It is as though someone dropped our culture, what remains of it, into a fifty gallon drum of solvent, and then complained loudly when the whole thing wound up as a solution. That’s not the kind of solution I meant, complained the president.
For the time being, the trappings still look fine. We look around and see cities, and concerts, and monuments, and mammon, and armies, and news reports, all done with the very latest developments in CGI. With these images flashing on the tall backdrop of a very deep stage, our president walks out to the center, faces us, and proves himself to be a very able platitudinarian.
But nothing coheres any more, and the impressiveness is all surface. It is like discovering a shining body of water the size of the Pacific and then finding out it was ankle deep all the way across. To change the image somewhat abruptly, it is like that free couch left outside the fraternity at the beginning of summer — you can take it or leave it.
Scripture tells us that Christ is the one in whom all things hold together (Col. 1:17). Our secular society laughed. We scoffed. That is simply ridiculous, we said. We can hold it together without Him. And so, just a few generations after rejecting Him, where are we? As one fellow said in a similar context, everything is at sea except for the fleet.
We don’t need Jesus Christ to hold everything together. That’s what we said. We turned away from Him, and how has it gone with our bold new experiment? Without Jesus Christ, we no longer know the difference between boys and girls. Without Him, our college students need safe spaces for protection against tacky Halloween costumes. We no longer know that mothers should bear and suckle their children. We have turned age-old variations in the weather into an argument for massive increases of statist power. We can’t tell the difference between white people and black people anymore. Those appearances might just be a trick of self-identification, designed to get us to reveal our latent bigotries. If I say something awkward to that guy on the subway I might find myself remanded into counseling. We don’t even know what marriage is anymore, and if it had been within our reach we would already have been messing around with optional gravitation. Gravity is oppressive, not democratic at all.
Our sexual mores are turning into one vast pig rut. The art world is a gigantic taxpayer-supported guano collection. Our college faculties, training up the next generation in the way they should go, is a clamjamfry rabble, certified at least two grad degrees past their intelligence. As for the students, our elite college campuses are populated by lily boys of both sexes.
Our culture is a 62 Galaxie 500, one which has crested the Continental Divide, lost its brakes on the other side, is careening toward western Colorado, with the axles growing hot. Kind of like that.
And the progressives, the driving force behind all of this nonsense, hate being questioned about any of it for several reasons. First, it is easier to shout your opponents down than to answer the arguments. Shoot, it would be far easier if they could just have them arrested. You are not a climate denier by any chance, are you? Second, the lack of answers forthcoming is not to say that their deep down space is occupied by a blissful and serene ignorance. No, down below the sternum of every man and every woman is the knowledge that nonsense remains nonsense, no matter how many people are yelling it. And so that means, at the bottom of everything, is massive, unrelenting, ever-present, always-restless, never-asleep guilt. Men without answers get angry in debates, and guilty men get even angrier in debates. That is why debates will soon be illegal.
In the meantime, establishment Christian leaders, who should be leading the resistance, are tuft-hunters, aching for the kind of respectability that only a disintegrating and leprous culture can bestow. And the Christian leaders who are part of a faithful remnant and who therefore show some fight are chastised by the others as troublemakers. Those Christian leaders soon get the treatment. Fight? Far better to labor quietly off grid on something that the progressives will have no trouble seizing whenever they decide to. Gives us something to do while we wait.
So what is the central problem? The difficulty is that we don’t want a fixed standard. Everything is coming unstuck because we cannot have the kind of certainty that we need in order to keep it from becoming unstuck. But in order to have that kind of certainty, we have discovered that we would simultaneously have to bring in the possibility of being wrong. And because we are a proud, haughty, and conceited people, we will not accept the very old-fashioned possibility of simply being wrong.
That would hurt our feelings, which we all know is now illegal.
It’s happened so fast, that you could almost believe that somehow we
were back in the garden of Eden, and that each and every denomination, along
with non-denominational church’s, partook of the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil all over again, plunging our entire society into reverse.
I’ve been saying that same thing for some time now. This is like the garden and the knowledge of good and evil, but in reverse. Or for the secularists, we seem to be rapidly de-evolving.
My first thought was that gravity is too democratic but then I thought how some of us are gravitationally challenged. I got to do the prayer of adoration in church Sunday and it came out kind of Wilsonian.
“Shoot, it would far easier if they could just have them arrested”. I think you forgot a “be”
Whose religious fixed standard to we go by? Your calvinist christian fixed standard? Your imagined biblical republic? ISIS’s islamist/jihadist fixed standard? These standards are all thankfully unacceptable to all but a minuscule sliver of Americans. Moral equivalency is complicated as it should be. As we discover more about humans and how they tick/ we can re-adjust to include the well-being of everyone in their differences. Even the 70% of whom identify as christian. Neither theocracy will ever come to pass. For that I am grateful.
“Whose religious fixed standard are we to go by?” This seems to me to be exactly the right question. Rev. Wilson is making a case for the Christian one (given that under the current one we can no longer tell the difference between girls and boys; wantonly slaughter our little children, etc. etc.) “Neither theocracy will ever come to pass.” I wouldn’t be too sure about that. Also, I think it’s important to note that we already live in a theocracy, it’s just the god of the current system is neither Allah (for which I share your gratitude) nor the… Read more »
You have quite a wide idea of what constitutes god. I suspect it allows you to feel rather secure in what you are able to reject. I do not share it. And I am sorry that you cannot tell the difference between girls and boys, that sounds difficult for you.
I think you can share it – stand at the door and knock!
Guys, guys, come on. Let’s not bicker and argue about who’s right and who’s wrong. Let’s just all agree that I’M right (‘cuz I am), then everybody can be friends.
Just an opinion. Not asking you to agree with me.
Grateful to whom?
To those who champion reason over superstition.
I recommend you read G. K. Chesterton’s book Orthodoxy for a picture of what actually championing reason over superstition looks like.
Not sure where a christian theologian apologist and reason would ever intersect.
I know. That’s why I encourage you to read it.
I think an obvious example is Georges Lemaitre, the priest who proposed the Big Bang Theory. What he did in his lab is not in conflict with, but is different from, the teachings he might have given his parishioners (if he had any).
Point taken jillybean, I can certainly walk back from that statement re some catholics and more ‘flexible’ protestant believers.
Not sure how Chesterton fits into this. It’s certainly true that many men of reason also find it reasonable to believe in superstition. Many reasonable men and women have put their faith in Christ even though it is not, perhaps, on paper, “reasonable”. But Chesterton would not agree with Doug Wilson’s view of the world, so I’m not sure why you are invoking him here. Chesterton championed orthodoxy and eventually became a Catholic. He was not a Protestant that defended his doctrinal positions using literalist interpretations of Sola Scriptura. He writes that “The Bible by itself cannot be a basis… Read more »
Perhaps Chesterton would be disappointed to know it, but I only invoke him where he agrees with Scripture. When he speaks according to God’s Word, he does it very well.
In the same way that you invoke God’s Word–or your interpretation of it– when it agrees with your world view. I do the same thing. That’s really the point. Doug calls for a willingness to admit we might be wrong. We all need to be willing to admit that our interpretations and the worldviews we build off of those interpretations might be wrong. Doug’s post implies it is only other people that are wrong.
It’s refreshing to see Pittard actually admit that he only selectively appeals to Scripture when it agrees with him. That explains a lot. We can infer which of the two he believes is the higher standard. However, Pittard should learn when to speak only for himself. He wastes everyone’s time boxing with a strawman position that I don’t hold. Just because Chesterton is not the standard, it doesn’t follow that I have none but myself. Scripture, all of it, is the standard that Chesterton and Wilson and everyone else will be held to. I profess all of Scripture as my… Read more »
“Just because Chesterton is not the standard, it doesn’t follow that I have none but myself. Scripture, all of it, is the standard that Chesterton and Wilson and everyone else will be held to.” That’s my point: that Chesterton and Wilson and you and me are able to use the same Scripture but come to very different conclusions. Doug is not a Catholic, and Chesterton is not a Reformed Federalist but they both use the same Bible. And there are plenty of Christians–I would argue, led by the Spirit, just as you and I–that use the Bible and believe in… Read more »
Wait wait wait…Hold the phone… So, the Spirit of the Living God is unable to get His story straight and will tell two different people two different, mutually exclusive “truths” that are equally morally acceptable and Godly and jive with what the Lord wants? So I guess, contrary to my interpretation of 1 Cor 14:33, God *is* a God of confusion, but I guess that harmonizes with someone else’s interpretation that I was too close-minded to consider. I guess you could point to the other places in Scripture where God *does* use confusion, but the confusion didn’t create mutually exclusive,… Read more »
“So, the Spirit of the Living God is unable to get His story straight and will tell two different people two different, mutually exclusive “truths” that are equally morally acceptable and Godly and jive with what the Lord wants?” No, the Spirit has his story straight. But the point is, when two different people (let’s say Wilson and Chesterton, for example) interpret scripture differently, then who is right? I’m not saying they are both right. Maybe they’re both wrong. The point is that there are numerous doctrinal positions and interpretations and understandings of Scripture that can come from Scripture. In… Read more »
Well, was Chesterton’s writing career marked by a tone of “I could be wrong” or did he just say what he wanted and let the chips fall where they may? But, you did say, “And there are plenty of Christians–I would argue, led by the Spirit, just as you and I–that use the Bible and believe in marriage equality,” which *might* imply that the Spirit can lead men in two morally-opposed positions, though, granted, not necessarily. Even now, we’re debating, which means you’ve planted your flag on a position that you claim to be correct. Humility is a wonderful thing,… Read more »
“I’ll even allow that “marriage equality” can be a subject that can be disagreed on by brothers in Christ, but not every different position is created equal.”
I appreciate this comment. This is a much different stance than many take on this blog, and I doubt Doug would agree with you that marriage equality is an issue that Christians can really disagree on.
I also reference ashv: there’s a difference between humility and catholicity of spirite versus nihilism. The former encourages and facilitates growth, while the latter destroys it.
What’s your point?
Please Spike, let’s not do the, “It’s your interpretation” silliness. Your comment is also an interpretation of the previous comment and it gets is no where to say so.
Clearly you believe in a God. But which one?
What’s silly about the notion of “your” interpretation? If the Bible were a technical manual, we might not need to interpret it, but the collection of writings we call the Bible is made up of poetry and narrative and history and parable and a myriad other genres. Language needs to be interpreted, especially language written 2,000 or more years ago in genres that are not always meant to be taken literally and in languages that no one speaks anymore. It is, in fact, silly to believe that large portions of Scripture are not open to interpretation. Indeed, Biblical scholars from… Read more »
Replace “marriage equality” with “gnosticism” or any other heresy and your argument for inclusiveness would apply.
Prideful sin does not die quietly; its howls of indignation does not grant it a sinners veto. Sometimes (like now) the correct thing to do is completely reject consideration of the matter.
“Sometimes (like now) the correct thing to do is completely reject consideration of the matter.” That is also a good tactic when you have no real argument. Let’s just not talk about it. And your point about gnosticism as heresy is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. A particular theology is labeled a heresy when it goes against interpretations that people have decided are the correct ones. Calling it a heresy does not automatically make it false–it only means it doesn’t fit with your particular interpretation. What is more prideful: to suggest your interpretation is the only correct… Read more »
Spike,
As I wrote before your only tactic is to muddy the waters and ask “What is truth?” and “Did God really say?”. Find somebody else to convince.
Those are actually both great questions. It’s not the question that the serpent asks that is the problem. In fact, I would argue that if you can’t ask those questions and be willing to engage in the discussion that follows, then your faith is not based on solid ground.
heh.
Agreed. But you are using the idea as an argument that somehow automatically disqualifies. Everything is our, my, your, interpretation. But what of it? What I want to know is, is it right.
That’s what we’re all trying to do. The problem is that some folks are unwilling to admit that, no matter how much they trust their interpretation, they are still interpreting. As much faith as we put in reformed theology, it is still a theology, which is by nature an interpretation. How do we know we’re right when there are multiple acceptable, supportable interpretations? All I’m saying is that Doug believes he is indisputably correct and it is the “enemies” that are wrong.
Have you read the book?
Yes.
I recommend re-reading the first chapter as an example of what I am talking about then.
Will do.
“Whose religious fixed standard to we go by? Your calvinist christian fixed standard?” You ask those questions derisively because you assume yourself to be correct in your atheism. Presuppose much? Doug, as would I, would say that the fixed Christian standard is the fixed standard we should go by because we presuppose and assume (and know) this to be a universe under the governance and reign of its Creator, the God of the Bible. You, and Krychek, would say that the secular standard (hardly fixed) is the fixed standard we should go by because you presuppose and assume (and are… Read more »
“errbody in tha club is presuppositionally assuming their view to be the overarching view that trumps everybody else’s view.”
This needs to be part of a new rap song.
Seriously, the idea of a christian playing gotcha with the idea of presupposition is so ridiculous that is is downright confusing. It seems the very best you all have is: ‘Aha! you are just as willing to believe nonsense as we are!’ It is a bizarre fallback and just seems desperate. I am saying that humans have an evolved standard. Do unto others. What else do you need? Kill homosexuals and witches and your children for disobeying? Burn in hell for all eternity? Massacre entire tribes and enslave and rape their women? Oh yeah, that’s your historical god talking. So… Read more »
I glean from these wise words that you aknowledge the presuppositions you bring to the discussion table. Like I said before, that merely puts you on the same plane, with all that faith and what not. But let’s move on to the next point: “Do unto others.” That’s pretty clever. Where’d you get that? Why is or should that be a binding principle? And the argument “You Christians need a philosophical rationale in order for you to not be douche bags and without one you’ll just do as you please?!?! IDIOTS!! *chortle* *snort*” is not the answer we are looking… Read more »
I find it amusing that a rival thinks they are in a trusted position to tell us which of our methods are ridiculous and desperate. As Wilson says, it would be like trusting a burglar, caught in the act, to tell you that your gun isn’t loaded. In any case, it was simple to point out a few of RandMan’s unproven faith commitments. He was invited to prove them, and failed to do so. From this we concluded that his proof demands for God’s existence are nothing but a hypocritical smokescreen; nothing but a double-standard that he doesn’t even hold… Read more »
you really should choose dumber Christians to troll randman it’d work out better for ya
Good point. Shall we go by the secular standards of 1970? 1999?
You can now get arrested for following President Obama’s 2012 position on marriage, if you are a public official.
So many religious – er, secular – standards to choose from.
“Whose religious fixed standard to we go by?”
Exactly! Instead of just assuming that the present agnostic standard can somehow hold sway without every single one of the first 10 amendments corroding, as is happening before our eyes, we need to ask *by what standard* do we judge right and wrong? Are there standards, or is there just power?
Looking forward to defenses of materialism as a driving force for keeping a pluralistic society in check.
“A fluid standard is exactly what RandMan propses.” ?
Do you suppose randi’s “fluid standard” has anything to do with “the precious bodily fluids” mentioned in the film “Dr. Strange Glove”?
I’d love to see randi defend those too! ; – )
Of course body fluids are involved with Rand’s rant. They always have a moral problem, wouldn’t you know.
It is always about the standard, about not measuring up to it, and you are not the boss of me. Saint Paul addresses the logical and inexorable progression from denying the Creator, then establishing the creation as god and receiving a “reprobate mind”, leading to an exchange of what is natural and good for damnation.
“Your calvinist christian fixed standard?”
Why, yes. Do you propose a fluid standard? Who determines the the boundaries? Who’s the moral judge of the system? Man, I’m glad you opened up a presuppositional discussion!
A fluid standard is exactly what RandMan propses.
“As we discover more about humans and how they tick/ we can re-adjust to include the well-being of everyone in their differences.”
Would you settle for a Catholic Christian fixed standard?
I think we could talk over the key differences, such. :)
The Reformation was about bringing the Church back to those fixed standards. I don’t think that those fixed standards are that hard to identify as long as you stick to Scripture alone.
As primates we have an evolved standard: Do unto others. Other primates also follow it in a more primitive fashion. It is called reciprocal in-group altruism.
All you christians have is tarring others with your own presuppositional brush. as you have the ‘god problem’ in that regard. We get testable evidence and admitting we don’t know certain things. But we certainly don’t slot in an imaginary being and think we done anything but created a larger problem.
Bring on the TAG.
As primates we have an evolved standard: Do unto others. Well, you left off the “as you would have them do unto you”.. Assuming (who knows with your mind) that you intended that, then it is objectively false that is evolved behavior. ~200 Million murdered by ‘evolved primates’ practicing democide puts the matter to rest. The objective fact that over 90% of wars are fought for non-religious reasons shows your hatred blinds you to reality. Your only fallback is to assume that the Chinese, Germans, Koreans, Cambodians, Vietnamese are less-evolved than you are. Frankly, as an evolved primate, your are… Read more »
If evolution is true, then “Evolution has led us to this point” could legitimately describe ANY human action.
I’ve never heard of a principle that you do something, until you don’t, described as a “standard” before.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/564321
So what. Human primates occasionally kill infants and have been known to eat each other when necessary. But 99.9% of primates don’t regularly do that. Humans have evolved an innate set of moral “rules” and emotions based on our millions of years of living in small groups of hunter-gatherers. Why would it be hard to believe that natural selection would mold not just behaviors, but emotions (which undergird such behaviors) that would impel us to take care of each others. Also to be better to those who behave better, and punishing freeloaders and bad seeds. p.s. Do you need your… Read more »
“Humans have evolved an innate set of moral “rules” and emotions based on our millions of years of living in small groups of hunter-gatherers.” I assume you have hard, material evidence for this? Or, are you working from your basic assumption of evolution, observe something about humans, and then conclude that that human trait *must* be because of evolution, since we know evolution is true already? I’ll need to find my notes from the logic class I took in college, but I *think* that’s a post hoc fallacy (or, post hoc ergo propter hoc, but I’m just trying to impress,… Read more »
Do you need evolution to not do those things?
Dozens of human cultures across time and space belie the idea that we have collectively “evolved” an ethic of doing as we would be done by. You can go to Kurdistan today and discover that respectable people teach their kids that being “shrewd” (i.e. able to deceive and con people) is a virtue — not the outliers of the community, but the people fully engaged with the prevalent cultural ethic. I honestly don’t know if I would “need my bible” to know not to murder, because I’ve been raised with that ethic, and have no personal experience with not having… Read more »
RandMan wrote: Human primates occasionally kill infants and have been known to eat each other when necessary. But 99.9% of primates don’t regularly do that. This is nothing but an appeal to the majority of whatever is, and then attempting to extrapolate it, as if whatever is should tell us something about what ought to be. RandMan trips right into the same trap that Krychek_2 always falls into. Theism is the norm among human primates. Let that undisputed fact sink in. Atheism is the aberration. Now what? Why isn’t theism the standard? Why isn’t theism the evolutionary rule? Oops. This… Read more »
You obviously have read nothing about primate behavior.
For your edification, the search string is “jane goodall chimpanzee cannibalism”
That was edifying thank you but does nothing for or against my point. Oh, and to edify you a bit? Cut marks on 800,000-year-old hominin remains from Atapuerca, Spain, and more recent fossilised Neanderthal bones suggest that our ancestors ate the flesh of their own species. Also, thousand-year-old bones discovered in the American Southwest bear clear signs of butchery. Possible signs of cannibalism have been found in the human genome: a mutation has been found in Papua New Guineans that protects them from kuru, a prion disease transmitted through cannibalism. And of course The Donner Party, that soccer team in… Read more »
Humans have evolved an innate set of moral “rules” and emotions based on
our millions of years of living in small groups of hunter-gatherers.
Prove it.
Can you prove that the universe we have is the universe you’d get without a (G)od?
Can you prove that a universe with a (G)od would be different than the one we have?
To the first question. No I cannot. And it is irrelevant to christians claim of their local intercessory god.
I do not claim to know how the universe began 13+ billion years ago. I make no claim that I do. You claim a complication great than the universe itself. You have a bigger problem and the responsibility of providing evidence for your claim as I would if I claimed Russell’s celestial teapot.
We must be communicating on two different frequencies as I don’t think you addressed either of my questions. I’ll assume the fault is on me for not clearly verbalizing.
What is the contrast between a universe with a god and a universe without a god?
What is the difference between a universe with a celestial teapot and a universe without a celestial teapot?
We both have equal evidence for our celestial beings.
Could you answer the question? It’s an honest one.
If you look at this, RandMan is asking us to be God. Since we Christians are not God and are dependent on Him as His ways and Word, he then ‘derives’ that there is no God. We who know God, trust Him and readily admit we cannot derive from first principles how the universe came to be. We trust God and quote Him–He spoke. So, the issue is not scientific proof, as RandMan himself admits there is no scientific proof for his claims. He then makes an appeal to evidence, yet the evidence grows weaker by the day the more… Read more »
And this would be your response to ISIS, too? They’d simply state that you are outside of their “in-group.” No wonder they feel so assured of victory. Man, the secular experiment is gonna crash and burn so hard because of its own exalted self-regard and fear of self-examination.
Jon,
You and others will enjoy this Dreher piece; The French themselves think the Enlightenment is dead:
http://abyssum.org/2015/11/21/what-will-america-be-like-when-it-is-alone-with-europe-totally-islamic/
Thanks! I read it when it first came out, and just read it again. Really, what will prevent Europe going completely Islamic? Secularism blind to its own weaknesses, like here in the States? Not likely.
Fantastic link, timothy
What does TAG stand for? Totally Atheistic Government? I really don’t know and Google isn’t helping.
One wishes your definition was more accurate. Sadly it is the transcendental argument for god- catch’s big move. That logic, morality, and science ultimately presuppose theism, that god is the font of logic and morality and the answer to every question in epistemology. God necessarily exists.
The TAG holds that I am assuming god in my position because logic and science cannot exist without god. In order to define good and evil it requires an objective standard that is also impossible without god. Sound familiar?
Ah yes, thank you! But of course you reject this, naturally. But you seem to reject a lot of atheistic thought — Nietzsche anyone? — and are somehow culturally optimistic. I find that interesting as secularism sails into the cultural sunset in Europe.
I am quite culturally optimistic. Optimistic in general. I think that reason will prevail. We are statistically moving toward a less violent society, one that seems to value secular well-being over religious fundamentalism and extremism. Read Steven Pinker’s fantastic hyper-researched, The Better Angels Of Our Nature. Only if you can stomach a Harvard professor, cognitive scientist, psychologist, and linguist upending your intuitions about the collapse of society over the course of 800 pages.
Um, which atheistic thought do you find me rejecting? I am having a hard time coming up with an example.
Only if you can stomach a Harvard professor, cognitive scientist, psychologist, and linguist Credential dropping as a means to DISQAULIFY? check. upending your intuitions about the collapse of society over the course of 800 pages. Historical ignorance? check. It is touching to watch “the smart set” put their faith in human technical achievement while ignoring the Spiritual. Dow 30,000 anybody? Permanently high plateau? “This was Germany!” Without God you are only sowing the seeds of your own death and enslavement. DeepFace, for example. The wonderful world of Facebook now takes your pics, knows who you are, correlates with CCTV in… Read more »
I didn’t mention technology at all.
You are right. I retract the tech references in my comment. I assumed that Pinker’s book focused on material things instead of inner changes (I read the blurb just now).
James Q. Wilson, whose “The Moral Sense” I have read and whose intellect I respect reviews The Better Angels of Our Nature here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111904332804576537813826824914 Just reading the review, I had to smile in that the mention of Erasmus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderius_Erasmus Solidifies a point Pastor Wilson makes here quite a bit: “Not whether, but which”. In a nutshell, a society grounded in Christ will result in just the effect you describe. A society that rejects Christ will …well… you are going to have to live through that now. Granted, Pinker (according to Wilson’s review) grounds the thing in the Enlightenment, which I… Read more »
Which atheistic thoughts? Any of the great pessimists, such as Nietzsche, who seemingly foresaw that a secular century would be by necessity followed by a radically religious one. But he didn’t hang out with American post-millennialists as you do.
By “we” in your statement, sounds like you are referring to America in particular. Correct?
I do not consider myself a pessimist.. And you of course know that theists are not bound by any particular ideology. We simply reject the idea of a god. Baldness is not a hairstyle, off is not a TV channel and not skiing is not a hobby as Ricky Gervais so nicely put it. So Neitzche and I may or may not have anything in common other than our unwillingness to believe in a deity. The world has always been an almost 100% religious place. In the last 100 years we have made great strides towards non belief and reason.… Read more »
The data shows this quite clearly.
Not really. According to J.Q. Wilson, Pinker measured deaths in percentage terms, scaling up the absolute numbers from the past.
the world is becoming anincreasingly less violent place for all humans.
Pinker’s assumption relies on civilization and trade. Both can and do break down. Both civilization and trade have, can and will collapse again.
Oh. *I’m* not gleeful at all about the rise of Islam and its possible spread across Europe. And although you seem to believe that only secularists that agree with you are trustworthy enough to judge this belief “evil” and that belief “good,” I’m not sure how much of an audience you will have — especially since you spend so much time slinging barbs at people you’re not going to convince. But have fun storming the castle!
have fun storming the castle! The aphorism “It is impossible for us to break the law. We can only break ourselves against the law.” applies to RandMan. He is in the first flowering of his ‘liberation’ from Christ. The path and pattern is well trod. RandMan is sure he will prevail–as most of us where. After decades of laborious labor, hard work, and finally attaining what he thought would do the job, he will receive his wage from the devil. It is sad, but RandMan has God’s gift and responsibility of free-will to do as he sees fit. Right now… Read more »
Certainly not the christian god who’s advocation of murder and rape is quite well documented. He was like a maniacal toddler. Oh right, sorry- context.
If the Christian God advocated rape, and if it is documented so well, why won’t RandMan provide the documentation for us to inspect? Let’s see if RandMan can get simple facts right. Regarding the claim that God advocates murder, RandMan will first have to demonstrate that he can make basic distinctions between capital guilt and innocence. If he doesn’t even grant the principle of capital guilt, then his private definition of murder is contaminated by his own presuppositions, and is of no value in refuting our beliefs about God. If he does acknowledge capital guilt, in principle, then he will… Read more »
One of these days, you really should answer questions like the ones I asked you directly, instead of spending all of your time taking potshots at other ones. I’m sure you’re having fun, but you’re leaving the soft underbelly of your belief systems completely unprotected.
And frankly, evolution certainly doesn’t condemn murder or rape at all. In fact, evolution created rapists and murderers, and ISIS, and cancer, and all kinds of bad things. Not sure how one evolved entity gets to judge another just-as-evolved entity as “wrong” or “bad” in any way.
Citation, please.
“Whose religious fixed standard to we go by?” — How ’bout yours?
The one that isn’t shooting up Paris, lopping heads off, or fining people $350,000 for not baking a cake.
Huh. Your book advocates murder, rape and slavery. Why don’t you follow the dictates of your god? Clearly some of the old testament is relevant or are you going to cry ‘context’. You guys certainly pick and choose it as justification when needed. It is because the last few centuries of secular advancement has necessitated ignoring the immoral dictates of the bible. You circle gets increasingly smaller and fundamentalists are right to scramble like Wilson and everyone here. What makes you truth claim about which god is real any more justifiable. Your revelation and faith is just ‘the right one’?… Read more »
The Bible does not advocate murder or rape. What an ignorant statement. In terms of murder: Exodus 20:13 13 “You shall not murder. In terms of rape: Deuteronomy 22:25-27 25 “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27 because he met… Read more »
RandMan has carpet bombed us with the “murder and rape” accusation today. We’ve called his bluff and now we’ll see if he can deliver the goods.
Speaking for myself, I have a difficult time understanding how the Bible’s prescription of death as an appropriate punishment for rape could be understood in such a way as to justify the claim that the Bible advocates rape. It would seem as if condemn would be the more appropriate word, namely the Bible quite literally condemns rape. Perhaps I am relying too closely on standard dictionary usage to substantiate this point.
How exactly did you do that? You busting out your circular logic stick again?
He will not. He is a coward, a hack, an intellectual poofter.
What exactly is the difference between white and black people that we are now missing having turned away from as a culture?
We are so committed to the principle that we can be whatever we want to be, that now we even think of ethnicity as something which can be chosen, e.g. Rachel Dolezal can lie to everyone claiming to be black, because she identifies with the black experience, despite the fact that she was born biologically Caucasian.
Or, is your point was something along the lines of “we are all one race anyways, namely human. The differences between us are relatively minor. What’s the big deal?”
Oh, double date ahead? Rachel and Caitlyn Jenner plus Flo from should be “Progressive” Ins with “Peggy” from that credit card customer service office. Dyn-o-mite!
I get the Jenner reference, but how Flo and Peggy tie in is over my head :) I guess I should go buy a television.
Must not have been as funny as I first thought. Yes, you need to at least watch some commercials, or these YouTubes . . . .
My bad; Flo is Progressive, not Framer’s. “She” (may I make that assumption?) wears a white dress/uniform in TV commercials. Black hair, red lipstick. Appears to be “female” in all senses of the word:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8L2cI8brzQFlo
“Peggy” appears here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8L2cI8brzQ
Wesley watches TV. He gets it :)
So… Rachel is a white woman, claiming to be a black woman.
Bruce is a man, dressed like a woman, having changed his name to a woman’s name.
Peggy is a man, dressed as a man, with a woman’s name.
And Flo is a woman, who dresses like a woman, and has a woman’s name?
So who dates whom? Or is that not the point? Or is the point, no one knows?
My wife and I don’t have cable, but I remember the Peggy commercial from when I did watch TV more :)
Though, the reference borders on esoteric :)
All of the above.
BTW, did you know that Rachel once sued a college because they discriminated against her because she was white?
Can’t make this stuff up!
Bigot! She’s Ethnic-Non-Committal! Don’t hate!
;)
I much prefer Flo from the Supremes (singers, not justices) as in the immortal lines:
“And Flo? She don’t know
That the boy she loves is a Romeo.”
Despite Flo’s warning in her May 2015 alma mater commencement address , I did look up “Bear Cat” in a particular on-line dictionary. Silly me; I thought it would be the Grumman F-8F Bearcat which succeeded the F-6F Hellcat and the F-7F Tigercat. Further discovered that a “Cougar” is not an F-9F-6, either.
Dolezal is only following the lead of the President. He’s mulatto, and he might be considered white, since his mother was. It doesn’t really matter, but “black” he is not.
It’s just not very sexy in the ProgLib narrative to have chills running down the leg because of our first mulatto President…
Reading that, I want to go to starbucks and ask for a cis-mullato, hold cream–I like my cis-mullato black.
In his list of things coming apart, Wilson forgot to mention the $18+ trillion in debt, in this country alone.
We identify as a debt-free country. Anyone who thinks we’re in debt is bigoted.
I myself identify as a “debt free person”!
You guys will help me convince the bank, right?
; – )
Sorry, one more:
I self identify as a “tax free person”.
You guys will help me convince the Govt. / President, …..right? ; – )
reminds me of a recent internet comedian who said he identified as a “pre-op trans-plutocrat”.
I once did a back-of-the-envelope calculation. All the gold in the world, literally all the gold that’s ever been mined in the history of the world (according to wikipedia), would not pay off the INCREASE in the debt since 2009.
Does that mean that Western Snivelization is not “sustainable”?
I predict a major default.
With all 3 on the column.
Ah, yet the climate has changed hasn’t it? Just as you have described here. It is getting hot indeed.
isis have a very fixed standard which sounds a whole lot like yours. The Duggars too.
“Bring in the possibility of being wrong”? If only that were an option for Doug. What if, just maybe, Doug’s interpretation of the culture and what is happening in it is wrong? In his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” King uses similar language to Wilson: the notion that the Church is being weak and ineffectual. In King’s case, he was arguing that the church was not doing enough to promote equality. In Doug’s case, he is arguing the opposite: the church is doing too much to promote equality, or not enough to promote a kind of “status quo” Christianity that… Read more »
You are conflating equality and collectivism. MLK would be appalled at how the race card is played today. His children have said as much.
Playing the race card and advocating for equality for homosexuals is not the same thing. Sure, people abuse “the race card”. That has little to do with the fact that Doug and others might be wrong about things. Would King be appalled by the way the church is by and large behind the 8 ball on equality for homosexuals? Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Would King advocate for the equal rights of homosexuals? Absolutely.
Would he support gay marriage? Absolutely not.
“Would he support gay marriage? Absolutely not.”
He might not. But it’s hard to say. He was a preacher, but there are preachers that support gay marriage. Do you have evidence from his writings that would indicate he would be against gay marriage? Otherwise, it’s just conjecture on both our parts.
I have no evidence where King stood, or would stand on the issue of gay marriage. I made the assumption based on the fact that he was Baptist. I could be wrong. But I can say this; if he did support gay marriage he would be wrong, and he would be wrong in the light of scripture. Which goes to your original point. Could Doug be wrong? Of course he could, but he would be wrong in the light of scripture. Could you be wrong? Are you shaping your world view in light of scripture, or are you shaping scripture… Read more »
Of course I could be wrong. I readily accept that. What I read in Doug’s post is an accusation that the “other”–the people opposed to him–are the ones that need to consider they might be wrong. I rarely hear him or anyone else on this blog indicate that their interpretations and doctrinal positions could be wrong, and indeed wrong in the “light of Scripture”.
So why is that wrong?
It’s not, if you’re always right.
Where is DW wrong?
Where should I start? Since I can’t quote the entire blog post (and I’m only exaggerating a little bit there) I’ll go with this example because it actually relates to everything else. Doug writes: “And so, just a few generations after rejecting Him, where are we? As one fellow said in a similar context, everything is at sea except for the fleet.” Doug is wrong here because this statement implies that as a country we once fully accepted Christ. Our founding fathers were not Christian, certainly not Jefferson and Adams, anyway. And there are plenty of Christians in our government… Read more »
Your constantly repeat the “argument” that “opinions differ, therefore Doug is wrong”
“Most People…x..”
“Many People…y…”
I keep looking for an actual argument, but I just see you muddying the waters. Its as if you do not want clarity, that you fear it.
The feminist columnist Ellen Goodman used that technique quite a bit.
I never found her credible either.
Did it occur to you that Doug’s interpretation of American history is a result and not a cause of his understanding of Scripture? And no, he does not imply that America was fully Christian, but rather that her laws and social norms and mores once more closely followed those of Scripture, but she has since rejected those more Scriptural patterns in the name of murdering children and selling their bodies, celebrating men for being brave women, treating the government as God in its protecting and providing (and seeking to make it omniscient and omnipotent in our lives), and having parades… Read more »
Truth by definition shines the light on what is right, and what is wrong. Any doctrinal position should be supported with scripture. An opposing view can only prove that doctrine wrong with scripture.
Yes, Doug and those on this blog don’t often pause and reflect that they may be wrong, but don’t mistake lack of timidity for lack of humility.
You’re obviously not timid. Can you support your position on gay marriage with scripture?
Spike Pittard’s argument (IIRC) posits a ‘living document’ approach for Holy Writ.
Exactly, and if you’ve noticed, the mantra is always “Times have changed” or something to that effect. As if the living water has become stagnant and needs to be replenished with modernity.
I support my position on gay marriage the same way I support my belief in mental illness. Every time we meet a person with mental illness in the NT, the person is said to be possessed by demons. We know now that there is such a thing as mental illness–people born with mental disabilities (or who become disabled through accidents) and that these people are not, in fact, possessed by demons. The Bible says nothing about mental illness as an actual condition. In the same way, in 6 passages, the Bible treats homosexuality as an example of perversion. Is the… Read more »
So human sexuality is completely separate from how we relate to God? That’s crazy arbitrary thinking.
I didn’t say that human sexuality is completely separate. My point is that we don’t go to the Bible to learn about physics, or how to treat mental illness, or how to understand human biology. Of course human sexuality is not separated from how we relate to God. It is deeply connected to who we are as human beings. It’s just that the Bible is not a source of information about human biology. It doesn’t explain how human sexuality works any more than it explains how mental illness or physics works. Why would you expect it to?
So you support gay marriage the same way you support any position you hold that is beyond the limited scope of God’s word.
That’s correct. But you say “limited scope of God’s word” to indicate that I am not submitting to Scripture appropriately. There are two problems with this. First, to call the Bible “God’s Word” is to misinterpret the very book you are referring to as authoritative. There is not a single place in the Bible where the text states that the books we currently bind together in the Bible is the equivalent of “God’ Word”. If you recall, we read in John that “the Word became flesh”. That’s something else entirely. Second, the Bible IS limited in scope! Does the Bible… Read more »
Does the Bible speak to all issues? Of course it does. The Logos is the context in which we, our schools of thought, our “issues”, live, move and have their being. do you go to it for medical advice? For the source of a disease you might have? Directly? No, but it is where medical advice goes for medical advice. In other words, cures for disease are found in nature and learned from the body’s natural healing process. Advances in medicine are learned from natural revelation and natural revelation is understood in the context of special revelation. I’ll ask you… Read more »
Have to disagree with you here. The Bible quite clearly does not speak to “all issues”. And the Logos you mention is not the Bible. The Logos is what became flesh in Christ. It is what was in the beginning with God. And it is what is written on our hearts. That is not the same thing as the Bible–not remotely the same thing. I find it deeply troubling that a Christian would equate the Johannine “Logos” with the bound, printed Bible that we have. To your other point, I don’t understand what you mean when you say, “Advances in… Read more »
Spike, I’m glad to hear you’re unsettled. Your position is in need of some unsettling. Logos, divine reason, incarnate in Jesus Christ, is revealed in both nature and scripture. It is not outdated or limited in scope. There is no History, Science, Art or Philosophy –no human experience– that is not under it’s authority. I don’t know if you’re aware of it, but your low regard for scripture and your attitude that it can only take you so far, is why you cherry-pick scripture to support positions that are opposed to it. In that last paragraph you claim to shape… Read more »
Be grateful for moderates like Pastor Wilson. Many former progressives (and victims of progressives) lack his nuance and considerate nature. If “times are changing”, consider that they may be changing into something rather different from what you expect.
I would be happy to consider that. My point is that Doug and others on this site are not willing to consider that times might be changing into something different than they expect as well. Wilson’s point about being willing to be wrong is a good one. But that willingness needs to be applied by everyone, not just the ones Doug thinks are wrong.
This is a non-argument. “Well, some people disagree with you, and who’s to judge which of you is right?” Comment-box nihilism.
If you think he’s wrong, say so and say why. If you think he hasn’t considered the possibility that he’s wrong about something, say so and say why.
Spike Pittard cannot do this. He is a product of Lewis’ “Little green book, as used in all the better schools”.
Pittard cannot say, “That poem is sublime”, rather, he will state: “The poem gives me sublime feelings” .
For me to state precisely what Lewis was conveying is beyond my present abilities, perhaps another commenter will chime in. However, if we look at “That poem” and replace it with “Scripture” or “That Church” then we have a window on what Pittard is attempting.
Pittard depends on us rejecting the transcendent poem and joining him in the hog-waller of self-worship.
Pittard seems to be advertising to us that he has no fixed standard of morality, and that he is ready and willing to be tossed whichever direction the wind blows next. He almost seems to be proud of his “flexibility”.
Yes, let’s fix our morality based on the bible and murder homosexuals, massacre entire tries of humans, rape and keep their woman as chattel, keep slaves, stone witches to death, condemn 99% of any human who has ever lived to an eternity of unimaginable punishment.
You have already shown the flexibility of your own morality by rightly cherry picking your own book.
Where does the Bible advocate murdering homosexuals, raping and keeping women [those of massacred cities (I’ll say entire populations and cultures)] as chattel, or condemning 99% of any human who has ever lived to an eternity of unimaginable punishment? I’ll give you destroying entire cities and cultures, but such wasn’t done to any cities and cultures that you’d like to live in or allow to persist anyhow. I’ll give you keeping slaves, but you should admit that debt is often the reason, that some of those enslaved preferred that to the option of death, and had the jubilee to look… Read more »
The biggest failure in RandMan’s rant (even when he is not mispresenting God as approving of murder and rape), is that he doesn’t distinguish between guilt and innocence. They are completely irrelevant to his accusation.
By refusing to distinguish a righteous death sentence from murder, RandMan demonstrates that he just doesn’t understand justice (or the need for it) in the first place.
And doggone it, he just flitters around hither and thither without nary a concern for the questions of those who wish to engage him…alas!
See above.
Let’s take my favorite example. The Midianites were punished wrongly for what the Moabites did. I thought katecho’s god knew everything? Notice that this god must have been sleeping on his gig while some stars were being birthed in one of his hundreds of millions of galaxies. katecho’s god maybe had too much on his plate and got cranky then decided to smite? Sexual immorality and converting a group to another religion worthy of genocide and destruction? hmm sounds familiar? Apostasy and islam anyone? The false gods of Moab are pretty convincing to the Israelites even tho they are seemingly… Read more »
Let’s take my favorite example. The Midianites were punished wrongly for what the Moabites did.
The commentary here http://biblehub.com/commentaries/numbers/31-1.htm differs from your analysis.
I see that Wesley Sims does a nice job of dismembering your claims.
What claims? I only pointed to biblical passages that have your God behaving like a maniacal toddler.
So yes, by dismember the text I quote, if you mean Sims proudly gets on board with the immorality that his vengeful god sets forth for him and apologizes for it as of course he must as a christian, then you are correct. Consider my post dismembered.
This claim.
The Midianites were punished wrongly for what the Moabites did.
The commentary I linked to shows the Midianites as being complicit. Refute that. (I don’t think you can. prove me wrong)
Your response is it’s own response.
“is it is own response”?
I guess since the game has come to refusing to address the other person’s argument I’ll point out one of the many instances displaying your poor grasp of grammar.
The fact that I type fast and do not spell check is all you’ve got? Sad.
RandMan, what’s sad is your refusal to address questions and use of diversion.
I’ll ask a few of those questions again:
1) What is the difference between a universe with a (G)od and a universe without a (G)od?
2) Where does Scripture advocate murder?
3) Where does Scripture advocate rape?
The first may take some time, but the latter two should be rather simple to answer.
1) The second is more probable based on zero evidence for the first. (edit)
2) Deuteronomy 17:12, Exodus 22:17, Leviticus 20:13, Leviticus 20:27, Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 13:13-19, Romans 1:24-32.
3) Judges 21:10-24, Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 20:10-14, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Judges 5:30, Zechariah 14:1-2.
Since you punted rightly and honestly gave up everything else, see Leviticus 20:13 for the loose thread. “If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.”
(edited for my poor grasp of grammar.)
Okay, but that Scripture is irrelevant to our conversation.
Again, 1) Where does Scripture advocate murder; 2) Where does Scripture advocate rape?
Aaaand go!!
Murder: Deuteronomy 17:12, Exodus 22:17, Leviticus 20:13, Leviticus 20:27, Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 13:13-19, Romans 1:24-32.
Rape: Judges 21:10-24, Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 20:10-14, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Judges 5:30, Zechariah 14:1-2.
Rand, If you can’t tell the difference between murder and capital punishment for capital crimes (a point katecho has pointed out several times) it’s either because you’re disingenuous and dishonest, or because you take those verses from some atheist website without actually reading them yourself. Putting a homosexual to death on the evidence of two or three witnesses when homosexuality is a capital offense is not murder. Putting adulterers to death on the evidence of two or three witnesses when adultery is a capital offense is not murder. Etc, etc, etc… You may disagree and believe that homosexuality, adultery, or… Read more »
I point them out to show the disingenuousness of your position that those vile dictates of your abrahamic god do not exist. You asked me what they were and I showed you.
If you want to try and argue that murder, rape and slavery represent just punishment in order to make yourself feel better about your chosen scripture, go ahead. I am under no such obligation. I don’t need to square that circle. I am an apostate.
So. Am I wrong?
Yes, see above.
Mind showing your work?
I point them out to show the disingenuousness of your position that those vile dictates of your abrahamic god do not exist.
He never claimed the dictates did not exist; he claims they where just actions.
Point. Shriek.
pathetic, you don’t even apostate well.
Read his initial response again.
I’ll give you keeping slaves, but you should admit that debt is often the reason, that some of those enslaved preferred that to the option of death, and had the jubilee to look forward to, and enjoyed legal rights like those of the Israelites. I’ll give you the stoning witches, though Israel mainly failed in that and look what it lead to. And I acknowledge the doctrine and existence of Hell, but you grossly misunderstand and underestimate the Gospel, its purpose, its power, and its reach–“..as the waters cover the seas…” my dear man. That part? The concept of justice… Read more »
There is nothing to debate. They are wicked immoral actions and anyone who would side with such ethical debauchery and call it justice shows their absolute failure of moral intuition and forfeits the right to be taken seriously.
“France bombing ISIS was a wicked immoral action and anybody who would side with the them in their ethical debauchery and call it justice shows their absolute failure of moral intuition and forfeits the right to be taken seriously”
Ah, so ‘context’. The great redeemer of OT immorality. The ridiculousness of christians who declare their God to be the moral exemplar crying ‘context’ in light of that wickedness is obvious.
So god just changes the parameters of acceptable morality whenever he decided to punish some errant group? For the ‘sins’ of another? Did some godly moral light bulb switch on after his slaughter and rape was completed and his childlike anger dissipated?
I claim moral superiority over this god. My three year old bible-free daughter trumps Yaweh as well. What an uphill slog you guys have.
Headline: US Government Murders Man.
Context questions: Was that man Billy Graham or John Wayne Gacy? Was that man just walking along, minding his own business, or was he guilty of a crime considered a capital offense?
Bah…context is for those who refuse to face the music of their own twisted worldview…
RandMan will not engage the idea. He will change the subject, then point and shriek.
After looking up the passages you mentioned, I can only conclude that you do not know the meaning of the words murder or rape. A dictionary would have fixed that problem for you. According to the Oxford dictionary: Murder – The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another: Rape – The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will: No need to appeal to context when a dictionary will do. Can you explain how any of these passages present murder or rape in a positive light?… Read more »
You want to play coy with those verses go ahead. I won’t be joining you. A wonderfully cut and dried example of vengeful genocide.
‘The lord said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and expose them in broad daylight before the lord, so that the lord’s fierce anger may turn away from Israel.’
‘They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man’
‘Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.’
Playing coy? I am quite serious. You should use a dictionary. How do the passages related to the destruction of the Midianites, the ones which you mentioned, relate in ANY way to standard Oxford dictionary definitions of murder and rape? Murder – The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another: Rape – The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will: Like I said, I really think you have a reading comprehension problem. You seem to be seeing things that are not there. Are you taking… Read more »
Point, Shriek, run away–yep! its RandMan.
RandMan cannot commit to this discussion as his atheism is lovingly coddled by his highly refined sense of intellectual superiority; he cannot risk damage to his fragile intellectual models because God might be lurking in the light.
How is it irrelevant to our conversation? You asked me where the bible advocates murdering homosexuals and I put it in your digital lap.
http://www.rogersathletic.com/football/game-day/portable_goal_posts.asp
lol. On a side note, I always thought movable goalposts would be cheaper than that….I’m going to have to save up.
How so? You claim the bible as an exemplar of morality. I merely point out how wicked much of its tenets are. Or is it all a metaphor? Or is it really all about ‘context’.
When katecho brought up the question of how one functions without a standard, you replied that you didn’t like a particular standard — which is itself is a kind of standard. IOW, you moved to the discussion completely off of the ground it was on, to one that enabled you to ride your hobbyhorse yet again, and didn’t require you to deal with the question of how morality functions without some kind of standard.
Well, okay, maybe it wasn’t moving the goalposts. Maybe it was just a kind of sophomoric Bulverism. I could go with that.
The idea of you calling Bulverism is hilarious. Talk about moving away from the point- there is no evidence for your god, the second one points (edit sp) it out, your ilk plays rhetorical and semantic games in place of backing up your claim with evidence. The problem with your position re morality as christian is multifaceted. Firstly, even if you could prove the basic existence of your christian god, it wouldn’t necessarily follow that your (edit sp) god is therefore the arbiter of absolute moral authority. If some specific god which was somehow proven to exist was indeed the… Read more »
and didn’t require you to deal with the question of how
He will never dig that deep. He is a poser. His athiesm-cum-agnosticism is his “in-group” ticket so he can be with men who hate God as much as he does.
Ideas are like clothes to this guy. I had such hopes that his was a viable mind. Instead, there is nothing.
Hi Randman. How do you explain the fact that many gentle, loving, and heroic people have claimed the Bible as their inspiration, or if they have not considered it as revelation, they have said it was Bible which inspired them to work for justice and peace?
RandMan said:
So, which 99% of me will be punished and which 1% will not?
Or should I read what you said in context?
Please, forgive the hastily written grammatical mistake, or yes, use context. You are a christian. Both should be second hand to you by now.
“condemn 99% of any human who has ever lived to an eternity of unimaginable punishment.”
I think it’s 100% actually.
Yet another non-contribution from you. You can commit, come on! I’m with you buddy…
Heh, you might want to spend a little more time defending your own commitments. At this point you don’t have much left to stand on. *wink*
Again, zero content.
All I know is Christ and him crucified. If you got any better content than that I’m all ears.
You know, that was not content that I necessarily agree with, but content nonetheless. Cheers Evan.
*bows*
I’m pleased to have gained your glowing approval. Anything else I can do for you?
Baby steps Evan.
let’s fix our morality
Our?
Oh now I beg to differ. My 500 smoked all comers. Loved that 289
poo-tee-weet
As one of those liberal progressives you sneer at, I have to say I thoroughly enjoy your blogs, as they eloquently expose the hypocrisy, pretentiousness and meanness of radical conservatives. This entire rant could easily be summarized as “People I don’t like are succeeding in life. Wah!”
“Radical conservatives” put forth ideas, and like clockwork, liberal progressives like you attribute the argument to the dislike of individuals/people. And by the way, these twisted weaklings your side is creating in college aren’t going to succeed unless they hang onto the levers of power and punish their enemies, like the Bolsheviks they are.
Compare liberals to Bolsheviks. Take a drink!
Is diversity still our strength?
http://www.politico.eu/article/molenbeek-broke-my-heart-radicalization-suburb-brussels-gentrification/
The garbage in the formerly civilized space is a tell. We saw the same at Obamer’s inauguration.