Skip to main content
Home2012 Articles2011 Articles2010 Articles2009 Articles2008 Articles2007 Articles
 
 2009 Articles 
Sunday, May 31 2009

It's not a scare tactic...it's simply a scary reality.  The United States and the rest of the free world stand on the precipice of entering an age of nuclear blackmail, tension, and terror.  Whatever allegiances our President feels to particular interest groups, whatever motivations he previously held, whatever his domestic agenda might entail, this issue deserves his undivided attention.  It's time to be President, Mr. Obama.  And that means making your top priority protecting this generation of Americans, and those yet to be born.

 

For the purpose of achieving political power, the Democratic Party waged a successful six-year propaganda campaign against former President George W. Bush.  They tarnished him as engaging in cowboy diplomacy, accused him of war crimes, suggested that he was urinating on the Constitution, and condemned him for destroying civil liberties in his maniacal quest for unlimited authority.  It was a calculated political strategy to use the President's unwavering commitment to fighting threats to our country against him.  And it worked.  Bush left office with an incredibly low approval rating, and both branches of elected government are now completely dominated by those who opposed America's preemptive war strategy from the start (President Obama), or those who originally supported it but then changed their minds once it became politically expedient to do so (virtually every other Democrat in Washington).

 

But as news broke that North Korea belligerently defied the world again by testing nuclear weapons and missile capabilities, all while Iran rejected the softer approach of our new leadership to continue their own pursuit of nukes, you wouldn't be blamed for wondering if this change of power in Washington was really so great after all.

 

Regardless of how one might feel about the actions of former President Bush - whether they went too far or were too obsessive - there is no denying the motivation behind those actions: he vowed to protect the American people at any cost.  If it meant going it alone, he would do it.  If it meant allowing tough interrogations against murderous butchers, he would do it.  And while liberals across the country publicly lamented his bullish behavior, they benefitted from his relentless resolve.  They were able to put their heads on their pillows at night knowing that the man they impugned was pacing the floors of the White House to ensure they could wake up safely the next day to resume their criticism.

 

But the cowboy who was once so easy to demonize is gone.  And in his place, an under-qualified Chicago politician who doesn't seem to grasp that radical Islamists and lunatic dictators aren't tempted by "peace," nor enticed by compromises.  Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad aren't intrigued by Obama's new rhetoric, they aren't fascinated by his humble beginnings, they aren't captivated by his powerful oratory, and they certainly aren't impressed by his global celebrity.  They will view Barack Obama just as they have viewed other American presidents: either an obstacle to overcome, or a pushover to manipulate.

 

To this point, Americans have reason for concern.  President Obama has already spoken out against preemptive strikes even when intelligence reveals an imminent threat.  He has condemned tough interrogations as beneath our dignity, even if it means saving countless American lives.  He has ordered his Secretary of Defense to slash spending on missile defense, even as the threat of a catastrophic electromagnetic pulse emanating from an ICBM has become real.

 

Bear in mind this new nuclear threat is not like the last.  During the Cold War, Presidents from Kennedy to Reagan knew they were dealing with an evil, but rational regime.  The Soviets were our ideological enemies, but we both benefited from the knowledge that neither desired a nuclear holocaust that would end all life on earth.  That was the baseline that made negotiations, diplomacy, and compromise possible.  We have no such baseline with North Korea and Iran.

 

Islamic scholar Fouad Ajami stated that for Muslims like Ahmadinejad, negotiations are "at best a breathing spell before the fight for their utopia is taken up again."  George W. Bush seemed to understand that to some degree.  The future of this country depends on Barack Obama swallowing his pride, overcoming his self-delusion, and grasping what columnist Clifford May perfectly articulated: "What they seek is not our friendship.  It is our submission.  We confuse the two at our peril."
Posted by: Peter Heck AT 11:00 pm   |  Permalink   |  101 Comments  |  Email
Comments:
Well, it looks like VP Biden was correct. Now let's see if Pres. Obama can kill our enemies with his rhetorical and diplomatic skills. However, I agree with Pete and believe they are not one bit threatened by his skills as an smooth-tongued orator. I hope I am wrong, but he is in for an eye opening experience.
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/01/2009 07:49:42
I know that Christians are supposed to win over their enemies by being kind; however, that is after we have beat them on the battlefield. Too many Christian apply commandments that are meant for interpersonal relationships to the government's responsibilities. This is a deadly confusion of Scripture. Jesus said, "If my kingdom were of this world, then my disciples would fight."
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/01/2009 07:53:05
In case you've forgotten, George W. Bush was the man who turned Clinton's record surplus into a record deficit, who started an illegal war under false pretenses, and who rescinded human rights as fundamental as that of habeas corpus. Worse still, he ignored the memos on August 6th, 2001 which stated exactly what Bin Laden would do, thereby allowing thousands of lives to go up in smoke a month later. People don't forget this stuff, Pete. Maybe if our collective memory of the last 8 years were erased, all this stuff could be blamed on Obama. As for the fear you're mongering; I suppose you want another illegal economy-draining war on our hands? Forget Obama for just a nanosecond; what would President Peter Heck do in this situation?
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/01/2009 08:43:33
And your characterization of liberals is wrong, of course. During the Bush regime, I was more worried about how Bush et al would react to a terrorist attack, how many more rights they'd trash, how many nations they'd senselessly attack, than of terrorist acts themselves. See, I'm not afraid. Terrorism outrages me, but it doesn't scare me - it doesn't scare me into giving up our invaluable rights as Americans. A great man once said "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Funny thing about Republicans - they call liberals cowards, yet they are much more easily manipulated by the politics of fear than are liberals. This site strikes me as just another right-wing apparatus of fear, and I wonder what it is you're hoping to achieve.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/01/2009 11:08:07
Has Mr. Heck raised the iron curtain of censorship? . . . Or has he just been too busy to approve comments?
Posted by Tears of McCain on 06/03/2009 14:14:37
Mr. Heck is on vacation, hopefully staying away from the news entirely. We will be checking periodically for approval and posting...no censorship, just a new regiment for a few days. Thank you for your patience.
Posted by ADMIN on 06/03/2009 14:38:54
Yo Matt, timely debate we had on abortion, just days before one of your brothers in Christ took matters into his own hands. The terrorist group City of God seems to think the Bible justifies killing abortionists - do you think so, Matt? Oh, and that terrorist coward happened to be a big Bill-O fan, as was the coward who opened fire in a Unitarian church, gunning for "liberals". Think about it: the right-wing noise machine smears liberals 24/7, broadcasting outrage after supposed outrage to a very large group of people. Should we be surprised when this unremitting fury leads to killing? Are those right-wing "Pro-America" loudmouths actually causing terrorism within our own borders, and how would that be for fatal irony?
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/04/2009 10:51:19
As the US continues in its downward economic spiral, people will continue to lose their houses and their jobs. Right-wingnuts will blame this all on one man (guess who) and on one party (guess which.) Without jobs and without homes, these people will have nothing to lose, and they will exact their rage on the America government as well as the American public. Right wring acts of terrorism will skyrocket, dwarfing the threat posed by Islam, expediting the onset of hyperinflation and social collapse in America. This is my earnest prediction, and as an American citizen, I really, truly hopes it's wrong.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/04/2009 11:43:09
That was pathetic, N. Gavelis. The left goes out of their way to tell us after every terror attack that "Islam is peaceful" and not to "categorize all Muslims" as terrorists. After this mass murderer (which you've admitted he is) gets killed, you want to castigate every pro-lifer as domestic terrorists. You are a joke, buddy, and credible only in your own mind.
Posted by Conservative Dem on 06/04/2009 16:35:06
The only joke here is your misinformed outrage, Conservative Dem. Did you even read my posts before you started huffing and puffing? *Never* did I call all pro-lifers terrorists - cool your jets. I spoke of only 2 specific terrorists: the coward who killed Dr. Tiller in church and the coward who killed churchgoers indiscriminately. Note that these people are not *pro*-life - they are murderers and hypocrites. And who ever said Islam is a religion of peace? The Koran is a vile book that repeatedly calls for bloody war. So, Conservative Dem, after you've calmed down and read my posts, come back and try to debate what's there rather than what's not, if you're able.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/04/2009 18:29:28
Long ago, the Greeks identified the 3 sources from which all arguments gain strength: pathos (emotion), logos (logic), and ethos (character). Look around at Pete's site, at the explosions, the dead bodies, the rants about an America derailed, and you're looking at pathos epitomized. Personally, that's not my bag; I prefer logos. They may not be as thrilling as pathetic arguments, but logical arguments are sound. On the safe anonymity of the internet, however, most people act like you, C. Dem. You went at my character like a fat kid goes at a Big Mac. But to your chagrin, this just doesn't work. I don't use ethos to advance my arguments. Until you learn to use logic and reason as your primary weapons, you'll just be shadow boxing.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/04/2009 19:58:41
NGav, you're ridiculous. After having just finished saying, "Without jobs and without homes, these people will have nothing to lose, and they will exact their rage on the America government as well as the American public. Right wring acts of terrorism will skyrocket, dwarfing the threat posed by Islam, expediting the onset of hyperinflation and social collapse in America" you extol the virtues of rational debate. Ah yes, logos in action. Give your over-inflated ego a rest, buddy.
Posted by Observer on 06/04/2009 23:44:29
NGav, the egomaniac, strikes again. "I know big Greek words, so I'm smarter than everyone else." Of course, after telling us all on how you use logos in your arguments and never pathos, you used a bit of an appeal to emotion yourself. Nevertheless, I took you up on your challenge. It follows...
Posted by Conservative Dem on 06/05/2009 00:29:40
Monday: headline story on the murder of Tiller, suggesting people THINK through how a devalued sanctity of life perpetuated by Tiller hurts everyone, including Tiller. Secondary stories on the LOGIC of Obama's DOJ releasing criminal voter intimidators; two pieces challenging liberals to THINK through their presuppositions: 1. on their outrage over Bush's action that Obama is duplicating and 2. the startling similarities between Bush and Obama; and finally a story on the implications of protecting pedophiles in the name of hate crimes. ALL LOGOS, though ‘pedophile protection' might be used to evoke emotional response.
Posted by Conservative Dem on 06/05/2009 00:30:22
Tuesday: headline story on the crisis in the Middle East and the fact that Israel will not wait on the U.S. to protect themselves. The story provokes THOUGHT into the wisdom of U.S. actions or inaction. Secondary stories on the coming GM product line and what it will mean for autoworkers futures; one on the LOGICAL response pro-lifers should have to Tiller's murder; one story exposing the lack of LOGIC of the left regarding their Tiller accusations; and one proposing the left THINK through what their reaction would be if a white male had made statements similar to Sotomayor's.and what those comments say about her. ALL LOGOS.
Posted by Conservative Dem on 06/05/2009 00:30:52
Wednesday: headline story on Obama's appointment of a man who recruits young kids to join sexual groups at young ages to be his safe school czar. Encourages readers to THINK through the implications of such an appointment. Secondary stories on the lack of LOGIC and sense found in the media's analysis of how the abortion debate has turned ‘deadly;' how ILLOGICAL Pepsi Co is for refusing to make donations to groups no matter how much good they do since they have the word ‘God' in their name; the imprisonment of a famous Creationist; and an exposition of how a mainstream singer has a glaring IGNORANCE of American history. ALL LOGOS, though mentioning ‘faith based persecution' as a possibility might be used to evoke an emotional response.
Posted by Conservative Dem on 06/05/2009 00:31:25
Thursday: headline story on how Osama bin Laden is responding to Obama's outreach to the Muslim world. Encourages viewers to THINK through what this could mean for America. Secondary stories on Obama's sudden shift regarding his Muslim heritage and connections; encouragement to follow Holder's suggestion to not be cowardly and discuss race by starting by THINKING through Sotomayor and her racial issues; link to Tiller's website allowing listeners to see for themselves Tiller's life's work and its IMPLICATIONS; a piece highlighting the question of whether America is a Muslim nation or not. MOSTLY LOGOS, though a couple of these stories could certainly appeal to pathos.
Posted by Conservative Dem on 06/05/2009 00:31:57
Friday: headline story on Obama's speech, ANALYZING the words and ideas behind them. Secondary stories on pointing out the left's hypocrisy on the VP clothes issues; encourages listeners to THINK through the insanity of calling pro-lifers domestic terrorists for five deaths compared to 49 million victims of the religion of peace; story that encourages listeners to pay close attention to the words and THINK through what they mean when reading stories regarding Darwinian proofs; a story encouraging listeners to THINK through who is responsible for killing the domestic automakers. ALL LOGOS.
Posted by Conservative Dem on 06/05/2009 00:32:27
So in conclusion, you said: "Look around at Pete's site" (I DID) "at the explosions," (NONE) "the dead bodies," (NONE) "the rants about an America derailed," (IS ONE UNABLE TO POINT OUT AMERICA'S WRONG TURNS AND MISTAKES LOGICALLY?...ARE ALL RANTS NECESSARILY PATHOS?) "and you're looking at pathos epitomized." I MUST THEREFORE CONCLUDE THAT EITHER YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT PATHOS IS YOURSELF, YOU WERE ASSUMING NO ONE WOULD TAKE YOU UP ON YOUR CHALLENGE, OR YOU'RE JUST TALKING OUT YOUR REAR END. I THINK THE LATTER, IF IT MATTERS.
Posted by Conservative Dem on 06/05/2009 00:33:00
N.G. Talk about prejuding people and lumping everyone together! My opinion of you is going down hill. There has been plenty of pro-lifers that have condemned the killing of Dr. Tiller, including me. How about the condeming of the 49+ million innocent babies that have been killed. Certainly the murder of the five pro-death individuals is a tragedy, but so is the 49+ million babies that have been slaughtered on the altar of convenience. Open your eyes and listen to yourself!
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/05/2009 09:25:15
Now to the matter at hand. This is proving our greatest fear about Pres. Obama to be true. He is more concerned with appeasing the Muslims than keeping us and our allies, Israel, safe. It would take many posts to address all that was wrong with Pres. Obama's speech in Cairo. Factually and philosophically it was wrong on nearly everything. The Muslim "contributions" to the world were exaggerated at best, and to say that they respect the freedom of religion is laughable. (I'm sure that some do, but many do not.)
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/05/2009 09:29:36
As far as the economy goes. I blame both parties. The Democrats are completely wrong on their philosophy that government is the answer to all our problems, and the Republicans are guilty of allowing the Dems to get away with it. (It all started on Pres. Bush's watch.) Now the Republicans sound hypocritical in their opposition. We need true CONSERVATIVES, not simply RINOs.
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/05/2009 09:35:41
So you looked at Pete's site and decided it is 100% logical and pathos-free! Of course, if a logical argument is geared to appeal to outrage or fear, it is also a pathetic (pathos-based) argument. Pathos and logos are not mutually exclusive, so your lengthy assessment is bunk. Almost every article and headline here falls under the pathetic umbrella; that is self-evident. And don't pretend you never saw the piles of dead corpses on the front page a few days ago and the headline "THINK HITLER WITH NUKES." Again, Republicans are very easily manipulated by fear and outrage, so it is not surprising the sites like this go from that angle again and again.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/05/2009 10:14:48
My ego is so big it eats children. You can quote me on that.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/05/2009 10:53:33
By the way, propaganda also spurs THINKING, albeit flawed thinking - this does not make it logical. Furthermore, something can be logically coherent yet still completely wrong if it starts from false premises. For instance, when Mr. Heck says America is losing its Christian underpinnings, forgetting that America is a secular nation founded by deists and Christians on Enlightenment principles, he's already wrong. "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Gotta go now, the ego hungers.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/05/2009 11:28:43
"The government of the United States is not in any sense..." Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 Article XI (English Translation only). I'd encourage you to check out Heck's excellent debunking of this commonly used (and perhaps only credible one) argument against the firm foundation the Founders gave rooted in Christian principle. And while you're at it, pick up a copy of the Treaty of Paris, 1783 and read the first line. Keep in mind, this is the treaty that gave us our independence. We've strayed a little bit from the topic of this column, haven't we? NGav, what do YOU think the U.S. should do? Let Iran and NK go nuclear knowing the risks it would pose?
Posted by Observer on 06/05/2009 23:31:57
N.G., Pres. It's interesting to compare Pres. Obama's speech in Cairo with the one the next day at Buchenwald. He didn't have the courage to say the things that he said at Buchenwald to the Islamic religion at Cairo. At Cairo, he couldn't help but make moral equivalence arguments that made us and Israel look as bad as Hitler (genocide = occupation) and Saddam Hussein (real torture = tough interrogations). This was pathetic (pathos) and should be condemned by Americans.
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/06/2009 07:22:21
Also, Pres. Obama should not have said that it was ok for Iran to have nuclear technology. Do you believe they will only use it for electricity? They vow to destroy Israel and American (whom they view as Satan). That includes you and me. Pres. Obama is guilty of thinking everyone is going to lay down their arms because he has asked nicely. What a mixture of pride and stupidity.
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/06/2009 07:27:55
Observer, IMO the most obvious hint that America isn't a Christian nation is the complete absence of Xianity in this country's founding documents. The closest thing to a Xian gesture is the reference to a Creator in the Declaration, a term that is conspicuously ambiguous - could be deist, Xian, or anything/everything monotheistic. Also, multiple Founders and subsequent Presidents were deists, making America arguably less Xian back then than it is today, politcally. And don't ignore that scourge of theocrats, the Establishment Clause. Unless you conflate the personal beliefs of a few Founders with the meaning of American government, one cannot deny this nation is founded secularly.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/07/2009 18:31:37
What would I do, Observer? Idle speculation, but I would cooperate with China, S. Korea, and Japan to the best of my abilities to either multilaterally invade N. Korea, to facilitate an uprising from within, or both. I would not give so much as a hint that war was coming to N. Korea. Ideally, that pathetic fascist would be surprised and then dead. As for Iran, I would permit them to develop nuclear power if and only if they allowed extensive multinational oversight of the process inside their borders. Otherwise I wouldn't stand for it. But what do I know?
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/07/2009 18:37:41
N.G., You couldn't be more wrong about our founding documents. First, every original state's constitution said that only Christians could hold public offices. Second, the only signer of the US Constitution that wasn't a member of a Christian church was Ben Franklin. Third, the US Constitution has one direct reference to Jesus (Art. 7 "in the year of our Lord"). They weren't talking about their landlord. Also, the words "do ordain" in the Preamble imply God's approval. That's just the beginning.
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/08/2009 09:10:07
Both the House and Senate did extensive research into the question in the 1854 and concluded that the founders wanted this to be a Christian nation. The Congressional record is clear on this issue. Yes, the founders wanted a separation of church and state, but not an isolation of church and state that the left calls for today. The First Amendment only limited the "federal" government's authority over religious practice. It did not call for a secular nation. The founders simply didn't want a national denomination like nations of Europe had. (Also, the impedous behind the phrase you quoted from the Treaty of Tripoli.)
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/08/2009 09:20:01
I don't care about the states' founding documents; we're talking about the nation. FYI, even today in these allegedly un-Christian times, Christians are disproportionately represented in the federal and state governments. The reason? The majority wins, and the majority in America has always been Christian. *That* is the sense in which America is a Christian nation. If America was a federally Christian nation, you could expect the Constitution to say so. But it didn't, and all you can come up with is phrases like "do ordain" (LOL), Creator (generic), and Lord's year (convention.) You say you have more evidence - you'll need more evidence.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/08/2009 15:31:14
I agree, the founders didn't want a national denomination - or any kind of theocracy. Theocracies become corrupt and backwards places, and knowing this, they created this secular nation. Thomas Jefferson - "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." TJ criticized Xianity even more harshly than I do.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/08/2009 15:35:53
Jefferson's remarks against your religion and its theocratic ambitions are practically endless: "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." So I could take Matthew Turner's word or Thomas Jefferson's word. Hmm, tough choice. Well not really.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/08/2009 15:43:38
"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluable bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." - John Q. Adams So do I take John Q. Adams' word or N. Gavelis's word? Hmm, tough choice. Well not really. Also, notice that Jefferson's comments were directed towards the priesthood, not the doctrines of Christ. "To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the pure doctrines of Jesus...I'm a Christian in the only sense he wished anyone to be - purely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others." So is manipulating the words of TJ to suit your own ends that LOGOS you were talking about?
Posted by Observer on 06/08/2009 22:24:55
NG, I know we are a bit off the point of this post, but I can't let you get away with a complete misrepresentation of your quote "from Thomas Jefferson". I went back and read his letter that quote is taken from and it has nothing to do with the founding of our nation. One of the most basic rules of reading history is to keep all quotes in their context. You probably haven't even seen the letter that qoute was taken from. He was trying to determine when Christianity became part of the English common law.
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/08/2009 23:35:28
As Jefferson is going through the history of common law, there is a disagreement as to when Christianity became influencial. The quote you use is completely taken out of context. Nice try. You should read the parenthetical statement that precedes the qoute you cite. It says that no current writer (of Jefferson's time) would say what you quoted. You can make someone say anything you want if you cut and paste a letter they wrote.
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/08/2009 23:42:18
Matt, I read the entire quote and the context, and I suggest you do it again. Jefferson's parenthetical statement supports what I've been saying, i.e., then as now, the great majority or people insist America is a Christian nation. TJ is explicitly *disagreeing* with that very common assumption. "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." NEITHER IS. NEVER WAS. That's very definitive wording and the context, if you read it, further supports it. Thank you for illuminating my point. :)
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/09/2009 09:08:13
If you think Jefferson only had a problem with the priesthood, Observer, you're in for a surprise. Go check out the Jefferson Bible. We can trade quotes all day, but when you read the revisions he made in his Bible, you'll see he had massive problems with Christian *doctrine.* Here's another quote though, keeping with trend: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear." Oh, and I'll take TJ over John Q any day.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/09/2009 09:16:13
And my main point stands untarnished - nowhere in this nation's founding documents does it say we are a Christian nation rather than a secular one. That's a pretty glaring omission. Anyway, why do so many Christians need to impose their beliefs on every good thing (e.g., secular America) and disown everything bad (e.g. Hitler)? It's not enough that you guys are the majority in this country? Perhaps it's because you're used to doing this with God. Everything good on this is attributed to God, everything bad is attribute to Satan or nonbelievers. Ideological damage control. With this approach, there is no way you can admit to wrongdoing.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/09/2009 09:34:54
You will take Jefferson over JQ, George Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Roger Sherman, and Patrick Henry too, I suppose? Anyway, everyone who has studied American history knows TJ took his anti-Christian path after his impact on American government. It occurred in France, later in his life. Further, limiting yourself to a man who played no part in the writing of the Constitution or amendments for an explanation of Constitutional underpinnings isn't exactly the greatest strategy.
Posted by Observer on 06/10/2009 00:06:15
Matt and Observer, if NGav is unwilling to look at the plain words of the Founding Fathers, the early court cases, and acts of Congress, you're wasting your breath. He imagines that "Christian nation" means that everyone has to be Christian or abide by a strict Christian code. That was never what the Founders intended. They simply saw that Christianity taught principles that was the best friend of civil government. Therefore, American government was equipped with power to encourage, and endorse Christian morality. Grasping it makes the numerous quotes of the founding fathers to make complete sense. To fail to grasp that is an exercise in stupidity and willful ignorance.
Posted by FF on 06/10/2009 00:10:08
On a final note, I would point everyone to NGav's most revealing statement: "I don't care about the states' founding documents; we're talking about the nation." That sums it up perfectly. NGav doesn't grasp the key concept of federalism. The Founders believed that the majority of governmental power should be kept close to the people...the states. The reason the national Constitution doesn't have a religious test is not because they loathed religion, but because they let the states make those decisions. NGav, you are highly uneducated on American history, or you are deliberately deceiving yourself to advance your own "religion" in the public square.
Posted by FF on 06/10/2009 00:14:48
FF & Observer, Great job! Thanks for saving me the time to express those very words. We must not be bullied into silence by the real revisionists. We must fight against all those that have had such a disasterous impact on our nation. I know we can't change the minds of all, but we can help those that are not sure how to respond to such nonsense. Keep up the good work.
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/10/2009 07:46:18
Hi FF, I'm not religious. Why is it the kneejerk defense of religious people to accuse their opponents of being one of them? I don't believe in talking snakes, I don't believe offering your daughters up for gang-rape is ever noble (Lott), and I don't believe a loving deity permits the eternal torment of billions of his children. My disbelief in these absurdities makes me more credible than all of you, not necessarily in American history, but in the broader picture. I defend America from theocratic revisionists because I don't want this religious nonsense conflated with the noble principles upon which this country was founded, Enlightenment principles.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/10/2009 09:49:45
Sorry, I couldn't resist that rant after seeing Pete's link mocking Hindus for believing in a color-changing frog God. For a talking-snake-believer to mock a color-changing-frog-believer is a tad hypocritical, no? Anyway, I think I can answer my own question about the "no YOU'RE religious!" defense: It's a tacit admission by believers that faith is in fact a weakness. Despite the positive spin that centuries of Christians have put on the word, there is nothing redeeming in belief without evidence. However, for some people, the emotional comfort of belief in a cosmic father figure, in a pleasant afterlife, and in a unifying life purpose is well worth sacrificing just a little sanity.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/10/2009 10:04:50
But getting back to the debate, I completely agree with you FF that Christianity cannot be taken out of the context of the founding of our nation. I am not and have not attempted to argue otherwise. Obviously most of the founders were Christians, so that Christianity was important cannot be denied. What I am disputing is the theocratic and quasi-theocratic claims about American history which are commonly used today as grounds to push for the illegal, un-Constitutional imposition of Christianity onto the public sphere. That's it. And I have to give you guys credit that you didn't cite pennies as sources, or pull out the tired "the 1st amendment keeps government out of religion, but not vice versa." Kudos.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/10/2009 10:36:27
One more remark about the color-changing frog: it exists! It's also important to understand that the physical incarnation of gods is fundamental to Hinduism, and it's a theme in Christianity as well (c.f. burning bushes). So before we mock Hindus for their beliefs, let us not forget that Catholics literally believe a baked good is the body of Jesus and, in some places, Christians flock en mass to see a stained ceiling tile that remotely resembles Jesus or Mary. If God is actually asserting his existence in these mundane objects and not say healing amputees, then He works in mysterious ways indeed!
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/10/2009 11:46:35
3 days, a couple website updates, and still no comment approval? Has the axe of censorship finally fallen on this site's lone liberal? Tisk tisk.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/11/2009 19:02:24
Relaaaaaaaaaax.
Posted by ADMIN on 06/11/2009 21:27:35
NG, There is ample evidence for Christianity. 1. Christianity started in the very city of Jesus' resurrection among a group of the most religious people in history (Jews). 2. Thousands of Jews abandoned their religious beliefs of the Sabbath and sacrifices right after the resurrection. 3. The eyewitnesses to this fact were willing to die for their beliefs. If this was a hoax, all of them wouldn't have done that.
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/12/2009 09:51:10
4. Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophecies written about the Messiah hundreds and thousands of years before. 5. The world was literally turned upside down because of the resurrection that was witnessed by hundreds of people. 6. Non-Christian, contemporary historians acknowledged the impact of the resurrection such as Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny. Also, the "you're religious" argument isn't a mockery of religion, it's a counter to your "I'm not religious" statement. Agnostics, atheists and humanists are still religious. You just have a different god, usually man or yourself.
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/12/2009 10:00:39
Finally, and most importantly, your understanding of Biblical Christianity is confused at best. First, there is a real sense that people choose to go to Hell by rejecting God and His gracious offer of salvation. Secondly, some of the things you mention (Lott) are examples of what not to do. The Bible doesn't endorse all the behavior it contains. Third, you assume all the beliefs some "Christians" hold are universally accepted (Catholic communion beliefs).
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/12/2009 10:05:40
If you'll indulge me for one more post, there is one more point I should make. I know it may seem trivial, but there is a difference between religion and Biblical Christianity. All religions are based on man trying to earn the favor of God through either doing or refraining from some action(s). Biblical Christianity is based on simple faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ. There are no works involved. Salvation is based on one's faith in God's grace.
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/12/2009 10:26:13
Millions of people have come to realize that God is gracious in offering His only Son as a sacrifice for all sin. He did what we could not do for ourself. Many argue that it isn't fair to condemn everyone for Adam's sin, but they fail to realize that God is willing to accept everyone because of what Jesus did. God has reached out to a rebellious humanity in love by giving the very best for unworthy sinners like me. Now, I have peace with God, and you can too.
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/12/2009 10:31:46
Matt, how do items #1, #2, or #3 constitute evidence in any way? Thousands of Jews changed their beliefs - so what? Billions of people believe in gods other than yours; does that mean their gods exist also? Belief is not evidence of itself. #4: You say Jesus made thousands of accurate prophecies, give me two or three of your favorites. #5: The world did not *literally* turn upside down. Think about that for a moment. #6: Contemporary accounts of Jesus' "miracles" are very scarce and most of them are historically disputed. How did such a rockstar escape Rome's meticulous record keeping?
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/12/2009 16:39:38
The Biblical account of Jesus was written decades and *centuries* after Jesus died. This kills any shred of credibility. Also, you mention that Christians died for their beliefs. So? A thousand people died for Jim Jones too. Does this validate all his claims? So I'm sorry Matthew, but ancient hearsay simply doesn't cut it for me. If I were to lower my standards of evidence in order to accept the claims of the Bible, I'd be forced to accept the claims of countless other holy books (and conspiracy theorists, frauds, and hacks) as well.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/12/2009 16:49:20
As for nonreligious people thinking they're gods, that's downright moronic. Humans are primates, a kind of mammal, a kind of animal, albeit a thinking, feeling animal. This is an undisputed biological fact. I am humble enough to accept it, but you think I think we're gods? This demonstrates profound closed-mindedness on your part. As long as you do project your beliefs onto other people, you will fail to understand their actual way of thought.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/12/2009 17:02:37
You're wrong about Lott. The Bible says Lott is a good man, and that his offering of his daughters was noble. God spares his family and his family alone, and destroys the rest of the city. Then he and his two daughters incestuously create a new settlement. Your god condones a lot of atrocious stuff and commits several atrocities himself, according to the Bible. He commands the killing of innocent children multiple times. Even if I believed your god was anything more than an ugly fairytale, I could not worship a mass-murderer.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/12/2009 17:27:27
I appreciate that you are encouraging me to do what you believe is best - I do. But the Bible is so fulls of flaws, "divine" atrocities, and human fingerprints. Speaking of salvation by faith - a person who devoted their life to selflessly helping others will be eternally tortured simply because they didn't believe in your particular god. That is abominable - it would make your god worse than your devil. Moreover, there's no reason the creator of the universe would need us to believe in it. However, there is every reason for some clerics to make imaginary hells to scare other people into obedience. The Bible is a tool made by humans and used by humans.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/12/2009 17:34:52
"That is abominable - it would make your god worse than your devil." You are holding God to a standard of morality by this statement. Where did you get that standard? You are declaring eternal justice to be immoral, but to do that you have to possesss some standard of justice to make that declaration. An insurrmountable intellectual hurdle for you.
Posted by Guest on 06/13/2009 12:36:30
If there is an insurmountable intellectual hurdle here, it is proving that the fundamental claims of Christianity are true. Until this can be done, common sense prevails. Common sense and common decency dictate that finite wrongdoings cannot *justly* be punished for INFINITY, especially if that "wrongdoing" is simply the nonbelief in a god as untenable as any other, and there are thousands of alleged gods. I'd list all the deities that you and I both disbelieve, but there's a limit to the length of posts here. So in short, for me to bow to your alleged "morality" would be to agree that your god exists, which would be a naive and baseless thing for me to do until you can prove he is any more real than Zeus, Odin, Allah, et al. :)
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/13/2009 21:10:32
Morality is not some great mystery - it is what allows an advanced social species - a SOCIETY - to survive. Would you like yourself, your family, or your friends to be harmed, raped, murdered? Of course not. That's why we don't tolerate such behavior - it is clearly damaging and self-destructive. If humans had not developed some rudimentary sense of morality, our species would be DEAD. I don't need a myth to scare me into good behavior - good behavior has obvious benefits in itself. The sad thing is, some people really *do* need the threat of damnation to be kept in line. (And you call that morality?) As for the rest of us, we're good for goodness' sake.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/13/2009 21:35:39
Piranhas are flesh-eating killers, yet for some reason they don't eat eat other. Why is that? Is it because a deity is telling them not to? No, it's because a species that eats itself DIES. Think about it. Now, for lack of legitimate counterarguments, Christians will bash me for comparing humans to fish, but the fact remains: a species that kills itself doesn't survive. Human morality doesn't need to be perfect (there are still sociopaths, murder, and war), it just needs to be good enough to prevent total self-destruction. It comes from both nature and nurture, but not from imaginary gods. Open your mind. Quit flattering yourself with the idea that you are some warped reflection of a perfect being. You're not; you're just a survivor.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/13/2009 21:50:13
If you need your moral laws to be enforced by a cosmic tyrant, then you don't have a clue what morality is. Good behavior under duress is not moral behavior - it is simply covering your butt. In this way, the imaginary threat of hellfire kills the sincerity of Christian morality. Why? Because true goodness comes from love, not fear. Skeptics like me are stereotyped as cold and cynical people, but the fact is, I behave because I tend to appreciate my neighbors, this country, this planet. And still, Christians commit more crime than nonbelievers. Source: adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/14/2009 11:18:58
It amazes me how people can believe in the "miracle" of the Big Bang (or the Singularity) and non-living matter coming to life, while denying the existence of God. There is absolutely no scientfic basis for the first two and a universe to prove that God exists. An explosion created this order, then matter became alive and organized itself into beings capable of making such a discovery. Now that's faith!
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/14/2009 12:35:19
As far as your interpretation of Scriptures, my history professors at IU do not deny that Jesus was reported to have done all the Bible claims He did. They simply choose not to believe in His resurrection and miracles like yourself. It's not a matter of evidence, it's a matter of faith. You put your faith in the fairy tale of evolution, I put my faith in the existence of a God that choose to make Himself known to us by taking an active role in His creation. Loving people means taking the risk of rejection. Rejecting love has consequences.
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/14/2009 12:44:04
The evidence for the Big Bang is overwhelming. Whether you educate yourself or not is really none of my concern. There's less evidence for abiogenesis, understandably, as this event cannot be expected to have the same residua as the birth of the universe. The universe is awe-inspiring, humbling, and breathtaking, but not miraculous. There is nothing miraculous about physical law. Also, you speak of your god as though it's actually an explanation. How is a god that always existed any more reasonable than a singularity that always existed?
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/14/2009 19:35:40
Thank you for conceding that religion is a matter of faith. Science is different in that it relies on evidence in order to answer questions about reality. That's not to say that we have all the answers - there is still so much to be understood and discovered. As for your god loving people, that doesn't square with your hell myth. A god who permits eternal torture in hellfire can't be called loving; however it would qualify him as a heartless sadist. And to say nonbelievers "reject" god is also contradictory - one can't reject something one doesn't even believe in the first place. Let me put it this way: I believe in Yahweh as much as you believe in Allah.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/14/2009 19:56:45
"Heartless sadist," "Ugly fairytale," "Mass murderer," "Cosmic tyrant." Your reckless hyperbole is not indicative of one who values "logos" the way you have proclaimed to value it, NGav. Perhaps you're intentionally attempting to be inflammatory. But then, you would just be commiting the very errors of rational dialogue you are so quick to point out in others, would you not?
Posted by peterheck on 06/14/2009 22:24:29
With all due respect, I'd love to jump in here, but it appears to me that there are about 16 different arguments/conversations going. I know we all probably don't have time (I know I don't) to carefully craft responses to each and feel we're doing our side justice - especially with the 750 character limit the web tyrant put on us. Could we boil it down to one issue at a time perhaps? Maybe I could recommend one: "The concept of eternal condemnation proves that the God of Christianity is immoral, a sadist, yada, yada, yada." Would that work to bite off at first?
Posted by peterheck on 06/14/2009 22:27:20
That's a great idea, Pete. Let's talk eternal damnation. I don't mean to be inflammatory using the words I use, but frankly I am disgusted by that concept. Infinite torment for finite wrongdoings just doesn't make sense to me. If you could clear it up that would be fantastic.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/15/2009 10:02:04
You reject Him by rejecting His direct revelation of Himself, Jesus, and His free offer of forgiveness. (Do you think you have never done anything wrong?) You seem to have no problem passing judgment on Him, but disallow Him passing judgment on you. God is loving in offering Himself as a sacrifice in our place. Furthermore, He is just in following through with His moral judgments (something you put yourself above). Should wrong doing go unpunished in the name of love?
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/15/2009 10:07:11
Hi Matt. Direct revelation would mean appearing in some unambiguous form. The day this happens, I will become a Christian. I'd need this because there are thousands of alleged gods, all of whom require faith like yours. Why should I believe in your god and not the others? That's an open question. What I do believe is justice. Those who selfishly harm others should be punished. Prisons exist for that reason. But your hell isn't like any prison because it has no end. It's not about rehabilitation or about cleansing. Why would your god fry souls eternally when he could simply cleanse them or snuff them out? By any real-life standards, NT hell is an eternal exercise in sadism. I eagerly await Pete's input here.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/15/2009 20:52:30
I know there are other Christians that will disagree with this, but here it goes. There is a real sense that the only thing we are sent to Hell for is the sin of rejecting God's free offer of salvation (the unpardonable sin). His Spirit confesses with ours that Jesus is His Son. When someone rejects that truth they not only violate His Word; they violate their own conscience as well. We are not sent to Hell for our finite sins, we are sent there for rejecting the love of the Creator and Savior of our soul.
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/15/2009 23:53:54
Therefore, the infinite punishment isn't necessarily for our finite sin(s). Eternal retribution is for the rejection of God's free gift that has been offered to anyone that will humble himself and acknowledge who He is and who we are. NGav, you would do well to read C.S. Lewis and other great thinkers. I could be wrong, but I assume you haven't really read many Christian apologetics. There have been many skeptics that have changed their views after examining the evidence closely (including myself in college).
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/16/2009 00:09:04
There are two major holes in your apologetics. #1: You assume literally everyone believes in your god yet they deny it. In doing so, you ignorantly project your religious beliefs onto the entire human race, onto billions of people about whom you know nothing. This is complete baloney. If a Muslim insisted that you actually believe in Allah but you just deny it, violating your own conscience, would you agree? Of course you wouldn't. That claim, like your claim, relies on the delusion of mind-reading and the fallacy of false projection. Sorry.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/16/2009 14:48:03
Gaping hole #2: Humans live on Earth for a few decades. According to your argument, nonbelievers spend these decades rejecting your god's free gifts. This sin would therefore be finite. Subsequently, because they did this, they fry forever. This punishment would be infinite. Now, if a person went to hell and then CONTINUED to reject your god's love, forever, that sin would be infinite. But no one would do that. If you put ANY person in a frying pan for even a second, they would accept your god's love. The fact your god allegedly does not allow postmortem redemption can only mean he is either impotent, ignorant, or evil.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/16/2009 14:58:00
If you'd rather watch a video than read my posts, there's this: youtube.com/watch?v=XaL7CkQaQpU It debunks the myth of a moral hell quite cogently. I think the biggest red flag raised by the NT hell myth is the obvious intention to scare people into belief and obedience. Again, there's no reason a universe-creator would need humans to believe in its existence. And if it did, it could predispose everyone to faith, or simply prove its own existence in any number of undeniable ways, like say the word YAHWEH on the moon, or a dream every person on Earth experiences. The fact your god has not been 100% successful in marketing his free offer of love would mean he is either impotent, ignorant, or evil.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/16/2009 15:09:08
NGav, It's difficult to have a dialogue in this format. I didn't see your last post before I wrote my previous one. To answer the "direct revelation" question, my answer is: Jesus was that direct revelation. As far as why God doesn't simply "cleanse them"; He didn't make robots that had to love Him, He wants us to choose to. That's what I was getting at earlier when I said loving someone (or people) involves risk. God says over and over again that He wants all to be saved, but that is up to us to respond to His free gift of salvation. Read Luke 16:19-31
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/16/2009 15:45:45
We agree about the format, Matt - it's tough. RE your last post, a miraculous person living 2000 years ago would only be a direct revelation to the people who saw his miracles, but not to 99.9999% of people on Earth who didn't have the same privilege. If I were given a direct, unambiguous revelation, I'd convert in a snap. Ancient hearsay doesn't cut it. Also, you've yet to explain how infinite punishment is moral. You tried to argue that "rejecting God's love" is not a finite sin, but I don't think you showed that, nor have you shown that nonbelievers even reject your god's "love" in the first place. Rejection implies belief; but nonbelievers don't believe.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/17/2009 12:13:50
Rebuttle to your first point. Everyone has some sort of god they believe in, whether it be himself, knowledge (science, reason, or the law), or the host of other false gods from other religions. I agree a Muslim could make the arguement you attribute to him. That doesn't invalidate my argument. By the way, you are doing that very thing by arguing that there is no god. You have obviously given much thought about the possibility of God's existence, and you have rejected His revelation of Himself, thus proving my point. Yes, everyone has contemplated the existence of a higher power. (EVERY culture has a god of some kind.)
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/17/2009 12:25:06
Point 2 rebuttle: You simply refuse to see the positive aspect of God's free gift of eternal life and complete forgiveness of even the most heinous sins imagineable. Also, there have been many people throughout history that have refused to change their belief in the face of torture. Be careful not to project the weakness of some on everyone. Finally, you continue to assume you know why God has done what He has done. You don't understand His love, justice, mercy, and grace. When government punishes someone, is there not an aspect of love inherent in that action? I suppose you wouldn't see how life in prison could be a just punishment (a lifetime of punishment for one single offense).
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/17/2009 12:39:06
Is it possible that there are differing degrees of punishment in Hell? Many Christians believe that is true. Do you really think you have considered everything about God and His dealing with man? Is it possible that you have missed something or misunderstood something? Have you ever had a certain opinion about someone only to change your mind after you got to know them a bit better?
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/17/2009 12:45:16
It's not true that every culture has some god; some believe in myriad spirits but no "higher power." But even if your assertion were correct, so what? Within any and every theistic religion, worshipers have markedly different ideas of who/what their god is. So how can you say they all believe in one god (yours - how convenient for you), yet reject him? In implying the entire world believes in your god, you are essentially building an argument upon your own personal ignorance. Ignorance supports nothing. When you close your eyes, the world does not disappear. Neither do non-Christians.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/18/2009 14:47:08
You are bold enough to imply that there **LOVE** in eternal ***TORTURE***!? God lets some of his children fry forever out of love? Matt - Matthew - please think about what you're saying. LOVE? TORTURE? ETERNITY? This is completely insane. You hit the nail on the head when you said I don't understand your god's justice, mercy, grace - I don't see how a god that permits NT hell could possess any of these things. It's very possible that I've misunderstood something, but I can be no more certain of anything than the fact love is not compatible with eternal torment in a lake of fire. That's insanity.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/18/2009 15:05:54
Well I don't want to end the debate on such a negative note, albeit a sincere one. It *is* interesting that so many cultures believe in so many gods. Does that reflect the nature of the universe or simply human psychology? And if the former, why did so many theisms exist thousands of years before your god allegedly appeared as Jesus? IMO, belief in gods abound because of our natural tendency to personify things. (When I was little, I was haunted by a "face" in the wood grain above my bed.) It only makes sense we would propose a person-like universe creator. In the old days, it was commonly believed to be female (mother birthing world.) With the rise of technology and patriarchal society, it became a male (father crafting world.)
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/18/2009 15:47:25
The last thing I want to do is stifle a good exchange and the enjoyment of a rousing debate. But rather than typing out all these things myself, NGav (and Matt if you've never seen this resource), I wanted to direct you to a site that addressing in great detail a lot of the issues you seem to be struggling with. Just puruse this main page and see topics that will cause you to salivate, NGav. You probably won't agree with all of it, but the author does an excellent job of logically and philosophically approaching your major questions from a Biblical perspective: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/objedex.html
Posted by peterheck on 06/18/2009 18:59:47
Let's stay on the point of justice. You didn't address my point about life in prison. Let's not argue if God exists. I've given my evidence, you disagree, let's move on. Is it justice to punish someone for life for a crime? You are arguing that it's not fair for God to punish someone for eternity for a finite sin. Didn't you say life in prison is ok? Doesn't that violate your view of justice?
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/18/2009 23:23:43
Thanks Pete, I'll check that out.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/19/2009 11:14:59
Great question Matt. The difference between imprisonment-for-life and eternal damnation is ETERNITY. Life in prison ends. Eternal damnation does not. I think life without parole should be reserved for the worst offenders: murderers, rapists, terrorists, etc. It is for people who have deprived others of freedoms to the point that they no longer deserve freedom of their own. If one is a menace to society, one does not belong in society. This reflects my view of justice.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/19/2009 13:21:08
It's obvious that human society can't rehabilitate all its members - we're not perfect, we're not gods. What is less obvious is why your god almighty can't rehabilitate the souls he himself created. Why does (and how can) he allow people to accept his love during their lifetimes, but not afterward? This seems arbitrary and pernicious, especially since virtually everyone would accept god the moment they realized he existed - I would, anyway. More importantly, why would such a god allow an eternal lake of fiery punishment to exist in the first place? The only light in which hell makes sense is as a myth designed to terrify people into obedience - it certainly doesn't square with a loving god.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/19/2009 13:40:12
Round and round we go! Every point you bring up has already been addressed. You say we're not gods, then you continue to act as if you know everything God knows and why He does or doesn't do the things you think He should. It's obvious you haven't checked out the site Pete referred to in an earlier thread. (I think it's awesome!) I just hope others have so they can see the error in your assumptions. I will keep praying for you.
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/22/2009 09:10:44
Here is the specific argument you are trying to make. Enjoy this? http://www.christian-thinktank.com/evilgod.html
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/22/2009 09:55:56
I read it. Here are his exact words: "We do NOT know how a punishment that is sometimes described as eternal, can PERFECTLY MATCH a series of finite actions in history, but we have no solid reasons for doubting God's ability to do this IN PERFECT MORAL FAIRNESS." ...That's it. His best defense is the claim that we can't know that infinite punishment doesn't match finite actions. But we can. Something finite can NEVER match something infinite, BY DEFINITION. Infinite punishment can never match any finite action - it infinitely outstrips finite action, BY DEFINITION. Therefore infinite punishment for *any* finite action is INFINITELY IMMORAL.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/22/2009 15:12:03
The only way around this infinite perversion of justice is to simply ignore it. Don't think about it, just "trust in God". The author tells us exactly this. Fascists use the same ploy to defend crimes against humanity. E.g: If someone starving in N. Korea dares to ask if their leader really cares about them, they would be rebuked by "who are you to question Dear Leader? Just trust in him." This is not an argument; it's just an attempt to silence argument. So no, we haven't been going in circles, Matt; we just hit a brick wall when you decided basic logic does not apply to your god.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/22/2009 15:26:48
Thank you for your prayers but, according to your own book, you are wasting your time. The one unforgivable sin is blaspheming the holy spirit, which I've done. It's interesting that the worst sin is not rape, torture, or genocide but simply *insulting* your god. You'd think a truly almighty and good being would have different, less self-serving priorities, but I guess that's something else we shouldn't think too deeply about.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/22/2009 16:06:51
You obviously didn't read the whole thing. You found what you were looking for and stopped. Did you read the other posts that talked about how we can't say any action is finite? All crimes have eternal consequences for the victim, their family, the perpetrator and society as a whole. You are being willingly blind and continuing to play God by judging Him. As far as your understanding of the unpardonable sin, you still have time to repent and be forgiven. That's what a loving God will do!
Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/22/2009 23:23:21
He also said god's sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was infinite when in fact it wouldn't be assuming Jesus had actually been resurrected. Either the author earnestly can't tell left from right, or he's intentionally complicating what is a common sense issue. Justice entails that punishment fits crime. He tries to weasel out of the obvious immorality of eternal punishment by claiming we can't assess a punishment or a crime, and that god is essentially a judge who cannot be judged. This represents a catch 22 - how can we say god is good when we allegedly cannot judge what good is?
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/23/2009 13:24:08
I'd be willingly blind if I were to accept the claims of a book on faith alone, *ahem*. Refusing to examine something constitutes willing blindness. Yet here I am, *examining* claims about a particular deity - yours - and you are imploring that I don't do this. This makes you something of a spokesperson for willing blindness, ironically.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/23/2009 13:47:46

Post comment
Name
 *
Email Address

Message
(max 750 characters)
*
* Required Fields
Note: All comments are subject to approval. Your comment will not appear until it has been approved.

    common sense makes a comeback
    site designed by Keith Parker   --  sign up for Peter Heck Mailing List here