimp, how would you react? If I "repented" and became a Christian, would your opinions and dialogue with me be different (it appears so given previous statements)?

5:26 PM

Rhology said...

Hi Vile,

Wow, you're full of questions!
To make it fair, I'll ask a few of my own after I answer yours. ;-)

--Do you believe in installing Christianity into the American government as a means of moral control over the country?
>>Not totally decided, leaning yes.

--Should American political representatives submit themselves to a Christian litmus test?
>>Undecided. It's unconstitutional right now, so I'd have to think about it a lot more before I say either way.

--Should Christians be allowed to bring their religion into American government institutions?
>>You mean in the same way that secularists and humanists have a free pass to do so right now? Yes, I believe in the free exchange of ideas. Besides, pretending that Gov't Employee Joe Blow can be objective and avoid being influenced at all by his own worldview is a sick joke and bad thinking.

--Should non-Christians be allowed to bring their own religions into American government institutions?
>>Ditto.

--Should Christians prevent non-Christians from public displays?
>>Depends on the kind of public display.

--Should non-Christians be prevented from their form of "witnessing" to Christians?
>>Depends on its form. Many Muslims' form of "witnessing" involves violence, which is unacceptable. The non-violent kind is OK.

--Do you answer my questions because you percieve me to be a non-Christian in need of "saving"?
>>Hmmm. I DO perceive you to be a non-Christian. You are, therefore, in need of saving. As to WHY I am talking to you, that's one reason. It's also helpful to my own thinking processes, sharpens me. And it's usually entertaining to talk about important topics like these w/ a willing convo partner. Which you are. And which I appreciate.

--If I told you that I was part of and a major contributor ot a large lobby to prevent Christian influence in American public institutions, how would you react?
>>Given your blog, it wouldn't surprise me and doesn't make much diff.

--If I told you I was an abortionist
>>I'd tell you you're a murderer.

--a stem-cell researcher
>>I'd ask if you research fetal stem cells or the morally justifiable and often more scientifically advantageous version such as bone marrow or umbilical cord stem cells. If fetal stem cells, I'd tell you that you're a murderer.

--a geneticist
>>Depends on what "geneticist" means and what you're doing.

--a prostitute or a stripper
>>I'd ask you if you would be OK w/ it if your father, husband, brother, or son partook of the services offered by a different prostitute or stripper.

--a pimp
>>I'd ask you if you would be OK w/ it if your mother, wife, kid sister, or daughter offered her body for complete strangers to abuse and fondle for money.

And in all these cases, I'd tell you that, whatever your past sins, Jesus loves you and sacrificed Himself for you. If you will repent of your sin and believe that He is Who He said He was and that He rose from the dead, you will be saved, will have an eternal perfect friend and Father, and will go to Heaven at death. But if you do not repent, you will waste your life and spend eternity in torment.

--If I "repented" and became a Christian, would your opinions and dialogue with me be different?
>>Absolutely.


Now, if you don't mind, a few for you:
1) Are you accountable for your actions to anyone or anything other than your fellow humans or "society" in general? If so, what?
2) Is it absolutely, objectively wrong to kidnap a 7-yr old girl, rape her w/ a garden tool, torture her, and kill her? If so, on what basis?
3) What do you believe is your purpose in life, if any?

Thanks Vile!

Peace,
ALAN

7:19 PM

Vile Blasphemer said...

If a Christian faction seized control of the United States government via coup and put in place laws that represented the ten commandments and violated the establishment clause, would you fight against that government? Why do you perceive me to be a non-Christian? Do you perceive Fred Phelps to be non-Christian? Do you perceive James Dobson to be non-Christian? Do you perceive Pat Robertson to be non-Christian? You believe I need saving; if I told you I believe I don't and told you to stop witnessing me, would you stop or find other avenues? In all of the "occupation" cases, if I laughed in you face after your "repent" speech, how would you react? Since you would dialogue with me differently and reveal different opinions to me if I "repented", wouldn't that make you deceptive? Or an opportunist? Or a hypocrite? How can you expect me to trust any of your answers after you answer "Absolutely" to that question? Have you watched the videos here? The answers to your three questions require more variables to be answered- are you interested in my personal beliefs, current American societal beliefs, an answer from the APA's position, an answer from the sociological position, a biologist's position, etc.?

9:09 PM

Rhology said...

Hi Vile,

1st off, I'd like you to answer my questions w/in the context of your personal beliefs. They are more or less geared to The Big Picture of your worldview. Does that help?
OTOH, I don't see how the wording of my questions left that unclear. But I missed the point of your comment about unbelievers/Christians, so I can give you the benefit of the doubt.

--If a Christian faction seized control...
>>Given the current state of affairs, such an action would not be Christian, so it's an impossible question. Given that it would not, then, be Christian and would seek to overthrow the gov't (which is, in the grand scheme of things, not a bad gov't at all [and the Bible commands me to obey the gov't]), I would not support it. Were I in a position to fight it, I would.

--Why do you perceive me to be a non-Christian?
>>Your writings and comments. You provide a forum for the Bible and Jesus Christ Himself to be repeatedly mocked and scorned. Your blog is named "Desecrate Holy Books." Your screen name is Vile Blasphemer. If it's not all a colossal joke taken waaaaayyy too far, you're no Christian.

--Do you perceive Fred Phelps to be non-Christian?
>>Absolutely. Or perhaps worse - an apostate.

--Do you perceive James Dobson to be non-Christian?
>>No.

--Do you perceive Pat Robertson to be non-Christian?
>>No idea of the state of his heart. He is a documented false prophet, so I pay no attention to him except to criticise him when he says stupid or evil things (a false prophecy would qualify as both) in his position as a "Christian leader".

--if I told you I believe I don't and told you to stop witnessing me, would you stop or find other avenues?
>>We have no relationship beyond this combox; I'd probably stop, but I might try to find other avenues.
Were we closer, I'd find other avenues.
If your friend's house were on fire, would you try to wake them if they ignored you the 1st time you shook him? The idea's similar.

--if I laughed in you face after your "repent" speech, how would you react?
>>I'd ask you why you laughed.

--Since you would dialogue with me differently and reveal different opinions to me if I "repented", wouldn't that make you deceptive?
>>No.
Do you talk to Dani, SableChicken, and Choosedoubt in the same way? No - it's a different context of discussion.

--Or an opportunist?
>>Depends on the definition of "opportunist". I do try to seize opportunities to share the Gospel, otherwise known as "your and my only hope", w/ people when I can.

--Or a hypocrite?
>>I don't see how.

--How can you expect me to trust any of your answers after you answer "Absolutely" to that question?
>>B/c, as a Christian, I have a vested interest and a standing command to share the Truth (AKA the Gospel) w/ those who do not believe it.

--Have you watched the videos here?
>>I watched the Michael Moore/Sodomobile one and left a comment. I watched the Trading Spaces one w/ the hysterical screaming psycho woman. Why do you ask?

I look forward to more questions and also the answers to mine.

Peace,
ALAN

10:16 PM

Vile Blasphemer said...

Does this mean you do support ten commandment based laws for American government and the removal of the establishment clause? If Bush wasn't president or if non-Christians were in control of the American government would you aim for an overthrow? The "house on fire" statement isn't analogous unless the person shares your Christian worldview and disrespecting someone's wishes by committing subversive action is reprehensible; despite that, what objective arguments do you have for Christianity that would be convincing across more than just your worldview? I do address Dani, Sable Chicken, and Choosedoubt in the same manner- I don't lie and I tell them exactly what I think of them; why do you feel the need to shield others from knowing your real opinions until they've "repented"? Do you have an objective reason for me to trust you since being merely "Christian" doesn't give you credibility as honest or trustworthy? Fred Phelps says that you are not a Christian; how come he's wrong and you're right? How can you tell me that I encourage mocking of only Jesus and the Bible if you haven't watched any of the other videos? Is mockery of other religions acceptable as long as Christianity is insulated? I know you wanted me to answer questions about my personal beliefs, perhaps so you could create a kind of "personality inventory" of me as a basis for witnessing dialogue, but I don't share my core personal beliefs, so that anyone who wishes to address me must do so objectively. Being a missionary, however, I'm sure you won't mind continuing to answer my questions.

10:44 PM

Rhology said...

Hi Vile,

--Does this mean you do support ten commandment based laws for American government
>>Yes.

--and the removal of the establishment clause?
>>No. You seem not to be reading what I said very carefully; I said nothing that should lead someone to that impression. I feel like you're trying to trap me or sthg. It's strange.

--If Bush wasn't president or if non-Christians were in control of the American government would you aim for an overthrow?
>>No. And non-Christians *are* in control of the gov't right now. And Bill Clinton rarely if ever acted like a Christian, and I didn't try to overthrow then either. I don't know where you got this idea.

--The "house on fire" statement isn't analogous unless the person shares your Christian worldview
>>No, it is analogous, but you don't share my Christian worldview so you don't *agree* w/ the analogy. Big difference.

--disrespecting someone's wishes by committing subversive action is reprehensible
>>What subversive action are you referring to?

--what objective arguments do you have for Christianity that would be convincing across more than just your worldview?
>>What constitutes a "convincing" argument for someone whose mind is as closed as yours is tough to define. You could start by checking tektonics.org, leaderu.org (see the desk of William Lane Craig), and lurking at triablogue.blogspot.com
However, I'm not optimistic since you've commented there before and seem not to be fazed by the destruction of non-Christian worldviews that goes on there every day. So, for the hardened of heart (as you *seem* to be, though you could prove me wrong), there is little more to say.

--I do address Dani, Sable Chicken, and Choosedoubt in the same manner- I don't lie and I tell them exactly what I think of them
>>An even better example is the way you reacted to youneedmercy in this exact same combox.

YOUNEEDMERCY: You are satan's puppet. Please free yourself for the end is upon us. Ask God into your heart, you will see the truth. Stop hurting people with your lies
VILEBLASPHEMER: Don't be so absurd.

And then:

ASIMPLEGIRL: You do know in the end she took the $$$$ I wonder what JEsus thought of that!
VILE: A Simple Girl, I bet she prayed and was told by Jesus himself that she should take the money.

So you DO talk differently to them. I didn't accuse you of *lying* to one and not to the other. But I reject your implication that I lie to the unbeliever and not to the Christian. I do talk to them differently, just like you do. For example, I call a male Christian friend "brother," b/c he is my brother in Christ. Not true for a non-Christian.

--Do you have an objective reason for me to trust you since being merely "Christian" doesn't give you credibility as honest or trustworthy?
>>You have only my word and my blog. Just as I have for you.
One of us has disclosed the nature of his beliefs. The other hasn't. Typically, the fuller disclosure might be justified in being assigned more trust.

--Fred Phelps says that you are not a Christian; how come he's wrong and you're right?
>>There has to be an objective definition of "Christian." According to Jesus, a Christian is known by his fruits. The fruits that Phelps produces are not in line w/ biblical teaching. By the grace of God, mine are more so.

--How can you tell me that I encourage mocking of only Jesus and the Bible if you haven't watched any of the other videos?
>>Here is what I said:

VB: Why do you perceive me to be a non-Christian?
RHOLOGY: Your writings and comments. You provide a forum for the Bible and Jesus Christ Himself to be repeatedly mocked and scorned. Your blog is named "Desecrate Holy Books." Your screen name is Vile Blasphemer. If it's not all a colossal joke taken waaaaayyy too far, you're no Christian.

I don't see where I said "only Jesus and the Bible" in that statement. So you misquoted me, and that is unfair.

As for your other videos, I watched the Ring of Fire but the Mohammed one you linked to contained images that I don't care or need to watch.

--Is mockery of other religions acceptable as long as Christianity is insulated?
>>...said he takes pride in ruthlessly mocking at least several of them.
In the Bible, God mocks other religions a fair amount. His basis is the fact that they are the self-deception of sinful men who are trying to escape the knowledge that God is the Creator and Judge of the universe.
So, on one level, mockery of other religions as long as Christianity is insulated is commendable and good.
On the level of what is legal in the modern United States, mockery of religion is open to all b/c all have free speech.

--I know you wanted me to answer questions about my personal beliefs, perhaps so you could create a kind of "personality inventory" of me as a basis for witnessing dialogue
>>I won't guess at your motivations, but one of the effects of that decision is to limit the extent to which true conversation can take place.
By now, I have answered over a dozen of your questions and you have answered not one of the 3 I posed to you. It's disappointing; I thought you would be a "convo partner" as I alluded to in a previous comment. It's not looking good as far as that goes, though.

--anyone who wishes to address me must do so objectively
>>That is self-delusion. Do you believe you are capable of being fully objective w/o a worldview coloring what you say and think?
I'm thinking the odds of you answering that question are not good, but hope springs eternal.

I might put forth the energy to respond to a few more questions from you, but if you don't answer any of mine, it'll probably end there. And it'll end sooner unless you display better reading comprehension and retention than you have in this comment.

Peace,
ALAN

12:30 AM

Vile Blasphemer said...

If you support the ten commandments as laws for the United States, how would you punish adulterers? How would you punish those who don't honor their parents?

"No, it is analogous, but you don't share my Christian worldview so you don't *agree* w/ the analogy. Big difference."

That's exactly the same thing I said, rephrased. Allow me to restate. It is illogical to use a metaphor relevant to Christians to reach a non-Christian. Do you have an objective argument that reads convincingly to a non-Christian?

"So, for the hardened of heart (as you *seem* to be, though you could prove me wrong), there is little more to say."

Does this mean, since you can think of no other way to reach me as I've resisted all those other folks, I must be unreachable and you'll give up on me?

"...contained images that I don't care or need to watch."

What exactly do you consider that you don't "care" or "need"? Do you think you're not strong enough in your faith to see anything and be unfazed?

"So, on one level, mockery of other religions as long as Christianity is insulated is commendable and good."

Therefore, in an ideal setting, you would support legislation in America to prevent mockery of Christianity? You said you didn't want to lead anyone to the impression you are against the establishment clause, but doesn't this belief contradict this?

"...one of the effects of that decision is to limit the extent to which true conversation can take place."

Do you feel that you need to "know" me to have a discussion? Are you uncomfortable that my position is to ask questions and not to argue or assert? What do you consider "true" as far as characteristics of a conversation? Are you asking for my beliefs so you can tailor your replies? If I were a Buddhist, wouldn't you answer me in the same way you would an Odinist?

"Do you believe you are capable of being fully objective w/o a worldview coloring what you say and think?"

Of course, that's impossible- do you believe you are capable of objectivity w/o a worldview informed impression about me that would color how you respond?

"I might put forth the energy to respond to a few more questions from you, but if you don't answer any of mine, it'll probably end there."

As a missionary, aren't you supposed to be prepared to answer several questions? Why do you feel it is so necessary to know me to answer? Doesn't the Bible stand solidly as truth independent of who I am or what I believe?

"And it'll end sooner unless you display better reading comprehension and retention than you have in this comment."

I see nowhere that I have failed in comprehension or retention- though I have extrapolated. Is this a threat to end the conversation if I don't discuss in the way you approve? Why do you feel you must control the discussion? Are you aware that for a threat to be taken serious, you must ransom something held in value? It wouldn't bother me if you suddenly decided to ignore me, so wouldn't there be more value in continuing to answer my questions until I have an estimation of you and feel comfortable giving a personal response?

3:46 AM

Rhology said...

VILE: It's been several days. Does this mean you're not going to answer my fresh batch of questions?

ME: It means that I've had a busy weekend and will answer your questions when I get a chance. No conversation = lower priority for me.

Peace,
ALAN

10:18 PM

Rhology said...

Hi Vile,

Sorry it took a while. I rarely get to the Internet during the wknd, and this one was no exception.
Now then, there is a charge on the table that you have not demonstrated good reading comprehension. I say this b/c you seem to be restating what you think I said a few times, but in a way that does not follow my train of thought at all.

Here are some examples:

1) --Do you believe in installing Christianity into the American government as a means of moral control over the country?
>>Not totally decided, leaning yes.
--Should American political representatives submit themselves to a Christian litmus test?
>>Undecided. It's unconstitutional right now, so I'd have to think about it a lot more before I say either way.

VB QUESTION SEEMINGLY BASED ON THESE RESPONSES: Does this mean you do support ten commandment based laws for American government and the removal of the establishment clause?

MY RESPONSE: How could you have come to this conclusion in such a way that you feel that asking "Does this mean...?" logically follows? It doesn't fit.
And no, I doubt I would support that.

2) --Why do you perceive me to be a non-Christian?
>>Your writings and comments. You provide a forum for the Bible and Jesus Christ Himself to be repeatedly mocked and scorned. Your blog is named "Desecrate Holy Books." Your screen name is Vile Blasphemer. If it's not all a colossal joke taken waaaaayyy too far, you're no Christian.

VB QUESTION SEEMINGLY BASED ON THESE RESPONSES: How can you tell me that I encourage mocking of only Jesus and the Bible...?

MY RESPONSE: As I said in my last comment, I never said "only" at all. And I told you that you misquoted me. And you made no response. I don't know if you are intentionally trying to be disrespectful and unresponsive, but you are being so.

3) --Is mockery of other religions acceptable as long as Christianity is insulated?
>>...said he (who) takes pride in ruthlessly mocking at least several of them.
In the Bible, God mocks other religions a fair amount. His basis is the fact that they are the self-deception of sinful men who are trying to escape the knowledge that God is the Creator and Judge of the universe.
So, on one level, mockery of other religions as long as Christianity is insulated is commendable and good.
On the level of what is legal in the modern United States, mockery of religion is open to all b/c all have free speech.

VB QUESTION SEEMINGLY BASED ON THESE RESPONSES: Therefore, in an ideal setting, you would support legislation in America to prevent mockery of Christianity? You said you didn't want to lead anyone to the impression you are against the establishment clause, but doesn't this belief contradict this?

MY RESPONSE: You ignored my last statement in order to focus on the next-to-last. I said nothing that would imply that I support such legislation.

4) --anyone who wishes to address me must do so objectively
>>That is self-delusion. Do you believe you are capable of being fully objective w/o a worldview coloring what you say and think?

VB QUESTION SEEMINGLY BASED ON THIS RESPONSE: Of course, that's impossible- do you believe you are capable of objectivity w/o a worldview informed impression about me that would color how you respond?

MY RESPONSE: You fail to see that I already answered you when I said "That is self-delusion." If I say that, clearly I believe that it is impossible.

===================
You ask, I answer.
By contrast, I ask, and you don't answer. But I guess that's your business and your blog.

In related news:
--Why do you feel you must control the discussion?
>>I have nowhere said that I desire to control anythg. But we're not *having* a discussion. You're asking, I'm answering. I ask, you say, "Nuh-uh!"

--Are you aware that for a threat to be taken serious, you must ransom something held in value?
>>I don't see the need or value in being so melodramatic.

--It wouldn't bother me if you suddenly decided to ignore me
>>Um, ditto. You think your existence and your videos pose some kind of threat to me? Oh wait, you don't answer questions.

--wouldn't there be more value in continuing to answer my questions until I have an estimation of you and feel comfortable giving a personal response?
>>TRANSLATION: "wouldn't there be more value in continuing to answer my questions until I have an estimation of you and can feel like I have an advantage, since you will have had a massive paper trail by that time?"
You know, I will, as long as I have time. But as long as you act the way you are, I'll go ahead and point it out.

--What do you consider "true" as far as characteristics of a conversation?
>>Give and take. Right now, it's all me giving and you taking. This more closely qualifies as a questioning rather than a discussion.

--Are you asking for my beliefs so you can tailor your replies?
>>Yes. And you appear to be trying to do the same, only your poor restatement of what I say is getting in your way.



====================
--If you support the ten commandments as laws for the United States, how would you punish adulterers?
>>Not sure, but the law should punish them.

--those who don't honor their parents?
>>Ditto.

--It is illogical to use a metaphor relevant to Christians to reach a non-Christian. Do you have an objective argument that reads convincingly to a non-Christian?
>>I wasn't making an argument. I was using an analogy to express the reason behind my motivation to attempt to change the minds of unbelievers. I didn't mean any more than that. And I was talking about *my own perspective* based on *my worldview*.
*In my worldview* unbelievers are condemned and on their way to Hell. Burning house.
There is an easy and unique way out. Repent and believe in Jesus.
Unbelievers don't know or care. Ignoring the burning house.
I tell them about the Gospel. Yelling at them to get out of the burning house.
I hope that is clearer than before.

--Does this mean... I must be unreachable and you'll give up on me?
>>You may be, but that's not my fault or problem. It is yours. My job is to inform.

--What exactly do you consider that you don't "care" or "need"?
>>The images of a sexual nature on the Mohammed video, specifically.

--Do you think you're not strong enough in your faith to see anything and be unfazed?
>>This shows that you don't understand at least this part of Christian teaching.
I am to flee from sexual temptation. Looking at images like that on a screen is a temptation to sin for me. So I fled and turned it off. It is not strength to keep looking but weakness.

--Doesn't the Bible stand solidly as truth independent of who I am or what I believe?
>>Of course it does. OTOH, I don't know how much you've read of the Bible, but it's long, and it is sufficient to define one's entire worldview. For that reason, one might be justified in desiring to communicate on more specific subjects, b/c I can't type 1000 wpm.

Peace,
ALAN

12:05 AM

Vile Blasphemer said...

How can you "lean toward" the idea of installing Christianity as a means of moral control over the country without eradicating the establishment law? You never said "only Jesus Christ and the Bible", but you left out any other religion which indicates that you pay no attention to the other blasphemies- doesn't this reflect that you could care less about other's beliefs as long as Christianity is advanced? Couldn't you, given your first comment to me was a mistake in comprehension, be confused about the answers I've given and their subtleties, thus thinking I'm misrepresenting you? Isn't melodrama entertaining to you at all? Do you think that parroting my disaffectedness will alter my mode of conversation? When I ask a question that is pointed, you have the option to answer in the affirmative or the negative; why do you assume that it is a misrepresentation of what you have written and not a new question? Since adultery should be punished, you are in favor of punishments for individuals having affairs? Having sex out of marriage? What do you consider the cut off age for honoring parents? Can you give me an example of what "dishonoring parents" is? Again, the gospel is relevant only to Christians- minus the gospel, how do you give objective evidence for those outside your worldview? I understand the "don't look at sex" part of the Christian teaching- I just wanted to see you say it- however is even breast-feeding a taboo thing to see? Under most Biblical laws, someone who has committed the "offenses" that I have would be sentanced to death- would you agree?

4:25 AM

Rhology said...

Hi Vile,

--How can you "lean toward" the idea of installing Christianity as a means of moral control over the country without eradicating the establishment law?
>>B/c I'm undecided. That's what "lean toward" means.

--You never said "only Jesus Christ and the Bible"
>>Thank you. I pointed that out twice already.

--you left out any other religion which indicates that you pay no attention to the other blasphemies- doesn't this reflect that you could care less about other's beliefs as long as Christianity is advanced?
>>Of course it does. I *do* care less about others' beliefs, b/c I believe them to be leading them to condemnation and blinding them from the truth.
Yet I don't necessarily support gov't-controlled suppression of blasphemous speech, b/c a Hindu's freedom is my freedom.
That said, it is possible that imposing the 1st 2 cmdmts might not be compatible. I've not fully fleshed this thought out in my own mind, so there's probably little more I can say about it.

--Couldn't you, given your first comment to me was a mistake in comprehension, be confused about the answers I've given and their subtleties, thus thinking I'm misrepresenting you?
>>Oh, it's possible. However, if you're using this "only Jesus Christ and the Bible" case as Exhibit A, it is extremely clear and obvious that you misquoted me. So, you'd probably be better off trying to make your case using a different example.

--Isn't melodrama entertaining to you at all?
>>Yes, but your saying this:

VB: Is this a threat to end the conversation if I don't discuss in the way you approve? Why do you feel you must control the discussion? Are you aware that for a threat to be taken serious, you must ransom something held in value? It wouldn't bother me if you suddenly decided to ignore me, so wouldn't there be more value in continuing to answer my questions until I have an estimation of you and feel comfortable giving a personal response?

...made me chuckle rather than laugh the laugh of the entertained. I suppose I chuckled b/c you seem to be taking this non-conversation pretty seriously for someone who claims that I hold nothing of "value" to "ransom".

--Do you think that parroting my disaffectedness will alter my mode of conversation?
>>No, I simply hope you'll realise how pretentious and foolish you look. You refuse to engage me when I am here, willing, and available. And you're on the record on your own blog. I guess I'm saying I wouldn't do it that way.

--When I ask a question that is pointed, you have the option to answer in the affirmative or the negative; why do you assume that it is a misrepresentation of what you have written and not a new question?
>>B/c, as noted, in each of my 4 examples of poor reading/misrepresentation, you used a connecting word/phrase.
I just looked back, and found the following:
#1 - "Does THIS..."
#2 - "...of ONLY Jesus..."
#3 - "THEREFORE..."
#4 - "Of course, THAT'S impossible..."

Don't blame me for your mistakes.

--Since adultery should be punished, you are in favor of punishments for individuals having affairs?
>>Yes, that's what adultery is.

--Having sex out of marriage?
>>Yes.

--What do you consider the cut off age for honoring parents?
>>The question should be, rather: What does "honoring parents" consist of? The cut-off age is never.

--Can you give me an example of what "dishonoring parents" is?
>>Moses already did:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 - 18"If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them,
19then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his hometown.
20"They shall say to the elders of his city, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.'
21"Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear.

I don't necessarily support the death penalty for it, but you asked for an illustration.

--Again, the gospel is relevant only to Christians
>>That is not true. The Gospel is relevant to everyone, but only Christians realise/will acknowledge it. That is indeed why they are Christians.

--minus the gospel, how do you give objective evidence for those outside your worldview?
>>The Gospel is objective; I reject your assertion that it is not. If you do not agree, you'll need to supply an argument.
There are many arguments at the disposal of the Christian who wants to attempt to convince someone of the truth of Christian teaching. I already referred you to several of them (triablogue.blogspot.com, leaderu.org [William Lane Craig's desk], tektonics.org in case you missed 'em the 1st time). I don't have time or energy (or wrist strength) to type out a bunch right now.

--I understand the "don't look at sex" part of the Christian teaching- I just wanted to see you say it
>>Oh, OK.

--however is even breast-feeding a taboo thing to see?
>>For me, often, it is.

--Under most Biblical laws, someone who has committed the "offenses" that I have would be sentanced to death- would you agree?
>>I don't know how you measure "most", but your question reveals a poor understanding of the laws of the Old Testament. The laws were specifically for Old Testament-era Israel. The moral laws remain in force today; however, their death penalties (to which you refer) have been replaced by a much more serious penalty - not physical death but spiritual death.
Since many of your questions have been about TODAY, I don't see how this one is particularly relevant.

Peace,
ALAN

9:21 PM

Rhology said...

BTW...
I know you don't answer questions, but I press on:

--Under most Biblical laws, someone who has committed the "offenses" that I have would be sentanced to death- would you agree?
>>Do you refer to the blasphemies and stubborn unbelief you reveal on your blog or do you refer to sthg else?

Peace,
ALAN

9:24 PM

Vile Blasphemer said...

"You refuse to engage me when I am here, willing, and available."

Ahh... you're finally getting it. I was sure that you would have seen somewhere that I remarked that I don't argue on this blog.

"--however is even breast-feeding a taboo thing to see?
>>For me, often, it is."

Weirdo.

Additionally, about the gospel, minus a Christian worldview it is NOT objective, no matter how much you demand. Outside your worldview, it appears to be nothing more than folk mumbo-jumbo.

"Do you refer to the blasphemies and stubborn unbelief you reveal on your blog or do you refer to sthg else?"

Well, according to your worldview, I did kill an unborn baby.

Okay, you've entertained me enough. You can stop answering me now if you want.

11:24 PM

Rhology said...

Hi Vile,

--Ahh... you're finally getting it. I was sure that you would have seen somewhere that I remarked that I don't argue on this blog.
>>I'm finally "getting it"? Well, OK. I guess you could have told me earlier in our exchange, or you could have added that to your profile. But OK, clearly I played your game and I'm glad I amused you.

--Weirdo.
>>I can see why you don't debate.

--about the gospel, minus a Christian worldview it is NOT objective, no matter how much you demand.
>>And why should I accept that assertion from you? It's crying out for an argument, but I guess you won't give one. I suppose whoever reads this can see who justified his positions and who didn't.

--Outside your worldview, it appears to be nothing more than folk mumbo-jumbo.
>>Absent an argument, it's just as easy for ME to say about YOUR view about my view: It appears to be nothing more than cynical mumbo-jumbo.

--Well, according to your worldview, I did kill an unborn baby.
>>Then you are indeed a murderer. But that doesn't change your standing before God or me. You are a sinner, as I am. Come to Jesus and He will forgive your grievous crime, as He has forgiven mine. Or refuse to come and suffer the consequence that Jesus warned us of.

--Okay, you've entertained me enough.
>>Glad to hear. But you started to give me the impression that you were taking all this really seriously. So I am a bit surprised to hear you say that.

--You can stop answering me now if you want.
>>I was enjoying it, actually, But you've given me no questions to answer, and I can't ask you any, so I guess the ball is in your court.

Peace,
ALAN

1:54 AM

Rhology said...

I guess "you've entertained me enough. You can stop answering me now if you want" translates to:

"I don't want to engage you anymore, for reasons I won't reveal."

Cool. See you around, Vile.

Peace,
ALAN

3:59 PM

Vile Blasphemer said...