Jason Streitfeld said:
Rhology,
Thanks for trying to provide a definition of "God." Before I explain the problems I have with your definition, let me point out a couple of assumptions I don't think you should be making.
First, don't assume that I am unfamiliar with the many ways people have defined the term "God." In fact, my arguments here are based on a rather thorough familiarity with many theological traditions.
Second, don't assume that you need some notion of "God" to found epistemology or metaphysics. In fact, I don't see any sense in claiming that God could be a foundation for anything at all. And, frankly, I question the idea that metaphysics is a legitimate subject of enquiry. What used to be called "metaphysics" is most reasonably called "logic" and "linguistics" today.
The foundation of epistemology, however, is rational thought itself. We can approach the subject of epistemology because we are rational beings, because rational thought is an object of enquiry for us. What other foundation for epistemology could there possibly be?
Now, you say that most theologians do not regard the term "God" as being beyond human comprehension.
What about Tertullian, the man who coined the term "Trinity" and who came up with the whole idea that God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? He said, "This it is which gives some notion of God, while yet beyond all our conceptions—our very incapacity of fully grasping Him affords us the idea of what He really is. He is presented to our minds in His transcendent greatness, as at once known and unknown."
In the New Testament, Paul argues that God dwells "in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see."
For the sources of these quotes, and more information about negative theology, check out Wikipedia's page on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology
Now, of course, many theologians have attempted positive definitions of "God." I never doubted or ignored that fact. However, none of the commonly accepted positive definitions of "God" make any sense.
Let's look at your proposed definition, because it's a very good example of what I'm talking about.
You said, "God is the lone ultimate foundation for reality and reasoning."
Currently, many scientists think that the ultimate foundation of reality might very well be superstrings. Do you suggest that God might be superstrings?
I'm guessing, no, you do not think God is superstrings, because that wouldn't fit with the rest of your definition. According to the rest of that definition, God "is personal, intelligent, all-knowing, omnipotent, the creator of space, time, and energy, just, holy, compassionate, wrathful, good, communicative, and spirit. In short, He is as He is defined in the Bible."
So superstrings are out. But what sort of "foundation of reality" are you talking about, if not superstrings or something else open to scientific discovery?
What does the phrase "foundation of reality" even mean, if not the laws of nature and fundamental entities discovered to make up the universe as we know it?
This is the kind of incoherence I'm talking about. You use a phrase "foundations of reality" in a way that doesn't seem to make sense.
Consider, also, that your definition supposes that God created both space and time. That means that God existed before space and time. And that, some time after God existed for a while, he created space and time. So, there was some time before time when God existed . . . and, I suppose, some space outside of space which God took up. It is clear that your notions of "space" and "time" are confused, and make your "God" impossible to understand.
There are plenty of other problems. For example, if God is good and compassionate, why is he wrathful? If God is good, why has he created a world in which people (including newborn babies) suffer horribly for no apparent reason? Why would a good, compassionate God punish people for sticking to reason and common sense--that is, why would he punish atheists--for all eternity? According to what notion of compassion does that logically follow?
Sure, you can say that God works in mysterious ways, and that it is not our place to question God's will. And we should just accept those aspects of God that are beyond our understanding.
And yet, if you take away those mysterious assertions and take out all the stuff that doesn't make sense, what are you left with? The idea of a very smart, very strong something which, apparently, has created mankind for the sole purpose of punishing those who don't properly respect it.
That is the only sensible meaning left from your definition, and I think you will agree that it does not sound anything like what you and other religious people claim to believe in.
So, no, I'm not going to revise my original post. All you have done is provide an example of the sort of meaningless definitions of "God" that I'm talking about.
You also provided a link to another definition which, like your own, combines a series of easy-to-understand adjectives with nonsensical ontological assertions. Here, God's essence is offered thusly: God "only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto."
So, God's essence is immortality, and only immortality. What on earth does that mean?
Of course, we are not supposed to know, because "no man can approach" God. It's just beyond our understanding.
I believe you've helped me make my point. Thank you.
I respond:
Hi Jason,
I invite your correction wherever I overstep or mistakenly state your worldview. I'm not trying to misrepresent it.
A good amount of what you're saying seems to be an argument ad incredulum, but not everyone is bound by the same limited understanding.
We say that God is the source of metaphysics and epistemology b/c He has revealed that He is just that. Then, just for fun, I examine other worldviews to see how they account for relevant things like the laws of logic. No atheist I've yet encountered has sufficiently accounted for the existence and nature of the laws of logic, while still remaining consistently atheist, but I invite you to do so.
You place your ultimate value in reason, apparently. Can you prove that reason is the foundation of epistemology, using reason? In other words, can you give me reasons why I should trust reason?
Of course not - that would be begging the question. You have faith in reason as your ultimate foundation. I have faith in God as the ultimate foundation. Fair enough so far?
The question then becomes: Does my ultimate foundation account for all of reality?
Mine certainly does; I'll get to your critiques of mine in a sec. Yours, however, well, it's tough. For one thing, you can't take reason based on reasons alone, since that's question-begging. So you take "reason as ultimate epistemological foundation" on faith. I ask: you got to this ultimate truth thru an exercise of faith. Why, then, abandon faith for other epistemological pursuits? Reason failed you in that most important ultimate question, why go back to it for other, less-important questions?
For another thing, reason tells us precisely zero about how we SHOULD act, once we know stuff. That is an important question - ethics. No atheist I've encountered has given me a foundation for morality, on atheism, that is simultaneously
1) consistent with atheism (of whatever flavor)
2) objective, and
3) not arbitrarily based on what that individual says or a collection of individuals says.
We're looking for a moral foundation that tells us what right and wrong are, independent of whether anyone believes it or not.
One statement of yours that makes me question whether you are up to the task is:
I question the idea that metaphysics is a legitimate subject of enquiry
That in itself is a metaphysical statement. You do realise that, don't you?
Or do you think that asking and answering questions about reason and such things are physical? Where are they located? Of what elements are they composed? What do they smell like?
As for your critiques of my position:
What about Tertullian, the man who coined the term "Trinity" and who came up with the whole idea that God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?
He coined the term, sure, but the concept is clearly expressed all throughout the Bible. He did not "come up" with it at all.
(Tertullian said): "as at once known and unknown."
Exactly - both known and unknown. You're trying to place all the weight on that latter, w/o taking into acct the fact that God has communicated a great deal of Himself in a way that humans can understand.
Paul argues that God dwells "in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see."
More precisely, the Father dwells there. John 1:18 explains: "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."
Many have seen the Son, Jesus. He is the icon of the Father, as Hebrews says.
Look, don't take this the wrong way, but you're out of your depth when you try to handle Christian theology like this. You don't get to take half of my worldview and try to make it the whole. Let ME define my worldview, then you deal with it as a whole, not only with the parts you like and have cherry-picked. Just a friendly reminder. :-)
negative theology
Yes, a great deal of statements about God are apophatic, but far from all of them.
Currently, many scientists think that the ultimate foundation of reality might very well be superstrings.
1) Yep, currently. Next year it'll be sthg else. I'm not impressed with such things.
2) That's a metaphysical statement, BTW. Superstrings, if they exist, are hardly physical.
3) Scientists are not omniscient. God is and He has said that He is not equivalent to a superstring.
4) If someone were to flesh out a full-orbed epistemology and metaphysics based on superstrings, I'd be happy to critique it like I am critiquing yours.
What does the phrase "foundation of reality" even mean, if not the laws of nature and fundamental entities discovered to make up the universe as we know it?
That's a great question. It does mean that, precisely, but more than that even.
We're trying to account for why the world and the universe are like they are. Such questions include what you said, as well as questions of intelligence, the one and the many, consciousness, personality and personhood, thought, identity, relationship. All of it. TGOTB accounts for all of that. I'd like to see, indeed, I have yet to see, "reason" even get close.
That means that God existed before space and time...some space outside of space which God took up.
God created both time and space, yes. He inhabits neither, however - He is spirit in essence. He "existed", logically, not chronologically, before time. He is the cause of time's existence, therefore logically "before".
He is not physical; rather, He created the physical and the space in which the physical subsists. I have to use SOME language to express that idea.
Then you step into a minefield -
if God is good and compassionate, why is he wrathful?
Uh oh, as an atheist, how do you acct for making moral statements that should apply to anyone else? I'll need to see your justification for that before I accept any outside critique as valid.
Why would a good, compassionate God punish people for sticking to reason and common sense--that is, why would he punish atheists--for all eternity?
You will be punished for all eternity, unless you repent, and that offer is still good and still free, b/c you have broken God's law innumerable times to count. Not b/c you followed "common sense".
You know that TGOTB exists, but you suppress the truth in your wickedness, b/c then you'd have to repent and give up your evil deeds. You won't even admit it to yourself. That suppression of the truth is in itself evil.
God's essence is immortality, and only immortality. What on earth does that mean?
As the London Baptist Confession statement, to which I linked, says: "The Lord our God is but one only living and true God; whose subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection..."
Etc. Re-read the statement for more. I'm not saying it can be exhaustively explored by human reason, only sufficiently to know that He is, and that He is great, good, holy, and the Lord.
I look fwd to your thoughts. I'll post this on my blog too, since it's good stuff, deep stuff.
Peace,
Rhology
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
Credibility kicks the bucket
I keep wondering if I should carve notches into some kind of trophy somewhere for having been banned or having comments suppressed on atheist blogs. It happened again late last week chez possummomma, who apparently can't stomach someone calling out cases of gross redundant question-begging assertions from her and from her commenters.
I had first posted on this issue of same-sex marriage on her blog, then posted one of my larger comments here, then continued over there. But this last comment, which I paste below, was suppressed.
I then told possummomma my honest estimate of her actions:
Gotta love the intellectual honesty of the atheist blogosphere. She's a big-hitter too. It's got to make you a little bit sad.
Anyway, since that time, some more comments have appeared.
-Some of them rehash the consent issue. They are not advancing the argument at all, but just repeating the same old stuff over and over.
-A few other issues:
empathy, empathy, empathy
I had asked the atheists in the combox to justify their moral statements. I went in there and made NO argument based on my own morality; rather, I was arguing an ad absurdum - if we change this one element of marriage, might as well change them all under the same argument. They started saying stuff like "IT IS NOT MORAL TO DENY GAYS THE RIGHT TO MARRY SOMEONE THEY LOVE AND THAT LOVES THEM BACK! IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU ADVERSELY!" so I asked them to justify that. The same old question. And the same old failures to do so. I even did them a favor and told them not to say "empathy" (b/c I've already mercilessly pwnd that idea), but that didn't stop them.
possummomma said:
Equating homosexuals to pedophiles and criminals is unacceptable.
Which I didn't do, of course. She has a hard time following arguments, unfortunately.
If your religion or your God feeds your hatred, then it and/or he is unacceptable as well.
1) I don't hate homosexuals, nor did I say anythg that would lead anyone to that conclusion.
2) God, OTOH, does hate them, and their sin. He lovingly calls them to repentance, but He is their enemy, and they are His, just like all unrepentant sinners and partakers in perversion.
3) Notice possummomma, despite my direct request that she and at least 2 other commenters do so, never attempts to justify her moral statement. She just asserts it.
When I see a blogger say that (I went to stir up trouble) and then note that it's a point of pride, I lose faith in their argument.
A classic case of the poisoning the well fallacy.
I think it's summed up by a post he made on the Atheist Experience blog where he claims atheists are unable to have true ethics or morals.
Nope, never said that. Re-read my posts on that topic.
PerpetualBeginner said:
It was more of MY beliefs are true. I know they're true.
1) And I'm sure that she doesn't really believe that her own beliefs are true. How disingenuous to say sthg like this.
2) Around here, I do sthg that these commenters are evidently unfamiliar with - argue for my position rather than just assert it.
he's another of those creepy people that seem to think that belief in God is the only reason people don't roam the streets raping and murdering randomly
That is full of misunderstanding.
1) It is not belief in God, but rather God's existence and His common grace that He gives even unrepentant human beings that holds us back from these evils.
2) But of course, my actual argument wrt atheism is that, while atheists are in general nice people, nice to children and dogs, etc, they don't have a good reason to be, on atheism. There is no objective reason for them to think that being nice is morally preferable to being nasty.
Flatly, the bible provides no grounds for saying that raping little girls is always wrong.
This from a self-professed "Christian". I'll hopefully get to that this week. Her worldview is certainly far from biblical, and therefore far from Christian.
Terra said:
It's ironic to me that his profile says he's so loving of all things foreign, and yet he can't open his mind long enough to see he's being a bigot.
Terra provides no argument. I think I was called a "bigot" like 9 times in that thread.
evolveintobirds said:
in one of the longer arguments he is pushed to answer the question "if God told you to kill your child would you obey?" (they were discussing Abraham and Isaac). After much beating around the bush he finally admitted that he would not because it contradicts his understanding of the Bible.
No doubt s/he refers to this post. While I give him/her credit for driving down that far into my archives, I don't see an argument to back up this assertion. What a surprise.
I had first posted on this issue of same-sex marriage on her blog, then posted one of my larger comments here, then continued over there. But this last comment, which I paste below, was suppressed.
Adam Slagle,
That would be a point in favor of the one who favors free religious expression in the public sphere. That's me; it might be you too, or it might not. But I thought being homosexual was an issue of being born that way - that's what everyone else here is saying. You seem to disagree, though, so I'm happy to know you're in agreement with me.
Yazbec,
You seem to be very emotional. This issue certainly does seem to bring out the irrational in people. Could I ask you to calm down and stop being so nasty? For the sake of your own credibility, seriously.
No one is asking your church to recognize the marriage or perform any marriage they choose not to.
Not yet. But you contradict yourself in the very next two sentences -
As for non-religious workplaces having to provide benefits... sorry the bigots won't get to spit on that group of people selectively anymore.
Now wait just a second. Let's say I own a business, and let's say I'm a Christian who takes the Bible seriously. My beliefs extend to EVERY area of life, not just to what I do in church. You apparently want to force me to provide benefits to a SSM worker's "spouse", against my will. I have good, reasonable arguments for my position (which are pummeling the other side, if this combox is any indication), yet you want to call me a bigot, groundlessly accuse me of "spitting" on someone (which I would never do - again you, not I, prove to be the bigot here) and bring litigation against me if I don't break my conscience.
So, it looks like you don't even realise the full implications of what you're saying. You have to think these things thru, you know.
the issue of reciprocated consent
Which I responded to. Do you make a habit of responding to 3-day-old posts?
That's the whole damn point of a modern system of morality!
Then my question to you is the same I posed to Berlzebub - Who died and made you God?
Make your argument that that is the point, and why I should accept such a question-begging foundation for morality.
That and empathy, much as you casually dismiss that which makes it possible for there to be good people.
I made numerous arguments in the post I linked to about empathy. I know it's more comfortable for you not to even read those arguments and just throw out a "you casually dismiss our arguments", but you're certainly not fooling me. Read the post and interact with the arguments there.
completely ignoring any evidence or argument to the contrary
Pheh. Let the reader judge who is bringing substantive arguments to the table.
I don't think you are welcome here. (not to speak for you, PMomma, its your show, after all)
By all means, silence all dissenting voices. That's the liberal idea of "open-mindedness" and "tolerance", after all.
I am inclined to think of you nothing more than a troll, and a bigoted one at that.
There you go with the name-calling again.
Do trolls have dozen-page-long conversations?
I've made numerous arguments that you haven't even interacted with here. You might try that - name-calling and labels are poor substitutes for dealing with arguments.
homosexuals are not the enemy!
Where did I ever say they were?
Many homosexuals don't support SSM, for one thing.
I oppose the SSM movement. The idea. I know you want to paint me as someone who'd love to murder all homosexual people, but you'll have to take me way out of context or just not quote me at all to do so.
I'm sure there were lots of white business owners who didn't want to pay for health insurance for any of those blacks when that marriage alteration was passed
Once again you pass over an argument w/o comment. Pitiful. Go back and read what I've already said on this comparing SSM to the civil rights mvmt and then bring forth your response.
IT IS NOT MORAL TO DENY GAYS THE RIGHT TO MARRY SOMEONE THEY LOVE AND THAT LOVES THEM BACK! IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU ADVERSELY!
1) I already demonstrated that you personally advocate sthg that would affect me adversely.
2) And about the emptiness of the "love" argument.
3) Deal with the arguments I've made about an atheist's ability to make ANY moral statement and think it should apply to anyone other than themselves. Again, I've already said multiple things on this issue in this very combox. Is it too much to ask that you interact with things I've already said, that you progress the argument rather than take backward steps?
Peace,
Rhology
I then told possummomma my honest estimate of her actions:
possummomma,
You're not going to publish my last comment?
That is pitiful. If you're tired of the way I argue, here are two suggestions:
1) Actually answer the questions.
2) No one is forcing you to read the comments here, you know. If others want to continue the interaction, who knows to what interesting lengths it might lead? We'll never know now, b/c you've decided to censor.
It's quite obvious where the chips fell in this encounter. As for me, it's another "notch" in my "belt" of atheists who won't face up to actual arguments. It's not some war, as you have me thinking in your last comment, but it is a marketplace of ideas. Those who censor generally have the least confidence in their ideas to win the competition. It's obvious where you stand.
Thanks for hosting the conversation thus far. Too bad you apparently don't have the spine to let it go on and die a natural death.
Peace,
Rhology
Gotta love the intellectual honesty of the atheist blogosphere. She's a big-hitter too. It's got to make you a little bit sad.
Anyway, since that time, some more comments have appeared.
-Some of them rehash the consent issue. They are not advancing the argument at all, but just repeating the same old stuff over and over.
-A few other issues:
empathy, empathy, empathy
I had asked the atheists in the combox to justify their moral statements. I went in there and made NO argument based on my own morality; rather, I was arguing an ad absurdum - if we change this one element of marriage, might as well change them all under the same argument. They started saying stuff like "IT IS NOT MORAL TO DENY GAYS THE RIGHT TO MARRY SOMEONE THEY LOVE AND THAT LOVES THEM BACK! IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU ADVERSELY!" so I asked them to justify that. The same old question. And the same old failures to do so. I even did them a favor and told them not to say "empathy" (b/c I've already mercilessly pwnd that idea), but that didn't stop them.
possummomma said:
Equating homosexuals to pedophiles and criminals is unacceptable.
Which I didn't do, of course. She has a hard time following arguments, unfortunately.
If your religion or your God feeds your hatred, then it and/or he is unacceptable as well.
1) I don't hate homosexuals, nor did I say anythg that would lead anyone to that conclusion.
2) God, OTOH, does hate them, and their sin. He lovingly calls them to repentance, but He is their enemy, and they are His, just like all unrepentant sinners and partakers in perversion.
3) Notice possummomma, despite my direct request that she and at least 2 other commenters do so, never attempts to justify her moral statement. She just asserts it.
When I see a blogger say that (I went to stir up trouble) and then note that it's a point of pride, I lose faith in their argument.
A classic case of the poisoning the well fallacy.
I think it's summed up by a post he made on the Atheist Experience blog where he claims atheists are unable to have true ethics or morals.
Nope, never said that. Re-read my posts on that topic.
PerpetualBeginner said:
It was more of MY beliefs are true. I know they're true.
1) And I'm sure that she doesn't really believe that her own beliefs are true. How disingenuous to say sthg like this.
2) Around here, I do sthg that these commenters are evidently unfamiliar with - argue for my position rather than just assert it.
he's another of those creepy people that seem to think that belief in God is the only reason people don't roam the streets raping and murdering randomly
That is full of misunderstanding.
1) It is not belief in God, but rather God's existence and His common grace that He gives even unrepentant human beings that holds us back from these evils.
2) But of course, my actual argument wrt atheism is that, while atheists are in general nice people, nice to children and dogs, etc, they don't have a good reason to be, on atheism. There is no objective reason for them to think that being nice is morally preferable to being nasty.
Flatly, the bible provides no grounds for saying that raping little girls is always wrong.
This from a self-professed "Christian". I'll hopefully get to that this week. Her worldview is certainly far from biblical, and therefore far from Christian.
Terra said:
It's ironic to me that his profile says he's so loving of all things foreign, and yet he can't open his mind long enough to see he's being a bigot.
Terra provides no argument. I think I was called a "bigot" like 9 times in that thread.
evolveintobirds said:
in one of the longer arguments he is pushed to answer the question "if God told you to kill your child would you obey?" (they were discussing Abraham and Isaac). After much beating around the bush he finally admitted that he would not because it contradicts his understanding of the Bible.
No doubt s/he refers to this post. While I give him/her credit for driving down that far into my archives, I don't see an argument to back up this assertion. What a surprise.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
To whom rights belong
In December 1993, Eddie Tabash debated Greg Bahnsen, the latter of whom delivered this zinger:
This served as a bit of an inspiration for me last Thursday when I was engaging some pro-legal-baby-murder protesters near the Justice For All exhibit on the nearby university campus. I found myself in a conversation with two young Jewish men, one of whom was making the case that the unborn child acquires human rights at time of his or her exhibition of brain waves. Another protester later told me that whether the unborn baby has human rights should not affect the legality of abortion and does not affect it in her mind, but anyway... I'd say for most reasonable people, if the baby has human rights and is human, they would say it shouldn't be legal and it isn't moral to kill the baby. In other words, for most people, unborn baby = human? is the foremost question of the abortion debate.
The point that I made to the Jewish gentleman was rather provocative. The 3rd Reich decided on an arbitrary basis that Jewish people (among other ethnicities and social groupings) were not human. (Yes, the tired "Hitler example"; don't turn your brain off - just b/c it is [over]used does not mean it does not hold.) I ask: In what way is the arbitrary decision that the unborn human acquires human rights when s/he exhibits brain waves qualitatively different than the Nazis' arbitrary decision that Jewish people were not human?
He responded: "But these Jews were walking, talking, had jobs, had families, had lives. How could you say that it's the same?"
I reminded him that an arbitrary decision based on performance can be on a limitless sliding scale - whomever is in power gets to decide who has human rights. If they decide you don't have human rights, you don't. Then you're no more important than cattle, and you can be killed without much remorse at all. Which is what happened.
Human rights must be bestowed based on whether one is human. There is no good reason to believe that human rights are bestowed based on what one can do. This leads to all sorts of highly faulty and awful conclusions - those in a coma are no longer human. A little adjustment one way or the other, and someone loses his humanity when he is asleep. Or I have greater human rights if I am older, stronger, smarter, richer, or in a better location; if those things are true, and someone who is younger, less intelligent, and poorer is standing in my way, I can morally (and legally) kill that person. They were inconvenient to me, and my human rights supersede theirs.
No, the real bases for human rights is ontological, not performance-based. We argue against the latter using, among other things, the acronym SLED.
The conferral of human rights does not, indeed, must not depend on:
-Size or physical appearance
-Level of development
-Environment (location)
-Degree of dependency
He tells us that it's alright to execute these developing human beings because, according to him, there's no capacity for consciousness up to a certain point. And yet, earlier in the debate you heard him say that we only know things based on observation. And I'd like to know: On what observational basis does he know what consciousness the developing fetus has or doesn't have, or is even capable of having? Are capabilities something that you observe as well? You see, he just can't decide which worldview he wants to use. As a matter of fact, what you see in the case of the developing fetus is always a matter of degree. There is no question after conception that you have all the biological components here of a human being. The child does not become a human being when it is fully developed in its mental capacities. I can't believe a man who has relatives who were killed under that kind of thinking would now apply it to innocent unborn children. For you see, if you start saying "those people that you don't deem fully developed" can now be executed, then we're right back to Hitler and the genocide of people that you think aren't fully developed.(Emphases follow Bahnsen's voice pattern.)
This served as a bit of an inspiration for me last Thursday when I was engaging some pro-legal-baby-murder protesters near the Justice For All exhibit on the nearby university campus. I found myself in a conversation with two young Jewish men, one of whom was making the case that the unborn child acquires human rights at time of his or her exhibition of brain waves. Another protester later told me that whether the unborn baby has human rights should not affect the legality of abortion and does not affect it in her mind, but anyway... I'd say for most reasonable people, if the baby has human rights and is human, they would say it shouldn't be legal and it isn't moral to kill the baby. In other words, for most people, unborn baby = human? is the foremost question of the abortion debate.
The point that I made to the Jewish gentleman was rather provocative. The 3rd Reich decided on an arbitrary basis that Jewish people (among other ethnicities and social groupings) were not human. (Yes, the tired "Hitler example"; don't turn your brain off - just b/c it is [over]used does not mean it does not hold.) I ask: In what way is the arbitrary decision that the unborn human acquires human rights when s/he exhibits brain waves qualitatively different than the Nazis' arbitrary decision that Jewish people were not human?
He responded: "But these Jews were walking, talking, had jobs, had families, had lives. How could you say that it's the same?"
I reminded him that an arbitrary decision based on performance can be on a limitless sliding scale - whomever is in power gets to decide who has human rights. If they decide you don't have human rights, you don't. Then you're no more important than cattle, and you can be killed without much remorse at all. Which is what happened.
Human rights must be bestowed based on whether one is human. There is no good reason to believe that human rights are bestowed based on what one can do. This leads to all sorts of highly faulty and awful conclusions - those in a coma are no longer human. A little adjustment one way or the other, and someone loses his humanity when he is asleep. Or I have greater human rights if I am older, stronger, smarter, richer, or in a better location; if those things are true, and someone who is younger, less intelligent, and poorer is standing in my way, I can morally (and legally) kill that person. They were inconvenient to me, and my human rights supersede theirs.
No, the real bases for human rights is ontological, not performance-based. We argue against the latter using, among other things, the acronym SLED.
The conferral of human rights does not, indeed, must not depend on:
-Size or physical appearance
-Level of development
-Environment (location)
-Degree of dependency
Friday, November 14, 2008
The tolerance of the tolerant
Worshippers at a Bible-teaching church in Lansing, Mich., were stunned Sunday when members of a pro-homosexual, pro-anarchy organization named Bash Back interrupted their service to fling propaganda and condoms around the sanctuary, drape a profane banner from the balcony and feature two lesbians making out at the pulpit.
According to a blog posting by Nick De Leeuw on Right Michigan, the Bash Back organization orchestrated a protest in front of Mount Hope Church to draw the church's security staff away from the sanctuary.
Then Bash Backers who had dressed up and mixed in with church worshippers took action.
According to De Leeuw, "Prayer had just finished when men and women stood up in pockets across the congregation, on the main floor and in the balcony.
"'Jesus was gay,' they shouted among other profanities and blasphemies as they rushed the stage. Some forced their way through rows of women and kids to try to hang a profane banner from the balcony while others began tossing fliers into the air. Two women made their way to the pulpit and began to kiss," he wrote.
He cited the Bash Back organization's own announcement of other items members brought into the church, including "a megaphone, noise makers, condoms, glitter by the bucket load, confetti, pink fabric. ..."
According to the alternative Lansing City Pulse – which reported it was notified of the protest ahead of time and sent a reporter along instead of warning the church – the protesters also screamed at parishioners and pulled the church facility's fire alarm. Printed material protesters distributed said, "We specialize in confronting homophobia, transphobia and every and all other forms of oppression."...
De Leeuw reported "the 'open minded' and 'tolerant' liberals ran down the aisles and across the pews, hoping against hope to catch a 'right winger' on tape daring to push back (none did).
"This is what we're up against," De Leeuw wrote. "Amidst worshiping congregants and following unifying prayers that our president-elect be granted wisdom as he prepares to lead our nation through difficult global, social and economic challenges, the Michigan left declared open war on peaceful churchgoers...
In a statement posted on the Internet, Bash Back confirmed its "operatives" were in the service, "stood up, declared themselves fags, and began screaming loudly. … Another group threw over a thousand fliers to the entire … congregation. The fire alarm was pulled. Queers began making out in front of the pastor. And within a matter of minutes, everyone had evaded the guards and made their escapes."
The statement continued, "Let is be known: So long as bigots kill us in the streets, this pack of wolves will continue to BASH BACK!"
*Update on the Bash Back story, to be fair.
Catherine Vogt, 14, is an Illinois 8th grader, the daughter of a liberal mom and a conservative dad. She wanted to conduct an experiment in political tolerance and diversity of opinion at her school in the liberal suburb of Oak Park.
She noticed that fellow students at Gwendolyn Brooks Middle School overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama for president. His campaign kept preaching "inclusion," and she decided to see how included she could be.
So just before the election, Catherine consulted with her history teacher, then bravely wore a unique T-shirt to school and recorded the comments of teachers and students in her journal. The T-shirt bore the simple yet quite subversive words drawn with a red marker:
"McCain Girl."
"I was just really curious how they'd react to something that different, because a lot of people at my school wore Obama shirts and they are big Obama supporters," Catherine told us. "I just really wanted to see what their reaction would be."
Immediately, Catherine learned she was stupid for wearing a shirt with Republican John McCain's name. Not merely stupid. Very stupid.
"People were upset. But they started saying things, calling me very stupid, telling me my shirt was stupid and I shouldn't be wearing it," Catherine said.
Then it got worse.
"One person told me to go die. It was a lot of dying. A lot of comments about how I should be killed," Catherine said, of the tolerance in Oak Park.
But students weren't the only ones surprised that she wore a shirt supporting McCain.
"In one class, I had one teacher say she will not judge me for my choice, but that she was surprised that I supported McCain," Catherine said.
If Catherine was shocked by such passive-aggressive threats from instructors, just wait until she goes to college.
"Later, that teacher found out about the experiment and said she was embarrassed because she knew I was writing down what she said," Catherine said.
One student suggested that she be put up on a cross for her political beliefs.
"He said, 'You should be crucifixed.' It was kind of funny because, I was like, don't you mean 'crucified?' " Catherine said.
Other entries in her notebook involved suggestions by classmates that she be "burned with her shirt on" for "being a filthy-rich Republican."
Some said that because she supported McCain, by extension she supported a plan by deranged skinheads to kill Obama before the election. And I thought such politicized logic was confined to American newsrooms. Yet Catherine refused to argue with her peers. She didn't want to jeopardize her experiment.
"I couldn't show people really what it was for. I really kind of wanted to laugh because they had no idea what I was doing," she said.
Only a few times did anyone say anything remotely positive about her McCain shirt. One girl pulled her aside in a corner, out of earshot of other students, and whispered, "I really like your shirt."
That's when you know America is truly supportive of diversity of opinion, when children must whisper for fear of being ostracized, heckled and crucifixed.
The next day, in part 2 of The Brave Catherine Vogt Experiment, she wore another T-shirt, this one with "Obama Girl" written in blue. And an amazing thing happened.
Catherine wasn't very stupid anymore. She grew brains.
"People liked my shirt. They said things like my brain had come back, and I had put the right shirt on today," Catherine said.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
My upcoming multiple marriages
Over at the recently-revived possummomma's blog, I've been stirring up some trouble on the issue of same-sex marriage (SSM) and simultaneously challenging her readers' reading comprehension levels. I don't really think they're following the argument, but I have more confidence in my readers. I had fun writing this; I hope you have at least half as much fun reading it.
-----------------
So as not to extend this unnecessarily, I'll just say this up front about the vitriol hurled my way.
1) I challenge anyone to quote me insulting anyone. OTOH, how many times have I been insulted? Not that I care, but the atheists here act like they have taken and hold the high ground of courtesy. It's laughable.
2) It is not poisoning the well to point out ad hominems when I was the one accused of ad hominems. Please. Rather, the one who engages in ad hominem risks poisoning her own well before the reader.
3) To Hugo, I thought that since you were from Belgium you might speak French. I speak French. You do well enough, it appears, but I don't know why you reacted the way you did. Did you ever consider actually answering my question, or is it just easier to rip me?
Berlzebub said:
You can't seem to comprehend that there are people different than you who might just want the same happiness.
Lots of people are in unhappy marriages.
Possummomma said just above the following: "Marriage is no guarantee for a moral life."
It's no guarantee for a happy life either. My marriage is happy, but many are not. Why even bring it up?
You've continuously refused to entertain the concept that homosexuality is not a choice. It even seems to be central to your argument.
You don't read very closely, I'm sorry to say.
Homosexual BEHAVIOR is a choice.
And it's not central to my argument at all. I grant it in the argument based on the deconstruction of the 4 points of the institution of marriage.
The 4 points are as follow:
A homosexual can marry anyone of the following qualifications.
1) One person.
2) Of the opposite sex.
3) Of marriageable age.
4) Who gives consent.
I have the right to marry someone who fulfills the 4 qualifications; so does any homosexual. This is the definition of the institution of marriage.
Moving on, there is a misapprehension about my 4 points. They describe the marriage institution as it is in reality, not as I wish it to be or as I wish to define it. That's the way it is. Deal with it. If you can't, you forfeit the argument.
As for the defenses of the other 3 points, you're in part missing the thrust of my argument. If we change point #2 of the institution, what is the reasonable response to anyone who wants to marry these disparate things and ages and numbers of people and things? It's not a slippery-slope argument, per se. I'm just asking why your same arguments don't lead to the conclusions I'm drawing.
Plus, remember that I feel very strongly about these marriages. My vision of marriage extends far beyond the possibility of anatomical compatible for sexual relations, just like the SSM advocate does. This is my preferred behavior, and these are my preferred relationship partners. Who are you to deny me my rights? I don't have the same rights as you do! I can't marry whom or what I want to marry!
Perpetual Beginner said:
#1 - we'd have to reinvent marriage and marriage law almost from scratch
1) Be honest with me. Would you accept this argument from a conservative, to deny SSM? No.
2) We have to revamp it anyway. This is pretty much begging the question. We ARE CHANGING the institution of marriage (since we are removing #2) to allow SSM. WHY NOT change other parts of it?
#3 - The first is the potential for serious power differentials.
Surely you're aware that serious power differentials exist in all sorts of adult relationships. Friendships, hetero marriages, homosexual relationships...
So why would this be an argument against my proposed marital relationships? Just another imperfect relationship in a world of imperfect relationships.
4) Who gives consent.
This is the one where I keep thinking people have to be kidding, but they never are.
You are such a bigot. How dare you make fun and make light of my choices for the marital bond. I LOVE these people and things and want to be married to them!
Consent is important because if consent isn't involved you're violating the rights and personhood of the other person involved. Marriage without consent would be kidnapping and rape.
So, you're saying that if we remove one of the points of marriage, it's no longer marriage? Be careful - what happens when you start to consistently apply the same standard to the other 3 points, such as #2? It's no longer marriage, is it?
Besides, the donkey, the grapefruits, and the tree are not persons at all. So what? Speciesism - discrimination on the basis of your species. You're a bigot indeed.
On top of that, you're engaging in age discrimination - why do YOU get to modify marriage, but I don't, just b/c I happen to love and be attracted to people that are a little younger than the people YOU'RE attracted to? No one is asking you to be attracted to them. I'm just asking that my own rights be recognised!
at makes all the slippery slope arguments about SSM simply silly. Every time someone starts going on about people marrying golden retrievers and trees I want to smack them upside the head.
What a bigoted thing to say. I hope you don't criticise, then, Westboro Baptist Church when they advocate violence against homosexuals! Sounds like you're advocating violence against people of my persuasion.
somehow we never get confused and let them form companies, buy houses, or join the army
Question-begging - 1) you're not arguing for SHOULD anymore. You're just saying what IS, but what should be is the very question at hand.
2) Homosexuals don't get to join the army. Your analogy fails.
possummomma said:
By equating human love to the love you have for a donkey and a grapefruit, I question your understanding of the concep
I'm not equating love at all. I'm just telling you that I want to marry them. Love is irrelevant; people don't just get married for love, you know.
If your concept of homosexuality is akin to pedophelia (sic), then I think my accusation of bigotry is completely and totally justified as you clearly do not understand that which you wish to prohibit.
I'm engaging in a whole lot of argument ad absurdum. I have made no statement one way or the other on that count.
The institution of marriage is a cultural concept, not a Biblical or biological one.
It actually IS biblical; it's there from the first chapter of the Bible. The Bible is pretty old, you know.
Allow me to ask you why you think your "institution" is more moral than any other married couple?
1) My argument here has been independent of the "more moral" question, actually.
2) It's more moral b/c God says it is. God's character defines morality.
3) I seriously doubt that you as an atheist have any non-arbitrary, objective basis for your own code of morality. You might surprise me, but I haven't met one yet, and I've talked to quite a few atheists. I've had "empathy is the basis" thrown at me, and that fails utterly. Go ahead, knock me out. Prove your morality doesn't come down to just "I like it/I don't like it". Hugo already declined the invitation. Make it into another post if you like - that might be a better way to go. I'll be watching for it.
Berlzebub commented on the 4 points:
while Donkey's are well suited for pulling things, they're not so well suited for matrimony.
A conservative could say the same thing about homosexual relationships - they're not well-suited for matrimony.
Double-edged sword arguments are not the best weapons.
you or the donkey won't spread some mutated disease through the rest of your respective species.
1) Again you ape the conservative. That argument is (correctly and often) made against the SSM position.
2) FYI, I wasn't planning on having sex with the donkey. It's strictly a platonic relationship. Since when did sex become an integral part of the marital bonds? Who died and made you God?
there's the problem of alimony if either or all of your spouses were to decide the marriage wasn't working.
1) Alimony is already a complicated catastrophe of a social and legal problem.
2) I, like many of my fellow freedom-fighters on the SSM side, do not intend to split up. This is a lifetime commitment.
I would also suggest a life insurance policy, and Saran Wrap or Tupperware, with the grapefruit.
I made the same argument above about employers and insurance policies and was ridiculed for it. Try to be consistent with your own side, OK?
-----------------
So as not to extend this unnecessarily, I'll just say this up front about the vitriol hurled my way.
1) I challenge anyone to quote me insulting anyone. OTOH, how many times have I been insulted? Not that I care, but the atheists here act like they have taken and hold the high ground of courtesy. It's laughable.
2) It is not poisoning the well to point out ad hominems when I was the one accused of ad hominems. Please. Rather, the one who engages in ad hominem risks poisoning her own well before the reader.
3) To Hugo, I thought that since you were from Belgium you might speak French. I speak French. You do well enough, it appears, but I don't know why you reacted the way you did. Did you ever consider actually answering my question, or is it just easier to rip me?
Berlzebub said:
You can't seem to comprehend that there are people different than you who might just want the same happiness.
Lots of people are in unhappy marriages.
Possummomma said just above the following: "Marriage is no guarantee for a moral life."
It's no guarantee for a happy life either. My marriage is happy, but many are not. Why even bring it up?
You've continuously refused to entertain the concept that homosexuality is not a choice. It even seems to be central to your argument.
You don't read very closely, I'm sorry to say.
Homosexual BEHAVIOR is a choice.
And it's not central to my argument at all. I grant it in the argument based on the deconstruction of the 4 points of the institution of marriage.
The 4 points are as follow:
A homosexual can marry anyone of the following qualifications.
1) One person.
2) Of the opposite sex.
3) Of marriageable age.
4) Who gives consent.
I have the right to marry someone who fulfills the 4 qualifications; so does any homosexual. This is the definition of the institution of marriage.
Moving on, there is a misapprehension about my 4 points. They describe the marriage institution as it is in reality, not as I wish it to be or as I wish to define it. That's the way it is. Deal with it. If you can't, you forfeit the argument.
As for the defenses of the other 3 points, you're in part missing the thrust of my argument. If we change point #2 of the institution, what is the reasonable response to anyone who wants to marry these disparate things and ages and numbers of people and things? It's not a slippery-slope argument, per se. I'm just asking why your same arguments don't lead to the conclusions I'm drawing.
Plus, remember that I feel very strongly about these marriages. My vision of marriage extends far beyond the possibility of anatomical compatible for sexual relations, just like the SSM advocate does. This is my preferred behavior, and these are my preferred relationship partners. Who are you to deny me my rights? I don't have the same rights as you do! I can't marry whom or what I want to marry!
Perpetual Beginner said:
#1 - we'd have to reinvent marriage and marriage law almost from scratch
1) Be honest with me. Would you accept this argument from a conservative, to deny SSM? No.
2) We have to revamp it anyway. This is pretty much begging the question. We ARE CHANGING the institution of marriage (since we are removing #2) to allow SSM. WHY NOT change other parts of it?
#3 - The first is the potential for serious power differentials.
Surely you're aware that serious power differentials exist in all sorts of adult relationships. Friendships, hetero marriages, homosexual relationships...
So why would this be an argument against my proposed marital relationships? Just another imperfect relationship in a world of imperfect relationships.
4) Who gives consent.
This is the one where I keep thinking people have to be kidding, but they never are.
You are such a bigot. How dare you make fun and make light of my choices for the marital bond. I LOVE these people and things and want to be married to them!
Consent is important because if consent isn't involved you're violating the rights and personhood of the other person involved. Marriage without consent would be kidnapping and rape.
So, you're saying that if we remove one of the points of marriage, it's no longer marriage? Be careful - what happens when you start to consistently apply the same standard to the other 3 points, such as #2? It's no longer marriage, is it?
Besides, the donkey, the grapefruits, and the tree are not persons at all. So what? Speciesism - discrimination on the basis of your species. You're a bigot indeed.
On top of that, you're engaging in age discrimination - why do YOU get to modify marriage, but I don't, just b/c I happen to love and be attracted to people that are a little younger than the people YOU'RE attracted to? No one is asking you to be attracted to them. I'm just asking that my own rights be recognised!
at makes all the slippery slope arguments about SSM simply silly. Every time someone starts going on about people marrying golden retrievers and trees I want to smack them upside the head.
What a bigoted thing to say. I hope you don't criticise, then, Westboro Baptist Church when they advocate violence against homosexuals! Sounds like you're advocating violence against people of my persuasion.
somehow we never get confused and let them form companies, buy houses, or join the army
Question-begging - 1) you're not arguing for SHOULD anymore. You're just saying what IS, but what should be is the very question at hand.
2) Homosexuals don't get to join the army. Your analogy fails.
possummomma said:
By equating human love to the love you have for a donkey and a grapefruit, I question your understanding of the concep
I'm not equating love at all. I'm just telling you that I want to marry them. Love is irrelevant; people don't just get married for love, you know.
If your concept of homosexuality is akin to pedophelia (sic), then I think my accusation of bigotry is completely and totally justified as you clearly do not understand that which you wish to prohibit.
I'm engaging in a whole lot of argument ad absurdum. I have made no statement one way or the other on that count.
The institution of marriage is a cultural concept, not a Biblical or biological one.
It actually IS biblical; it's there from the first chapter of the Bible. The Bible is pretty old, you know.
Allow me to ask you why you think your "institution" is more moral than any other married couple?
1) My argument here has been independent of the "more moral" question, actually.
2) It's more moral b/c God says it is. God's character defines morality.
3) I seriously doubt that you as an atheist have any non-arbitrary, objective basis for your own code of morality. You might surprise me, but I haven't met one yet, and I've talked to quite a few atheists. I've had "empathy is the basis" thrown at me, and that fails utterly. Go ahead, knock me out. Prove your morality doesn't come down to just "I like it/I don't like it". Hugo already declined the invitation. Make it into another post if you like - that might be a better way to go. I'll be watching for it.
Berlzebub commented on the 4 points:
while Donkey's are well suited for pulling things, they're not so well suited for matrimony.
A conservative could say the same thing about homosexual relationships - they're not well-suited for matrimony.
Double-edged sword arguments are not the best weapons.
you or the donkey won't spread some mutated disease through the rest of your respective species.
1) Again you ape the conservative. That argument is (correctly and often) made against the SSM position.
2) FYI, I wasn't planning on having sex with the donkey. It's strictly a platonic relationship. Since when did sex become an integral part of the marital bonds? Who died and made you God?
there's the problem of alimony if either or all of your spouses were to decide the marriage wasn't working.
1) Alimony is already a complicated catastrophe of a social and legal problem.
2) I, like many of my fellow freedom-fighters on the SSM side, do not intend to split up. This is a lifetime commitment.
I would also suggest a life insurance policy, and Saran Wrap or Tupperware, with the grapefruit.
I made the same argument above about employers and insurance policies and was ridiculed for it. Try to be consistent with your own side, OK?
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Brief reflection on Obama, or, "He's black???"
From another combox:
I said:
I was watching in horror, watching CBS’ coverage of Ebenezer Baptist Church and then later at Howard University, as otherwise-certainly-reasonable and distinguished African-American adults were reduced to tears and near ecstasy at every 0bama electoral vote. This guy really is the focus of all their hopes, and as a follower of Jesus Christ, it makes me profoundly sad.
That said, I’m hopeful that the Republicans will wake up and understand that being Democlones is a good way to lose power. After Carter came Reagan. Reagan was no god, but he was way better than either of the Bushes, Carter, or Clinton.
The next 4 yrs are going to be tough, though. 0bama is the worst candidate for Prez in my lifetime, IMHO, so that’s a bitter pill to swallow.
Sarah said:
So regardless of your personal opinion of Obama’s politics, you see nothing noteworthy about the first African-American president in our country’s history? That means nothing?
Wow.
I said:
No, it’s not nothing, but it’s not nearly as noteworthy as how horrible 0bama’s policies are.
I refuse to be fixated on race. The widespread focus on it seems to me a backhanded admission that race actually means sthg, and that is latent racism to me. I don’t care one iota that the man is black. He’s not black, anyway, he’s as much white as he is black; you won’t see me celebrating the election of a white man as President.
I said:
I was watching in horror, watching CBS’ coverage of Ebenezer Baptist Church and then later at Howard University, as otherwise-certainly-reasonable and distinguished African-American adults were reduced to tears and near ecstasy at every 0bama electoral vote. This guy really is the focus of all their hopes, and as a follower of Jesus Christ, it makes me profoundly sad.
That said, I’m hopeful that the Republicans will wake up and understand that being Democlones is a good way to lose power. After Carter came Reagan. Reagan was no god, but he was way better than either of the Bushes, Carter, or Clinton.
The next 4 yrs are going to be tough, though. 0bama is the worst candidate for Prez in my lifetime, IMHO, so that’s a bitter pill to swallow.
Sarah said:
So regardless of your personal opinion of Obama’s politics, you see nothing noteworthy about the first African-American president in our country’s history? That means nothing?
Wow.
I said:
No, it’s not nothing, but it’s not nearly as noteworthy as how horrible 0bama’s policies are.
I refuse to be fixated on race. The widespread focus on it seems to me a backhanded admission that race actually means sthg, and that is latent racism to me. I don’t care one iota that the man is black. He’s not black, anyway, he’s as much white as he is black; you won’t see me celebrating the election of a white man as President.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Teaching the young about socialism
I have a young daughter. An old friend of mine has 3 young daughters, and here is a little back-and-forth we had on Facebook with respect to the coming rise of the Obamessiah. (Names changed for anonymity.)
He said:
So I come home from work Friday and my daughter, Toni, tells me that they learned about the election and had a mock vote in her class. I asked who they were voting on, and she told me they had 2 choices - McCain and Obama (don't get me started on THAT, right?). I then asked for whom she cast her vote, and naturally, my fear became truth as the answer was "Barack Obama". I told her that we don't want him to win, and why, in simple terms.... and like most Obama supporters, she didn't get it. To add insult to injury, she thought the name was cool and announced it like Michael Buffer about 40 times that afternoon, despite my persistent request for her to "hush". And during trick-or-treating, she announced it more, in front of our conservative friends. Miserable.
Finally, it was time to teach the lesson. Being the older child, she ended up with a lot of candy from those big grabs from the candy pots around the neighborhood. Much more than her little sisters. As we were looking over her bounty, I took two handfuls, tossed them into each of her two younger sisters' respective stashes and said "THIS is what Barack Obama wants to do with your candy!". She gasped and eyes welled with tears. "Not fair, is it, sweetie?". Of course I returned her candy to her and taught her a better saying.... "NOBAMA!"
My response:
I'm serious - have you ever thought about teaching your girls about socialism and big gov't by garnishing their allowance?
Let's say they get $5 a week, or whatever. "Toni, from now on, you're going to help us pay our family taxes. We gotta stick together."
You give her 3 $1 bills and 8 quarters. 2 quarters go into savings, 2 go into the offering plate at church, and then you confiscate 3 of the others. Then in her sight, you take the 3 quarters and say "OK, here's what your quarters will be used for", you throw 1 quarter away, you put 1 in your pocket for useful purposes, and you give the other one to a bum who is passed out drunk on the sidewalk.
A friend of his responded:
Are you REALLY arguing against forced socialism by making your kid tithe??? Little hypocritical don't you think?
To which I responded:
"Making" her tithe? You make it sound like I'm an evil overlord. If you don't "make" your child do all sorts of things, she won't do any of them. You know, toilet train, eat with utensils, take a bath, go to bed, stuff like that I "make" her do. It's called responsible parenting, training, teaching.
I'm a Christian; Christians give to God. That's just straight up. Christians give for provision to the poor. That's not socialism, that's charity. Socialism is when the gov't forces me on pain of death to share my money with bums who don't want to work, and said gov't usually does not distinguish between bums, welfare queens, and actual needy people, whereas I do and my church does.
If you force me to "give", it's not giving, is it? So I'm simultaneously teaching her how to give (and why) and the evil of someone forcing you to give up money you earned to give to someone who refuses to earn for themselves. I also teach her how the gov't usually spends our tax money - trash.
Anyway, I'll grudgingly be casting my worthless vote today, mostly for the sake of local issues and gov'tal positions, since
1) My state consistently and overwhelmingly votes Republican for president, and
2) Even if my one vote were the one vote on which the entire election turned, it would never come to that; either the courts would step in to decide the matter, and/or the losing side would "find" more votes to overturn mine. Like maybe Mickey Mouse's heretofore undiscovered 4th ballot.
He said:
So I come home from work Friday and my daughter, Toni, tells me that they learned about the election and had a mock vote in her class. I asked who they were voting on, and she told me they had 2 choices - McCain and Obama (don't get me started on THAT, right?). I then asked for whom she cast her vote, and naturally, my fear became truth as the answer was "Barack Obama". I told her that we don't want him to win, and why, in simple terms.... and like most Obama supporters, she didn't get it. To add insult to injury, she thought the name was cool and announced it like Michael Buffer about 40 times that afternoon, despite my persistent request for her to "hush". And during trick-or-treating, she announced it more, in front of our conservative friends. Miserable.
Finally, it was time to teach the lesson. Being the older child, she ended up with a lot of candy from those big grabs from the candy pots around the neighborhood. Much more than her little sisters. As we were looking over her bounty, I took two handfuls, tossed them into each of her two younger sisters' respective stashes and said "THIS is what Barack Obama wants to do with your candy!". She gasped and eyes welled with tears. "Not fair, is it, sweetie?". Of course I returned her candy to her and taught her a better saying.... "NOBAMA!"
My response:
I'm serious - have you ever thought about teaching your girls about socialism and big gov't by garnishing their allowance?
Let's say they get $5 a week, or whatever. "Toni, from now on, you're going to help us pay our family taxes. We gotta stick together."
You give her 3 $1 bills and 8 quarters. 2 quarters go into savings, 2 go into the offering plate at church, and then you confiscate 3 of the others. Then in her sight, you take the 3 quarters and say "OK, here's what your quarters will be used for", you throw 1 quarter away, you put 1 in your pocket for useful purposes, and you give the other one to a bum who is passed out drunk on the sidewalk.
A friend of his responded:
Are you REALLY arguing against forced socialism by making your kid tithe??? Little hypocritical don't you think?
To which I responded:
"Making" her tithe? You make it sound like I'm an evil overlord. If you don't "make" your child do all sorts of things, she won't do any of them. You know, toilet train, eat with utensils, take a bath, go to bed, stuff like that I "make" her do. It's called responsible parenting, training, teaching.
I'm a Christian; Christians give to God. That's just straight up. Christians give for provision to the poor. That's not socialism, that's charity. Socialism is when the gov't forces me on pain of death to share my money with bums who don't want to work, and said gov't usually does not distinguish between bums, welfare queens, and actual needy people, whereas I do and my church does.
If you force me to "give", it's not giving, is it? So I'm simultaneously teaching her how to give (and why) and the evil of someone forcing you to give up money you earned to give to someone who refuses to earn for themselves. I also teach her how the gov't usually spends our tax money - trash.
Anyway, I'll grudgingly be casting my worthless vote today, mostly for the sake of local issues and gov'tal positions, since
1) My state consistently and overwhelmingly votes Republican for president, and
2) Even if my one vote were the one vote on which the entire election turned, it would never come to that; either the courts would step in to decide the matter, and/or the losing side would "find" more votes to overturn mine. Like maybe Mickey Mouse's heretofore undiscovered 4th ballot.
Monday, October 27, 2008
The homosexual automaton
This Anonymous poster has an apparently very low view of:
-The civil rights movement for equality for minority ethnicities, of the 1960s and ongoing
-The ability of homosexuals to make real lifestyle choices.
He has shown little comprehension so far that the idea of "lifestyle choices" is a gate that swings both ways. Let's take a look at his latest offering.
I also note that a large part of your argument depends on your belief that homosexuality is merely a lifestyle choice
Wow, speaking of avoidance!
It's no "belief" - one either does homosexual acts or one does not perform them. One can choose to do them or not to do them.
As opposed to one's ethnicity - one does not choose it. One IS one's ethnicity. Thus you do a great disservice to the memory of the civil rights mvmt of the 60s and ongoing.
On this we clearly disagree
So one cannot choose to engage in homosexual acts or not?
Now you're a determinist, and you apparently believe homosexuals are less human than other people - they are, apparently according to you, automata and utter slaves to their sexual drive and orientation. When they see a nice piece of, well, beefcake, they're GOING TO TAKE IT.
Unlike apparently you do, I believe that homosexuals are real people with more to them than just the way their genitalia drive them.
It's sad the way you start off with the desire to help, but end up talking down the very people you're trying to raise up. Unrealistic worldviews can bite in more ways than one.
we're *not* changing the institution of marriage, we're changing the coverage of the institution.
Then I simply insist that we extend the coverage of the institution to include grapefruits, trees, 3-yr-olds, and multiple people of different genders at the same time.
Two can change the language, you know. The point is transparent; I'm in awe of your willful blindness at this point.
You either want to be open to change, or you don't. Either concede the point or go ahead and grant me my desired extensions (and thereby lose all credibility for your position). The choice is yours.
-The civil rights movement for equality for minority ethnicities, of the 1960s and ongoing
-The ability of homosexuals to make real lifestyle choices.
He has shown little comprehension so far that the idea of "lifestyle choices" is a gate that swings both ways. Let's take a look at his latest offering.
I also note that a large part of your argument depends on your belief that homosexuality is merely a lifestyle choice
Wow, speaking of avoidance!
It's no "belief" - one either does homosexual acts or one does not perform them. One can choose to do them or not to do them.
As opposed to one's ethnicity - one does not choose it. One IS one's ethnicity. Thus you do a great disservice to the memory of the civil rights mvmt of the 60s and ongoing.
On this we clearly disagree
So one cannot choose to engage in homosexual acts or not?
Now you're a determinist, and you apparently believe homosexuals are less human than other people - they are, apparently according to you, automata and utter slaves to their sexual drive and orientation. When they see a nice piece of, well, beefcake, they're GOING TO TAKE IT.
Unlike apparently you do, I believe that homosexuals are real people with more to them than just the way their genitalia drive them.
It's sad the way you start off with the desire to help, but end up talking down the very people you're trying to raise up. Unrealistic worldviews can bite in more ways than one.
we're *not* changing the institution of marriage, we're changing the coverage of the institution.
Then I simply insist that we extend the coverage of the institution to include grapefruits, trees, 3-yr-olds, and multiple people of different genders at the same time.
Two can change the language, you know. The point is transparent; I'm in awe of your willful blindness at this point.
You either want to be open to change, or you don't. Either concede the point or go ahead and grant me my desired extensions (and thereby lose all credibility for your position). The choice is yours.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Super duper rights
I had two really good thoughts yesterday related to the issue of homosexual marraige, but I forgot one of them, so here are some appetizers until I can find it. It's probably rolling around under my carseat...
Anonymous has been taking me to task in the super rights thread for not agreeing that it's OK to grant extraordinary rights to people whose only difference from 'normal society' is that they like to behave differently. I mean, take that everywhere you want it to go! The mileage that idea will give you is staggering.
Here are a few highlights.
I said:
To equate the struggle for civil rights for persons of a different ethnicity to the struggle for civil rights for people who choose to behave a certain way is to degrade the former to an unbelievable extent. You probably didn't even realise you were doing it, but you have, and that's a serious shame.
I said:
(Y)ou already have the exact same rights related to marriage as I do. Why should the law change just to accommodate your harmful and disgusting behavior?
I asked: why not change it to include animals, children, plants, vehicles...?
Anon responded: Because of the lack of consent involved.
I asked: Why does consent matter?
Anon responded: Because that's a defining characteristic of human relationships, particularly in legal terms
I responded: You mean, it has been up to now. I'm simply proposing that we change that.
It's the exact same as what you're proposing, just introducing the variable in a different spot.
YOU: Yes, heterosexuality has been a defining characteristic in most human-marriage relationships up to now, but let's change that.
ME: Yes, consent has been a defining characteristic in most human relationships (excepting the numerous occasions throughout human history of rape, incest, murder, slavery, etc) up to now, but let's change that.
To say "But those were BAD relationships!" is to beg the question.
Most recently, Anon said:
1st, why did you get married, Rhology? I'm assuming it's because you were in love with your partner and wanted to make a lifetime public commitment, If you had other reasons, I'd love to hear them; if not, then we want to get married for exactly the same reasons.
2nd, my point is that I would like the law to change to view my marriage - my lifetime commitment, made in public - the same as your marriage. Marrying people of a different race used to be against the law, so the argument "you don't get to" is wholly specious.
3rd, until the law changes, then I absolutely don't have the same rights as you do - for example, my partner isn't covered by my insurance plan. What is harmful and disgusting about wanting to make a lifetime commitment in public, exactly?
I respond:
1) No, you're partially right. The other, and overriding, reason was that I want to picture the love between Christ and the church in my life and my marriage to my wife. See Ephesians 5. Christ marrying Christ or the church marrying the church, well, doesn't work.
2) I already asked you to provide evidence that marrying to another ethnicity was against the law. Prove it before you make this assertion again.
3) Yes you do.
My rights: To marry someone of the opposite sex.
Your rights: To marry someone of the opposite sex.
I embrace those rights while you reject them. That's hardly my fault, or the law's. Sounds like it's your fault.
Insurance plan - feel free to lobby them to change that. But you're not married. Can I ask them to cover my good friend under my insurance plan? If not, why not?
What is harmful and disgusting is your BEHAVIOR. We've covered that.
I thought of a couple more, BTW.
4) If we change the law for you, we have no plausible denial when someone asks to marry:
-a grapefruit
-a dead person
-a 3-yr old
-a parakeet
-a tree
You'll say "Uh HUH! Consent!"
I've already rebutted that, and I've seen nothing since.
5) If we change the law for you, we have no plausible denial when someone asks to marry 4 people at once. All consenting adults. Maybe we should change the law for that, too, huh? What would be your argument for why, since we changed it to give YOU a super-right, why we shouldn't change it for anyone else? Couldn't that just be discriminatory of some other group? We certainly wouldn't want that!
Anonymous has been taking me to task in the super rights thread for not agreeing that it's OK to grant extraordinary rights to people whose only difference from 'normal society' is that they like to behave differently. I mean, take that everywhere you want it to go! The mileage that idea will give you is staggering.
Here are a few highlights.
I said:
To equate the struggle for civil rights for persons of a different ethnicity to the struggle for civil rights for people who choose to behave a certain way is to degrade the former to an unbelievable extent. You probably didn't even realise you were doing it, but you have, and that's a serious shame.
I said:
(Y)ou already have the exact same rights related to marriage as I do. Why should the law change just to accommodate your harmful and disgusting behavior?
I asked: why not change it to include animals, children, plants, vehicles...?
Anon responded: Because of the lack of consent involved.
I asked: Why does consent matter?
Anon responded: Because that's a defining characteristic of human relationships, particularly in legal terms
I responded: You mean, it has been up to now. I'm simply proposing that we change that.
It's the exact same as what you're proposing, just introducing the variable in a different spot.
YOU: Yes, heterosexuality has been a defining characteristic in most human-marriage relationships up to now, but let's change that.
ME: Yes, consent has been a defining characteristic in most human relationships (excepting the numerous occasions throughout human history of rape, incest, murder, slavery, etc) up to now, but let's change that.
To say "But those were BAD relationships!" is to beg the question.
Most recently, Anon said:
1st, why did you get married, Rhology? I'm assuming it's because you were in love with your partner and wanted to make a lifetime public commitment, If you had other reasons, I'd love to hear them; if not, then we want to get married for exactly the same reasons.
2nd, my point is that I would like the law to change to view my marriage - my lifetime commitment, made in public - the same as your marriage. Marrying people of a different race used to be against the law, so the argument "you don't get to" is wholly specious.
3rd, until the law changes, then I absolutely don't have the same rights as you do - for example, my partner isn't covered by my insurance plan. What is harmful and disgusting about wanting to make a lifetime commitment in public, exactly?
I respond:
1) No, you're partially right. The other, and overriding, reason was that I want to picture the love between Christ and the church in my life and my marriage to my wife. See Ephesians 5. Christ marrying Christ or the church marrying the church, well, doesn't work.
2) I already asked you to provide evidence that marrying to another ethnicity was against the law. Prove it before you make this assertion again.
3) Yes you do.
My rights: To marry someone of the opposite sex.
Your rights: To marry someone of the opposite sex.
I embrace those rights while you reject them. That's hardly my fault, or the law's. Sounds like it's your fault.
Insurance plan - feel free to lobby them to change that. But you're not married. Can I ask them to cover my good friend under my insurance plan? If not, why not?
What is harmful and disgusting is your BEHAVIOR. We've covered that.
I thought of a couple more, BTW.
4) If we change the law for you, we have no plausible denial when someone asks to marry:
-a grapefruit
-a dead person
-a 3-yr old
-a parakeet
-a tree
You'll say "Uh HUH! Consent!"
I've already rebutted that, and I've seen nothing since.
5) If we change the law for you, we have no plausible denial when someone asks to marry 4 people at once. All consenting adults. Maybe we should change the law for that, too, huh? What would be your argument for why, since we changed it to give YOU a super-right, why we shouldn't change it for anyone else? Couldn't that just be discriminatory of some other group? We certainly wouldn't want that!
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Anonymous Gospels
In just another example of unlearning stuff I've assumed but never thought deeply about, I was challenged today in my default-mode thinking on something. I've heard it repeated over and over again that the New Testament Gospels are anonymous, and that their authorship is ascribed traditionally, even fairly arbitrarily.
QUOTE:
i) The Gospels are not anonymous. All our MSS name the authors of the Gospels. And there is no evidence that this is an editorial addition. Indeed, given the antiquity and uniformity of these ascriptions, the evidence is against their unoriginality.
You notice that Carrier has no hesitation in citing other Jewish and pagan writers by name—even though the quantity and quality of MSS evidence for those works is negligible compared with the NT.
Assuming that the traditional attributions are true—and the superscriptions are exceedingly well-attested—then Matthew and Luke would certainly have other sources of information at their fingertips.
ii) Mark is not an unknown individual. He is known to us from both the Lucan and Pauline corpus.
iii) "Tradition” and “legend” are hardly synonymous.
iv) Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Gospel of Mark was written around AD 70, “give or take a decade,” the lower figure would put it within the lifetime of Paul—even by Carrier’s reckoning. For Paul’s death is generally dated to around AD 65.312 So either Carrier can’t do the math or he doesn’t know the rudiments of NT chronology.
v) As a matter of fact, David Wenham has marshaled internal, comparative evidence to show that Paul, writing way back in the 40s, was already acquainted with the Gospels of Matthew and Luke—and maybe even the Fourth Gospel for good measure (Paul & Jesus [Eerdmans 2002]; Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? [Eerdmans 1985].).
Assuming Marcan priority, this completely upends Mr. Carrier’s entire thesis. Even without Marcan priority, the damage is done.
Of course, this runs counter to what “most” scholars believe, but the decades-long gap between oral tradition and the canonical gospels posited by “most” scholars has always been completely irrational. This was not a preliterate culture. If men could pen letters, they could just as well pen gospels.
vi) Carrier is trying to play both sides of the fence. On the one hand he says:
"Matthew and Luke clearly used Mark as their source, repeating the same elements in the same order and often using identical vocabulary and word order, not only for this story but for the whole Gospel."
If so, then this is an example of how extremely conservative Matthew and Luke are in handling their sources. How pedantically faithful they are in respecting and preserving the Markan source.
On the other hand, he also says:
"All other accounts rely upon it and basically just embellish it or modify it to suit each author’s own narrative and ideological agenda."
If so, then that is an example of how extremely cavalier Matthew and Luke are in
handling their sources. How faithless they are in reproducing the Marcan source.
You see how these two assertions are tugging in opposite directions? Carrier is in a bind. He needs one sort of argument to prove Markan priority, and a contrary argument to prove legendary embellishment. So his thesis is drawn-and-quartered by the conflicting demands of his own agenda.
Source: This Joyful Eastertide, Steve Hays, p 146
QUOTE:
i) The Gospels are not anonymous. All our MSS name the authors of the Gospels. And there is no evidence that this is an editorial addition. Indeed, given the antiquity and uniformity of these ascriptions, the evidence is against their unoriginality.
You notice that Carrier has no hesitation in citing other Jewish and pagan writers by name—even though the quantity and quality of MSS evidence for those works is negligible compared with the NT.
Assuming that the traditional attributions are true—and the superscriptions are exceedingly well-attested—then Matthew and Luke would certainly have other sources of information at their fingertips.
ii) Mark is not an unknown individual. He is known to us from both the Lucan and Pauline corpus.
iii) "Tradition” and “legend” are hardly synonymous.
iv) Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Gospel of Mark was written around AD 70, “give or take a decade,” the lower figure would put it within the lifetime of Paul—even by Carrier’s reckoning. For Paul’s death is generally dated to around AD 65.312 So either Carrier can’t do the math or he doesn’t know the rudiments of NT chronology.
v) As a matter of fact, David Wenham has marshaled internal, comparative evidence to show that Paul, writing way back in the 40s, was already acquainted with the Gospels of Matthew and Luke—and maybe even the Fourth Gospel for good measure (Paul & Jesus [Eerdmans 2002]; Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? [Eerdmans 1985].).
Assuming Marcan priority, this completely upends Mr. Carrier’s entire thesis. Even without Marcan priority, the damage is done.
Of course, this runs counter to what “most” scholars believe, but the decades-long gap between oral tradition and the canonical gospels posited by “most” scholars has always been completely irrational. This was not a preliterate culture. If men could pen letters, they could just as well pen gospels.
vi) Carrier is trying to play both sides of the fence. On the one hand he says:
"Matthew and Luke clearly used Mark as their source, repeating the same elements in the same order and often using identical vocabulary and word order, not only for this story but for the whole Gospel."
If so, then this is an example of how extremely conservative Matthew and Luke are in handling their sources. How pedantically faithful they are in respecting and preserving the Markan source.
On the other hand, he also says:
"All other accounts rely upon it and basically just embellish it or modify it to suit each author’s own narrative and ideological agenda."
If so, then that is an example of how extremely cavalier Matthew and Luke are in
handling their sources. How faithless they are in reproducing the Marcan source.
You see how these two assertions are tugging in opposite directions? Carrier is in a bind. He needs one sort of argument to prove Markan priority, and a contrary argument to prove legendary embellishment. So his thesis is drawn-and-quartered by the conflicting demands of his own agenda.
Source: This Joyful Eastertide, Steve Hays, p 146
Friday, October 17, 2008
The serenity and calm of the pro-choice 'thinker'
Does it get much better than this? I guess it could have more profanity in it...
Okay, Rhology, let's just establish that you're an idiot. Perhaps you think no one calls you on your rampant, constant spouting of BS because you're right, but in fact you fall so far along the bleeding edge of the lunatic fringe that honestly no one cares what you think. We're both posting on an internet website, but I honestly am concerned about your daily interactions with people because based on your posts here you are living in a fantasy land. A fertilized egg is a baby? Rhology, your views on women are horribly condescending, and if you are in fact in a doctor - something that seems doubtful - I can only imagine all the other patronizing ways you treat your patients. To assume that a woman doesn't treat the decision to have an abortion as anything other than horribly, terribly serious is delusional. A baby isn't an abstraction to a woman contemplating an abortion, and the only reason you think it is is because you are entirely, utterly incapable of placing yourself in anyone's shoes except your own massive blowhard nonsense of "discourse". No doubt you're going to take this to task for not offering a serious rebuttal, or logical fallacies, or whatever. Rhology, part of life is realizing that when people are stupid, asinine hacks, then maybe they don't deserve a real response.
OK, duly noted - I'm an idiot. What does that say about those of you on the other side when you can't even respond to an idiot's arguments?
-A fertilized egg is a baby?
Yes. Give me a good argument as to why not. Riddle me this:
1) When does a fertilised egg become a baby?
2) How do you know?
3) If you do not know with 100% certainty, why do you feel that it's OK to go ahead and kill it anyway, even if we're not sure what it is? Do you always shoot first and ask questions later?
4) Whenever it is, please describe the difference between that baby and the lifeform 10 minutes before the point when it became a baby. And how you know that. This should be rich.
Oh yeah, and I found two very interesting links with respect to what medical professionals and researchers think about that very question.
-your views on women are horribly condescending
In what way? B/c I want them to be fully informed? You have some weird standards of condescension!
-if you are in fact in a doctor
I'm not. That was a rhetorical device known as a "hypothetical".
-To assume that a woman doesn't treat the decision to have an abortion as anything other than horribly, terribly serious is delusional.
Given that the vast majority of abortions are NOT related to extreme health danger, rape, or incest, I can only conclude that you don't know what you're talking about.
And, listen to yourself. You believe this is not really a baby we're talking about. It's more like an appendage, an organ. An inconvenient organ at that, much like an appendix.
"To assume that a woman doesn't treat the decision to have an appendicitis as anything other than horribly, terribly serious is delusional."
How ridiculous is that?
You don't get to have it both ways. It's either a baby or it's not. And if it's not, abort away! So what?
-A baby isn't an abstraction to a woman contemplating an abortion
Then no doubt you are in favor of the bill that is criticised in this editorial. Ultrasounds merely demonstrate with greater clarity how much a baby is NOT an abstraction to be ruthlessly killed.
You accuse me of speaking "blowhard nonsense", but it's pretty clear you're engaging in a bit of self-projection. Another word to look up - "substantive". Bring *substantive* arguments to the table. Until then, peace and calm to you.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Different authorities
This is one of the reasons I like structuring many posts in the back-and-forth format. Dr Funkenstein has helped bring out some really helpful clarifications to the abortion question here.
babies that are incapable of feeding themselves or walking hadn't committed any capital crimes
Not such that a human being would be justified in executing them, no.
But for God to do so is a completely different matter. He has authority to do that; we don't.
then how can anyone be a murderer when they kill someone when you then go on to say its acceptable that
B/c humans only have permission to kill other humans under certain conditions. Wartime, self-defense, and punishment for a capital crime are 3 examples.
if everyone is a capital criminal then you should have no objection to anyone killing anyone else.
Your problem lies in equivocation between the executing authorities. Yes, I am a capital criminal before God, but not before any human authority. God can justifiably put me to death whenever He wants, but no human would be justified to do so.
I have to ask why God uses such obviously human means to achieve his goals
He wanted to.
why not just snap his fingers and click them out of existence, as opposed to requiring some sort of bloody slaughter?
B/c it pleases Him to involve His people in the means of carrying out His plan on earth.
defending the biblical acts of God as matters pertaining only to dis/obedience, the gruesomeness of slaughter seems to be no concern whatsoever when you agree with it. So is it merely following commands that is the important thing here?
No, it's doing what is right that is the important thing here.
You who have never defended any moral basis other than "I like it or don't like it/a group of people who are kinda like me in general like it or don't like it" are hardly in a position to criticise. Show me a wider basis for moral judgments in your worldview and we can talk.
how does/did God choose between one group of sinners and another - after all presumably the Israelite children were as guilty therefore as the Hitiite children?
Side note - the Hittites weren't part of the Canaanite conflicts. But anyway...
Some of the OT prophets declare that the Israelites actually were worse sinners than the Canaanites, even worse than Sodom and Gomorrah. But God states in Deuteronomy that He chose them simply b/c it pleased Him to do so.
I admit it sounds a little strange to me too, but that doesn't mean He didn't have any other reasons. I know some reasons why it ISN'T that He chose them (they were purer, holier, greater, more numerous, etc) and I can guess at a few why He did (by choosing an insignificant people like them to bring the Messiah into the world, He causes more glory since it was all Him and not the greatness of the people).
Or is it simply a subjective decision on his part?
Yes.
It seems very relativistic rather than objective.
Well, you should probably be careful about your terminology here. Relative to what?
I grant that it's subjective to God. But since He's God, it's quite different from saying that it's subjective to Joe.
babies that are incapable of feeding themselves or walking hadn't committed any capital crimes
Not such that a human being would be justified in executing them, no.
But for God to do so is a completely different matter. He has authority to do that; we don't.
then how can anyone be a murderer when they kill someone when you then go on to say its acceptable that
B/c humans only have permission to kill other humans under certain conditions. Wartime, self-defense, and punishment for a capital crime are 3 examples.
if everyone is a capital criminal then you should have no objection to anyone killing anyone else.
Your problem lies in equivocation between the executing authorities. Yes, I am a capital criminal before God, but not before any human authority. God can justifiably put me to death whenever He wants, but no human would be justified to do so.
I have to ask why God uses such obviously human means to achieve his goals
He wanted to.
why not just snap his fingers and click them out of existence, as opposed to requiring some sort of bloody slaughter?
B/c it pleases Him to involve His people in the means of carrying out His plan on earth.
defending the biblical acts of God as matters pertaining only to dis/obedience, the gruesomeness of slaughter seems to be no concern whatsoever when you agree with it. So is it merely following commands that is the important thing here?
No, it's doing what is right that is the important thing here.
You who have never defended any moral basis other than "I like it or don't like it/a group of people who are kinda like me in general like it or don't like it" are hardly in a position to criticise. Show me a wider basis for moral judgments in your worldview and we can talk.
how does/did God choose between one group of sinners and another - after all presumably the Israelite children were as guilty therefore as the Hitiite children?
Side note - the Hittites weren't part of the Canaanite conflicts. But anyway...
Some of the OT prophets declare that the Israelites actually were worse sinners than the Canaanites, even worse than Sodom and Gomorrah. But God states in Deuteronomy that He chose them simply b/c it pleased Him to do so.
I admit it sounds a little strange to me too, but that doesn't mean He didn't have any other reasons. I know some reasons why it ISN'T that He chose them (they were purer, holier, greater, more numerous, etc) and I can guess at a few why He did (by choosing an insignificant people like them to bring the Messiah into the world, He causes more glory since it was all Him and not the greatness of the people).
Or is it simply a subjective decision on his part?
Yes.
It seems very relativistic rather than objective.
Well, you should probably be careful about your terminology here. Relative to what?
I grant that it's subjective to God. But since He's God, it's quite different from saying that it's subjective to Joe.
Some points on abortion
I had asked:
Paul C said:
As a supporter of capital punishment you in fact do say that.
Wrong. It is not that capital criminals are inconvenient, it is that they have committed a capital crime.
The fulcrum is not arbitrary - commit a capital crime, death penalty. Don't commit one, no death penalty. Not that hard.
Nothing like the "fetus=baby when I say so" argument you're employing.
I didn't mention anything about ending human life because it's "inconvenient", of course - this is yet another feeble rhetorical ploy.
That is why the vast majority of abortions are performed - b/c having a baby would mess up the mother's/parents' life/lives. You are defending it, so defend it already.
Answer the question. Why can't I say that YOU have not met my cut-off point and thus you can be killed if you are inconvenient to me? You, like a baby, have not committed a capital crime (that I know of), so what's the difference? And why is it not arbitrary, and thus based on what the most people who are in power happen to think at that point in history?
If it is arbitrary, you don't have a good reason to hold to ANY cut-off point, do you?
What I object to is your calling a fetus a baby in an attempt to bolster your argument. "
I haven't seen a decent argument for not calling the fetus a baby from the moment of conception. Perhaps you could provide one.
"Major medical textbooks" will refer to it as a fetus and not a baby, of course - but I suppose you only cite them when they agree with you.
If there are some that agree with me, that serves to bolster my case, for those who are not so seared of conscience. That might be expecting too much of you.
If you are driving down the highway at night and you see some unusual movement ahead of you, do you not slow down? Why? You don't want to damage your car; you also don't want to run over a kid. Since you think some major medical authorities are in your favor and I know others are in mine, why not err on the side of life? Or are you in favor of shooting first and asking questions later? Does that mean you are in favor of the invasion of Iraq?
Let's say I have the power to decide the law here. Why can't I say that YOU have not met my cut-off point and thus you can be killed if you are inconvenient to me? (Which you are, BTW, you take up time on my blog. ;-) ) This is not a rhetorical question.
Paul C said:
As a supporter of capital punishment you in fact do say that.
Wrong. It is not that capital criminals are inconvenient, it is that they have committed a capital crime.
The fulcrum is not arbitrary - commit a capital crime, death penalty. Don't commit one, no death penalty. Not that hard.
Nothing like the "fetus=baby when I say so" argument you're employing.
I didn't mention anything about ending human life because it's "inconvenient", of course - this is yet another feeble rhetorical ploy.
That is why the vast majority of abortions are performed - b/c having a baby would mess up the mother's/parents' life/lives. You are defending it, so defend it already.
Answer the question. Why can't I say that YOU have not met my cut-off point and thus you can be killed if you are inconvenient to me? You, like a baby, have not committed a capital crime (that I know of), so what's the difference? And why is it not arbitrary, and thus based on what the most people who are in power happen to think at that point in history?
If it is arbitrary, you don't have a good reason to hold to ANY cut-off point, do you?
What I object to is your calling a fetus a baby in an attempt to bolster your argument. "
I haven't seen a decent argument for not calling the fetus a baby from the moment of conception. Perhaps you could provide one.
"Major medical textbooks" will refer to it as a fetus and not a baby, of course - but I suppose you only cite them when they agree with you.
If there are some that agree with me, that serves to bolster my case, for those who are not so seared of conscience. That might be expecting too much of you.
If you are driving down the highway at night and you see some unusual movement ahead of you, do you not slow down? Why? You don't want to damage your car; you also don't want to run over a kid. Since you think some major medical authorities are in your favor and I know others are in mine, why not err on the side of life? Or are you in favor of shooting first and asking questions later? Does that mean you are in favor of the invasion of Iraq?
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
A great reason to homeschool
Especially if you live in California.
Here are my favorite excerpts:
Here are my favorite excerpts:
It's just true love. Nothing political here. No ulterior statements.On Friday, McCoy and Carder, both in white, held hands on Newsom's office balcony overlooking the rotunda and recited their vows.
"With this ring, I thee wed!" Carder said, shouting the last word for emphasis (emph. in original).
"She's a really nice teacher. She's the best," said 6-year-old Chava Novogrodsky-Godt, wearing a "No on 8" button on her shirt. "I want her to have a good wedding."
Chava's mothers said they are getting married in two weeks.
Shudder. That poor little girl.
Marriage, 6-year-old Nolan Alexander said Friday, is "people falling in love."
It means, he added, "You stay with someone the rest of your life."
One hopes he will learn to refine this statement as he grows up, but sadly, this view is all too common even among adults.
"As far as I'm concerned, it's not controversial for me," Jaroflow said. "It's certainly an issue I would be willing to put my job on the line for."
It's a shame he probably won't have to prove it.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Brazen uncaring heartlessness
I was hoping that I wouldn't see comments like these in the post containing the video showing the carnage of abortion. Perversely, they serve to make the point far more clearly than more reasonable and more humane comments would.
Chris from Oz said:
That's pretty gross.
Yep, that's abortion.
We could show the kids being torn apart by she-bears
1) This is the tu quoque fallacy. You don't bring up another wrong to relieve the horror or evil nature of a wrong.
2) Those weren't "kids"; it was a gang of teenaged youth, threatening a prophet of God by telling him to go on up like Elijah had. That is, to die.
3) There's not necessarily a connection between the curse of Elisha and the bears eating them in the text.
4) Why wouldn't you be totally cool with bears eating humans? Isn't that nat sel in action? Those kids were obviously from the shallow end of the gene pool - so what if they get eaten? Less competition from idiots for the rest of us.
5) We've seen over and over again your worldview's total inability to make any moral judgment that should be binding on anyone else. So what?
the genocide of whole tribes
See #4 and 5 from above.
And it shows your moral blindness to say this. Those tribes were engaged in gross immorality and horribly sinful living, yet you equate them with the murder of babies. What wrong have the babies committed? And it's the same to you? (One wonders whether you have or even like children.)
the stories of the families watching each other drown during the flood.
To exactly what stories of families "watching each other drown" do you refer? Quote them.
(Hint: No account like that exists in Genesis.)
The Jolly Nihilist said...
The images are gross, but, to my eye, no grosser really than this. Seeing bloody dead stuff is discomforting; no shocker there.
Yet another atheist equates humans with animals.
Of course, in the next breath he'll be cross with God about command the extermination of a tribe of people by another - natural selection in action. The inconsistency is amazing.
protesters should not be allowed to block people's entry into abortion clinics.
Should people be penalised by law, then, for wresting the gun from a guy who has aimed it at someone else's head? That would be the same thing.
Anonymous said...
Since I have experience dissecting bodies... All I can say is "Ooh, yummy!"
I'm glad you have something to say, b/c I have nothing to say to that.
I will make the decision whether it is wrong after I see the other evil.
One can only wonder what in the world you're talking about.
Chris from Oz said:
That's pretty gross.
Yep, that's abortion.
We could show the kids being torn apart by she-bears
1) This is the tu quoque fallacy. You don't bring up another wrong to relieve the horror or evil nature of a wrong.
2) Those weren't "kids"; it was a gang of teenaged youth, threatening a prophet of God by telling him to go on up like Elijah had. That is, to die.
3) There's not necessarily a connection between the curse of Elisha and the bears eating them in the text.
4) Why wouldn't you be totally cool with bears eating humans? Isn't that nat sel in action? Those kids were obviously from the shallow end of the gene pool - so what if they get eaten? Less competition from idiots for the rest of us.
5) We've seen over and over again your worldview's total inability to make any moral judgment that should be binding on anyone else. So what?
the genocide of whole tribes
See #4 and 5 from above.
And it shows your moral blindness to say this. Those tribes were engaged in gross immorality and horribly sinful living, yet you equate them with the murder of babies. What wrong have the babies committed? And it's the same to you? (One wonders whether you have or even like children.)
the stories of the families watching each other drown during the flood.
To exactly what stories of families "watching each other drown" do you refer? Quote them.
(Hint: No account like that exists in Genesis.)
The Jolly Nihilist said...
The images are gross, but, to my eye, no grosser really than this. Seeing bloody dead stuff is discomforting; no shocker there.
Yet another atheist equates humans with animals.
Of course, in the next breath he'll be cross with God about command the extermination of a tribe of people by another - natural selection in action. The inconsistency is amazing.
protesters should not be allowed to block people's entry into abortion clinics.
Should people be penalised by law, then, for wresting the gun from a guy who has aimed it at someone else's head? That would be the same thing.
Anonymous said...
Since I have experience dissecting bodies... All I can say is "Ooh, yummy!"
I'm glad you have something to say, b/c I have nothing to say to that.
I will make the decision whether it is wrong after I see the other evil.
One can only wonder what in the world you're talking about.
Some personal thoughts on missions
An old friend asked me some questions about mission work and such via email, and I figure excerpts of it might be of some interest, so here they are.
My motivation started back when God first saved me around age 15 1/2, actually. I have since that time been very interested in missions and overseas work. Almost went to Albania one summer with Teen Mania, but I think I was too chicken, so I didn't do it. So that conviction and that direction of my heart and desires has stayed oriented that way, and I also love foreign languages and being a foreigner, so that's something else God has used to hold my interest in overseas work.
Biggest challenge for us was definitely letting go of our relationships in the US and also entrusting God with all the unknowns about moving to a diff country and hoping and praying to find believing fellowship there. As it turns out, we DIDN'T find much of any believers where we were in Japan, but God sustained us anyway. God used that time to change me an awful lot.
The 1st time, in France, He taught me about His sovereignty over the world mostly. I had spent a summer in nervous spiritual preparation b/c I knew that France was known as the missionaries' graveyard and that it was a dark place. So I thought that one magically loses one's faith when one goes to a place like that. Of course, that's not the case at all - one falls into a missionary graveyard b/c one does not concentrate on personal holiness, obedience, reliance on God, and has unreasonable expectations (such as thinking that thousands will fall down in repentance within a month of your starting to preach and that you'll head a megachurch). And God taught me about His overseeing of ALL nations and their ideas - the French have half-formally enthroned Reason as their god, and God showed me the wrongness of that.
In Japan He taught me about His provision, His sovereignty over MY life, and being bold to introduce the Gospel to people early on in conversations. Provision - we were the only Americans, w/ a low level of Japanese, on an isolated island in the middle of the ocean. Aubrey miscarried our first child while there, and God orchestrated an amazing sequence of events to get us off the island and to the hospital on the other side of the next island over from where the airport was, and an expert interpreter to help us, and on and on. Sovereignty over my life - my plan was to stay in Japan for multiple years and learn Japanese really well and from there move on to either full time missions in Japan or onto some other country or whatever. God brought us back to the US after only one year, and that has been perhaps the hardest action on God's part that I've ever wrestled with. The proverbial late nights of prayer, running out excess stressed energy, pacing back and forth, wringing hands, yelling at God, prayer at the beach in the middle of the night AND yelling at God at the same time, struggle, resignation... I went thru it all! Then much more when we did get back. Crazy. But God is using us here. I knew He would, but it's hard to figure that He'd prefer us to be here rather than overseas, especially given the way that he's made our hearts to love internationals.
At the end of my time in France, I visited a friend who was volunteering at the Wycliffe institute NW of London and was vastly impressed by their installation and what I saw. I have since thought it would be grand to work for them, and of course their vision is highly praiseworthy - get the Bible into the hands of (usually illiterate) people groups who don't have the Bible in their own language.
So I'd say to try to spend some time watching the way the agency does their bizness and whose vision fits with yours. I'd urge you to keep the main priorities the main priorities. That is, all the clean-water wells, microloans, medical supplies, and food shipments are meaningless where the Gospel is absent. Will the Lord find blameless he who gives temporary, perishable provision and intentionally withholds, whether out of fear or embarrassment or whatever, his most precious possession - the saving message of the Gospel of Christ?
My motivation started back when God first saved me around age 15 1/2, actually. I have since that time been very interested in missions and overseas work. Almost went to Albania one summer with Teen Mania, but I think I was too chicken, so I didn't do it. So that conviction and that direction of my heart and desires has stayed oriented that way, and I also love foreign languages and being a foreigner, so that's something else God has used to hold my interest in overseas work.
Biggest challenge for us was definitely letting go of our relationships in the US and also entrusting God with all the unknowns about moving to a diff country and hoping and praying to find believing fellowship there. As it turns out, we DIDN'T find much of any believers where we were in Japan, but God sustained us anyway. God used that time to change me an awful lot.
The 1st time, in France, He taught me about His sovereignty over the world mostly. I had spent a summer in nervous spiritual preparation b/c I knew that France was known as the missionaries' graveyard and that it was a dark place. So I thought that one magically loses one's faith when one goes to a place like that. Of course, that's not the case at all - one falls into a missionary graveyard b/c one does not concentrate on personal holiness, obedience, reliance on God, and has unreasonable expectations (such as thinking that thousands will fall down in repentance within a month of your starting to preach and that you'll head a megachurch). And God taught me about His overseeing of ALL nations and their ideas - the French have half-formally enthroned Reason as their god, and God showed me the wrongness of that.
In Japan He taught me about His provision, His sovereignty over MY life, and being bold to introduce the Gospel to people early on in conversations. Provision - we were the only Americans, w/ a low level of Japanese, on an isolated island in the middle of the ocean. Aubrey miscarried our first child while there, and God orchestrated an amazing sequence of events to get us off the island and to the hospital on the other side of the next island over from where the airport was, and an expert interpreter to help us, and on and on. Sovereignty over my life - my plan was to stay in Japan for multiple years and learn Japanese really well and from there move on to either full time missions in Japan or onto some other country or whatever. God brought us back to the US after only one year, and that has been perhaps the hardest action on God's part that I've ever wrestled with. The proverbial late nights of prayer, running out excess stressed energy, pacing back and forth, wringing hands, yelling at God, prayer at the beach in the middle of the night AND yelling at God at the same time, struggle, resignation... I went thru it all! Then much more when we did get back. Crazy. But God is using us here. I knew He would, but it's hard to figure that He'd prefer us to be here rather than overseas, especially given the way that he's made our hearts to love internationals.
At the end of my time in France, I visited a friend who was volunteering at the Wycliffe institute NW of London and was vastly impressed by their installation and what I saw. I have since thought it would be grand to work for them, and of course their vision is highly praiseworthy - get the Bible into the hands of (usually illiterate) people groups who don't have the Bible in their own language.
So I'd say to try to spend some time watching the way the agency does their bizness and whose vision fits with yours. I'd urge you to keep the main priorities the main priorities. That is, all the clean-water wells, microloans, medical supplies, and food shipments are meaningless where the Gospel is absent. Will the Lord find blameless he who gives temporary, perishable provision and intentionally withholds, whether out of fear or embarrassment or whatever, his most precious possession - the saving message of the Gospel of Christ?
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Watch this if you are pro-choice
Then leave a comment. If you have the stomach to do either and still live with yourself.
Warning - explicit content. I could only watch about 4 seconds of the footage of the corpses before I had to stop. I can't take that stuff like I used to.
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Strong atheist public figures
The Jolly Nihilist asked me a question that I don't have a great answer for. Not the first time, probably not the last.
I'm not quite dismissive of atheist intellectuals in my recollection, but I don't count Dawkins, Harris, or Hitchens as intellectuals at all. "Intellectual" should mean sthg meaningful.
I'd call Dawkins an intellectual when it comes to biology. I'm not sure about Harris. Hitchens - I'd call him a public intellectual on politics, I guess. But these 3 men's arguments against theism are so pitiful that I just can't use that term, lest it be emptied of its meaning.
I put your arguments and reasoning abilities (and those of Dr Funkenstein, for example) way above those guys' any day, on this topic. Part of the problem is that these 3 men have stepped outside of their expertise to pontificate on matters about which they are manifestly unprepared to deal.
So... let's see... Dennett I'd put a cut above those 3. I've heard good things about Drange, and a few good things about Martin, though less.
I'm probably the wrong person to ask, though, if you're interested in someone who is well-read. I'm not particularly well-read - no time!
Who do you see as being a good, robust ambassador of atheism? Who makes the most convincing case (as convincing as a case can be when you personally are sitting on the other side, that is)?
I'm not quite dismissive of atheist intellectuals in my recollection, but I don't count Dawkins, Harris, or Hitchens as intellectuals at all. "Intellectual" should mean sthg meaningful.
I'd call Dawkins an intellectual when it comes to biology. I'm not sure about Harris. Hitchens - I'd call him a public intellectual on politics, I guess. But these 3 men's arguments against theism are so pitiful that I just can't use that term, lest it be emptied of its meaning.
I put your arguments and reasoning abilities (and those of Dr Funkenstein, for example) way above those guys' any day, on this topic. Part of the problem is that these 3 men have stepped outside of their expertise to pontificate on matters about which they are manifestly unprepared to deal.
So... let's see... Dennett I'd put a cut above those 3. I've heard good things about Drange, and a few good things about Martin, though less.
I'm probably the wrong person to ask, though, if you're interested in someone who is well-read. I'm not particularly well-read - no time!
Saturday, October 04, 2008
No rights
Speaking of rights, let's talk aborted babies.
It's funny - it seems the aforementioned local student rag is on a "let's-provoke-Rhology" theme these days. Makes for entertaining mornings.
So here's my response, to be (hopefully) posted (they posted my comments on homosexual marriage, so that's promising):
Speaking of ignorance...
-I would imagine most of the people who use a religious basis for believing in the immorality of abortion got the idea from a pastor or priest who lectured on the evils of abortion one Sunday.
It just COULDN'T BE that the Bible actually makes a case against abortion by informing us when life starts - at conception - and then informing us that murder is an evil act. Holder apparently doesn't take that possibility into account, but why should his negligence speak for anyone else?
-“Thou shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13).
It's "thou shall not murder", BTW. But he goes on to use the word "murder". Fair enough.
-there are no references to abortion at all.
If he means the word "abortion", he's right.
Yet there are numerous references to the personhood of the unborn child, even at a very young age, and references to God's having knit the child together and being His property and His creation. Ps. 139:13-16, Jer. 1:5, and Luke 1:41 for example.)
-“If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, ...he shall pay as the judges determine” (Exodus 21:22).
From tektonics.org - When the offending man was striking the woman, was he trying to kill the baby? Of course not -- for most of the 9 months of pregnancy he would have no sure sign that a baby was there, and even after that in the heat of a fight is hardly going to have the rational capability to take on such a distinction. And even if he did, chances are he wasn't aiming for the baby anyway. It's like shooting into the woods and accidentally hitting a hunter instead of a deer; no one calls that murder, it's an accident. But barring the interpretation linked just above, an accident never earns the death penalty in the Bible. On the other hand, the woman was quite visible and there was no such excuse. Any struggle that affects the woman to the point of inflicting serious injury could hardly be "accidental."
-When is a fetus considered a person then? The book of Genesis provides the answer: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7).
Holden would have us believe that the Bible teaches we should grant that a person has achieved personhood when they are an adult? How can anyone take this seriously?
-it seems that the first breath a person takes allows the soul into the body.
Perhaps Holden can point out to us someone he knows that was formed in this way. In the face of numerous references to God's being the author of life and death, the solid argument that personhood is to be assessed on the basis of BEING, not of ABILITY, and the other Bible psgs I listed above, why try to form an argument on a singular, unique event - that of the creation of the first man?
-Stand out in the open and acknowledge that your opinion is just that, your opinion.
Which is backed up by good arguments (as well as very solid scientific documentation that permits little option than to view the just-conceived baby as just that - a baby.), as opposed to the pro-baby-murder arguments, which are based on preference, convenience, politics, and escapist desires to escape the normal consequences of irresponsible behavior. I doubt Holden will take into account the fact that many future AND present women (both the mothers and the future mothers that have been murdered by abortion) are harmed by this barbaric practice. We can always hope, though.
It's funny - it seems the aforementioned local student rag is on a "let's-provoke-Rhology" theme these days. Makes for entertaining mornings.
So here's my response, to be (hopefully) posted (they posted my comments on homosexual marriage, so that's promising):
Speaking of ignorance...
-I would imagine most of the people who use a religious basis for believing in the immorality of abortion got the idea from a pastor or priest who lectured on the evils of abortion one Sunday.
It just COULDN'T BE that the Bible actually makes a case against abortion by informing us when life starts - at conception - and then informing us that murder is an evil act. Holder apparently doesn't take that possibility into account, but why should his negligence speak for anyone else?
-“Thou shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13).
It's "thou shall not murder", BTW. But he goes on to use the word "murder". Fair enough.
-there are no references to abortion at all.
If he means the word "abortion", he's right.
Yet there are numerous references to the personhood of the unborn child, even at a very young age, and references to God's having knit the child together and being His property and His creation. Ps. 139:13-16, Jer. 1:5, and Luke 1:41 for example.)
-“If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, ...he shall pay as the judges determine” (Exodus 21:22).
From tektonics.org - When the offending man was striking the woman, was he trying to kill the baby? Of course not -- for most of the 9 months of pregnancy he would have no sure sign that a baby was there, and even after that in the heat of a fight is hardly going to have the rational capability to take on such a distinction. And even if he did, chances are he wasn't aiming for the baby anyway. It's like shooting into the woods and accidentally hitting a hunter instead of a deer; no one calls that murder, it's an accident. But barring the interpretation linked just above, an accident never earns the death penalty in the Bible. On the other hand, the woman was quite visible and there was no such excuse. Any struggle that affects the woman to the point of inflicting serious injury could hardly be "accidental."
-When is a fetus considered a person then? The book of Genesis provides the answer: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7).
Holden would have us believe that the Bible teaches we should grant that a person has achieved personhood when they are an adult? How can anyone take this seriously?
-it seems that the first breath a person takes allows the soul into the body.
Perhaps Holden can point out to us someone he knows that was formed in this way. In the face of numerous references to God's being the author of life and death, the solid argument that personhood is to be assessed on the basis of BEING, not of ABILITY, and the other Bible psgs I listed above, why try to form an argument on a singular, unique event - that of the creation of the first man?
-Stand out in the open and acknowledge that your opinion is just that, your opinion.
Which is backed up by good arguments (as well as very solid scientific documentation that permits little option than to view the just-conceived baby as just that - a baby.), as opposed to the pro-baby-murder arguments, which are based on preference, convenience, politics, and escapist desires to escape the normal consequences of irresponsible behavior. I doubt Holden will take into account the fact that many future AND present women (both the mothers and the future mothers that have been murdered by abortion) are harmed by this barbaric practice. We can always hope, though.
Friday, October 03, 2008
Super rights
An opinion editor on a local student newspaper posted a rant on the evils of 'discrimination' against homosexuals in not legalising homosexual marriage.
It's not dissimilar from a small conversation I had recently at another local-based blog recently.
So (surprise, surprise) I decided to weigh in. Here's what I said:
You have missed the obvious and glaring fact that homosexual behavior is just that - BEHAVIOR.
One is born black, white, Asian, whatever. One might even born with homosexual tendencies and desires, just as one might be born with the tendency to prefer to sit on one's bum all day and eat pizza while watching soap operas, or born with a tendency towards a very violent temper, or towards alcoholism, or towards impatience with small children. Just b/c one is born with a tendency does not mean that one is therefore justified in carrying that tendency out in behavior.
Being white is not a behavior - it is a state of being.
Performing a homosexual act is a behavior. And it is a destructive one.
You said:
-The sexual orientation of a person should have no effect on that person’s right to marry.
Well and good, and I agree with you and Sally Kern agrees with you. Homosexual people have the exact same rights and privileges related to marriage that I have - the right and privilege to marry someone of the opposite sex. To change that is to demand a super-right, one not granted to me. I do not see why, based on a simple behavioral preference, the law should be changed in this way, especially one related to something so fundamental to society as the family unit.
Perhaps I should pursue a change in law that would rewards me for carrying out my from-birth predilection to be a drunk. And maybe I like to drive. So maybe I can get the drunk-driving law annulled by my efforts towards "equality".
You might say:
-But drunk driving 1) is dangerous and 2) hurts people and 3) it's foolish to change the law just based on your desire to carry out your own weird tendencies!
A few responses:
1) Indeed, but who are you to judge my chosen lifestyle! Seriously, who are you?
2) Homosexual behavior is dangerous as well. And it hurts people - the average life expectancy of a homosexual is vastly shorter than a heterosexual. It's just the way it is, and it's b/c homosexual sex is harmful. It involves activity using a part of the body that is designed for something completely different, and that part of the body just happens to be the canal for eliminating poisonous waste, which is easily introduced into the body if it is damaged by, say, sexual contact.
3) Quite so. So why write this article?
You said:
-it’s pretty clear that the DOMA is unconstitutional.
But what if the DOMA applies to every state? Wouldn't that make the state's recognition of homosexual marriage against the law and destroy this argument?
You said:
-Rep. Sally Kern said...homosexuality “is deadly, and it’s spreading, and it will destroy our young people (and) this nation.”
I challenge you to read the entire transcript of her speech. It is much more enlightening than the lame YouTube "You do not speak for me" video, and she explains why she said that. You may not agree, but at least don't misrepresent her. That is a sign of intellectual cowardice, and this argument needs all the help it can get.
It's not dissimilar from a small conversation I had recently at another local-based blog recently.
So (surprise, surprise) I decided to weigh in. Here's what I said:
You have missed the obvious and glaring fact that homosexual behavior is just that - BEHAVIOR.
One is born black, white, Asian, whatever. One might even born with homosexual tendencies and desires, just as one might be born with the tendency to prefer to sit on one's bum all day and eat pizza while watching soap operas, or born with a tendency towards a very violent temper, or towards alcoholism, or towards impatience with small children. Just b/c one is born with a tendency does not mean that one is therefore justified in carrying that tendency out in behavior.
Being white is not a behavior - it is a state of being.
Performing a homosexual act is a behavior. And it is a destructive one.
You said:
-The sexual orientation of a person should have no effect on that person’s right to marry.
Well and good, and I agree with you and Sally Kern agrees with you. Homosexual people have the exact same rights and privileges related to marriage that I have - the right and privilege to marry someone of the opposite sex. To change that is to demand a super-right, one not granted to me. I do not see why, based on a simple behavioral preference, the law should be changed in this way, especially one related to something so fundamental to society as the family unit.
Perhaps I should pursue a change in law that would rewards me for carrying out my from-birth predilection to be a drunk. And maybe I like to drive. So maybe I can get the drunk-driving law annulled by my efforts towards "equality".
You might say:
-But drunk driving 1) is dangerous and 2) hurts people and 3) it's foolish to change the law just based on your desire to carry out your own weird tendencies!
A few responses:
1) Indeed, but who are you to judge my chosen lifestyle! Seriously, who are you?
2) Homosexual behavior is dangerous as well. And it hurts people - the average life expectancy of a homosexual is vastly shorter than a heterosexual. It's just the way it is, and it's b/c homosexual sex is harmful. It involves activity using a part of the body that is designed for something completely different, and that part of the body just happens to be the canal for eliminating poisonous waste, which is easily introduced into the body if it is damaged by, say, sexual contact.
3) Quite so. So why write this article?
You said:
-it’s pretty clear that the DOMA is unconstitutional.
But what if the DOMA applies to every state? Wouldn't that make the state's recognition of homosexual marriage against the law and destroy this argument?
You said:
-Rep. Sally Kern said...homosexuality “is deadly, and it’s spreading, and it will destroy our young people (and) this nation.”
I challenge you to read the entire transcript of her speech. It is much more enlightening than the lame YouTube "You do not speak for me" video, and she explains why she said that. You may not agree, but at least don't misrepresent her. That is a sign of intellectual cowardice, and this argument needs all the help it can get.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
The So/un of God, part 2
Continuing on past the intro...
The major theme of the 1st part of the movie is that, since there exist all these similarities between Christianity and these other pagan religions, obviously Christianity is wrong.
-I would expect to see similarities exist in other religions, actually, b/c God is the true God and people are corrupt and want to twist the truth. God has put this info into history and people's hearts. God has put His existence and some of His characteristics, as well as a longing for the spiritual and eternal in people's hearts. That other religions stick close to the truth though add their own ingredients into the mix is a staple of demonic religion throughout time, all the way down to its modern counterparts in the LDS church and Jehovah's Witnesses, to name only 2.
Minute 17:35 Horus was crucified. Horus was executed in a way that the Roman Empire (which wouldn't come into existence for hundreds of years) would invent? Wow! Whoda thunk it?
Minute 18-19 all of these 'near-misses' - in my experience these similarities are very overstated.
Plus, these claims of "resurrections" are really far off the truth.
Here's just one example.
19:00 - "why these attributes" of these Saviors? Again, maybe b/c they were spinoffs of the truth? What is the argument for taking one view over the other? We are not given one.
19:15 - they call Jesus another one of these "sun" gods. Evidence? All we get are a few references to Jesus as the light of the world, etc. That's supposed to be impressive? Why not call Jesus one of the "food gods"? He talked about being bread, the Eucharist, all that stuff.
In between somewhere, the Magi go west to find the birthplace of 'the Sun'. Um, OK. Evidence? There isn't any in the biblical text. Maybe the Zeitguys found the until-now lost writings of the Magi who visited Jesus. But they didn't publish them. Or maybe they're just making stuff up.
21:10 - Wow - Virgo and Bethlehem are coincidental. THEREFORE, Bethlehem is Virgo. Please.
22:00 - These guys really believe that Christ was actually born on Dec 25? The best hypothesis I've heard is in the middle of September.
22:25 - At most this would mean early coincidences or even collusion with pagan symbolism by 4th century Christians when they set the Xmas date to 25 Dec, but Jesus probably wasn't born then. Besides, why should I assume that God wouldn't put out clues in the natural world that show forth His glory and coolness?
Like Louie Giglio's Laminin. This makes no case for either position, but it's a cool thing if you're a Christian. We give glory to God b/c it shows His creativity and reminds us of the Savior's grand sacrifice.
22:50 - Spring equinox, easter. The actual Resurrection, however, is not according to equinox. Christ's Passion and Death were according to OT Passover, and His resurrection according to the Feast of the Firstfruits. The Zeitguys are guilty of imposing their thesis upon the existing historical record and statements of Jesus and the NT.
23:10 - Naked assertion that the apostles are the 12 signs of the zodiac. This is one of the things that made me laugh out loud.
Then he goes on to score points against his own position - "the number 12 is found throughout the Bible". Exactly - God digs the #12. Why should I grant that it's the zodiac rather than the longstanding OT tradition that these 12 are continually appearing?
23:50 - Pagan adaptation of the cross of the zodiac.
Might be, but so what? Does this guy think Jesus didn't exist and didn't actually die on a CROSS? Against all scholarship, even the freaky-liberal Jesus Seminar?
24 and throughout - He keeps punning "Son" and "Sun" of God. As if the same homophone exists in any other language.
24:40 - crown of thorns, or sun rays. He never argues for this, just throws it in there as if it should mean sthg to anyone. More disingenuousness. It's impossible to take this kind of garbage seriously.
26:55 - Moses is mad at the bull worship b/c it's the age of Taurus. OK, I'm with you so far, fine.
Moses represents the Age of the Ram. This is why Jews blow the ram's horn, the shofar. Um, riiiiiigggghhhhht. Note that there's JUST NO WAY this could be an actual historical narrative. It's clearly allegory, and the Zeitguys have the correct interpretation! Somehow...
27:20 - Age of Pisces. "Fish symbolism is important in the NT". I knew it was coming.
Geez.
27:57 - Start of the age of Pisces - 1 AD
Zeitgeist (correctly) places Jesus' birth at 4 BC.
Wouldn't it be a little more above-board to say, "Well, they actually are off by 5 years, but it's dang close, right people?" The disingenousness continues.
28:10 - Discourse on Lk 22:10
Note again the operating assumption that this is not a historical narrative. Where is the contextual evidence that this is allegorical? He never argues for this, just makes naked assertions.
29:05 - "the cartoonish depictions in Revelation aside..."
-Apparently he's unaware of and has no respect for the general genre of apocalyptic literature, and we should of course all share his lame, unnecessarily nasty and dismissive, willfully ignorant attitude about such things.
-It's as if he has no idea that metaphor and imagery are supposed in many cases to be hyperbolic and outlandish, in order to make points and speak in 'code' that is easily broken by insiders - the churches who would read the book
-And he never makes a case for WHY we should set aside Revelation.
29:06 - Says the main source of end times talk is Matt 28:20
Um no - Daniel, Ezekiel, Malachi, Matt 24-25 Olivet Discourse, 1 Thess, 2 Peter, all have more (sometimes much more) substantial end times talk than this.
And of course, why even bother exegeting Revelation? That's for loonies! Let's stick with an easy target, one sentence that we can more easily twist w/o any contextual clues to give away the fact that we're engaging in sophistry.
29:48 - "Tell that to the 100 million people in USA who believe the end of the world is coming."
Oh, that's unique to Christians? Nobody among Acharya S's friends thinks we're going to destroy the planet and thus end the "world"?
31:00 - "Story of the Great Flood is ubiquitous throughout the world"
-Yes, b/c it happened.
-And again, why wouldn't it bolster my position that it's being copied in other versions? My position is that my religion is based in real historical events.
Anyway, it should be clear that this movie is an empty shell. I have no specialised academic training, and the holes are already glaring.
Here are the other links I mentioned:
-Ben Witherington
-JP Holding
-JP Holding on the copycat theory
-JB_Fidei_Defensor
-Some guy with a great deal of relevant articles
The major theme of the 1st part of the movie is that, since there exist all these similarities between Christianity and these other pagan religions, obviously Christianity is wrong.
-I would expect to see similarities exist in other religions, actually, b/c God is the true God and people are corrupt and want to twist the truth. God has put this info into history and people's hearts. God has put His existence and some of His characteristics, as well as a longing for the spiritual and eternal in people's hearts. That other religions stick close to the truth though add their own ingredients into the mix is a staple of demonic religion throughout time, all the way down to its modern counterparts in the LDS church and Jehovah's Witnesses, to name only 2.
Minute 17:35 Horus was crucified. Horus was executed in a way that the Roman Empire (which wouldn't come into existence for hundreds of years) would invent? Wow! Whoda thunk it?
Minute 18-19 all of these 'near-misses' - in my experience these similarities are very overstated.
Plus, these claims of "resurrections" are really far off the truth.
Here's just one example.
19:00 - "why these attributes" of these Saviors? Again, maybe b/c they were spinoffs of the truth? What is the argument for taking one view over the other? We are not given one.
19:15 - they call Jesus another one of these "sun" gods. Evidence? All we get are a few references to Jesus as the light of the world, etc. That's supposed to be impressive? Why not call Jesus one of the "food gods"? He talked about being bread, the Eucharist, all that stuff.
In between somewhere, the Magi go west to find the birthplace of 'the Sun'. Um, OK. Evidence? There isn't any in the biblical text. Maybe the Zeitguys found the until-now lost writings of the Magi who visited Jesus. But they didn't publish them. Or maybe they're just making stuff up.
21:10 - Wow - Virgo and Bethlehem are coincidental. THEREFORE, Bethlehem is Virgo. Please.
22:00 - These guys really believe that Christ was actually born on Dec 25? The best hypothesis I've heard is in the middle of September.
22:25 - At most this would mean early coincidences or even collusion with pagan symbolism by 4th century Christians when they set the Xmas date to 25 Dec, but Jesus probably wasn't born then. Besides, why should I assume that God wouldn't put out clues in the natural world that show forth His glory and coolness?
Like Louie Giglio's Laminin. This makes no case for either position, but it's a cool thing if you're a Christian. We give glory to God b/c it shows His creativity and reminds us of the Savior's grand sacrifice.
22:50 - Spring equinox, easter. The actual Resurrection, however, is not according to equinox. Christ's Passion and Death were according to OT Passover, and His resurrection according to the Feast of the Firstfruits. The Zeitguys are guilty of imposing their thesis upon the existing historical record and statements of Jesus and the NT.
23:10 - Naked assertion that the apostles are the 12 signs of the zodiac. This is one of the things that made me laugh out loud.
Then he goes on to score points against his own position - "the number 12 is found throughout the Bible". Exactly - God digs the #12. Why should I grant that it's the zodiac rather than the longstanding OT tradition that these 12 are continually appearing?
23:50 - Pagan adaptation of the cross of the zodiac.
Might be, but so what? Does this guy think Jesus didn't exist and didn't actually die on a CROSS? Against all scholarship, even the freaky-liberal Jesus Seminar?
24 and throughout - He keeps punning "Son" and "Sun" of God. As if the same homophone exists in any other language.
24:40 - crown of thorns, or sun rays. He never argues for this, just throws it in there as if it should mean sthg to anyone. More disingenuousness. It's impossible to take this kind of garbage seriously.
26:55 - Moses is mad at the bull worship b/c it's the age of Taurus. OK, I'm with you so far, fine.
Moses represents the Age of the Ram. This is why Jews blow the ram's horn, the shofar. Um, riiiiiigggghhhhht. Note that there's JUST NO WAY this could be an actual historical narrative. It's clearly allegory, and the Zeitguys have the correct interpretation! Somehow...
27:20 - Age of Pisces. "Fish symbolism is important in the NT". I knew it was coming.
Geez.
27:57 - Start of the age of Pisces - 1 AD
Zeitgeist (correctly) places Jesus' birth at 4 BC.
Wouldn't it be a little more above-board to say, "Well, they actually are off by 5 years, but it's dang close, right people?" The disingenousness continues.
28:10 - Discourse on Lk 22:10
Note again the operating assumption that this is not a historical narrative. Where is the contextual evidence that this is allegorical? He never argues for this, just makes naked assertions.
29:05 - "the cartoonish depictions in Revelation aside..."
-Apparently he's unaware of and has no respect for the general genre of apocalyptic literature, and we should of course all share his lame, unnecessarily nasty and dismissive, willfully ignorant attitude about such things.
-It's as if he has no idea that metaphor and imagery are supposed in many cases to be hyperbolic and outlandish, in order to make points and speak in 'code' that is easily broken by insiders - the churches who would read the book
-And he never makes a case for WHY we should set aside Revelation.
29:06 - Says the main source of end times talk is Matt 28:20
Um no - Daniel, Ezekiel, Malachi, Matt 24-25 Olivet Discourse, 1 Thess, 2 Peter, all have more (sometimes much more) substantial end times talk than this.
And of course, why even bother exegeting Revelation? That's for loonies! Let's stick with an easy target, one sentence that we can more easily twist w/o any contextual clues to give away the fact that we're engaging in sophistry.
29:48 - "Tell that to the 100 million people in USA who believe the end of the world is coming."
Oh, that's unique to Christians? Nobody among Acharya S's friends thinks we're going to destroy the planet and thus end the "world"?
31:00 - "Story of the Great Flood is ubiquitous throughout the world"
-Yes, b/c it happened.
-And again, why wouldn't it bolster my position that it's being copied in other versions? My position is that my religion is based in real historical events.
Anyway, it should be clear that this movie is an empty shell. I have no specialised academic training, and the holes are already glaring.
Here are the other links I mentioned:
-Ben Witherington
-JP Holding
-JP Holding on the copycat theory
-JB_Fidei_Defensor
-Some guy with a great deal of relevant articles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)