Monday, April 20, 2009

A little something to think about for atheists...

94 comments:

HeathP said...

I thought I might get in before all the atheists. I am sure that one of them is going to say God doesn't exist just because you do believe in him. Just read Romans 1:18-23

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

Logic Lad said...

Heath

Your right, my first reaction is 'God does not exist just becuase you believe in him/her/it' however i will add, and still does not exist becuase you wave about a 2000 year old book of dubious provenance.

Is there any chance that someone on this site could try and address an issue without simply saying 'it's in the bible', the athiests posting here do not recognise that book as the ultimate source of all truth so it is little pointless to keep quoting obscure bits of it in the hope it will support an argument.

ExPatMatt said...

Labels:

atheism, evolution, neat stuff

So where does this post have anything to do with evolution?


Trish,

You probably won't be surprised to hear, again, that you're misrepresenting.

No atheist, that I've ever met, thinks that God goes away because they don't believe in Him. The just don't believe He (or any other gods) is(are) real. That's it.

Most atheists accept the possibility that there could be a god of some sort and that their not believing would have no impact on this entity's existence (this isn't a Terry Pratchett novel, you know), but they haven't been convinced by the arguments for any god's existence, so they currently lack a belief in any given god.

That's it. It's not that hard to understand, is it?

HeathP,

DO you really think that atheists are going to be persuaded by a Bible-verse that says that God exists? Think about it.



Still waiting on those answers, Trish, I haven't given up hope yet....

stranger.strange.land said...

I was just thinking back to my own pre-Christian days. I remember loving life and wanting it to go on for ever. If God existed I wished he would be the sort of deity who would just let me be. (Thanks for the world and all, but no strings attached please)

I remember being totally repulsed by the concept of the God of the Bible with his absolute authority over me. I never would have sought or accepted such a God.

But I guess He had other plans for me.

Craig

Fish with Trish said...

Me too, Craig. I was so lost but He found me and I can't express my gratitude for Christ, for the Gospel, for redemption, for grace, for the cross, for the resurrection, for atonement, for the bible and all it contains...I guess I could go on and one. God is so good!

stranger.strange.land said...

ExPatMatt asked HeathP...

"DO you really think that atheists are going to be persuaded by a Bible-verse that says that God exists? Think about it."

Matt,

We believe that everyone (atheists included) knows that there is a God; they just supress the knowledge that they have.

God does reveal Himself to people by His Holy Spirit and through the means of His Word. That is why we use passages of Scripture. We are not merely using Bible verses to support an argument, as you suppose.

If God chooses to reveal Himself savingly to Matt, that is His sovereign decision. We are just obeying Him in "getting the word out."

Just thought you'd like to know where we are coming from.

Craig

ExPatMatt said...

Trish,

"Me too, Craig. I was so lost but He found me and I can't express my gratitude for Christ, for the Gospel, for redemption, for grace, for the cross, for the resurrection, for atonement, for the bible and all it contains...I guess I could go on and one. God is so good!"And yet you won't answer three simple questions in an effort to bring a non-believer into the fold?

I guess God isn't so good that you're willing to admit to being wrong about something so that someone else might know Him.



Oh, and Craig, you were what is known as a False Non-Convert. You never really didn't know Him. What a pity. ;)

ExPatMatt said...

Craig,

"We believe that everyone (atheists included) knows that there is a God; they just suppress the knowledge that they have."I get that. But the key phrase here is 'we believe'. The reason you believe this in the first place is because you accept the Bible to be God's Word, we don't.

The reason I don't accept the Bible as the Word of God is not that I am suppressing some knowledge that you 'believe' I have, but rather the fact that I have not been persuaded that the God of the Bible exists or that the Bible is an accurate and axiomatic reflection of His character.

When Christians try and tell non-believers that they know what the non-believer 'really' thinks deep down, it comes across as incredibly presumptuous and rude.


For you, personally, did you 'know' that God was real before you believed He was?

I'm not sure that was clear enough, so I'll rephrase;

What was the process, in terms of gnosticism/agnosticism and theism/atheism that you went through as you went from a non-believer to a saved person. (I hope that was easier to understand!)

Cheers,


Matt

Ryk said...

How does the whole knowing God thing work. Having never been theist I am at a loss to describe it. I see a lot of Christians talking "creation science" and throwing insults and that sort of thing, in order to convert people.

What happens when it works. According to what I can gather believing may or may not take. You can think you believe, and "feel the holy spirit" and "talk to God" and "know he is with you" then if something changes your mind then. You never really knew him.

I don't get it how do any of you know that you know. I mean if it is possible for people to only think they know, even if they really believe it with all their heart. How do you know that you are not imagining that thing that you think you believe with all your heart. So does that mean that believing in him does not mean you are really believing at all.

For example let's pretend that I looked at your little poster thing and said "Yeah God doesn't not exist just because I don't believe, I've been wrong all this time." I convert to Christianity and spend several years knowing Christ and believing in him. Then one day I realize wow that was just a poster it didn't make any sense at all" and stop believing, would all of the previous believing been imagination? If so how can you tell your believing is not imagination?

I know some of you might say "because I know Jesus and MY faith is real." that is great but I know a number of former Christians who felt exactly the same. So if people can imagine that they believe in God, and there is no objective evidence of God. Are you believing or just imagining you believe? How can you tell?

The Murphy's said...

Trish said:

"I was so lost but He found me"

Does God choose not to find the atheist? Does God not want to find LogicLad or ExPatMatt? Has he already written them off?


Ryan

Taxandrian said...

Odin doesn't go away just because you don't believe in him.
Zeus doesn't go away just because you don't believe in him.
Quetzalcoatl doesn't go away just because you don't believe in him.
Osiris doesn't go away just because you don't believe in him.
Ahura Mazda doesn't go away just because you don't believe in him.
Marduk doesn't go away just because you don't believe in him.
Vishnu doesn't go away just because you don't believe in him.
Gitche Manitou doesn't go away just because you don't believe in him.

The list goes on and on and on...

ExPatMatt said...

Don't be silly, Tax, those gods aren't real!

But God (with a big 'G'), now He's the real deal and we can prove it because it says so in His autodeiography.

Checkmate!

stranger.strange.land said...

@ExPatMatt

A False Non-Convert? That is funny, yet there could be something to it.; )Re. Going from non-believer to believer. The cognitive process? Don't know if I'd even be able to lay all that out in order for you right now; there were a lot of things going on.

A Christian co-worker (who knew only the rudiments of the Faith) had spoken to me about Jesus and salvation, and loaned me her Bible and some other literature. Unbeknown to me at the time, a Presbyterian women's prayer group had been praying for my salvation for a while. Those were the instruments God used in bringing me to himself. Simple, really.

WARNING: A Presbyterian women's prayer group can be a formidable weapon in the hands of God.

Anyway, the Jesus I once wanted nothing to do with became my heart's desire.

You said, "When Christians try and tell non-believers that they know what the non-believer 'really' thinks deep down, it comes across as incredibly presumptuous and rude."So maybe we should just keep that in the back of our heads. Usually I do. I only brought it up in my post in defense of what HeathP said.

You said, "The reason I don't accept the Bible as the Word of God is not that I am suppressing some knowledge that you 'believe' I have, but rather the fact that I have not been persuaded that the God of the Bible exists or that the Bible is an accurate and axiomatic reflection of His character."

I understand. For some people that could be quite a long process. I have tried that before with atheists. It has always ended the same way. They try to get me to prematurely jump to the conclusion of the Christian God and the Bible, skipping a lot of necessary steps leading up to that conclusion. When I don't jump to that conclusion, they just pretend that I did, declare victory, and shut down the conversation. It's enough to make a person become a presuppositionalist; )Craig

BathTub said...

Well at least in the portions of the book he allowed to survive today.

Presumably also in the portions of the book that were holy for a while but aren't part of the book anymore.

And possibly in the parts of the book that are lost to us today.

But also probably in the books that are holy to only some christians but not others.

ExPatMatt said...

No, No, Noooooo!

ANYTHING but a presuppositionalist!

Thanks for the skinny on your conversion, it turns out you were a False Non-Convert after all; it sounds like the Jesus you wanted nothing to do with wasn't the one portrayed in the Bible. If you'd have rejected the proper Jesus the first time 'round you wouldn't be in this mess!

Cheers Craig.

ExPatMatt said...

Trish,

I'm still hoping to get a response from you on this. In reference to your previous post;

"I will seriously bend my knee and accept the gift of salvation that Jesus offers if you can demonstrate the following;

a) how this post qualifies as 'satire'
b) why the images in this post misrepresent evolution, and
c) what evolution actually states with regards to transitional forms."

At least you could acknowledge that I've asked the questions?

Regards,

Matt

Fish with Trish said...

Matt, thanks for asking the questions.

ExPatMatt said...

But you're not going to answer them?

Why?

Melanie said...

Blogger Fish with Trish said...

Matt, thanks for asking the questions.
lol

stranger.strange.land said...

Matt.

Nope. Same Jesus. I was the one that changed.

Cheers to you.

Craig

profweather said...

Matt,

If you do not ears to hear and eyes to see your current predicament I doubt you will be persuaded to bend your knee even someone rises from the dead.

Reynold said...

Well, Trish has acknowledged the questions. Of course, she's not answered them yet...

HeathP said...

Hi ExPatMatt the point of my first post was not trying to convince anyone of anything. I could not convince you of Gods existence even if I tried. That is Gods job, He states clearly in the verses I posted some of the ways He has done that. It is between you and Him if you chose to accept his revelation. But as a Christian we are instructed to spread the word of God to the whole world. So rather than giving my limited knowledge on the way God is I chose to give words strait from God himself. I will still give my opinion on things because being a Christian does not mean becoming a mindless automaton.

To Logic Lad I give you the same answer as ExPatMatt, I only want to add it is not an obscure bit of the Bible, and that this passage itself does not prove the existence of God, but read what it says and then you will know in some of the ways God has revealed himself. You can believe it or not, again that is between you or God, I can not change your mind, and if I did I would seriously question your salvation, as salvation is of the Lord and if I could convince anyone to follow God, someone else could just as easily convince you not to.

This brings me to my last point, about your questions ExPatMatt I seriously doubt that you would bend the knee if the questions you posted were answered. I believe you would never be satisfied with any answer no mater how well put together it may be, You would always be able to find something you didn’t agree with and therefore reject the answer. Which brings me to my next Bible verses Romans 1:24-32

24Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

Quasar said...

Trish said:"Matt, thanks for asking the questions."Melanie said:"lol."Agreed. Lol, but possibly for different reasons...

FrodoSaves said...

We believe that everyone (atheists included) knows that there is a God; they just supress the knowledge that they haveI confess, I am actually one of those atheists. I believe I have that knowledge of God, somewhere on the other side of my frontal lobe. If only there was someone who could help me to circumnavigate my intellect, then I could end this ridiculous act of suppression and get on with my life.

stranger.strange.land said...

We believe that everyone (atheists included) knows that there is a God; they just supress the knowledge that they haveFrodoLives said...
""I confess, I am actually one of those atheists. I believe I have that knowledge of God, somewhere on the other side of my frontal lobe. If only there was someone who could help me to circumnavigate my intellect, then I could end this ridiculous act of suppression and get on with my life.""

That is not where the problem lies. The word of God says:
Isa 59:1-2
Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened,
That it cannot save;
Nor His ear heavy,
That it cannot hear.
But your iniquities have separated you from your God;
And your sins have hidden His face from you,
So that He will not hear.
The cure comes when the Holy Spirit convinces a person of his sin and guilt, through the means of the Law.(10 commandments).

Intellect is no impediment to knowing God. Sin and pride is.

Recommendation: Avail yourself of what is known as the "means of grace." Visit a church where the law and gospel is regularly preached. This is the means that God has ordained.

Trish's web site has a link that will help you find such a church in your area. If you are serious, I challenge you to do that.

Craig

Fish with Trish said...

Thanks Craig.

And here's the direct link for anyone that's interested in finding a good church in your area:

http://www.fishwithtrish.com/faq.php

Logic Lad said...

Why do theists insist on telling me what i think?

It is a recurring theme throughout the posts on this blog that at some point someone will insist that athiest are fully aware of the existence of god they choose to deny him like spoilt children. I know this has been commented on before but trying to tell me what i think is arrogant in the extreme. I don't agree with the god theory, i see insufficent evidence for it, however i don't try and tell theists that they relly know that there is no god and they are simply trying to devolve responsibility for their actions to a higher power. If a theist says they believe in god i am assumning that you are actually stating your true beliefs, please do me the same credit when i say i don't

Heath,

just a thing to think about, even in the event that it was established that there was a god i would still not worship him, he has a lot of explaining to do. I accept, in the event there is a god, he may be able to punish me forever, however as i have said before, just becuase he is strong does not make him right. The god of the bible is a cruel, jealous tyrant, i may fear him but i will never worship him. However before i have to actually jump that hurdle we need some proof he is real, not been managed in the last 2000 years so i am fairly confident.

Heath, on your bible quote, god is a really bad role model for morality, look at what is said here. God chooses to make those who don't worship him into really bad people, so rather than trying to save them he guarantees that they will be punished, he ensures that having dained to question him they will now fail all his other standards. If I could, using the power of my mind, make someone commit murder, who would bear the moral responsibility for that act me or them?

Not to mention if god has the power to make me a murdering rapist then surely he has the power to make me beleive, and which point we a both happy, i am going to heaven and he gets another dutiful little worshipper.

Sam said...

A question for all the Atheists: Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why you are so committed to arguing against someone that you don't believe exists!

When you consider that you only have 24 hours in every day, spending countless hours fighting something you claim is not real seems like a colossal waste of time!

Personally, I’d feel quite embarrassed campaigning against Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy!

I submit to you that you are driven by a very real anger which stems from the fact that you will be punished by a very real God for doing all the godless, wicked things that you love to do!

FrodoSaves said...

Craig,

Trish's web site has a link that will help you find such a church in your area. If you are serious, I challenge you to do that. No, actually, I was completely joking. Thanks for demonstrating my point though.

Intellect is no impediment to knowing God. Sin and pride is.This very assertion demonstrates precisely that intellect is the obstacle. Trisha should know all too well that the Way of the Master's MO is to "circumnavigate the intellect," in their words, or subdue their listeners' rationalized protestations. Instead they prefer to "[speak] to the sinner's conscience," or in plain speak, guilt-trip their audience into belief.

(Taken from the Way of the Master's own site)

Your appeal to "sin and pride" is exactly that. You attempt to pluck at my guilty heartstrings instead of explaining to me reasonably why I should believe in God. But you can't, and that's why people like ExPat and me will never be convinced while you employ these flimsy tactics.

Intellect is the impediment to god-belief.

bassicallymike said...

Matt said,
"ANYTHING but a presuppositionalist!"

So Matt, you do not consider yourself to be a presuppositionalist? I would think both sides are approaching this thing with a set of presuppositions if we were totally honest.

I know you and others have a problem with us quoting the Bible, but why should we lay aside that which predicts and accurately describes your thoughts and motives,even if you consider it "presumptuous and rude", it is accurate. You are exposed and you don't like it. That is why you want us to lay it aside.

Personally, only by His grace, I have always been somewhat aware of a Higher Power, even though I knew Him as God, there was a time I did not personally acknowledge Him as God or submit to His Divine Right to have any authority in my life.

Because you do not believe in God, you do not fully understand that you can not bargin with the Creator of the Universe by saying, "I will seriously bend my knee and accept the gift of salvation that Jesus offers if you can demonstrate the following;". You do not come to God on your terms, only on His! You must say as Peter once stated in the Book you love to ridicule, "Lord, save or I perish!"

Yes, you can call me Mike. LOL

beleth said...

Hey Trish --

What was your intended purpose in making this blog entry?

ExPatMatt said...

Melanie,

Why am I not surprised to see that you find intellectual cowardice amusing rather than embarrassing?

Still nothing worthwhile to add, eh? Thought so.


HeathP & profweather,

Why are you guys poisoning the well like this? Do you have any good reason to suspect that I'm not a man of my word? I find it rather insulting that you choose to take this route and I wonder why you're not simply encouraging Trish to answer my questions. They're not that hard, are they?

Don't you wonder why she hasn't just answered them?

If she's in the right then she really doesn't have anything to worry about, does she?


Trish,

Your stated goals are to spread the Gospel and encourage people towards the path to salvation, right?

Right now you are blocking my potential path to salvation. If you believe as you say you do, why are you not doing all you can to assist me in coming to know God?

Regards,


Matt

Reynold said...

I think FrodoSaves was being sarcastic...

ExPatMatt said...

"A question for all the Atheists: Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why you are so committed to arguing against someone that you don't believe exists!"Don't be silly Sam, we believe that you exist!

"When you consider that you only have 24 hours in every day, spending countless hours fighting something you claim is not real seems like a colossal waste of time!"I also spend time on Muslim, Buddhist, Flat-Earth and New Age blogs, discussing their beliefs with them - I enjoy learning about the human experience and the internet is a fantastic tool for that purpose. Why do you have a problem with this?

And I don't claim that God is not real. You shouldn't presume so much.

"I submit to you that you are driven by a very real anger which stems from the fact that you will be punished by a very real God for doing all the godless, wicked things that you love to do!"I honestly can't think of a single thing that I do that I wouldn't willingly (and happily) give up for a place at the foot of the Creator of the Universe. Seriously, what is it that you think we do that is so wicked?

Cheers,

ExPatMatt said...

Mike,

"So Matt, you do not consider yourself to be a presuppositionalist? I would think both sides are approaching this thing with a set of presuppositions if we were totally honest."There's a difference between having presuppositions and being a 'presuppositionalist'.

I presuppose that I exist and that my faculties are functioning well enough to communicate with other people. Things like that.

I don't try and use presuppositions as a basis for argumentation though.

Also, I wasn't telling you to put your Bible-verses away, I was asking you if you thought it was an effective way of demonstrating God's existence to atheists, that's all.

I've no problem with Christians using the Bible to support their worldview (it makes sense to do that!), I just wonder if you think about the effectiveness of that form of evangelizing.

"...you do not fully understand that you can not bargain with the Creator of the Universe by saying..."Trish created the universe? Oh, you were talking about God!

I was bargaining (or, at least, trying to) with Trish and I think it was a fair deal to be honest. Don't you?

She answers some basic questions and I get on my knees and try and soften my heart enough to let the Holy Spirit convict me.

Seriously, if I get some answers to the questions I have asked, I will take instruction from any of the people posting here as to what exactly I should do to come to Christ. What more can you want from an atheist?


Cheers,

Taxandrian said...

Sam said:

Personally, I’d feel quite embarrassed campaigning against Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy!Sam, would you still feel as embarrassed if you would notice some people dedicated their whole lives to worshipping Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy? When these people would claim that certain groups (like homosexuals) do not have the same rights as others because Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy say so? When they say that Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy have created the world and all living things, and that this should be taught in science classes, instead of the universally accepted scientific theories?

Really?

You see, that's what it's about Sam. Most atheists couldn't care less that people believe in or worship a God, as long as they just could keep it to themselves. But that just isn't the case. Somehow religious people, especially those of the fundamentalist kind, are so sure of the validity of their claims that they think they have the god-given right to enforce the rules from their holy book on everyone, no matter what the cost.

Just to give you an example: here's a quote from Trish from the 'Evidence for Atheism'-article she posted recently:

I would cut down trees any day to make a point about the gospel verses atheism.

I think this tract makes a good point.

One soul is worth more than a hundred trees.
Can you see what I'm getting at, Sam?

stranger.strange.land said...

Yes Reynold.

I know FrodoLives was being sarcastic. But I wanted to answer his objections in a straightforward way to underscore my point that God has determined the way he ordinarily reveals himself to men and women.

Also, I wanted to remind us all that it is the local churches that God has instituted to represent him authoritatively through his ministers. As individuals, we act as extensions of the local ministries.

Thanks Reynold. You always get more out of me than a simple reply to a simple response.

Craig

stranger.strange.land said...

FrodoSaves said...

...Intellect is no impediment to knowing God. Sin and pride is.This very assertion demonstrates precisely that intellect is the obstacle. Trisha should know all too well that the Way of the Master's MO is to "circumnavigate the intellect," in their words, or subdue their listeners' rationalized protestations. Instead they prefer to "[speak] to the sinner's conscience," or in plain speak, guilt-trip their audience into belief.

(Taken from the Way of the Master's own site)
.

God's point of entry in revealing himself to sinful men and women has always been the conscience. The law reveals their guilt and need for a savior. This isn't something that Ray Comfort invented, and it isn't the manipulation of emotions.

Jesus set the example in the gospels, the apostles preached this way as recorded in Acts, and Paul lays it out in detail in Romans.

You will find God-believers throughout the entire spectrum of intellectual acumen, from brilliant thinkers like Aquinas and Jonathan Edwards, to dullards like me.

Craig

Fish with Trish said...

Ryan,

Just added specifcation to my own rules.

"All comments are moderated before being published. When deciding which comments to publish, we typically use the following guidelines (note: these rules can be subject to change)."

Thanks.

Trish

Fish with Trish said...

Ryan,

In the past, I have allowed atheists to include links as well.

I typically don't like to include links simply becasue I'm unable to fully explore everything but there are times that certain links I'll allow through.

Just an FYI and thanks for caring.

Trish

The Murphy's said...

Cool Trish! Thanks!

Fish with Trish said...

Ryan,

I know you live in the area, would you be open to meeting for an ice-cream or something with me and Emilio?

Oh and this invite goes out to any atheists on this blog that might live in the Dallas/Fort Worth area.

Our treat.

Any takers??

The Murphy's said...

Trish:

That'd be fun!

I would buy ice cream/coffee for any atheist that showed up!

Offers there!!!! Trish, set it up and I'll be there.

Email me please: murphyrjb@gmail.com

Ryan

Fish with Trish said...

ExPattMatt said, "I will seriously bend my knee and accept the gift of salvation that Jesus offers if you can demonstrate the following;

a) how this post qualifies as 'satire'
b) why the images in this post misrepresent evolution, and
c) what evolution actually states with regards to transitional forms."

My answers:

a) Joel’s place did a fine job here for explaining this. Joel’s place said, “Satire defined from Wiki "In satire, human or individual ... follies, .. or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with the intent to bring about improvement" Seems that Trish hit it perfectly. She is using humor to show how silly the religion of evolution is and she really does want you to improve by coming into the light by believing the truth.” That’s why I posted these pictures and that’s why they are satire.

b)Joel’s place did a fine job of asking the question to ExPattMatt on b and c. Joel’s place said, “since you have the problem with how the religion of evolution is being presented?”

c)Joel’s place did a fine job of asking the question on b and c. Joel’s place said, “since you have the problem with how the religion of evolution is being presented?”

Waiting for some answers to b and c, from ExPattMatt.

Thank you, please enlighten us.

Fish with Trish said...

ExPattMatt, I meant to finish b and c of Joel's place. Sorry about that.

Here it goes my answer and the question back to you for b and c:

b)Joel’s place did a fine job of asking the question to ExPattMatt on b and c. Joel’s place said, “since you have the problem with how the religion of evolution is being presented?” I wouldn't ask you to explain or defend God since you don't believe."

c)Joel’s place did a fine job of asking the question on b and c. Joel’s place said, “since you have the problem with how the religion of evolution is being presented?”I wouldn't ask you to explain or defend God since you don't believe."

Waiting for some answers to b and c, from ExPattMatt.

FrodoSaves said...

Trish,

Your passing of the buck on (b) and (c) unfortunately defeats the purpose of ExPat having asked the questions. It's your opportunity to demonstrate to Darwinists that you understand evolution, but that you still find faults with it and reject it on that basis. If you opt not to answer, you'll no doubt just affirm our suspicions that you don't understand evolution at all.

I'm being serious, Trish. This is an opportunity to prove what you know, or learn something.

Still, if you insist on handing the task to ExPat, I'm sure he will provide you with an excellent answer. Whether you'd honestly read it is another question.

FrodoSaves

Sam said...

Expatmatt said…
I honestly can't think of a single thing that I do that I wouldn't willingly (and happily) give up for a place at the foot of the Creator of the Universe.
Great. Go do it! Lay down your life, take up your cross and follow Him! You just lack one thing. Repent & believe the gospel!

Sam said...

Taxandrian, you and I both know that neither Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy are responsible for creating the universe, and the laws that uphold it. Santa delivers presents thanks to the help of flying reindeer and the tooth fairy is bent on amassing the worlds largest collection of teeth! That is, if they were real!
However God is real and He is angry with the wicked everyday – and He has every right to be! He created us, and therefore has every right to dictate how we should live, what we should do and how we are to behave. We should be living for Him and loving Him, but instead we live for ourselves, ignore Him, mock Him, hate Him.
Do you think that God is only angry at homosexuals? Taxandrian, are you a homosexual? Is that why you are offended? I’m sure there will be more heterosexuals in hell than homosexual! Leave sexuality out of it for now - all liars will have their part in the lake of fire! Ever told a lie?
As to those Christians who take the claims of God seriously, who set about warning men and women to the danger that they face. Why does that bother you? Is it because it bothers your conscience?

bassicallymike said...

Matt,
"I don't try and use presuppositions as a basis for argumentation though." You wouldn't admit to it at least.

"I've no problem with Christians using the Bible to support their worldview (it makes sense to do that!), I just wonder if you think about the effectiveness of that form of evangelizing." I thought we hashed out the effectiveness thing over on the tract blog. Anyway, since you gave me permission, 1 Corinthians 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. ESV

For Frogo, if you care to read to the end of that chapter and most of the next, it will explain why our main approach is not through the intellect.

Matt,
"Seriously, if I get some answers to the questions I have asked, I will take instruction from any of the people posting here as to what exactly I should do to come to Christ." You will not come to Christ because your questions are answered, for God does not choose to work in that manner. You come to Christ because you see yourself as a sinner deserving of God's ultimate punishment, without hope, standing in need of a Saviour, humbly accepting His payment for your sin and rejecting your past motives and methods. When you see yourself in that position, then you come to Christ.

If you think Christianity requires you to abandon your intellect, please read the 1st and 2nd chapters of 1st Corinthians.

ExPatMatt said...

Trish,

For starters, you spelled my name wrong, several times, which is not conclusive but rather indicative evidence of how little you actually care about engaging in a mutually respectful dialogue with others.


To be honest, I don't really know where to begin with this debacle...


You think that the best way to answer the three questions I asked is to copy/paste what Joelsplace wrote a couple of days ago - even though two of his 'answers' were asking me to answer the questions for you - and say "enlighten us"?

I think you're rather missing the point of the questions being asked in the first place...and it looks deliberate.

I think the truth is that you know nothing about evolution but you're scared to admit it. In a way, I hope that's the truth, because the alternative makes you look even worse...



Care to have another go?

Regards,


Matt

ExPatMatt said...

Sam,

"Great. Go do it! Lay down your life, take up your cross and follow Him! You just lack one thing. Repent & believe the gospel!"I think you missed the point of what I was saying.

ExPatMatt said...

Mike,

"You wouldn't admit to it at least."Why are you being mean; did I do something to offend you?

"...for God does not choose to work in that manner..."And you know that, how? Are you saying it is impossible for God to work through His followers to bring someone to Christ via intellectual means?

Yeah, I get how the whole repentance and acceptance of salvation thing works according to your belief system. What I'm saying is that I'll do my best to look at it your way and see where it gets me; I'm not sure what more I can do!

Regards,

Matt

Fish with Trish said...

Matt,

I apologize for the misspelling of your name. That was in no way intentional.

Firstly, I am not a scholar on evolution. I can't understand the theory to be quite honest. There are too many words that make it a very difficult theory. For example, "probably", "could have", "might be", "million of years ago", "uncertain", etc.

Sorry, I don't understand the theory 100% it is quite confusing, so that's why I'd like your help with answering your questions, since you seem to understand the theory. Shoot away.

The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred. Not much is certain about the earliest developments in life, the structure of the first living things, or the identity and nature of any last universal common ancestor or ancestral gene pool. Consequently, there is no scientific consensus on how life began, but proposals include self-replicating molecules such as RNA, and the assembly of simple cells.

This above chunk of information is taken from Wikipedia, and notice the words, “unclear how this occurred”, “not much is certain”, “no scientific consensus on how life began”. And that's just one section.

I am a Christian and I believe what the Bible teaches. I do not believe in the theory of evolution. For the evolutionist, evolution is responsible for life. I am a Christian, and the bible teaches that GOD is responsible for life. He made us. He created Adam and Eve (Genesis 1) and we did not evolve from ape-like animals.

We all have presuppositions. The evolutionist works from the premise that the Bible is not the Word of God, nor can it ever be. The evolutionist believes no matter what the evidence, that there is no God. These same people insist that evolution is a fact...It does not take much effort to demonstrate that evolution is not science but religion. Science, of course, involves observation, using one or more of our five senses (taste, sight, smell, hearing, touch) to gain knowledge about the world, and to be able to repeat the observations. Naturally, one can only observe what exists in the present. It is an easy task to understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life from the simple to the complex. No living scientist was there to observe the first life forming in some primeval sea. No living scientist was there to observe the big bang that is supposed to have occurred 10 or 20 billion years ago, nor the supposed formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago (or even 10,000 years ago!). No scientist was there—no human witness was there to see these events occurring. They certainly cannot be repeated today. --Ken Ham

ExPatMatt said...

Trish,

No worries on the spelling; I was half-joking anyway.

So first you copy/paste what Joelsplace wrote and now you do the same with Ken Ham - I wanted to know what you thought!

And none of what you copy/pasted addressed the three, original questions I asked of you! Why is this so hard?


I'll help you out with starter sentences, how about that?


a) the post can be considered satirical because...
[this one's kind of redundant now, it's not all that important]

b) the animal hybrids in the post are not representative of evolution because....

c) what the Theory of Evolution actually states about transitional forms is...

That can't be too hard, can it?

I appreciate that you don't accept that the theory of evolution accurately describes how we arrived at the diversity of life on Earth, because you instead accept the (literal) Biblical version of events. That's fine.

I don't accept the Biblical description of Creation, but I wouldn't dream of making fun of it with my own, made-up version of what the Bible says; that's dishonest and that's what you attempted to do with your 'satirical' post.

You've admitted that you don't understand the theory - and that's not really a big deal, most people don't - but what you have yet to clarify is how you feel you are in a position to tell your readers what 'evolutionists would have you believe' if you don't actually know what evolutionists would have you 'believe'.


Do you appreciate what I'm trying to say here?

Thanks,

Matt

Taxandrian said...

@Sam:

First off: take a deep breath, close your eyes,....and relax.

OK, now the blood pressure has lowered a bit, let's get through this point by point, shall we?

Taxandrian, you and I both know that neither Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy are responsible for creating the universe, and the laws that uphold it.Good grief, Sam! My answer really went over your head, didn't it? What I meant to say was: "IF people really would believe that Santa or the Tooth Fairy created the universe, would you still feel embarrassed campaigning against them?"
Just in case you still don't get it: if people believed in God the way they believe in Santa and the Fairy, I wouldn't need to argue against them: it would be pretty harmless. Alas, they don't. If Santa- or Fairy-believers wanted to change laws, influence your personal life, or take away given rights from people, simply because of their belief, I don't think you'd still feel embarrassed campaigning against Santa or the Fairy. Get my point?

However God is real and He is angry with the wicked everyday – and He has every right to be!Unless you can give me some very convincing evidence I see no reason to believe any of that. Feel free to believe it yourself, though, if that makes you happy.

We should be living for Him and loving Him, but instead we live for ourselves, ignore Him, mock Him, hate Him.My, my...and then we atheists often get to hear we lead negative lives. Talk about a negative, depressing view on life...phew!

Do you think that God is only angry at homosexuals? Taxandrian, are you a homosexual? Is that why you are offended?Sam, I really advise thinking before typing. I couldn't care less what your God thinks about homosexuals since I don't believe in your God.
What does offend me though, is that people use this belief to take away given rights from people (I'm talking about Proposition 8 in case you don't get it). It might strike you as odd from an 'evil atheist', but I do care for other people's rights, even those who happen to be a bit different from the mainstream.

Leave sexuality out of it for now - all liars will have their part in the lake of fire! Ever told a lie?Sam, here's a top tip: if you want to be taken serious when having a discussion with an atheist: don't use scare tactics like this. It won't work. No matter how often you try it. It will only make you look sad, and a bit desperate.

As to those Christians who take the claims of God seriously, who set about warning men and women to the danger that they face. Why does that bother you? Is it because it bothers your conscience?No, Sam. Because unlike you I don't live in fear for eternal hellfire. I don't need to worship a baby-killing God in the hope he will grant me Heaven if I do as he pleases. What does bother me though, is the waste of time and energy. Because whether you like it or not, Sam: everything man has ever accomplished; he had to do it himself. No God ever worshipped has ever aided us in developing any of the things you use every day; from the moment you wake up 'till the moment you go to bed. Two hands working still get more done than one hundred hands praying.

Fish with Trish said...

@ Tax, you said, “It might strike you as odd from an 'evil atheist', but I do care for other people's rights, even those who happen to be a bit different from the mainstream.”

How about the Christian’s rights? Do you care for those??

Taxandrian said...

Trish,

Sure I do. Christians are just as good as anyone else to me. I may not agree with them, but I do care about their rights.
I'll tell you something else: you might not believe it, but if tomorrow someone would take away your right to go to church or practice your religion, I'd be among the first to protest. And I'm quite sure many atheists will agree with me.

BathTub said...

Are you suggesting giving homosexuals rights somehow takes them away from Christians? What about the gay Christians?

Fish with Trish said...

@ Bath Tube, you said, "What about the gay Christians?"

There is no such thing. They may claim to be "Christians" but read Romans 1, and you'll see what I mean by "no such thing".

BathTub said...

Ah right, no true christian....


You deliberately avoided the real question though.

What part of gay rights equals less rights for christians?

The right to not allow same sex couples to marry perhaps?

Fish with Trish said...

Thanks Tax. We may call on you for help in the days to come. :-)

bassicallymike said...

Matt
"Why are you being mean; did I do something to offend you? LOL No, just wanted to see if you could take it as well as you dish it out! LOL

"And you know that, how? Are you saying it is impossible for God to work through His followers to bring someone to Christ via intellectual means?" You didn't read chapters 1&2 of 1st Cor. like I asked you to did you? 1 Cor. 2:3-5 3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, 4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
ESV

If you came to Christ as the result of an exercise of your intellect,(which is impressive)you might be tempted to boast. When it is a work of Grace, God alone is glorified. That's how He likes it! LOL

"What I'm saying is that I'll do my best to look at it your way and see where it gets me; I'm not sure what more I can do!"
Thanks Matt, I've been praying to that end. Thanks for the conversation!
Honey Nut Cheerios!

stranger.strange.land said...

@FrodoSaves.

I just noticed that twice I said "Frodo Lives" instead of "Frodo Saves."

My mistake, but exactly what is it that you save, anyway?

Craig

FrodoSaves said...

stranger.strange.land/Craig,

No worries. I thought you'd done it intentionally at first, but I couldn't really figure out why!

As I explained very briefly to HeathP on Trish's most recent post, Frodo "saves" us from treating with reverence that which ought rightly to be laughed at. I'm not out with the explicit purpose of offending people, but I use Frodo as a vehicle to poke fun at dogma, criticize stereotypes, and generally just make people laugh.

We look more ridiculous by not making fun of ourselves and by taking things too seriously, than by treating our institutions and beliefs with honest self-awareness. I'm not very good at it, but it's fun.

Cheers,

FrodoSaves

Sam said...

Tax. Speaking of take a deep breath, consider this: the only reason you are alive is because air is free. You breathe God given air with God given lungs to oxygenate God given blood that feeds your God given brain! You say that man has accomplished everything by his own might, with his own hands, using his own intellect, but you give man too much credit! If it were not for God you would not have hands, nor intellect, nor life!

Have you ever stopped to consider why people who “believe” in the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus for that matter, do not spend much time or energy preaching to the masses? Perhaps it is because they are not willing to suffer ridicule for Santa’s sake - after all, the conscience does not bear witness to Santa! Christians, on the other hand, do what they can to seek and save the lost, not because they have convinced themselves that God is real, but they have had a life changing encounter with the living God and know it to be fact! I know you think the God we believe in is nothing more than a figment of our collective imagination, and in your mind He is, and therefore you feel upset that Christians are speaking out against the very things that you love – but consider it from our perspective! You are fast walking towards your own destruction, should we not, in love, warn you of that?

Do you want proof that God is angry with the wicked every day? Look around you! 155,000 people will die today and step out from time into eternity. Death is not a natural consequence because of sin, it is a supernatural consequence! One day Tax, God is going to cut you down where you stand and all your excuses, and arguments wont count for a hill of beans!

Before you pull out the scare tactic trump card here consider this: It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God!

You raise an interesting point about rights. This is one of the problems that arises from living in a democracy - everyone thinks they get to vote on their rights - but in Gods economy you have no rights! He is Sovereign! He is King! Tax, there are only two types of people in this world: those who say to God Thy will be done, and those to whom God says all right then, have it your way! Have it your way is not good! Have it your way is the broad road which leads to destruction! Have it your way leads to judgment!

As the Sovereign King of the Universe, God will do whatever He wants to do whether you like it or not! Whether you accept that or not!

stranger.strange.land said...

Thanks, Frodo.

You have the spirit of Monty Python.

Craig

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Tax:

You wrote "if people believed in God the way they believe in Santa and the Fairy, I wouldn't need to argue against them: it would be pretty harmless. Alas, they don't. If Santa- or Fairy-believers wanted to change laws, influence your personal life, or take away given rights from people, simply because of their belief, I don't think you'd still feel embarrassed campaigning against Santa or the Fairy. Get my point?"

Sure. The point is that you are arguing, a la Christopher Hitchens, that the atheist wants utter autonomy. The atheist cannot stand the thought of a God who imposes law, to restrict wickedness (or call it "the desires of your heart"--and yes, we all have wicked desires, it's not just an atheist's problem: we are all fallen humanity).

In case you didn't know, this whole line of argument underscores the very Bible you deny: that those who do not acknowledge God as God are suppressing the knowledge of God (esp. in their consciences) thru wickedness.

It's all there in Romans 1:18 and on through to chapter 2. It keeps getting brought up because the atheists on here keep proving it, ironically, which is continued evidence that God's Word really is that: God's Word.

Which brings me to another point:

You say you have a problem with Christians because they seek to influence law making, politics, etc. If you live in America, arguably the free-est (sp?) country around, you are reaping our worldview's benefits: freedom. Freedom from an oppressive government, hence no monarchy or state-run church. Freedom to worship or not at your choosing. Freedom to speak your mind.

Why? It's simple: our founding fathers realized that they were standing on ground that the Puritans and other Christians had fought tooth and nail for to bring under the Gospel. End result: a people who were generous with their neighbors, who would fight for freedom of their countrymen, who would do the right thing because their conscience was captive by the Word of God and His Spirit. You think I'm kidding, but read your George Washington, and for that matter, Ben Franklin (who was no Christian, but had a great respect for the effect of Christianity upon a people).

Also, for your consideration: we aren't taking away homosexuals' rights to marry. They never had that right.

Furthermore: you speak as if it's wrong for Christians to seek political reforms and influence. Isn't that the height of hypocrisy? Do we have no right to do so?

If you live in America, be glad for the Christian influence you enjoy, as you live in a land where we used to understand that man was created by God, and that truth was self-evident because of such creation. We have intrinsic, God-given rights, whether you believe in that God or not, you still enjoy the rights He's given.

--James H

FrodoSaves said...

Craig

No problem, and thanks for the compliment (if that's what it was!).

FS

get_education said...

As the Sovereign King of the Universe, God will do whatever He wants to do whether you like it or not! Whether you accept that or not!---

And you think this is good? It is fine if you believe this way. That would be quite more of an honest and consistent belief. God does whatever he wants because he is the one and only. So, if you dislike anything he does, even when it contradicts his own supposed rules. It does not matter because he makes the rules. OK. Fine.

But to go from that to God is good?

G.E.

Brazen Hussey's said...

@Get Education:

The argument may have been stated in a too simplistic way, but I'd have to agree with Sam (who I think made the case to begin with?) that the character and being of God is this:

He is altogether holy, sovereign, and ruler over all.

You're making a category mistake when you claim that God somehow is underneath His law, which was written in covenant language to His people. There is a binding contract between the God of the universe and His particular people. Beyond that, the moral law of the Decalogue, let's say, is also the standard against which we will all be judged, for it is the measure by which God will determine our guilt or merit before Him.

Not to make a simple argument too complex, the basic rub is this: God made you and all that you enjoy. All the food, air you breathe, people you relate to, etc. Every good thing comes from Him, and you owe Him for the very life you have enjoyed.

How have you thanked Him? By putting Him in the docket, and reversing your place as a creature? Does a pot tell the Potter "why have you made me this way, I hate you?"

No. Except in the case of humanity.

At bottom, your critique of God underestimates His ultimate value and nature. God does what He pleases, and all He does is holy and just, but not by virtue that He conforms to a Law that was written to restrict and govern His creation. Rather, He does as He pleases and since He made all things, it's His creation to do with as He pleases. Furthermore, God cannot do anything but that which is holy: it is an absolute characteristic of His nature, He can't do otherwise.

Put quite simply: we'd all do well if we simply kept in mind the Creator/creature distinction.

Amongst other things: the Law giver gave the law to those who aren't by nature holy. The Law wasn't written to master the Law giver.

Hope that makes sense, it is a bit wordy.

Have a blessed day, and may the Lord, the giver of Life, grant you eternal peace and joy in the Redeemer, Jesus Christ.

--James H

Sam said...

@Get Education
And you think this is good?Absolutely! Because I know God is a Just and Holy God! Good in every respect! He is more kind, generous and loving than we can imagine! He prefers mercy over judgment – as demonstrated on the cross of Calvary! He perseveres with the sons of men and brings many of them to a place of repentance and faith in Him – despite their rebellion!

He is not a dark and shadowy figure, full of trickery and deceit. Though you would seek to pint him in such light!

He has made his ways clearly known to man, but men choose not to hear them!

Will not the God of all the earth do right? If you believe God to be unjust then you will have a huge problem with His sovereignty. Such belief assigns him a place with the Saddam Hussein’s and Adolph Hitler’s as a wicked, tyrannical, dictator who is not to be trusted. But such a belief of God is not founded on scripture, nor reality!

God is Just, and He will see that Justice is done! He will find and punish every sin ever committed by the sons of men! Not one transgression will escape His attention! For some, the punishment of their many transgressions will be borne by His Son. The rest will themselves bear the consequences of their iniquity – the wrath of God!

Do you think this to be unjust? That some would cast themselves at the feet of His Son and cry out for mercy – and receive it without reproach! While others will dig their heels in, and with a scowled face cry out, “this is not fair, you are wicked and corrupt!” – their condemnation is deserved!

stranger.strange.land said...

FrodoSaves

Yes, it was meant as a compliment.

Guess what. I had to re-type your blogger name just now, because my brain still wants to say "Frodo Lives." I have no idea why.

Craig

Taxandrian said...

@sam:

I see you are unwilling to even consider anything I said, or try to understand my position. Therefore for me it is useless to continue this discussion with you: it's just a waste of my time.
In case you do wish to have a constructive discussion, do a Google search for "Top 10 Conversation Killers for Atheists"

@brazen hussey's:

Same goes for you. Please stop misrepresenting my position in order to build straw men to attack. Even if you think it supports your holy book. Probably you are in violation of some other holy book of some other religion somewhere, and even prove its points. Does that impress you? I didn't think so.

Oh, and about christians not taking away rights from homosexuals: ever heard of Proposion 8? This did indeed take away the right homosexuals had to marry. You might want to look up how many christian organisations suppported Proposion 8.

nuff said

FrodoSaves said...

Craig,

Apparently "Frodo lives!" is a pretty popular slogan for the world's desperately out of touch. We must of course accept the other possibility that His spirit is trying to tell you something... :P

FS

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Taxandrian:

Re: homosexual rights to marry and prop 8: all prop 8 did was define marriage the way it's been defined by God, by biology, and by dictionaries everywhere. No one's rights were violated: that's my point--they never had the right to begin with.

See, in order to "take someone's rights away," they first had to have that right. In this case, they never did. Homosexuality is yet another example of a sin being sanctioned by the State due to big-pocketed lobbyists and organized dissent. The people of California were asked at least twice, if not three times, to vote on the issue. Know who's rights are being violated? The people of California: they never wanted homosexual marriage.

A bigger point is that you are proving that you want to be an atheist because you don't want to answer to God for your actions.

The trouble is, and I daresay you've been told this, you and everyone who has ever lived will all have to answer to God, whether or not you want to.

There's a train coming, and you're walking the tracks. You hear it's engine, even see it's light, but you simply refuse to jump off the track. All I'm trying to do is tell you to get out of the way.

Put in another sense:

God made you. He demands you to be holy, but you refuse to do so. He sent His only Son to pay the price for your sin, so you don't have to pay it yourself (eternity in Hell, suffering His justice). Instead of listening and accepting His offer, you mock and scoff.

I'm no friend to you if I leave this at the intellectual, or debate level. You need to repent, you need to humble yourself before the God you've been trying to deny. That little voice at the back of your mind isn't just a little doubt, it's a conscience, and I'd implore you to listen to it while you still enjoy the opportunity.

This isn't simply winning an argument, this is eternity: f o r e v e r. Repent of your sins: turn around, stop glibly making jests and jabs and strutting your eloquence, and realize it's your life at stake, not mine. I'm begging you to reconsider your position, because this isn't some game we're talking about.

God withheld no good thing from you. Will you now turn to Him, ask His forgiveness, and trust His Son Jesus Christ for everlasting life?

The rest of all this argument and debate, though fun for a quick spin, is meaningless drivel. What will you be doing for eternity?

Taxandrian said...

@brazen hussey's

Oh deary me...

Re: homosexual rights to marry and prop 8: all prop 8 did was define marriage the way it's been defined by God, by biology, and by dictionaries everywhere. No one's rights were violated: that's my point--they never had the right to begin with.Wow. My BS meter almost exploded. You see, this is the point I'm trying to make all along: you might think same-sex marriage should be prohibited because your God says so, but not everyone acknowledges, believes in, or even cares for what your God says. Why should their lives be affected because your God says so? Or, to make an analogy: would it be OK for you if muslims pushed a law that would prohibit the consumption of pork, simply because their religion does not allow the eating of pork? Should your right to eat pork be affected because of what another religion dictates?

Not sure why you drag biology into it. If it's about having children, would that mean that people who are incapable of having children due to age or infertility also should not be allowed to marry?

Ah, and then the dictionary. This one really cracked me up. I just looked up 'marriage' on Webster dictionary online. Here's the definition:

"1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage (same-sex marriage)"So there you go, brazen; according to the dictionary there's nothing wrong with same-sex marriage. What was your point again? And even so; since when do dictionaries determine people's rights?

Know who's rights are being violated? The people of California: they never wanted homosexual marriage.Check your history, sir. There was a time - not so long ago - that people didn't want people of different races to marry. You might want to do a Google search for 'Loving v. Virginia'. In other words: since when does something a group of people wants define the rights of a certain group of people?
Oh, and by the way: if you can't be bothered to look up 'Loving v. Virginia', here's how the judge motivated his decision:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."Yup. There's your God again, being the perfect alibi for people to take away other people's rights. The same you are doing right now with gay and lesbian people.

A bigger point is that you are proving that you want to be an atheist because you don't want to answer to God for your actions.
etc...etc...
Brazen, here's a quote for you I'd like you to read and think about for a while:

“When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen RobertsBrazen, suppose a Zoroastrian would tell you you must worship Ahura Mazda, or there will be grave consequences. He proves his point by quoting from his holy book, the Avesta.
Would you be worried? Doubting, maybe?
When you've answered that question, you will understand why all your references to doom, hell, sin, punishment, and Judgement Day are futile when it comes to convincing me.
After all, if you dismiss so many gods and religion, why do you expect me to take yours serious.
We're both atheists, brazen; I just go one God further: yours.

Also: it shows little respect when you keep on misrepresenting my position. How can I not want to answer to a God I don't believe in in the first place? Kinda like you don't want to answer to Ahura Mazda, Odin, Quetzalcoatl or Zeus I guess.

I once again encourage you to look up 'Top 10 conversation killers for atheists'

The rest of all this argument and debate, though fun for a quick spin, is meaningless drivel. What will you be doing for eternity?I'm glad you concede you typed a whole lot of drivel here. And when it comes to eternity: granted there is such a thing: I don't know. And neither do you.

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Tax:

Re: "...since when does something a group of people wants define the rights of a certain group of people?" We were talking about gay "rights" to marry, which they don't have. I answer:

As a former voter in California, according to the State's constitution, when the legislators put the decision to vote and THE PEOPLE VOTED IT DOWN, TWICE, then that should've settled the matter. This is, after all, a republic: a government for, by and of the people. Legally speaking, your argument really puzzles me. This is still America: if you want a dictatorship, there's plenty to choose from.

Furthermore: your argument is self-defeating. You ask "since when does something a group of people wants define the rights of a certain group of people?"--do you realize this is EXACTLY what the homosexuals are doing? Trying to foist their abberrant and wicked lifestyle (as defined by God and natural law: homosexuality doesn't reflect nature's design whatsoever) upon the majority.

I'll bottom line it for you:

You live, presumably, in America. That being the case, we've recognized that certain rights are given to mankind through Nature's God, as the Declaration of Independence states. That is to say, it is not the State, not the lobbyists, not other people in power that grant inalienable rights to you and me. If that were the case, we'd be a totalitarian or monarchian or oligarchian government, or some atheistic, socialized tyranny. I choose those words not to spite you, but sir: check your history. Calvinistic Christianity produced the jurisprudence of this country (viz. Lex Rex and other documents). That is: believe in Him or no, you have certain rights that no government can take away.

If two homosexuals want to co-habitate, so be it. But to try to pervert the definition of marriage, which definition is (as you show) being re-defined to reflect our debased nature, will absolutely destruct the very fabric of this country.

Mark my words: the downfall of the family as a unit will signify the collapse of our society. Don't believe me? Check out the downfall of Rome and other major states in history. At bottom is a breakdown of the family as a unit.

As it stands, homosexual couples are not being persecuted (besides the violent jerk here and there: and that's what they are, sorry to say). They can live together. They can practice their lifestyle however they want to.

To make a deliberate choice to commit a sin such as homosexuality and compare that to civil liberties should offend every minority in this country: I didn't choose my race. Homosexuality is a choice of lifestyle, an act of the will. The color of my skin? I was born with it. It's not wrong or aberrant to be black or asian or whatever the case may be (despite your quote of a bigotted individual). It IS wrong to force out into the open a sexual agenda upon the majority of people, and to force a re-education effort upon a country's youngest children in order to make something that is obviously an aberration into something more culturally accepted or normal.

Re: other gods--again, the ethical nature of following or fearing other gods is directly tied to this inescapable fact: THE God of the Bible exists, and He alone. That being the case, of course I don't fear the fertile imagination of some idolater.

My conscience, Tax, is tied to the existence of God. I cannot fear a false god. I cannot renounce Him in order to appease my conscience--it's like trying to escape gravity by jumping really hard off a building. The landing sucks.

I cannot simly turn the other cheek as the homosexual agenda tries to make a further wreck of the family as a whole, and that is at bottom what is at stake. First it's same sex marriage. Next: polygamy, pedophiles, etc. Don't believe me? Check out what's going on in Canada. There was just a story on about how a polygamist is using your arguments to support his perversity.

The problem isn't that rights are being taken away. These "rights" never existed, and this is NOT a civil rights issue. As a minority, I find that the height of offense.

I'll say it again: deny God all you want. You will face Him one day, and though you mock and ridicule me, know that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for our sins, even yours if you'd just trust Him and repent of your sin. I'd much rather see you forgiven, cleansed of all unrighteousness, and eternally blessed than living out your wildest dreams down here for the short time you have left to live this life.

FrodoSaves said...

Brazen Hussey's,

I don't think there was one thing you said in that last post that was factually true. And if there was, it was deluged by your cascade of fatuous reasoning and baseless assertions.

Try again.

Taxandrian said...

Brazen Hussey's,

Now you've done it. My BS meter really DID explode this time. You owe me a new one. Though I doubt it will last long if you keep posting comments like that last one.

Frodosaves already said it: there's not a single decent point you made in that comment, not a single reasonable argument. Only appeals to fear and emotion.
Is that really the best you can do, Brazen? In that case I urge you to refrain from continuing the debate here. You're clearly not up to the task, and there's no way you can possibly win it.

Still, I'd like to address a few 'points' that cracked me up/made my eyes roll:

If two homosexuals want to co-habitate, so be it. But to try to pervert the definition of marriage, which definition is (as you show) being re-defined to reflect our debased nature, will absolutely destruct the very fabric of this country.

Mark my words: the downfall of the family as a unit will signify the collapse of our society. Don't believe me? Check out the downfall of Rome and other major states in history. At bottom is a breakdown of the family as a unit.
There you have it: fear. That's all you can do; trying to scare people by painting a future scenario as gloomy as possible. Common experience tells us that when people use fear as an argument, they're out of logical and reasonable arguments. Congrats, Brazen; you just proved you have no case at all.

I cannot simly turn the other cheek as the homosexual agenda tries to make a further wreck of the family as a whole, and that is at bottom what is at stake.Please explain how the fact that a minority will have the same rights as you will destroy that right for you. NOTHING is taken away from YOU. Also, if you believe that the family is destroyed by same-sex marriage, that shows your belief in marriage itself isn't high to begin with. Is your marriage suddenly worth less simply because people of the same sex can marry too? Really??
Oh, and if you really think that the downfall of the family will mark the collapse of society: why not ban divorce?
Divorces end marriages, same-sex marriages don't. As simple as that.

Also, I really like how you can barely contain your hatred towards homosexuals. The mask has almost fallen off.
But make no mistake, Brazen: eventually homosexual couples will be able to marry, just like everybody else. And then christians from future generations will look upon people like you like they look upon the christians who supported slavery, forbade mixed-race marriage and withheld the vote from women: with shame.

Re: other gods--again, the ethical nature of following or fearing other gods is directly tied to this inescapable fact: THE God of the Bible exists, and He alone. That being the case, of course I don't fear the fertile imagination of some idolater.Right. And any follower of any other religion will say exactly the same about you.
And don't think you can prove them wrong, because you can't. They're just as convinced about their imaginatory god as you are about yours.
Suffice to say; I don't fear the fertile imagination of any idolator, including you.

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Tax and Frodo:

First off, let's get something clear here: I don't hate homosexuals. Romans 12:9 does command, amongst other places, for Christians to "abhor what is evil, hold fast to what is good." HomosexualITY is evil, according to God's standards. The fact that the movie "Milk" came out recently doesn't hold my conscience. God's Word does. Our ethical discussion stands or falls on this note: you deny/refuse to submit to/resist/hate God (take your pic, they're synonymous according to Scripture). Because of that, you are held captive to your sinful mind, which is bent towards rebellion (again, not trying any fancy moves, just essentially repeating Romans 8). As far as my ethical position goes, please understand: I don't hate the person committing the sin. I am very sorry, truly, if you think that is my position. I have had homosexual friends in the past, and don't hate them (they're in the past because we moved away from that location). So, please hear me: I am sorry if I gave you the impression I hate the people who ascribe to this position.

I do, I MUST, hate the agenda itself, and to that I direct my diatribe (call it what you will). I wish I had more time to dedicate to this subject, but I don't have that luxury. When I said that the homosexual lifestyle will lead to the destruction of the family, that is based on what happened at Rome, and other civilizations of the ancient period, such as Sodom and Gomorrha (sp?).

God's Word (again: my identity as a Christian holds me captive to it) insists that God will judge a society indulging in sexual perversity. If you think a society can survive with the destruction of the family as a unit, which homosexual marriages will in fact usher in such an era (since you insist this will in fact happen, watch the statistics of the family's declension), then you are either ignorant of the past or you are simply suppressing the truth in wickedness (again with Romans 1:18).

As to the idea that you keep trying to tie civil rights/minorities and even women's suffrage: these are apples to your pork sandwich. They aren't even in the same vicinity of likeness!

How can an African American hide his skin? Please, compare that to a homosexual: you can't tell a person's sexual preference due to their skin color.

Further: Please tell me why you didn't answer my argument regarding the structure of our legal system? You seem to forget that the voters in California have been asked to vote the issue. They did. What else needs be said? It is the homosexual agenda and their advocates that are shoving the issue down the rest of our country's throat. It's either "accept this or..." Or what? Lose a beauty pageant? Lose your job?

It seems that the homosexual community, strong as it is, is simply looking for preferred status and special rights not offered to the rest of society: what other sinful act has a lobby group behind it? For what other act of rebelling against God is there such political strength?

Oh. Yeah. There is that abortion baby-killing thing...Murder, as you know, is a right, too. Long as it's your own kid.

Alas! I digress. Lemme get back on point.

You claim I'm using fear as a tactic to buttress my position. Agreed. That is one of the main issues between our "sides." I'm trying to get you to understand this:

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.

Apart from that foundation, you will never understand. Be glad I fear for your behalf: you both are too wise in your own eyes and blinded by your pride to realize you're both standing at the precipice of eternity, and what then?

You die tonight, facing the Jesus you claimed didn't exist. What will you say to Him? He'll tell you He gave you about a hundred and one chances to repent, and you would only harden your heart.

Why? To win an argument on Trish's blog? About a thousand years from now, will that matter? Will you say to yourself from the lake of God's wrath, "Well, this hurts, but at least I won that debate?"

It's foolishness to you, I know. But I'll keep mentioning it because that's really what's at stake. If the homosexual agenda wins out, and I'm pessimistic and agree with you that it just might happen pretty soon, at bottom is the question:

What have you done with God's Son? He came to pay your debt. Do you accept that payment? He came to suffer in your place. Would you simply laugh Him off? Deride Him? Mock Him?

Crucify Him, perhaps?

That's already happened. I plead with you again to reconsider. This isn't some logical fallacy I'm committing, emotional-based or not, I'm pleading with you and all the other atheists: don't resist the grace of God freely given.

While you deny Him, He's withheld no grace from you. You breathe His grace every day when your lungs fill with His air.

FrodoSaves said...

Brazen Hussey's,

Your noble embrace of homosexuals as a people and hatred for homosexuality itself smacks of condescension and a lame attempt to put moral distance between yourself and the people your belief system requires you to disdain. It's like that politically correct principle which requires people not to criticize believers themselves, but instead to question the belief system itself. It's a ruse, a diversion, a Trojan Horse, which attempts to exonerate the followers under the pretense that they can't be blamed for the position their faith makes them hold. If you can't stiffen your spine and at least take ownership of your own beliefs, then you are a hypocrite.

Earlier I called your reasoning fatuous and your assertions baseless. Let's see why.

"natural law: homosexuality doesn't reflect nature's design whatsoever"On the contrary, there are over 1,500 species in the Animal Kingdom with observed cases of homosexuality. Natural selection works at a species level; if a species was 100% homosexual (or even substantially less), it wouldn't survive, and your argument would have value. But the future of Homo sapiens isn't jeopardized by a statistically small degree of homosexuality, so essentially, nature doesn't care.

"That being the case, we've recognized that certain rights are given to mankind through Nature's God, as the Declaration of Independence states"Your appreciation of historical context is severely wanting. In the 18th Century, monarchs based their governmental legitimacy on a claimed mandate to govern from God. The Founding Fathers recognized that the only way they could win was if they appealed to this concept, alleging that King George III had broken his contractual duty with God by infringing the colonists' rights. It was a shrewd maneuver to avoid interference from other European monarchs who might have otherwise felt threatened by similar revolutionary movements on their own turf.

It's a concept called natural rights. Thomas Hobbes, Immanuel Kant, John Locke and Thomas Paine theorized on the concept extensively and were hugely influential in the American Revolution. They argued variously that the political man derived his rights from his ability to reason, the gift to the state of his consent to be governed, or from nature. You would do well to learn about it, and once you have, you can make an educated decision to cease your faulty arguments, or continue blundering around like a blind man.

"But to try to pervert the definition of marriage..."This is your most woefully transparent argument yet. The so-called definition of marriage has been changing for centuries, and it will continue to change. It's a social institution, not some inherent facet of nature we can't do without. Intrinsically, social institutions change. Traditionally, the definition of 'property' included people. The definition of 'justice' included brutally stoning people. The definition of 'voter' meant white, male, and land-owning. Even 'marriage' over the years has included polygamy and outright female servitude. Marriage is not an immutable concept, whether you care to admit it or not.

"the downfall of the family as a unit will signify the collapse of our society. Don't believe me? Check out the downfall of Rome and other major states in history. At bottom is a breakdown of the family as a unit."Remember how I accused you of being miserly with the facts? This is exactly what I meant. The downfall of Rome was primarily due to the escalating and unbearable cost of its military, the overextension of its forces, and growing friction with and defeats at the hands of its neighbors.

"To make a deliberate choice to commit a sin such as homosexuality and compare that to civil liberties should offend every minority in this country"Projecting your own beliefs onto entire groups of people is no argument at all. If minorities want to be offended by the plight of another minority, that's their prerogative, not yours. Furthermore, your assertion that homosexuality is a 'choice' is not supported by any facts whatsoever, and remains entirely your (rather bigoted) opinion.

First it's same sex marriage. Next: polygamy, pedophiles, etc.This is called the slippery slope fallacy. You assert that merely because one activity you find morally objectionable happens, a cascade of other unseemly deeds will follow. Combined with the fear mongering you so liberally wield, this is an argument so bad it makes the rest of your terrible points jealous.

As I said before, try again.

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Frodo Saves

I LOVE your use of insult! Really, it's a rare gift, and made me laugh. I mean, if I didn't have a spine, which you allege, I might want to cry. In all honesty, well done, sir, well done: you win on the hurl an insult note (and that coming from a man who's spent his life getting into trouble for the same, just ask my older brother!).

If you can't separate a homosexual from his or her act of homosexuality, which is a sin, that's your problem, not my fallacy. You are a self-claim atheist. I don't hate you. I hate atheism.

Again: this is your problem. The world is filled with one type of person: sinners. You and I both, along with all the homosexual and heterosexuals and all else in between, fit nicely into this category. We as Christians are everywhere called to hate sin, but we don't have the God-given right to hate sinners themselves: we are all in that boat!

I can see why you think I'd be a hypocrite. On top of that, you insinuate I'm lying when I say I don't hate the homosexual. You've made your judgment, but you're dead wrong.

Insults aside (again: kudos! You're a pro!), let me counter some of your points:

"...there are over 1,500 species in the Animal Kingdom with observed cases of homosexuality. Natural selection works at a species level; if a species was 100% homosexual (or even substantially less), it wouldn't survive, and your argument would have value. But the future of Homo sapiens isn't jeopardized by a statistically small degree of homosexuality, so essentially, nature doesn't care."

Are you seriously taking your ethical cue from the animal kingdom? I brought up the point of nature's design because males reproduce with females. Same sex unions are an aberration to this design, and if you don't think it's a design, you need to watch more PBS specials. Seriously, my only point here was propagation, it requires opposite sexes. The mere fact that there are homosexual cases in the animal kingdom proves nothing to your point, unless you take human ethics from animals, which is degenerate thinking.

Do you think that, for instance, females ought to eat their male mates in human society because that's what many spiders do?

Do you think you ought to eat the head lice off the person sitting next to you on the next subway train because many primates find that tactful?

Do you think we ought to greet each other the way dogs do...and I'll leave it at that.

You get my drift. We don't look at the animals and say, "works for them!" First off, if there are animal homosexuals, all that proves is what the Bible says from the beginning (at least Genesis 3) that this world has fallen INTO SIN and there are consequences for that, yes even in the animal kingdom. Second, again, the design of opposite sexes pro-creating their races requires male on female interaction.

Re: American History: I simply rest my case in the words of the Declaration of Independence, and whether you acknowledge the Calvinistic and Christian influence or no, know this: if the atheists had ruled the day then, you'd be enjoying far fewer rights than you are now. But go ahead: enjoy the rights that God has granted even those who deny Him. It's called "common grace." Things like, you know, air? Water? Food? Or, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness? Rights that cannot be denied by a proper government because God gave them to you, not the state. Enjoy them, and be thankful atheists like Marx, Hitler, or any Communist-fascist-marxist-atheist government. As to the rest of your comments: I found them educational. Thanks.

You also allege that homosexuality is not a choice. This is plainly crazy talk. If I killed my neighbor's cat, it was a choice. If I cheat on my taxes, it was a choice. If I practice lewd sexual deviancy, it's a choice. What am I missing? Oh! You must think people are BORN this way? Right. Where's that evidence, again? Oh! That's right! There isn't any. Oops! Try again.

One last bit:

"The so-called definition of marriage has been changing for centuries, and it will continue to change. It's a social institution, not some inherent facet of nature we can't do without. Intrinsically, social institutions change. "

Right. However, again, with the worldview and a proper understanding of anthropology, which you can't have unless you understand this: we are made in God's image. "Male and female He created them." Not "male/male" or "female/female" but opposite sexes. Marriage is indelibly tied to the fact of creation, and the uniting of two into one flesh. The Imago Dei has everything to do with marriage, and everything to do with why it won't change, even if the politicians cowtow to an agenda they're afraid of. Without this proper understanding of the foundational premises of the family, naturally you'd think it could change.

Regarding Rome, your speculation is typical: naturalistic explanations without a view or understanding to the omnipotence of God and His judgment. Mark my words, though: it's happened many times in history. It happened to Rome as it happened to Sodom and Gomorrha: God rules this world and both raises and casts down nations.

Take my compliments above about your ability to insult at face value, btw. It really made me laugh! You ought to consider one last thing:

You, no less than anyone else, have been made in the image of God. How have you been reflecting that lately? Your condemnation, or your glorification, hinges on this: have you repented of your sin and trusted in Jesus your Savior? It's still a free gift, and I wanted to let you know about it again. Think about that, friend, and you and I can enjoy some pretty fun debates for eternity. Ok, maybe that's not something you look forward to, but here's the bottom line apologetic:

You will see Jesus, face to face, return in full refulgent glory. Every knee, even yours and all atheists', all who practice false religions and bow to idols, ALL OF US, will bow down before Him and confess, "Jesus Christ is LORD!" The final apologetic is simply that this isn't a joke--it will happen. Bottom line: He wins the argument. He'll have you one way or another, and He commands you to repent and trust in Him today.

Have a great weekend!

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ BrazenHusseys:

I repent in dust in ashes for this sentence fragment:

"Rights that cannot be denied by a proper government because God gave them to you, not the state. Enjoy them, and be thankful atheists like Marx, Hitler, or any Communist-fascist-marxist-atheist government."

That last line should've continued:

"Enjoy them (God-given rights), and be thankful atheists....didn't write our founding documents."

My observation has been that the governments missing a view that their sphere sovereignty has been granted and defined by God Himself, i.e.: the atheist forms of government, have all wound up totalitarian one way or another. True freedom is granted by the American "experiment," because our founders understood they were operating under God's rule.

I mentioned "sphere sovereignty," wherein that requires some explanation:

There are three main spheres of sovereign governments--Family, Church and State. Sometimes it's presented with the two spheres of Church and State, but Family is really the smallest form of gov'mt.

These three spheres have been defined by God, and co-exist. Their jobs are clearly defined in Scripture, and operate in co-operation with one another, though it's difficult at best with the nature of sin affecting 100% of the members of each sphere.

There's so much more to say about the subject, but in a nutshell I wanted to introduce the idea.

Frodo: did you destroy the Ring yet? Cast it to the flames! (so disappointed he didn't in the book, but that's an illusion to sin's deception and power. Frodo can, after all, save you...)

get_education said...

Brazen Hussey's,

Amongst other things: the Law giver gave the law to those who aren't by nature holy. The Law wasn't written to master the Law giver.---

This means exactly the same. It means that God's rules are what he wants us to do. Not really part of what he is. Thus, we cannot conclude that God is good. Thus, the God you believe in is a dictator.

Now, do not get me wrong. I am just interpreting what you guys are saying. I never said God was one way or the other. It is you who have been justifying that whatever God does is his right. All as answers to what others say about things that look quite immoral. Thus, I can only conclude that your definition of "holy" has nothing to do with good. But all to do with "he is the boss and I will not question him".

If that is what you want to believe, that is fine with me. I am glad I do not have to deal with the cognitive dissonance.

Save the "you do not get to make the rules". I am not even trying to make the rules. Again, I am just reading what you say.

G.E.

get_education said...

Brazen Hussey's,

Sorry to butt into your conversation with FrodoSaves, but you exchanged the whole thing about natural design into a derivation of morals/ethics from the "examples" of the natural world. That is a non-sequitur. Frodo explained to you that homosexuality was not precluded from nature. Yeah, he might have failed at getting what you meant by "natural design", which you explained quite well (not what man and female are made exactly for). But jumping from that into saying that frodoSaves was arguing for the derivation of ethics from natural behaviors is unfounded.

G.E.

get_education said...

Also,

"Marx, Hitler, or any Communist-fascist-marxist-atheist government"

1. Marx did not rule any country.
2. Hitler was not an atheist, and his government was not a atheist government. Hitler was Christian.
3. The rejection of religion in communist totalitarian governments was more due to their wanting to have complete control rather than share power with the religious factions. None of their atrocities had anything to do with atheism, and all to do with totalitarianism/power.

I could talk about many atrocities made in the name of, and even inspired by, Christianity. Should I then conclude that Christianity is nothing more than those atrocities? Should I blame you for Hitler as you try so hard to blame atheism? Hitler said he was doing God's work, yet I know that does not mean that Christians are all Hitlers, nor that what Hitler did is what Christianity is all about.

G.E.

FrodoSaves said...

Brazen Hussey's,

I never called your distinction between hating homosexuality and hating homosexuals a fallacy. I think it's just a device to put moral distance between yourself and the objects of your condescension. It helps you sleep better at night knowing that you don't hate anyone, you just hate something they happen to be.

Are you seriously taking your ethical cue from the animal kingdom?
No, I'm not. G.E. was exactly right to point out that your conclusion here is a non-sequitur. I was simply responding to your argument that homosexuality wasn't 'natural' by pointing out that, actually, yes it is. Propagation of a species does require heterosexual reproduction, but it doesn't require every member of the species to be heterosexual. I certainly don't take my moral cues from the natural world. Chimpanzees sometimes eat their young. I'm not about to follow suit. I was simply illustrating that calling homosexuality 'unnatural' was a useless argument.

if the atheists had ruled the day then, you'd be enjoying far fewer rights than you are now
I disagree, but the argument is nevertheless irrelevant. You may believe that your rights come from God - but the founders didn't. If you put store in the Declaration of Independence, you have more confidence in secularism than you believe. I'm glad you found my comments educational.

You also allege that homosexuality is not a choice. This is plainly crazy talk.
While an individual homosexual act might be a choice, I don't believe from what I've read that attraction to the same sex is. Thousands of Christians who believe their homosexual attraction is a sin struggle earnestly to fight it - you want to tell me they choose to put themselves through that?

Honestly, I skimmed over the remainder of your arguments regarding marriage being an immutable concept and the downfall of Rome, and I'm not going to respond to them in detail. You ignore evidence I produced in favor of vague, unconvincing and out-of-place theistic explanations. I don't enjoy fishing for red herrings, and that was truly an enormous haul.

FrodoSaves

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ GE:

I will admit something: I am not above moving off topic and the non sequitur. I'd lay that at the feet of my sinful nature: the effect of sin on my mind. If that is what I did, or perhaps I had missed Frodo's point or misunderstood something, I'll thank you now and in advance for pointing it out.

It is you who have been justifying that whatever God does is his right. All as answers to what others say about things that look quite immoral. Thus, I can only conclude that your definition of "holy" has nothing to do with good. But all to do with "he is the boss and I will not question him".The definition of "holy" encompasses the idea of moral purity, moral goodness. However it is more than that. The basic idea from Scripture's use of "holy" (esp. as applied to God's nature) is that He is entirely "Other," in a class by Himself. You are getting at the meaning when you said that my definition of holiness wasn't (simply) goodness. It is that and more.

Taking your example of the times of God's severe judgment and justice being meted out on the other nations through Israel, in several places He intimates that Israel is acting as His arm of justice. He is punishing these other nations through Israel. Granted: we aren't called to do so in the New Covenant, the Church isn't called to conquer in this fashion. It was also tied to the notion of displacing the enemies of God from the land He was granting to Israel. All of it was tied to two things: His immutable promise to Abraham, and His sovereign right to judge people in ways that simply make us wince.

It is overall difficult to read what the acts of Israel and our God were in the past, but Paul tells us that these things were written down for our instruction, so that we'd know the nature of the God we serve: He has been and can be mercilessly just. One thing God hasn't done in these passages: slaughtered an innocent group of people. All of them (yes, Israel included) were sinful from birth. All were born under the curse that befell our entire race through the federal representation of Adam. As such, they were all naturally God's enemies, and God visits justice upon whomever He will.

The fact is striking that we still exist: there is no reason we ought not be cast to the flames this very moment. It is only due to God's grace that we don't find ourselves in Hell this very moment: it is God's right to do so.

And you're right: taken from another perspective, it could easily be said that "God is a dictator," if all we had was the information of these rare events where God clearly has commanded His people to commit acts of war we can't fit into the Geneva Convention. The story doesn't end there, though. The story ends with a crescendo:

The God who did all these things (severe justice), has all power and reason to do them to us today, but instead sent His only begotten Son to die in our place.

See, He reversed the trajectory of justice, and instead of visiting you and me and our families and friends with instant justice, instead of arming Israel with the command and capability to wipe out all of us pork-eating Gentiles from the face of the earth, instead of coming to earth as the destroyer and executioner....


....Jesus came as a lowly servant, to serve US, to flip the entire expectation of anyone of the ancient or modern eras: Jesus came and gave His life for yours, and justice can be satisfied in your account if you simply put your trust in this, your hope and savior, Jesus Christ.

That, friend, is why we declare the goodness of God. He took His own punishment on behalf of all who would put their trust in His provision.

On the cross, Christ said, "It is FINISHED." That is: "It is paid in FULL." He was talking about YOUR debt, MY debt, my kids' debt, my wife's debt...etc. It is paid. Justice doesn't loom over you...unless you don't want this payment. In which case, the sad truth is, you will have to pay it on your own.

At bottom is this: God is better than merely "good." He is merciful, His Son humbled Himself for our sake, He is graceful and gives us an enduring hope.

Heath P said...

FrodoSaves You said
“It helps you sleep better at night knowing that you don't hate anyone, you just hate something they happen to be.”

I find that your argument is a bit fallacious. Homosexuality is something people do and not who they are. (We all have a predisposition for sin; it just happens that in this case it is sodomy.) If we were to distain “people” for their sins then we would have to hate everyone. This would include everyone who Hates God, does not put Him first, uses his name in vain, lies, looks at pornography, and steals. It would not be limited to just homosexual acts. We would even have to distain ourselves. It is my strong belief that if homosexuality was not an issue there would be some other sin to take its place as the sacred cow of sins.


Romans 1:24-27
24Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Heath P:

You need a blog. Really. Just my 2 coppers. I've really enjoyed your apologetic.

@ Frodo:

Destroy the ring!!

FrodoSaves said...

HeathP the blogless,

That's funny, because I find your argument fallacious. You say, 'If we were to distain “people” for their sins then we would have to hate everyone.' This type of argument commits the appeal to consequences fallacy. In other words, that you would have to hate everyone whose sins you hate if my argument is correct has no bearing on whether my argument is correct.

I also think you're wrong when you say "homosexuality is something people do and not who they are." If you were to follow through with this assertion, you would see that it's inconsistent with your position on homosexual marriage. Let me show you.

By saying that homosexuality is something people do, you're separating an act from a person's identity. In other words, that one act you take issue with is cleaved off from other, unrelated spheres of that person's life, such as marriage. Marriage, after all, is about family. Homosexuals can already live together and have sex; marriage isn't going to allow them to have any more sex than they're having already, i.e. it has no bearing on how much they're sinning. Raising a family, the one thing marriage would give homosexuals, is separate and immune from sinful homosexual sex.

Personally, I'm happy with this logically consistent conclusion. But it's completely inconsistent with the rest of your arguments, i.e. that homosexual marriage is somehow wrong. This means either (1) you have no grounds on which to oppose gay marriage, or (2) sexual acts cannot be separated from a person's identity.

Since you're not likely to like (1), this means that (2) must be correct. In other words, homosexuality is more than just an act; it's part of a person's identity. In this case, hating what someone does requires you to hate a large part of what someone is. Making the distinction is arbitrary, and as I've shown, logically inconsistent. If you don't like the consequences of that conclusion, unfortunately it's your bed to sleep in.

Heath P said...

FrodoSaves
I obviously have failed again to express what I was thinking. I was hoping you would see that from a Christian (Biblical) perspective the hatred of sin is mandated. We do not get to pick and choice which ones we like and which we don’t. But also the love of neighbors and even enemy’s is also mandated. So to single out the sin of sodomy would be wrong from a biblical view. You are quite entitled to say that I am wrong and I applauded you for that. It is much easier talking to someone who is willing to say that I am wrong rather than some who believes there is no right and wrong. The question is, are the statements in the Bible true about this matter? Will God have a day when he will Judge the world righteousness? Will he punish all thous who have wilfully ignored his warning? Is there eternal punishment for all your crimes against him? But my biggest concern for you is will you accept the provision he has made for those he will save? Will you repent? Will you receive the gift of salvation through Jesus? Please consider it put aside what you have against God. I don’t care about winning arguments on this blog, that’s not what I’m here for. I pray for you, that you will put aside this stumbling block of immediately writing of anything that may be supernatural. I was skeptical once myself I would mock Christians for their stupidity. Please at least explore the possibility; I don’t want to see you go to hell I don’t want to see anyone go. I hope this makes sense to you.

Heath The Blogless said...

Thanks

Brazen Hussey's
and FrodoSaves

I have decided to change my blogger name from HeathP.